Are you tired of Richard Foster yet? Sorry. It's what I'm reading and so it's what I'm quoting. Although the more I listen the more I am convinced of God's ability to use whatever is in front of me to get His message across. If I really am "seek (ing) first the kingdom of God" He could give me divine insight from "The Cat in the Hat" (which by the way seems to be a favorite book to memorize by people from Palmer. Does anyone else find that weird?) if He wants to. Likes to keep me on my toes you see.

So, back to the Richard Foster lesson of the morning: Submission! Well that was the chapter anyways, but the part that jumped out at me was this right at the beginning: "Every Discipline has its corresponding freedom...Our aim is freedom, not the discipline. The moment we make the discipline our central focus, we turn it into a law and lose the corresponding freedom...(the disciplines) have value only as a means of setting us before God so that he can give us the liberation we seek...We must clearly understand this limitation of the Disciplines if we are to avoid bondage...we need to underscore it to ourselves again and again so severe is our temptation to center on the Disciplines. Let us forever center on Christ and view the Spiritual Disciplines as a way of drawing us closer to his heart."

Once again, he hit the nail on the head for me, but lets not forget that Dr. Suess could be used by God too (no offense, Foster). Foster is talking about specific Spiritual Disciplines here, that's why he keeps capitalizing them, but I'm such a fan of discipline in general that I'm taking a broader scope. This is so often where I stumble: I find a good discipline, say exercise for a completely random example, desire to make it a habit, and in doing so it becomes the center, the focus, rather than the means to an end, which is this case should be good stewardship of the body God's given me. I look to this habit or discipline or routine to be my freedom from feelings of never being enough and there it becomes my god rather then a way to draw closer to his heart.

Reading Foster last week I was struck by one of his ten guidelines for simplicity (always dangerous to give this good girl a list!). The second suggestion was "reject anything that is producing an addiction in you." So I was thinking of what addictions I might be harboring and wondered if I should think about maybe giving up, are you ready for this? Chocolate.

Shocking I know. A chocolate addiction has become a pretty common joke in our culture. I usually make light of it myself. But I don't like how I start on a cookie and don't stop unless the jar, and maybe the freezer also, is empty. I don't like how often I go to grab a handful of chocolate chips when our morning of school is going less than smoothly. And I have often stated that I can turn down non-chocolate sweets much more easily. So, I was thinking and praying about this, not wanting it to be just another new rule for me. After hearing of my latest plan for self-denial, an honest friend (There she is again, are you curious about her identity yet? Sorry, I'm keeping this secret of the Dagoba system and my own private Yoda to myself. ;)) asked if this was just that: MY latest plan. So I stepped back to ponder even more.

But I don't think it is, at least at this time. It could become that at any moment and so maybe that's why I was particularly appreciative of the litmus test that Foster offered this morning. When my choice to not eat chocolate becomes a rule that I bow to rather than the freedom to NOT eat it until I get sores on my tongue and I beat myself up with shame, then it has moved to the center and ceased to be effective. Right now, it's good. Maybe a tad bit sad, but freeing still. I'll let you know about tomorrow. And in a spirit of full disclosure, no, I have not yet sat to ponder my relationship with coffee.

And I know that this is plenty long already, but I didn't want to leave out this great quote from Galatians 5 in The Message translation:"Why don't you choose to be led by the Spirit and so escape the erratic compulsions of a law-dominated existence?"

Exactly. Why don't I?