SPIRITUAL IDENTITY AND HABITS

While James Clear, writing from a secular viewpoint, maintains "the more you repeat a behavior, the more you reinforce the identity associated with that behavior", author James K.A. Smith in his book You Are What You Love takes into the spiritual world the same acknowledgment that habits have power to shape identity. 

Smith puts his finger on an uncomfortable truth: No matter how many great sermons we might hear or books we might read, "we can't think our way to holiness". (p.5)

"Virtues," Smith posits, "are learned and acquired, through imitation and practice." (19) Therefore, "discipleship is more a matter of reformation than of acquiring information." (Emphasis in original.)

The church's "good habits" are in competition with the world's bad habits in a race to shape the identities of believers. Smith sees the secular world's trends and habits as being deformative of our spirits and worship - specifically of a traditional, liturgical type - as being reformative of our spirits. 

It is an interesting way to reframe discipleship. If he is correct, the ramifications are huge for how we approach spirituality and sanctification. 

IDENTITY

Yesterday I wrote that any good habit could be justified in this way: "I do this habit because I want to be the kind of person who . . .".

James Clear, author of Atomic Habits, puts it this way: "Every action you take (in forming a new habit) is a vote for the type of person you wish to become." 

When I clear the kitchen counter, it is a vote cast for "a person who is tidy and organized". When I choose broccoli over a candy bar, it is a vote cast for "a physically healthy individual". 

James Clear again: "the more you repeat a behavior, the more you reinforce the identity associated with that behavior."

According to Clear, "the word identity was originally derived from the Latin words essentitas, which means being, and identidem, which means repeatedly. Your identity is literally your 'repeated beingness.'"

I am finding that this is perhaps the most powerful aspect of habits.

Maybe the true power of good habits is not what we accomplish through them - keeping the bedroom tidy, toning muscles at the gym, returning emails promptly - but rather the way each habit shapes our self image. 

WHY BOTHER?

I make the bed just about every morning before I leave the house for work these days. I straighten the pillows, pull the sheet and comforter tight against the headboard, and put the three decorative pillows into place. It's one of my fairly recent morning habits but I have been doing it long enough that it has already become fairly automatic. 

Somehow this habit came up in conversation with a student the other day and he asked the obvious question: "Why bother?"

"It's just going to get messy again, right?"

I didn't have a snappy answer for him in that moment, but upon reflection, here's my answer: "I make the bed each morning because I want to be the kind of person who has the eyes to see any opportunity -big or small - to bring order out of disorder. And then acts to do it."

If you think about it, "why bother?" could be asked about any good habit. And the answer would always start the same way: "Because I want to be the kind of person who . . .". 

KEY DIFFERENCE

(Something James Clear, author of Atomic Habits, pointed out on a podcast...)

Every habit has a cost and reward associated with it. A key difference between good habits and bad habits is the order in which the related cost and reward occur. 

A bad habit tends to feature an immediate reward, followed later (sometimes MUCH later) by the cost.

Eat a bowl of ice cream tonight and the reward is immediate: smooth, creamy satisfying goodness. Eat that bowl of ice cream every night for five years and you have quite a few extra pounds and possibly some related health problems.

On the other hand, good habits often bring the cost first and the reward follows behind.

Make yourself go to the gym after work and it costs you time and energy. But if it becomes a habit, the reward comes in time in the form of strength and good health. 

Notice this too: the rewards of bad habits are shallow, temporary feelings. The rewards of good habits are deep benefits that last a lifetime. 

NO NAP TODAY

My goal this Friday night and Saturday night was to go to bed within a half hour of my newly firm weekday bedtime of 10:00 PM. I almost made it: I was in bed shortly before 11:00 both nights. That was close enough, apparently. 

Saturday morning I woke up feeling refreshed at 6:00 AM. And today I woke up at 5:10. Both mornings I enjoyed a quiet cup of coffee, some Scripture time, and some reading in You Are What You Love. This morning, I still had plenty of time to make breakfast (Caleb was home for the weekend) and get showered and dressed and still make it on time to first service at 9:00. 

Not only that, but this was the first Sunday morning in a very long time that I have not fought the urge to nod off during our church service. I am just now recognizing that my Sunday morning weariness was no reflection on the quality of the music or preaching in the least and it had nothing to do with the dim lighting in the sanctuary (just one of my excuses!) - it was always just an indicator that I was not managing my sleep well enough.

I made an important discovery today: The only thing better than a Sunday afternoon nap is NOT NEEDING a Sunday afternoon nap.

LOOKING AT EYES

Every once in a while I get curious about how often some particular word turns up in Scripture and I will use the search function on my Bible app to see what there is. Today I looked up the word "eyes" because I am trying to find a deeper understanding of what the Bible means when it talks of having "eyes to see and ears to hear". My curiosity is being sparked by You Are What You Love, which I am currently reading. 

Genesis alone has 29 references to eyes, with only a handful concerning literal physical eyes. There is a variety of uses of "eyes" starting with the serpent's words to Eve in chapter 3:

Open Eyes Representing a Realization that Wasn't There Before. "For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (3:5)

Of course, this part of what the serpent says does turn out to be true: "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves." (3:7)

Also, in 21:19, God "opened Hagar's eyes and she saw a well of water." Was it there before?

Eyes as a Place to Find Favor (Or Not). In 6:8, Noah finds "favor in the eyes of the LORD" while in 16:4 and 5, Hagar is "despised in Sarai's eyes", and in 39:21, God grants Joseph "favor in the eyes of the prison warden".  (Over half of Genesis' eye references are in this vein.)

Eyes as Representing Personal Judgment. Abram gives Sarai permission in 16:5 to "do to Hagar that which is good in your eyes".

Eyes as Being Vulnerable to Weakness. In Genesis 27, Jacob takes advantage of his father Isaac's old age and the fact that "his eyes were so weak that he could no longer see"(1). And in 29:17, we learn that Rachel was beautiful but "Leah had weak eyes". 

Eyes as a Means of Witnessing an Event. Gen 42:24 Joseph "had Simeon taken from them and bound before their eyes."

The Closing of Eyes as Representing Death. In Genesis 46:4, the Lord reassures Jacob with the promise that "Joseph's own hand will close" the eyes of Jacob in death.

I am far from being ready to draw any conclusions yet, but with all these references to eyes (and 44 uses of some form of "see") in the first book of the Bible, it seems to me at least that eyes are an important motif, worthy of further investigation. 

A GOOD SIGN

Since I don't really know exactly why I am pursuing this doctorate, I have been really nervous about how relevant I might find the two years of courses laid out before me.

And when I saw the titles of the first two classes I will be starting in October, I wasn't necessarily reassured: "Sacramental Spirituality and Disciple-Making Leadership" and "Holistic Renewal of the Church". 

I mean, most of my classmates, I assume, are pastors of local churches. But me? I am a former youth pastor and current 8th grade English teacher who has recently developed an interest in persuasion, human psychology, and habit formation. In fact, as I have given a bit of thought to what my dissertation might tackle, I keep coming back to the possibility of exploring what the science of habit formation might have to say about practicing spiritual disciplines like prayer and Scripture reading. 

Yesterday I got online and ordered the five texts that will comprise the "Sacramental Spirituality" class because I want to get ahead on the reading if possible. I have no idea what kind of workload these classes will entail. Amazon had two of the books on my doorstep this afternoon, and I immediately sat down to gauge my interest level:

I started with You Are What You Love simply because the subtitle is "The Spiritual Power of Habit". The first mention of the word "habit" came on page 4 and it had an endnote. I flipped to the back of the book to see what was being referenced, and lo and behold:

There it is: Charles Duhigg's book The Power of Habit, the book that sparked my interest in habit formation in the first place!

THAT is a good sign!

SLEEP HABIT UPDATE

For the last three nights I have successfully gotten myself into bed at 10:00 PM on the dot. It's a little early to draw firm conclusions, I know, but I have been so encouraged by my experience that I am anxious to share already.

For the past three mornings I have woken up ten to twenty minutes before my alarm, set for 5:15 AM. I am finding my mornings to be more productive: I am moving faster, sooner. At least two of the last three mornings, I have been able to get 15 to 20 minutes of real exercise in before school. And both Tuesday and today after school I had enough energy to get out for a two and a half mile run. 

Before this week, I would often plop myself onto the couch as soon as I got home. Some days I would nap.

At school, I have been feeling sharper throughout the day. More importantly, I have been more upbeat, more optimistic, and more patient. 

Part of my motivation for experimenting with a more regular sleep habit was from hearing someone on a podcast point out how our sleep - good or bad - affects every other area of our lives: energy, attitude, job performance, exercise, spirituality, and relationships. It made sense to me.

Now I am proving it to myself and I like what I am seeing. 

BACK TO SCHOOL

It's official.

I received word today that I have been accepted into the doctorate of ministry program at Wesley Biblical Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. 

I'm going back to school! 

I will start in October. Each six months will bring two classes with a one week intensive on campus. That will continue for the first two years and then the third year will be devoted to my dissertation. 

Other than those few facts, I have NO IDEA what I am getting myself into.

I've been planning this since early June and just finished my application last week. And to be honest, all along I have felt somewhat ambivalent about this prospect.

So I was greatly relieved at my own reaction today when I got my acceptance letter and it became real: it was pure joy and excitement. 

And a tiny bit of fear.

I guess I better get shopping for school supplies...

A QUESTION ABOUT THE PSALMS

When it comes to the psalms, I have long wondered this: does the Lord condone every sentiment expressed by each of the psalmists? 

Another way of asking this: is every line of every psalm inspired by the Holy Spirit in the same manner as all other Scripture, or are they - at least in part - a record of raw human emotion? Maybe even human emotion that occasionally runs counter to God's will?

This question nagged me again this morning as I found myself in Psalm 35. 

King David starts the psalm on solid ground: "Contend, LORD, with those who contend with me; fight against those who fight against me. Take up shield and armor; arise and come to my aid." (1,2)

Assuming David is trying to do God's will, then it seems perfectly reasonable to ask the Lord for help against his enemies.

Soon David turns his attention to what he hopes God does to these enemies:

"May those who seek my life be disgraced and put to shame; may those who plot my ruin be turned back in dismay." (4) Sounds pretty reasonable, right? 

But then ...

"May they be like chaff before the wind, with the angel of the LORD driving them away; may their path be dark and slippery, with the angel of the LORD pursuing them." (5,6)

Reread that. 

That is some dark, dark imagery. The angel of the LORD chasing these people down a dark and slippery path? Terrifying. David is nowhere near the "love your enemies" zone!

Perhaps even more troubling, look where he goes next:

"Since they hid their net for me without cause and without cause dug a pit for me, may ruin overtake them by surprise - may the net they hid entangle them, may they fall into the pit, to their ruin." (7,8)

Understandable. "You laid a trap for me; I hope you fall in it. You tried to get me fired, so I hope you get fired instead." I can relate. I have been there. It was my kneejerk reaction, but it wasn't a spiritually healthy place to remain for too long.

I can also relate to David's next sentiment, but again, it gives me pause:

"Then (once you give my enemies what's coming to them) my soul will rejoice in the LORD and delight in his salvation." (9) 

Once my enemies get what's coming to them, I will finally be happy and content in you again, Lord!

I've been in this place as well. And, at least in MY life, it was NOT inspired or inspiring. 

What do you think? Are at least some parts of the psalms included in Holy Scripture mainly as examples of raw human emotion? Or does every line have God's stamp of approval?

SLEEP IS A HABIT

One habit I haven't quite established with regularity yet: a good sleep pattern. In particular, I struggle to get to bed at a regular time early enough to provide ample sleep.

I get out of bed between 5 and 5:30 each morning, so my wake up is pretty regular. I like the quiet house in the morning. 

It doesn't necessarily feel like I accomplish much before leaving the house at 7:00, but when I stop to reflect, it is actually fairly substantial: drinking coffee (that's the easy part), showering, exercising a bit, cooking some breakfast, packing my lunch, reading Scripture and sometimes cleaning up the kitchen. 

So now I just need to work on my bedtime routine and whip it into shape. Most nights I only get about six hours of sleep and I think I need more. 

And it seems to me that sleep is crucial for every other aspect of life. How can one be physically, emotionally, and spiritually healthy and on target throughout the day without enough sleep?

I am rambling here, attempting to talk myself into starting a strict 10 pm bedtime. 

Perhaps I will experiment and make it a weeklong habit and see if it makes enough of a difference to motivate me to make it permanent. 

If I hurry, I can start tonight ...

PRAYING OUT LOUD

Once started, habits occasionally have a way of evolving and growing. One morning habit I started with the new school year has done just that. And I am excited. 

It started as an effort to use my 15 minute morning commute as a time for prayer instead of mindlessly listening to the radio. It wasn't difficult to remember to pray each day when I got on the road, so the habit took root pretty quickly. 

A week or two ago, I added a new twist: I started praying out loud.

I don't know why it had never occurred to me before - I am alone in the car, it is quiet, and I have time.

For years I have heard people advise praying out loud as a way to focus your mind and make the experience all that much more ... real, if you know what I mean.

Anyway, I can report that that is exactly what I have been experiencing recently; it feels like the beginning of a significant deepening of my prayer life. Time will tell.

Funny how such a simple thing can make a significant difference in a significant pillar of our spiritual life. 

If it's not already a part of your prayer habits, give it a try. It might take a couple of days to get past any initial awkwardness, but keep going until you do. It will be worth it. 

RUNNING PARTNER

Samuel came home for the weekend after his first month away at Ball State University. He is loving college life so far and we are grateful.

Samuel has been doing some physical training with ROTC there in Muncie and he has discovered the joy of running, so we hit the people trail together this morning - after I got some coffee in me. 

Samuel let me set the pace and we didn't break any records, but it wasn't terrible considering we were talking as we went. (Not to mention the fact that I am just a few weeks past Covid recovery.)

It may be a couple of years now since I ran three miles during one outing, but I did it today.

And I don't remember the last time I ran two miles consecutively without at least a bit of walking in between, but I did that today as well.

I was struck by what I could accomplish - and how much longer I could persevere - just by having someone running beside me each step of the way. 

It left me thinking tonight ...

One of the things I truly miss about our life in Haiti is working alongside Melissa on a daily basis, doing work that was important and that we both believed in. Now I head off to my job and she heads off to hers and then we catch up on each other's lives over dinner or as we walk the dogs. 

It's not the same. 

And it's not as good. 

Running alone is just not as enjoyable or productive. 

"Two are better than one, because they have a good return 

for their work." Ecclesiastes 4:9 

A BAD EXAMPLE

Don Lemon on CNN recently gave a great (terrible) example of how not to persuade the hold outs who have yet to get the Covid vaccine. 

On air he bemoaned those (like me) who say, "Oh, you can't shame them, you can't call them stupid." 

His response was "Yes, they are." And "The people who are not getting vaccines, who are believing the lies on the internet instead of science - it's time to start shaming them. What else? Or leave them behind."

(It was not clear to me what Lemon meant by "leave them behind".) 

He continued, "We have to stop saying, 'Oh, we have to listen to people and ...' No, you don't. These people are being harmful to the greater good. You don't have to listen to a minority of people who are being harmful to the greater good and who are not acting on logic, reason, and science."

Lemon's co-worker, Chris Cuomo, eventually chimed in: "You're going to question the vaccine but you're going to take a horse de-wormer?"

It's a classic bad faith debate move to demonize your opponent. Sure it appeals to the self-righteous streak of the people on your side, but it does not persuade. It only creates more animosity. 

Yet this is how America argues these days. 

This kind of stuff is cultural poison. 

ONE LITTLE STEP

Another helpful debate suggestion if you truly hope to persuade your opponent: acknowledge where they might be right. Acknowledge their fears, their perspective, and their reasons. Find some common ground.

When I teach my 8th graders how to write a persuasive essay next semester, they will be required to research and acknowledge their opponents' strongest arguments. In the opening paragraph.

It's prescribed way to start a debate.

But I have seen almost none of this in the Covid wars. 

Why does everything have to be painted a stark black or white? 

Take the recent "debates" surrounding Ivermectin, for example:

• Ivermectin is now a "horse de-wormer". Can we not acknowledge it is used in both animals and humans? And Rural King is not the only place to buy it?

• Ivermectin is apparently either 100% useless or a miracle drug. Can it not be somewhere in between?

• Could it be possible that Ivermectin works wonders for some people and not for others? Can we not list dozens of medicines for blood pressure, mental illness, and other conditions that are hit-or-miss depending on the individual? Not to mention just about every cancer treatment ever devised?

For the sake of everyone's sanity, let's all strive to take one little step toward the other side in the midst of these "debates".

DON'T INSULT PEOPLE YOU WANT TO PERSUADE

I am a conscientious objector in the recent Covid vaccine wars. So I am just making this observation from a spectator's perspective: the pro-vax folks are doing a terrible job of talking the unvaccinated into taking "the jab". 

If you hope to persuade someone to your way of thinking, here's some great advice: Don't insult them. 

Why on earth are so many would-be influencers referring to those who are reluctant to get the vaccine as "anti-vaxxers"? 

First of all, that term is already established and it conjures images of conspiracy theorist crackpots who reject all vaccines. Thus, the term drips with disdain and ridicule. And the application of this term to present circumstances is inaccurate - these people are not against vaccines in general. 

Secondly, "anti-vaxxer" cements the notion that there's no hope they will ever actually change their minds. People who are "anti"-anything already have their minds made up. Why, then, argue with them? How far will that get you? 

So here's a suggestion for those, including the U.S. government, who say they want to convince the holdouts to get the vaccine: revise your label. Stop insulting the people you hope to influence.

Let me propose "the vaccine reluctant". Or how about "the vaccine hesitant"?  

Either one is much kinder and more accurate. And either holds within itself the hope of a change of mind. 

THE HYPOCRISY ARGUMENT SIDESTEP

The charge of "hypocrite!" in any debate is a type of ad hominem attack - that is, simply insulting an opponent personally instead of addressing the issue at hand. 

The beauty (or foolishness) of the hypocrisy charge is this: With it I can distract the gathered crowd with my cries of "hypocrite!" and never touch the question of whether my opponent was correct in the past ... or is correct now. 

It had to be one or the other, though, right?

THE HYPOCRISY ARGUMENT

I am always fascinated when people lob the accusation of "Hypocrisy!" in political disagreements. It's put forward with such confident self-righteousness, but it's always a losing argument. That's because "My political enemy used to say X, but now they say Y!" can so easily be flipped on its head. 

Every time.

(And the person making the hypocrisy argument simply doesn't see it. THAT is what is fascinating.)

Here's a great example posted by a friend on Facebook recently: 

The message is pretty straightforward: "Those anti-vaxers are now using the 'my body, my choice' argument that they always opposed when it came to abortion!" 

The hypocrites!

But look how easy it is to swing the hypocrisy allegation the opposite direction. My version offers the same issue with a different hypocrite:

See? Easy as pie.

Now who's the hypocrite? (See answer below.)

(Everybody. We're all hypocrites.) 

WHAT SEPTEMBER 11 WILL ALWAYS MEAN TO ME

For 68 years before the World Trade Center towers collapsed in flames, September 11th meant something very different to my family. It meant the day my dad entered this world. 

I can't picture my dad as a baby, or as a child, or as a teenager. Or even as a soldier. In my imagination he can only be a tall, soft-spoken businessman, loving husband of Carla Beth, and father to Ryan, Spencer, Steven and Russell. 

I have no idea how old Dad is in this photo my brother Russ posted on Facebook yesterday, but it has never quite seemed to be Dad to me. 

I guess because Mom's not in the photo. And the photo doesn't show Dad walking the floors of the True Value. And he's not in front of a grill or pushing a lawn mower. Or floating on a boat with a rod and reel in hand. He's not sitting at the head of the family dinner table or a bleacher bench for my brother's basketball games. Or in a pew in church. 

For nearly twenty years now there have been no new photos of Dad. He passed away in May of 2002.

Yes, September 11, 2001 was his final birthday this side of heaven. But we didn't know that, of course. 

A small tragedy for our family in the midst of the bigger national tragedies of that day. 

TWENTY YEARS AGO

I was working as a youth pastor at First United Methodist Church of Pensacola, Florida. That much I recall for sure. 

The rest of my recollections I don't entirely trust, but here is what I THINK I remember: I didn't have anywhere I had to be that morning and Melissa must have had a rough night with our first child because I was letting her sleep in. Caleb was four months old and I had just strapped him into his swing and turned on the TV, completely unaware that every channel was broadcasting images of one of the World Trade Center's towers billowing smoke. 

Of course, I was immediately transfixed. And horrified. It must have been a little before 9:00. There was still the assumption that it was a terrible accident. 

I believe I immediately ran in to the bedroom to tell Melissa about it. I think she was sitting beside me watching the TV minutes later when the live cameras caught the second plane crashing into the other tower. 

And baby Caleb gently swung forward and back.

Reflecting on it now, I was not at all in youth pastor mode that morning or even the days that followed. I wasn't thinking about the teens of our church and how the events of 9/11 might traumatize them. To be honest, I was filled with dread and an ache in my heart - for me, for Melissa, and especially for little Caleb. I was certain he would be growing up in a world gripped tight by fear and, likely, a world at war. Things were going to be terribly different.

I don't know what to make of it twenty years later. In a way, some aspects of all of our lives did change in fundamental ways. And there have been wars, yes, but they have not touched my family directly. If you had told me that day that in the next twenty years there would not be another terrorist attack on American soil even close to the severity of 9/11, much less none with higher death counts and greater destruction than 9/11, I would have called you an extreme Pollyanna. I fully expected more planes to drop out of the sky within days or weeks. 

But here we are. 

50% CAPACITY?

The human brain is not fully developed until age 26. (I read it on the internet, so it must be true!)

I don't mean to be unkind, but doesn't that mean my 8th graders - on average, 13 years old - are functioning at 50% capacity?

Yesterday I asked a class whether or not they were planning to go on to college someday.

One student blurted out, "No way!"

It caught me off guard, so I asked for his reasoning.

Here it is: "Why would I choose to go on to college when I already hate junior high so much?!"

Apparently, in his mind, college is simply junior high on steroids. 

I wonder if he has ever pondered why so many people would willingly pay $40,000 per year for Extended Junior High. 

THE DOWNSIDE OF POTENTIAL

When I was growing up, Frank and Ernest was a staple on the comics page of The Shelbyville News. It wasn't my favorite, but it was dependable for a chuckle.

Since Shelbyville was far in the rear view mirror by then, I don't remember where I came across this particular panel in 2000, but the sentiment so impressed me that I still recall it 20 years later:

And not only do I RECALL it twenty years later, I am living it. 

There's nothing wrong with being an 8th grade English teacher, but I can't shake the feeling that the Lord has something more in mind for the decades (?) still ahead. 

Am I the only one? How about you?

TRUST IN THE SCIENCE

This graphic has made the rounds on social media for months:

It's a double lesson in "trust". 

First there's the obvious point being made about those who glibly lecture others to "trust the science". This phrase infuriates me these days because "science" always means whatever data supports the lecturer's stance on the topic of the day. 

"Trust the science" is a phrase that frequently drips with arrogance and self-righteousness. And, too often, profound ignorance. (I'm talking about real ignorance here - the sort that does not know how much it does not know.)

Personally, I try to remember that all "science" that I have access to is filtered through human beings (since I am not a scientist myself). And human beings are notorious for being easily influenced by agendas, as well as being bad at interpreting data.

Plus, science by its nature is constantly evolving: am I supposed to place 100% of my trust in today's science? How will I keep up in coming years with which hypotheses have suddenly fallen to the wayside as science marches on? Will the scientists of 2100 be laughing at the scientists of 2021 someday? 

I guess that's the point the graphic is trying to make. Asbestos was a "magic mineral" at one time. Heroin was used as a cough suppressant. Smoking was safe even for pregnant women. And DDT kept the flies away.

But here's the ironic second lesson the graphic teaches about trust: Don't trust social media. Three out of the four images are real, but the fourth is from a modern video game. 

Any guesses?

It's the expectant mother smoking cigarettes. The others are real. 

There are very few things we can put our full trust in these days. And neither "science" nor social media are on that list.

(P.S. I can't help but notice something all three of the real posters have in common: all three were products developed in the science lab as a solution to some problem but then rejected decades later because of unintended consequences. Personally, I would refrain from mocking folks like the "anti-vaxxers".)

SET ON FIRE BY HELL

If anger and self-righteousness got together and had a baby, it would be named Gossip.

Over and over, from Old Testament to New, the Bible condemns gossip in the harshest tones.

For my money, you can't top James's take on the evils of the tongue for simplicity and directness. He drops a major truth bomb in Chapter 3:

"6 The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell. 

7 All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and sea creatures are being tamed and have been tamed by mankind, 

8 but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 

9 With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. 

10 Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. 

11 Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? 

12 My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water."

Holy cow! He basically says that if out of one side of your mouth you praise God, but out of the other side you are cursing other people, one side is lying.

And it's the side claiming devotion to God! 

If you are in the habit of gossiping, it is time to grow up and get real about your faith. Don't convince yourself that it is no big deal. God HATES gossip and running other people down. It is inspired by Hell itself; there is nothing of God in it. 

THE DEVIL'S COCAINE

Here's a short and pointed quote from an author I enjoy, Andrew Klavan:

"Anger is the Devil's cocaine."

In other words, it's addictive. People can't get enough. And they need bigger and bigger "hits" each time to get the same high.

I want to add "self-righteousness" to Klavan's "anger". I think they go hand in hand. Perhaps they are ultimately the same thing.

And anger and self-righteousness are a big part of what is tearing our society apart right now. And the Devil is the dealer.

LOST INFORMATION

When I mapped out this little lesson for my 7th grade Communications class, it struck me as worth preserving here.

In this class, we talk about various aspects of communication, miscommunication, and improving our skills. We just finished a few lessons on nonverbal cues - things like body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice. 

These nonverbals truly communicate more than the words themselves at times, but the full array of nonverbals are only available to us in face to face interactions. 

Here's my illustration on the whiteboard about what happens as we move from face-to-face interactions to video calls (like Zoom meetings) to phone calls to text messages and emails:

With each step away from face-to-face, we lose valuable information. Body language disappears (mostly) in a video call, while body language AND facial expressions disappear in a phone call. By the time we get to text messages and emails, we have lost everything but the words themselves.

And to illustrate to my class how relatively UNimportant the words themselves can be, I asked them to imagine the following scenario:

I walk into the classroom at the beginning of the period and say, "You guys are something else!" 

The meaning of the words is incredibly ambiguous without knowledge of any accompanying nonverbal cues.

If I stomp into the room and glare at them, frowning, with my arms crossed in front of my chest, and declare, "You guys are something else!" in a sarcastic tone, it means I am angry with them.

But if I stride into the classroom with a big smile on my face, point at the students with both arms extended, and say, "You guys are something else!" in a sincere tone, my words mean the exact opposite: I am quite pleased with the class. 

I concluded this lesson with a practical application that I remind you of here: any communication that is - or might become - emotionally charged should be done face to face if possible. Text messages and emails are in the Danger Zone for such communication. 

PROPAGANDA ACROSS THE AIRWAVES

I really do not know what to make of the media in our country right now. 

This article posted yesterday in Rolling Stone reads like satire:

Gunshot Victims Left Waiting as Horse Dewormer Overdoses Overwhelm Oklahoma Hospitals, Doctor Says

“The ERs are so backed up that gunshot victims were having hard times getting to facilities where they can get definitive care and be treated,” Dr. Jason McElyea said.

The "horse dewormer" in question is, of course, Ivermectin.

Apparently Rolling Stone picked up this story for nationwide dissemination from a video segment by reporter Katelyn Ogle at Oklahoma news station KFOR. 

What is going on here? Is this McElyea guy playing a prank on KFOR (and Rolling Stone)? Was the KFOR reporter - and then Peter Wade at Rolling Stone - just too stupid to recognize a prank? Neither one felt the need to check the source before broadcasting or publishing?

Or is McElyea just feeling fearful of Ivermectin overdoses and willing to stretch the truth a bit in order to scare people away from it? And maybe Ogle and Wade are like-minded and willing to sacrifice journalistic integrity for the sake of possibly saving lives? (This approach is commonly known as "propaganda", aka "fake news".)

Are there other possible explanations?

How else do you get a "news report" based on the words of a single doctor with absolutely no corroboration from anyone else at even a single hospital somewhere in Oklahoma? Is there no ER nurse to back him up? No hard numbers of cases to report?

And, by the way, are the Oklahoma ERs typically empty except for "gunshot victims"? 

And when these hordes of Ivermectin overdoses show up at emergency rooms with "negative reactions like nausea, vomiting, muscle aches, and cramping - or even loss of sight", could they not be moved to another section of the hospital where beds are available for people dealing with tummy aches? That might free up some ER beds for folks who are bleeding out from a bullet wound. 

Who is in charge of the Oklahoma ERs? 

This is not satire and it is not sloppy journalism. It is propaganda. 

The bigger issue is this: How commonplace is this approach to "reporting" the "news"? 

If you want to see for yourself: KFOR Report and  Rolling Stone Article. 

WRONG MEMORIES

Yesterday, I posted this quote from Kathryn Schulz's fascinating book, Being Wrong: 

"A whole lot of us go through life assuming that we are basically right, basically all the time, about basically everything: about our political and intellectual convictions, our religious and moral beliefs, our assessment of other people, our memories, our grasp of facts. As absurd as it sounds when we stop to think about it, our steady state seems to be one of unconsciously assuming that we are very close to omniscient."

It is fascinating that one of the things she implies that people can possibly get wrong is "our memories". 

I looked through my Google photos the other day and started to delete some in an effort to free up some cloud memory (because I am too cheap to pay monthly for extra space). 

I look at these photos from even just five years ago and marvel how my only true and detailed memory of that recorded moment is the arrangement of pixels on the screen in front of me. 

Thus, I have a real hard time deleting even a blurry photo because I know that once it is gone from the cloud, it will be gone forever from EVERYWHERE. 

But I don't think Schulz has in mind "lost" memories as much as "found" memories. As often as we fail to remember things that actually happened, how common might it be for us to "remember" things that NEVER actually happened? 

(This is actually a scary thought in the context of false accusations.)

On a very small scale I have already experienced this twice in the first four weeks of a new school year: "Mr. Gross, how come I have a zero in the gradebook for this assignment? I KNOW I turned it in. I remember handing that paper to you!" 

I will search any small stacks of paper on my desk and in my computer bag and ask the student likewise to search his or her backpack. When I am lucky, the student eventually produces the missing assignment and hands it to me sheepishly ... for the first time. 

BEING WRONG

I recently heard a story about a man who had refused to get vaccinated against Covid for months. Then, of course, he contracted the disease. After a week in the hospital that put his future in doubt and racked up a $200,000 bill, his doctor asked him if he regretted not getting the vaccine.

You already know the man's answer, right?

Of course you do: he told his doctor, "No - it wasn't that bad."

When you hear this little tale, you might draw this moral from it: "Anti-vaxxers won't admit that they are wrong."

But if that is your takeaway, I want to suggest it is much too narrow.

Here's my takeaway: "PEOPLE won't admit that they are wrong."

"A whole lot of us go through life assuming that we are basically right, basically all the time, about basically everything: about our political and intellectual convictions, our religious and moral beliefs, our assessment of other people, our memories, our grasp of facts. As absurd as it sounds when we stop to think about it, our steady state seems to be one of unconsciously assuming that we are very close to omniscient."

- Kathryn Schulz in Being Wrong

STRESS

I hate the way my brain gets all counterproductive under stress. 

At this stage of life, it takes more than one stressful situation to gum up my brain. I can handle ONE thing and it won't phase me much. But stressors piled three or four high suddenly and automatically add another stressor: sleeplessness.

That's what happened last night. I went to bed at a reasonable time: 11 pm.

It wasn't long before I was having some sort of nonsensical stress dream that woke me up. When I picked up my phone, it was 1:00 am. I had a headache. And I knew I wasn't falling back to sleep any time soon. 

I read a little in a book. That didn't help.

I did a little school work. THAT did help because it eased one of my other stressors. 

I cleaned up the kitchen. This also helped because there is something about bringing order out of disorder that feels like progress, even though it didn't directly ease any of my stressors.

In the end, I was able to fall back to sleep at 4:00 am and sleep until my alarm went off at 6:00. 

I dragged all day long and my tiredness and headache made all my other stressors more stressful.

Thanks, BRAIN. 

I wish I could be Calvin: