Chicken as a Means of Grace

okieinexile

Well-Known Member
Messages
523
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Kansas
This is for the 5-Marys circle of the United Methodist Women

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prayer and Self-Denial or
Chicken as a Means of Grace
By Bobby Neal Winters

When my wife and I had counseling sessions before we got married, the pastor, the Reverend Lavender, who was known in various irreverent circles as the Purple Preacher, had all sorts of good advice. He told us, "There is no such thing as a free lunch", because everything comes at a cost, and "You will be married to a different person five years from now", because everyone changes, but he didn't touch upon what I would call the "Chicken Issue."

The "Chicken Issue" was one that didn't arise in earlier times when marriages were arranged and couples only got to, shall we say, know each other after marriage. However, in these times, there is a good deal more, shall we say, familiarity before marriage, and there are fewer post-nuptial discoveries to be made.

As this is a sensitive matter, I will try to be delicate, but there is no way that I can avoid certain explicit language in the sequel if I am to communicate my meaning. However, in the meantime, I think that I might postpone the moment the moment offense by formulating the "Chicken Issue" in the following way, "Who gets the white meat and who gets the dark," or to put it bluntly, "Who gets the leg and who gets the breast?"

There, I said it, and I notice only one or two of you have fainted, and only a few of you are fanning yourselves like shock southern Belles.

In spite of the Reverend Lavender's neglect in this area, my wife and I are compatible in that way. My wife likes the drumstick, and I like the, uh, white meat. It is good when a couple is complimentary in this way. Because this is a serious matter and can put strain on a relationship.

It is not only marital bliss that can be threatened, but also family harmony. While I suppose that any piece of the chicken can be someone's favorite, it seems like drumsticks and breasts come at the top of the heap. Long-lasting and bloody family feuds have erupted over these particular chicken pieces.

Once, many years ago, when I was still in graduate school, my wife, baby daughter, and I were visiting my mother over the Thanksgiving holidays. At this same time, my cousin Mary Frances, her husband John, and younger daughter Debbie were also visiting. In those days, my mother was still at the height of her cooking powers, so the Thanksgiving meal was not distinguished by size but simply by having a turkey on the table. At one of my mother's encore feasts she served chicken. She didn't know how to only cook one chicken at a time so there were two or three breast and four or six drumsticks, but there were also a lot of healthy appetites.

After several iterations of bowl passing, and tea refilling, we came to a point where there was only one piece of chicken left, a breast, while there were still three people taking in nourishment, John, Debbie, and me. John was a white meat eater like myself, while Debbie was of unknown inclinations. John and I sat across from each other staring at the bowl containing the one piece, because there were some complicated rules at play. John and I were both guests at my mother's house, but I was somewhat less of a guest than he, so if it had been between him and me, the rules of hospitality say that the chicken should go to him. In cases such as these, when grown men are involved, it is not unusual for both to refuse and sneak back later. However, there is another rule that super-cedes this, which is, "Children come first."

So John and I were staring at the bowl, not worried that the other would get it, but concerned about the actions of Debbie. If she took the chicken, the game was over. Whereas, if she refused, it became a game of skill and cunning.

I believe it was my mother who broke the impasse, when she said, "Anybody want this last piece of chicken?"

Debbie's voice, with its sweet southern tones piped up, "I do."

John, who was naturally privy to more information about Debbie than I was, injected, "But, Debbie, you don't even like white meat."

"It's not for me," she said innocently. "It's for Frank."

Doubtlessly, many of you are quite understandably confused at this point at the late introduction of a new character. Certainly a case for poor organization can be made. However, I hope that I may be forgiven because Frank is not a human being. Frank is, or was I should say because he has long since gone to his reward, a dog. He was a dog who liked to drag the semi-decomposed carcasses of deer into the yard, roll on them, and chew on the nasty parts. Indeed, he was gnawing on a particularly fragrant morsel at the very time this discussion was taking place. In short, a succulent breast of chicken would've been wasted on his, shall we say, earthy tastes.

At this point, John interceded, and said, "No, Debbie, this is people food," and with Solomon-like wisdom, the breast was divided between the two of us.

This last story brings me to an insight. That Thanksgiving was three years to the day after my father had been diagnosed with cancer, and he was not with us. I think of this now, because my father's favorite pieces of chicken weren't drumsticks or breasts. They were necks and backs. You see my brother liked drumsticks and I liked breasts, and my father found a new solution to the problem of dividing up the chicken. This solution was love manifested as self-sacrifice.
 
Marriage, getting into the bargain

For enlightened people possessed of working intelligence and down to earth realistic pragmatism, here are my recommendations about marriage, how to get in and how to live it:

Before marriage, both have a medical check-up, covering even the health history of each partner's family, both physical and mental.

Have an investigation into each other's background, financial, social, academic, moral, religious -- and also personality profiles from psychological testings.

Talk very seriously about the exchange of pluses and minuses that must be accepted mutually.

Talk very seriously about the aspirations of each from the marriage, how these aspirations would be enhanced from the marriage and from each other, and also very important how each might compensate on the other's shorcomings.

Remember that marriage whatever you want to make of it, is in a society governed by law always a solemn contract. You owe it to your own word of honor and sense of personal integrity to stick to it once you enter into the contract -- at least for the sake of society.

Once in marriage, have a regular inventory of your satisfactions, and work together to make the best acccommodations possible under the circumstances, and how to work better together to achieve the expectations from marriage and from each other you had entertained in marriage.

Seek down to earth friends, intelligent, experienced, and after your best interests for advice and suggestions and insights, friends who are also down to earth realistically pragmatic.

If things don't work out after five years, then you can apply for divorce. And maybe the next time around you can choose better and make a better contract. Or don't get married ever, just live in a relationship without the constraints and advantages of a legal contract.

Susma Rio Sep
 
Dear Susma,

For an atheist such as you, your last comment sounded pretty much like a Church-written text for the enlightened people possessed of working intelligence (as opposed to the unintelligent non-believers).

How about this theory : no one should try to codify Love or its expression through marriage, but should rather let everyone decide for themselves about how they want to act... :rolleyes:

May the Chicken shine upon you,

Kal

P.S. Thank you for another great text Okie :cool:
 
Unsolicited advice

Kaldayen said:
Dear Susma,

For an atheist such as you, your last comment sounded pretty much like a Church-written text for the enlightened people possessed of working intelligence (as opposed to the unintelligent non-believers).

How about this theory : no one should try to codify Love or its expression through marriage, but should rather let everyone decide for themselves about how they want to act... :rolleyes:

May the Chicken shine upon you,

Kal

P.S. Thank you for another great text Okie :cool:

Actually, Kal, I am not an atheist.

I have an altruistic concern of offering unsolicited advice (Okie is another one like me), which I think can be vouched for on the sad experience of many a couple who went into marriage, without using their heads, notwithstanding that they were in love.

Don't overlook my recurring refrain about realistic pragmatism:

For enlightened people possessed of working intelligence and down to earth realistic pragmatism, here are my recommendations about marriage, how to get in and how to live it...

Seek down to earth friends, intelligent, experienced, and after your best interests for advice and suggestions and insights, friends who are also down to earth realistically pragmatic.

I also dispense solicited advice from people who take the Bible seriously about seeking counsel and you shall not regret.

Welcome to the forum.

Susma Rio Sep
 
Greetings Susma,

Oh, I was wrong then. It was a general feeling I got while reading your different posts. This may not be the good topic to speak about your faith but I'm wondering about what you refer to when you speak of post-graduate christianity (was that it)?
 
No longer compatible with the Catholic Church

Kaldayen said:
Greetings Susma,

Oh, I was wrong then. It was a general feeling I got while reading your different posts. This may not be the good topic to speak about your faith but I'm wondering about what you refer to when you speak of post-graduate christianity (was that it)?

I call myself a postgraduate Catholic, emphasis on 'post', because I have stopped taking seriously many of the teachings and imposed observances of the Catholic Church.

Otherwise, I believe in God.

Susma Rio Sep
 
Thanks for that, Bobby - that was a very funny piece, and I absolutely loved it. You've got some wicked humour shining in there. :)

This line made me really laugh out loud:

In cases such as these, when grown men are involved, it is not unusual for both to refuse and sneak back later.

Now there's a custrom that made it across the pond... :D
 
Chicken soup for weak souls

Chicken soup has been a highly praised remedy for general debility.

I use it also with my spiritual reading, they go very well together.

There is in the market also Essence of Chicken. My wife's family got a box of six bottles for her, and she passed them to me, serving it heated when I am doing my spiritual reading.

It goes very well, with the Catholic doctrine of mortifications: good for building up spiritual discipline. If you can drink Essence of Chicken with a smile, which I put up for my loving wife, then you have achieved a good measure of equanimity under trying circumstances.

But I told my wife I still prefer the genuine chicken soup made from real dressed chicken.

Word of caution, though: Beware of the bird flu.

Susma Rio Sep
 
I said:
Thanks for that, Bobby - that was a very funny piece, and I absolutely loved it. You've got some wicked humour shining in there. :)

This line made me really laugh out loud:



Now there's a custrom that made it across the pond... :D

Ah, yes, the trill of the hunt never fades.
 
About love and codification

Kaldayen said:
Dear Susma,

For an atheist such as you, your last comment sounded pretty much like a Church-written text for the enlightened people possessed of working intelligence (as opposed to the unintelligent non-believers).

How about this theory : no one should try to codify Love or its expression through marriage, but should rather let everyone decide for themselves about how they want to act... :rolleyes:

May the Chicken shine upon you,

Kal

Kal, are you still there. I didn't answer your question about love earlier.

no one should try to codify Love

Actually civilized society has been codifying love since mankind learned that we cannot let evolution think out the ways individuals should relate to and with each other; evolution takes too much time and too many errors. Codifying is faster and if errors are made they can be corrected punctually or abolished and new directives enacted.


or its expression through marriage

Marriage as a matter of act is the product of codifying. Love is an emotion, one among several in human nature. Fear, anger, greed, lust, envy, pride, indolence, violence, risk are other emotions or emotion-laden dispositions. In some codes donations between spouses are not legally binding, however genuine love be the motive.


let everyone decide for themselves about how they want to act...

Precisely civilization and society consist in making sure that we don't let everyone decide for themselves about how they want to act...

Susma Rio Sep
 
Back
Top