solving the conflict…

This week I had an unfortunate conflict with a client. I can’t say I’m a huge fan of conflict; however, learning to work through conflict in a healthy way is a necessary life skill.

Allow me to first share some brief background, which will aid in reaching the main point of today’s further-reaching post…

I work with a highly respected counseling group. While not a licensed professional counselor, my role is to connect an excellent, counseling team with organizations which desire to offer increased professional care for the mental health of persons in their purview. It is a sweet, privileged process to be able to help persons get the care they need.

Last week I had a man call who was very angry. Through a series of steps and conversations with others, he had come to believe something about a friend’s care that was untrue. Let me be respectfully clear: the man passionately believed that his perspective was completely accurate. As the one who administers the program, I can tell you his perspective was incorrect. But by this time, the conflict had brewed for a bit, and the man was mad. He was loud. He believed absolutely everything he was saying.

I’ve had some time since to reflect upon the conflict, and because I desire to grow in what is good, I’ve also asked myself: where else does this apply?

I look at our country and culture, seeing them attempt to work through conflict. With all due respect, our country stinks at it.

I look at the current shutdown. We stink at solving that, too.

I hear you. “If Trump would only quit demanding he get his way, demanding he get the money to build his campaign-promised wall…” Or… “If Pelosi and Schumer would only recognize how hypocritical they are, as when Obama was in office, they wholeheartedly supported such a barrier…”

Yes, please don’t attempt to tell me how one side is more moral or consistent. They are arguing about 0.0998% of the total federal budget; both sides seem most about political posturing. My personal hope is that the President’s stab at compromise over the weekend is sincere and will be fruitful — leading to a solution to the shutdown and to more bipartisan talks as to how we can efficiently, effectively and compassionately overhaul the current broken immigration system going forward.

But the problem with conflict is we get stuck in this unhealthy pattern, thinking that there exist only two ways to solve a problem… You/me. Black/white. Republican/Democrat. Yada/Yada. Then we only fight for and listen to a singular side.

Friends, there are far more ways than two to solve almost every problem.

When the loud, angry man called me last week, I can’t say I was thrilled. In fact, I immediately said an extra prayer for patience in hopes that I could listen well.

I listened to the man who shared his story. I asked questions about what I didn’t understand. I didn’t point out any perceived wrongful thinking. The purpose of my question asking was to understand why he felt the way he did.

Fascinating what happened next…

The angry man felt heard by my listening. He softened. Giving him space, grace, and time to communicate as he desired, he then was willing to hear my perspective, too. I shared with him some things he didn’t know. And by me listening to him first, he was willing to wrestle with what he previously misunderstood. He even offered that maybe he was part of the miscommunication.

 So after our initial, mutual respectful round of listening, I asked, “Sir, can I share with you my end game? My priority is the person gets the care they need. With that in mind, let’s work back from there.”

If our branches of government would first listen to one another — then recognize that they want the same thing — effective border security, which minimizes crime but allows responsible others to enter — and if they would work back from there — perhaps they would realize there exist more than solely two approaches.

Perhaps they would also realize our government would serve us better, too.

Did I mention that learning to work through conflict in a healthy way is a necessary life skill?

Respectfully…
AR

 

intellectual humility

Warning: this might be my least popular blog post. Ever. It also is relevant and true.

I therefore encourage you to proceed with caution. Read at your own risk. I have zero intent to disrespect.

We’ve come to 2019, where our world continues to clunkily seek its way of relating and operating in a crazy culture… a society in which the lack of humility seems totally glaring in our highest levels of leadership and in those who offer vocal opposition or support. People are justifying judgment.

Judgment is fueled by the absence of humility. When we don’t know what we don’t know, we tend to get puffed up. As Brian Resnick, a science reporter at Vox.com, wrote in a brilliant editorial last week, “It’s so hard to see our own ignorance.”

Quoting the work of Julia Rohrer, a personality psychologist and Life Fellow at Deutshes Institut Für Wirtschaftforschung, Berlin:

“I do think it’s a cultural issue that people are not willing to admit mistakes.”

Resnick wrestles with the profound, phenomenal virtue: intellectual humility.  

Intellectual humility is the self-awareness that some things you believe might be wrong.

Writes Resnick [Note: all emphasis mine]…

“… Don’t confuse it with overall humility or bashfulness. It’s not about being a pushover; it’s not about lacking confidence, or self-esteem. The intellectually humble don’t cave every time their thoughts are challenged.

Instead, it’s a method of thinking. It’s about entertaining the possibility that you may be wrong and being open to learning from the experience of others. Intellectual humility is about being actively curious about your blind spots. One illustration is in the ideal of the scientific method, where a scientist actively works against her own hypothesis, attempting to rule out any other alternative explanations for a phenomenon before settling on a conclusion. It’s about asking: What am I missing here?

It doesn’t require a high IQ or a particular skill set. It does, however, require making a habit of thinking about your limits, which can be painful. ‘It’s a process of monitoring your own confidence.’”

Unfortunately, too many are unaware of their limits — perhaps feeling as if they have few or none — either precisely because of their intelligence or experience or because they allow opinion-based analysis to serve as their primary news source.

Pick your issue. Pick your passion. Pick the budget shutdown, the Supreme Court, or the 2016 election, for example. We each have an opinion. The biased sources such as CNN, FOX, and MSNBC feed it. We then conclude we are right; we don’t know what we don’t know; we don’t recognize the limits to our knowledge; and we are not encouraged by the likeminded to monitor our own confidence.

Resnick surmises three main challenges on this wiser path to humility: 

  1. In order for us to acquire more intellectual humility, we all, even the smartest among us, need to better appreciate our cognitive blind spots. Our minds are more imperfect and imprecise than we’d often like to admit. Our ignorance can be invisible.
  2. Even when we overcome that immense challenge and figure out our errors, we need to remember we won’t necessarily be punished for saying, ‘I was wrong.’ And we need to be braver about saying it. We need a culture that celebrates those words.
  3. We’ll never achieve perfect intellectual humility. So we need to choose our convictions thoughtfully.

I have long averred that intelligence and wisdom are not the same. Of the two, wisdom is the only virtue; intelligence often gets in the way. 

Intelligence often impedes our want and willingness to listen and learn from the different, recognizing the immense value in the different. Intelligence can thus cloud the reality that there are limits to what we know and can possibly know.

Let me be clear: intellectual humility is not easy to attain, but in a world that increasingly justifies judgment, arrogance, and blatant disrespect — especially from the intelligent — it is a virtue worth striving for.

What, my friends, don’t you know?

Where might you be wrong?

Respectfully…

AR

compromise?

While we were focused on the meaning and merry of recent holidays and resolutions, the federal government quit working efficiently and effectively. 

Oh, wait… allow me to insert a total opinion here… the federal government quit working efficiently and effectively years ago. (These past few weeks it’s just a little more, uh, obvious.)

All said, I’ve wrestled with a proper approach to respectfully acknowledge the state of current affairs. I’ve pondered if taking one side or another is wise. The temptation, however, is quickly doused when we find multiple public statements in which those now involved once said the exact opposite thing.

Hence in attempt to focus on something bigger, there is one aspect within that strikes me as a significant loss for our culture: we have become numb to the value of compromise.

Granted, like the millions of one-time Steven Covey students, I, too, heeded his call to be highly effective. Highly effective people work well with the masses — not simply a percentage-points majority. Highly effective people know Habit #4 — “Think Win-Win” — and habit #6 — “Synergize!” — each especially relevant here…

To “win-win,” a person prioritizes doing what’s best for everyone involved. How can everyone in the room “win,” so-to-speak? 

Interactions are mindful of relationship, with an earnest desire to craft mutually beneficial solutions. A “‘win’ for all is ultimately a better long-term resolution than if only one person in the situation had gotten their way” — or one small percentage had gotten their way. It isn’t about being nice nor finding some quick fix. It’s about basing “human interaction and collaboration” on value and respect.

“Synergize!” recognizes the great good of teamwork. This habit certainly challenges us in regard to working with and even honoring the differences of those around us. As the “12min Blog” reviews: “Synergy makes you assimilate new points of view and achieve positive results by working together.”

Synergy doesn’t mean we all agree nor that we should even have to. Synergy instead creates “a unique solution that combines the best of the parts.”

Note that neither of the two above, highly effective habits embrace compromise. In fact, adherent to Solomon’s ancient wisdom decrying the absurdity of splitting one wanted baby in two, in rare times compromise is both foolish and impossible. 

But my sense is that far too many have taken that too far. They perceive and promote simply the prospect of compromise as foolish and impossible. They convince themselves that they are more moral… more wise… more something. And just like that they dismiss — and disrespect — all others in the room.

Is there room for compromise in the current federal government standoff?

Of course there is. 

Hence…

Mr. President, Congressmen/women, Spokespeople and Leaders of both parties…

Respect us more by showing more respect for one another.

Think “win-win” — not ensuring the ethically-lesser “no-win-for-them.”

And synergize!

Compromise is not foolish. It’s also not impossible.

Respectfully…

AR

the solution in 2019

As we prepare for a new slate of respectful dialogue in 2019 and an earnest desire to be a promoter of efficient, effective and compassionate solution, allow me to share a concern echoed from the year behind, as editorialized by CNN and multiple outgoing senators… [all emphasis mine]…

“As departing senators said their goodbyes to Washington, a number of Democrats and Republicans took the opportunity to express concern about the state of the Senate and the political climate.

‘All the evidence points to an unsettling truth: The Senate as an institution is in crisis,’ retiring Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah lamented in his farewell speech delivered on the Senate floor.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, who was defeated in the November midterm elections, echoed that idea when she delivered her own farewell speech. ‘I’d be lying if I didn’t say I was worried about this place,’ she said. ‘It just doesn’t work as well as it used to.’

‘Something is broken,’ the Missouri Democrat went on to say. ‘If we don’t have the strength to look in the mirror and fix it, the American people are going to grow more and more cynical.’

As senators who were either ousted in the elections or decided to retire and not seek another term reflected on their time in Congress, many expressed dismay at how divided Washington has become as lawmakers retreat to entrenched partisan positions that leave little room for compromise or common ground

But while departing senators had unique messages to impart, the overarching idea that there’s a problem with the current state of politics was a consistent theme.

‘What in the world has happened to civility and to humility in our nation’s public discourse?’ Sen. Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat who lost his seat in the midterms, asked in his farewell speech.

‘Tribalism is our problem, and if not corrected, it’s going to take our country down,’ he warned…

As departing senators outlined concerns in their farewell speeches, many described what they believe has contributed to the highly divisive political climate and what they think needs to change.

McCaskill urged lawmakers to have the courage to take ‘tough votes.’

‘Solving the toughest problems will not happen without tough votes,” she said. ‘We can talk about the toughest problems… we can argue about them, we can campaign on them, but we’re not going to solve them without tough votes.’

Nelson and outgoing Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly of Indiana, who also lost his seat in the midterms, suggested that an influx of big money in politics has had a corrosive effect, making an argument common to the Democratic Party…

Hatch, meanwhile, decried “identity politics,” a concept often invoked critically by Republicans, who frequently accuse Democrats of subscribing to it… ‘identity politics is nothing more than dressed-up tribalism’…

In their farewell speeches, departing senators also reflected on fond memories of their time in Congress, and some expressed optimism for the future despite their concerns…”

I believe, too, there exists reason for optimism. However, it starts with:

  1. looking in the mirror
  2. allowing room for compromise or common ground; and…
  3. valuing civility and humility in our discourse.

Here’s to the Intramuralist in 2019. May we always be part of the solution.

Respectfully…

AR 

politically (in)correct?

Out on the airwaves there has again arisen a clatter, when the rest of us ask: what’s actually the matter? In the days before Christmas, the annual conversation begins: are these songs offensive?

With a desire to always be respectful of all, let’s honestly unpack some of the songs, each of which is being called on by more than some to retire…

“Baby, It’s Cold Outside”…

The catchy tune was written by Frank Loesser in 1944 and won the Academy Award for “Best Original Song” in 1949 when featured in the film, Neptune’s Daughter. It has been re-recorded at least 58 times by 106 celebrities, ranging from Ray Charles and Betty Carter to Martina McBride and Dean Martin to Idina Menzel and Michael Bublé.

Why might the song be offensive? In the wake of the #MeToo movement, it encourages a rape culture in that it pressures the woman to do something she doesn’t want to do, as she repeatedly expresses her desire to go home.

Why might it not? It’s a non-serious song about flirtation. Besides the fact that flirtation is considered an accepted social interaction, this song was written for a husband and wife.

According to Loesser’s daughter, the controversy surrounding this song has increased most substantially since Saturday Night Live utilized it in a 2015 skit, mocking Bill Cosby.

Or… “Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer”…

This song was written by Johnny Marks based on a 1939 story his brother wrote for the Montgomery Ward Company. Gene Autry later recorded the song, which hit #1 on the U.S. charts during Christmas of 1949. The song was popularized further when it accompanied the similarly named TV special created in 1964.

Why might the song be offensive? It encourages bullying, as due to his red nose, Rudolph is laughed at, called names, and not allowed to “join in any reindeer games.”

Why might it not? The song (and story) are clearly fictional, and in the end, Rudolph becomes the leader and hero, solving the issue at hand precisely because of his uniqueness.

And… “White Christmas”

This winter classic was written by Irving Berlin in 1942, and the version sung by Bing Crosby is the world’s best-selling single with estimated sales in excess of 50 million copies.

Why might the song be offensive? It ignores the celebration of Christmas by persons of other skin colors.

Why might it not? The color description refers to snow.

Recognizing the above list is incomplete, let’s reiterate our desire to always be respectful of all, as we summarize the realities in play:

  1. Times change.
  2. Classics may not be appropriate forever.
  3. Offensive to some does not equate to wrong for all.
  4. People feel differently.
  5. Wisdom is gleaned by learning from those who feel differently.

I had one wise friend suppose that the solution is not simply to demand these songs be dismissed. Maybe that’s part of it; maybe it’s not. But the greater growth seems to come in the societal conversation regarding possible, prevalent unhealthy attitudes made manifest in the classic’s content. Such may or may not prompt need for dismissal.

Granted, if such prompts need for dismissal, to be consistent, we may need to examine multiple, non-Christmas songs in regard to their potentially offensive content — some of those rap or pop hits encouraging violence, vulgarity and/or infidelity, for example.

It’s tough, friends. It’s a slippery slope… since what’s offensive to some does not equate to wrong for all. Maybe that’s the question: when does what’s offensive to some equate to wrong for all?

Sounds like once again we need to be respectful, listen, and learn from those who feel differently than we.

Respectfully…

AR

can everything be changed?

Seriously. If we want it to, can everything be changed? 

Are our feelings enough?

Meet Emile Ratelband. Ratelband is a 69 year old, seemingly charismatic, Dutch television personality. Self-described as an “entrepreneur in personal development,” Ratelband is an author and motivational speaker. 

Last month Ratelband told a Netherlandish court that he identifies with being 20 years younger.  His age made him “uncomfortable.” He argued that being locked into his 69 year old age — consistent with his actual date of birth — was causing him to struggle to find both work and love. He claimed to suffer from “age discrimination.” He therefore asked the court to legally change his age.

Said Ratelband, “We live in a time when you can change your name and change your gender. Why can’t I decide my own age?”

So help me here… always, with all due respect, let’s ask some questions… 

Can reality be changed?

Can truth be changed?

Can a fact — which by definition, means “a thing that is indisputably the case” — actually be disputed?

Note that even though Ratelband came into this world and out of a woman’s womb on March 11th, 1949, he argued that his birthdate was a mistake. He feels younger than he is; he thus wants to change the facts.

So how do we wrestle with that? The bottom line is the profound question: are feelings enough to change the facts? 

And if the answer is affirmative, what precedent are we setting by declaring that the feelings of an individual are enough to change what’s true? 

Perhaps some would argue that the change affects no one else. But just as the Dutch court questioned, how do we simply erase 20 years of existence on this planet? What about his family? What about his relationships and interactions during that time? Does that mean how his parents cared for him did not matter or somehow did not even happen?

A preposterous supposition, it would seem.

What if another individual declared that they identify as 20 years older? And what if at the time they felt such discomfort with their age, they were only 15?

Do their feelings then give them the right to drive? … to vote? … and all other legalities where age has proven to be a wise boundary?

Are these persons actually being discriminated against?

After the ruling earlier this week against Emile Ratelband, the court said in a press statement, “Mr. Ratelband is at liberty to feel 20 years younger than his real age and to act accordingly. But amending his date of birth would cause 20 years of records to vanish from the register of births, deaths, marriages and registered partnerships. This would have a variety of undesirable legal and societal implications.”

In other words, we are at liberty to feel however we wish. We are free to feel younger or feel older and even to act in accordance with the way we feel.

But we are not at liberty of changing the facts. 

We’re not capable either.

Respectfully…

AR

craving peace… left and right…

With Thanksgiving in the rearview mirror, we head further into the holiday season, a time in which the desire for “peace on Earth and goodwill to men” is more oft and intentionally uttered.

I love that. I love the unifying craving for peace. In terms of the current socio-political climate, however, such status can be challenging indeed. In fact, one of the reasons it seems so challenging is because each of us are tempted to make our peace conditional; in other words, “I can only have peace if ____________.”  

But what if our peace was not conditional? What if our peace was dependent on no one else? What if we learned to love one another so well, that their faults, wrongdoing, and imperfections no longer got in our way? (Never mind our faults, wrongdoing, and imperfections…)

Marc A. Thiessen — from the Washington Post Writers Group — wrote a fantastic op-ed last week, sharing insight, no doubt, that if realized, significantly increases our peace. Note the following excerpt (with all emphasis mine):

“I’m a rock-ribbed conservative who wants Republicans to keep control of Congress. But I’m not unhappy that Republican state Rep. Rick Saccone appears to have lost the special election in Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District.

Why? Because he insulted my mother.

Trailing his Democratic opponent in a district President Donald Trump won by 20 points, but which still has more registered Democrats than Republicans, Saccone hit on a genius idea to turn out the vote: At a campaign rally just before voters went to the polls, he declared that liberals hate America and hate God. ‘I’ve talked to so many of these on the left,’ he said. ‘And I tell you, many of them have a hatred for our country… My wife and I saw it again today: They have a hatred for God.’

My mother is a liberal Democrat, and I can tell you: She does not hate America or God. Quite the opposite — she is one of the most patriotic people I know. She grew up in Nazi-occupied Poland, fought with the Polish underground, was taken to Germany as a prisoner of war, was liberated by Patton’s Army and moved to London. Eventually, she became a doctor and made her way to the United States, where she became a U.S. citizen. There is no one prouder to be an American…

She’s also a proud Democrat. We disagree about politics, but we both love America and want to make this country great. We just have different ideas about the best ways to do it.

So when Saccone says liberals hate America, he’s talking about my mother…

Whether you are liberal, conservative or in between, I’ll bet that you have a loved one who disagrees with you about politics. It might be a sibling or a parent or a beloved cousin, aunt or uncle — or even your kids. We should not stand for politicians from either party who insult them or question their motives or their patriotism. Too often, politicians on both the left and right do just that…

We see it in the gun control debate that followed the Parkland, Fla., school shooting. Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy said that if you’re not in favor of immediate action on guns, ‘you’re an accomplice’ to the Parkland killer. Seriously? Do you have a loved one who disagrees with you about gun control? Are they accomplices to mass murder? No, they just disagree that gun control is the solution.

The problem exists on both sides of the aisle, and it’s not just politicians. American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks recalls how a few years ago he was giving a speech at a large conservative event. ‘I said that while my own views are center-right, I have no reason to believe progressives are stupid or evil,’ he recalls. ‘An audience member countered, ‘You’re wrong: They are stupid and evil.’ ’

Progressives are not stupid and evil. Conservatives are not racists and misogynists. Our fellow Americans who disagree with us are not our enemies. They are our fellow Americans who differ with us. And we should not put up with politicians, on the left or right, who can’t seem to understand this.”

Those who disagree with us are not our enemies; they are not ignorant and evil or full of hate and hypocrisy. They simply differ on ideas and approach. If we cannot comprehend that reality, my strong sense is any individual craving of peace will not be realized, regardless of season.

Respectfully…

AR

voting guide

In light of Tuesday’s coming election day, we thought it wise to offer a concise resource in regard to our decision-making for the day.

Oh. Wait. If by chance, you are expecting the Intramuralist to tell you how to vote this day, you may have been misdirected. We will willingly offer opinion, with a desire to entertain and encourage respectful dialogue. However, we will tell no one how they should vote; in fact, we believe no one is capable of such. Hence, instead…

“THE DO’S & DON’TS OF VOTING”

D&D #1

No one can nor should tell you how to vote. 

Contrary to unfortunately popular belief, there is not one right way to vote. We are each divinely wired and uniquely gifted, with varied experience and expertise. This results in varied passion and perspective. Let the variance refrain from fostering judgment.

D&D #2

Voting is your right.

Multiple constitutional amendments have established suffrage (specifically, the 12th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th, and 26th). We encourage you to take advantage of it.

D&D #3

Your vote matters.

How many times have we heard this defeated retort? Granted, there are many old wives’ tales that exist, seemingly to create a false sense of urgency (i.e. one vote bringing Texas into the Union, making English the official U.S. language, or giving Hitler control of Nazi Germany). There do exist times in which a single vote has been significant, but they are far less dramatic. The bottom line is that voting helps your voice be heard, and all voices are valuable even when not in the majority.

D&D #4

Consider voting for members of more than one party.

No party has cornered the market on integrity. In fact, perhaps one of the most disturbing trends is that partisan loyalists often overlook or minimize unscrupulous behavior in their own party, perceiving it as the necessary means to an end or the “lesser” of two evils. Last I looked, “evil” still meant “evil.” 

D&D #5 

Study the issues.

In addition to the people we elect, at the state level, there are actually 155 ballot measures that will be voted on in 37 states this Tuesday. For example, 7 measures in 5 states with wrestle with the legalization of medical and/or recreational marijuana. 8 measures in 6 states are considering some kind of limitation on taxes. Need more info? Go to www.ballotpedia.org. Find your state. Look up the issue. Look, too, at who supports, opposes, and is funding the initiative. As best as possible, attempt to discern what multiple motives may be in play.

D&D #6

Beware of bandwagons.

Let’s quote “Urban Dictionary.” The definition of a bandwagon: “when someone adopts a popular point of view for the primary purpose of recognition and/or acceptance by others.” Popularity has never been equated with wisdom. Beware of those attempting to rile you up, emotionally luring you into joining their “tribe,” not recognizing the sharpening available via varied perspective.

D&D #7

Know that voting is incapable of legislating morality.

If there was one “Do & Don’t” we continually find the masses falling prey to, it is perhaps this. Well-intentioned persons hailing from both the left and right seem to desire to dictate the behavior of another. Call me naïve, but whether we attempt to impose a moral authority upon another in the name of God or omitting his omniscient name, none of us are capable of being the convictor of truth in another.

D&D #8

Engage the different.

Want to learn? Want to grow? Want to learn to love your neighbor well and not just the tribal likeminded? Get to know them. Ask them how they think. Take the time to say, “You don’t have to share with me your vote, but it sounds like you and I don’t think always alike. Help me. Can you share why you feel that way?” Then listen more than speak. Always.

D&D #9

Respect the results.

Each election cycle this seems to get worse… “He’s not my _______.” Fill in the blank. The reality is that whether we voted for a person or not, if we live in his/her jurisdiction, that person represents us. Do they represent our individual beliefs well? Maybe not. But be active. Let your voice be reverently heard. And again, engage with the different. Respectfully.

D&D #10

Be prepared for the next election cycle.

The reality is on Wednesday, the day after, in our fast-paced society, the next election cycle will begin. Be ready for the immediate formation of exploratory committees. Be ready for partisan calls to obstruct, resist or blindly follow. Be ready. For years I’ve wished we all had a little more respect for who’s in office when they’re there.

As for me, I’ll, too, be ready… to observe… contemplate and converse … also off to buy some Advil.

Respectfully…

AR

who are we making excuses for?

Years ago I used to coach select, adolescent/young teen baseball. I could no longer hit nor throw as far as those talented young men, but I know the game and know it well. Recent events have reminded me of a relevant incident — not my best moment — in which my boys were playing an accomplished rival, having multiple men on base, primed to score.

My strong, number five hitter was up to bat, and immediately, he smacked a hard line drive to right center. Coaching first and psyched to beat this particular team, I demonstrably signaled for my guy to head to second, attempting to stretch his single to a double.

Now as anyone who knows their baseball will share with you — including me — if you’re going to send a runner to second with the ball hit to right center, that ball better be way past the fielders and the runner exceptionally fast. Neither here was true. My guy was quickly called out, killing any rally.

My head coach wasn’t happy. The kid wasn’t happy. And the kid’s dad was worse, screaming at his son across the infield.

I had a choice: do I acknowledge my role in the tension?

Loud enough for all to hear — my team, their team, the forty-some fans in the stands and all passersby — I yelled, “It was my fault! I told him to go!”

It was my fault.

My words didn’t extinguish the frustration on the field nor all anger elsewhere. But when I took responsibility for that which I was responsible, the intensity of others’ reactions subdued.

It makes me often wonder if the hardest thing to do is to own that for which we are responsible. It is far easier to point fingers at another — focusing on what they are doing wrong — than acknowledging how we have contributed to the tension.

We often look at others’ behavior as awful… “Look at what they are doing!” Maybe we look at them as having started it first. But the reality is that many intelligent, even goodhearted people among us are more focused on someone else.

With this week’s reprehensible mail bomb activity, much of the country began talking about civility. As an advocate for respectful dialogue, solution, and loving all people well (as opposed to just those who agree with me), I’m thankful we have at least gotten the nation’s attention… for now. But will we make the most of the opportunity? Or will we continue to focus on someone else?

Friends, who will we make excuses for?

Will we make excuses for the mail bombs?

Will we make excuses for those who harass public officials when out to eat?

Will we make excuses for the incivility in many of Pres. Trump’s tweets?

Will we make excuses for the incivility encouraged by Hillary Clinton?

Will we make excuses for the Sen. Sanders supporter who shot at congressional Republicans playing softball?

Will we make excuses for Rep. Maxine Waters (and all others) who have called to disrupt others and tell them “they’re not welcome”?

Or… 

Will we make excuses for ourself? … responding with an angry insult, thinking lesser of, or an actual refusal to listen? … dismissing, denigrating, or simply waiting for solely them to come around?

My humble sense is that we spend so much time focusing on the misdeeds of others that we inadvertently excuse the imprudence and maliciousness in ourselves. In fact, we can be so deeply passionate — understandably — that we are blinded to our own misdeeds. Our passion, emotion, and intelligence too often pave the way for the excusal of awful behavior.

Friends, if we want America to be the opportune, sweet land of liberty, where all huddled masses are valued and respected from wherever they hail, however they hail, and whatever marks them as divinely created and uniquely, beautifully gifted — if we are going to be a united state of America — we must recognize that civility starts with us. It starts by individually examining how we are encouraging someone to not love and respect some other. 

Who are you looking down upon? Who are you considering less significant than yourself? Who are you marginalizing?

In other words, are we unknowingly excusing our own bad behavior, believing it is something more moral than it actually is?

Let us gently but mercifully acknowledge that this applies to each of us… left, right, black, white, male, female, you-name-it, you and me. I’d like to take back a few moments — moments in which I reacted instead of contemplated, preached instead of practiced, encouraged resistance instead of listening, and offered judgment instead of grace. I am very imperfect; we all are. Perhaps to keep us humble, God made each of us that way, prompting the pursuit of and a reliance upon a wisdom far superior than our own.

So what do we do, imperfect as we are, to capitalize on “the fierce urgency of Now”? Let me suggest we begin by stopping the excuses… for any disrespectful, damaging behavior.

Let us not begin with ensuring Trump stops tweeting. Let us not begin with making sure “we” win more elections first. Let us also not begin by tuning into only one biased, agenda-driven news source, thinking they are somehow helping. If leaders, loyalists, politicians, pundits, news anchors and activists refuse to be respectful, let us model the behavior which is wiser. Better. And good.

Let there be peace in our country.

And let it begin with “me.”

Respectfully…

AR

think different?

In 1997, what was then known as Apple Computer, Inc., — a company that was reportedly “hemorrhaging” at the time, according to co-founder Steve Jobs — rolled out a new advertising slogan.

The legendary campaign featured a rainbow-colored Apple insignia on a black background, with the simple white text below it, encouraging viewers to: “Think different.” The contrasting logo, background, and text, as discussed by Rob Siltanen, who was the creative director for the marketing firm making the pitch, “seemed to make the ‘Think Different’ statement all the more bold.

Something within that slogan resonates loudly within me… the boldness… the encouragement… and the freedom… the freedom that acknowledges, “No, we don’t all have to think the same way.” In fact, it doesn’t make sense to me that we all must think the same way; it doesn’t even seem wise. Repeatedly, we have witnessed how we are strengthened and sharpened by the different.

But that message seems increasingly counter-cultural, as in recent weeks, many have asserted that all “identities” must think alike… all of one gender to one ethnicity, all of one religion to one political party, even from all celebrities to all assault victims…

… that for some reason, we must think exactly alike, sharing the same perspective.

And if we don’t, unfortunately, two conclusions seem to be made, perpetuated by these so-called, humanly crafted tribes:

One, you are wrong.

And two, you are not really one of us. 

You do not — cannot — belong to my “tribe.”

Just like that we judge another, dismiss perspective, and kill the bold encouragement to “think different.”

Last week I walked with a trusted friend. We do so weekly and always look forward to the next week; this was no different. Strolling around the neighborhood, we shared and discussed our perspectives on recent current events. As we walked, we uncovered a significant area where our reactions were strikingly different; we did not agree. But instead of either of us walking away or refusing to listen or even concluding that we were totally in the right and the other was totally in the wrong, we walked longer, talked longer, asked more questions, and listened more intently. I don’t know that in the end either of us significantly altered our perspective, but I can say that there was no conclusion that one of us was totally right, the other was totally wrong, and that we are no longer similar to the other… that we are no longer capable of being trusted friends. There was instead a keen awareness, acceptance, and acknowledgement of the bold freedom — and inherent wisdom — to “think different.”

Note that for Apple, the “Think different” campaign was considered wildly successful. In addition to receiving numerous advertising accolades and awards, the campaign was said to have transformed the company and “marked the beginning of Apple’s re-emergence as a marketing powerhouse.”

Said, too, by Siltanen, “It was the exact kind of attention-getting and thought-provoking advertising Apple desperately needed.”

Think different.

Attention-getting…

Thought-provoking…

Desperately needed.

Maybe that’s what the rest of us need, too… an awareness, acceptance, and acknowledgement of the bold freedom — and inherent wisdom — to actually “think different.”

Respectfully…

AR