Month: July 2017

Posted on

death to our relationships

On the recent holiday, columnist Christine Emba wrote an insightful piece for The Washington Post. She shared that “in between the flags and fireworks, such a major milestone is as good a moment as any to take stock of how our relationship is doing.” And then she spoke of the deteriorating communication in our country. Utilizing the research and wisdom of The Gottman Institute, co-founded by married doctors John and Julie Gottman, and respected for years by the Intramuralist, I thought her application of the Gottman’s “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” — communication styles that can predict the end of a connection — was excellent. Said Emba, “These four — criticism, defensiveness, stonewalling and contempt — spell death when it comes to interpersonal relationships.”

Death to our relationships. What a sad state of society.

Emba continues in her analysis… (Note: please remove all partisan hats… know, too, that the added emphasis is mine…)

“… Unfortunately, today’s United States has all four in spades.

Start with criticism: Making ad hominem attacks on a partner’s character, rather than discussing specific behaviors. C’mon, #Resistance: It can’t possibly be true that every Republican who supports stronger border vetting hates Muslims, or that anyone who opposes federal funding for Planned Parenthood is a creepy misogynist bent on instituting a ‘Handmaid’s Tale’-style forced-reproduction regime. Yet moral disparagement is too often the go-to stance. We’ve all but abandoned the harder path of seeking to understand the real reasoning behind an opponent’s views.

Then there’s defensiveness — self-protection in the form of performed victimhood or righteous indignation. ‘The media is lying about us,’ cries the right. ‘The news is fake, the papers are frauds, and all of them are conspiring to undermine us. And how dare reporters attack our president this way — have they no respect for the office?’ But Russia might have interfered in the election; the president might be profiteering from the Oval Office. Instead of addressing the real problems at hand, we seek out someone to blame.

Stonewalling, when one listener simply withdraws from the conversation, is one horseman that has been at a full gallop for years. In 2009, even before Barack Obama was inaugurated as president, Republicans resolved that, in the words of one former senator, ‘If he was for it, we had to be against it.’ The policy held through two full terms. In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blocked confirmation hearings for Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland for an unheard-of eight months. A recipe for productive give-and-take? Not so much.

The most destructive of all is contempt: true meanness, statements handed down from a position of superiority and meant to disrespect. In marital relationships, contempt is the single greatest predictor of divorce. In our national debate, it’s become all too common. Hillary Clinton famously lamented the ‘basket of deplorables’ opposing her during the election; as the new administration moved forward on its agenda, one New York magazine analysis was headlined ‘No Sympathy for the Hillbilly.’ To many on the left, Trump voters are fools. A loss of dignity, autonomy and health care is exactly what they deserve.

It’s an equal-opportunity problem, and, no, it isn’t all about President Trump: Both right and left have engaged in the breakdown-inducing behaviors that have put our democracy on the edge of divorce. While the right has been the source of some of the more obvious offenses in recent years, these aren’t new phenomena — and the fixes aren’t, either.

Though the Gottmans were speaking to unhappy couples, their advice suggests a way forward. The antidote to criticism is to offer a critique of the specific problem at hand, rather than resorting to attack. To end defensiveness, take responsibility. Building a culture of respect can end contempt. Boorishness has an equal and opposite reaction, but breaking the cycle of anger requires that someone — from either party! — step up and take responsibility for change, even if the results aren’t immediately apparent.

While a national political system isn’t quite the same as a marriage, it’s built on the same foundation: a commitment to shared values, a positive approach to conflict, strong communication.

Perhaps for our 242nd anniversary, we can trade a few horsemen for an attempt at harmony. Our relationship may be on the rocks, but it’s still worth saving.”

Amen and well said.

Take off the partisan hats, friends… as neither side is anywhere close to cornering the market on wisdom, integrity, and especially, communicating consistent respect to all.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

without compromising

Sometimes we’re at our best when speaking the elementary to adolescents. We’re more clear, more concise…

We’re better at sharing wisdom in ways that are patient and gentle without compromising boldness or truth.

We point fewer fingers. We emphasize the hope.

Perhaps because it wasn’t a campaign rally or PR event, there wasn’t a massive news media presence nor was there any reliance upon a TelePrompter. There also was thus minimal reporting on the address when it was given. Here was Chief Justice John Roberts, delivering the ninth-grade commencement address at Cardigan Mountain School in a small New Hampshire town.

With his son in the audience, he shared what The Washington Post would later publicize in an article entitled:

“The Best Thing Chief Justice Roberts Wrote This Term Wasn’t a Supreme Court Opinion.”

After solely reading one paragraph of his approximate 11 minute address, the Intramuralist concurs. After instructing the students to stand and applaud their parents and others who had provided significant guidance — and then joked that he would later be able to report that his speech was “interrupted by applause” — Roberts shared the following wise words with the budding teens:

“From time to time in the years to come, I hope you will be treated unfairly so that you will come to know the value of justice. I hope that you will suffer betrayal because that will teach you the importance of loyalty. Sorry to say, but I hope you will be lonely from time to time so that you don’t take friends for granted. I wish you bad luck, again, from time to time so that you will be conscious of the role of chance in life and understand that your success is not completely deserved and that the failure of others is not completely deserved either.”

How often are we impatient? … solely looking at the negative? … simply pleading or demanding that our circumstances change?

Are we missing the blessing? … the blessing in which…

Unfairness helps us know justice…
Betrayal teaches us loyalty…
And loneliness shows us the need for friendship and fellowship…

Roberts continues…

“Over the last couple of years, I’ve gotten to know many of you young men pretty well. And I know you are good guys. But you are also privileged young men. And if you weren’t privileged when you came here, you’re privileged now because you have been here. My advice is don’t act like it. When you get to your new school, walk up and introduce yourself to the person who is raking the leaves, shoveling the snow or emptying the trash. Learn their name, and call them by their name during your time at the school. Another piece of advice — when you pass by people you don’t recognize on the walks, smile, look them in the eye, and say hello. The worst thing that will happen is that you will become known as the young man who smiles and says hello. And that is not a bad thing to start with.”

Since all men are created equal, it’s wise to treat each other as such.

Smile and say “hello” to all those along your path. Don’t look down on or point fingers at anyone; neither wins friends nor influences people for good.

I love it when one is wise but still patient and gentle without compromising boldness or truth.

Well done, Mr. Roberts… well done.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

Respect, Cheers, and Happy 4th…

241 years ago, the Declaration of Independence — a brilliant document written by Mr. Thomas Jefferson — was adopted by the Second Continental Congress. At war with Great Britain, the 56 signers announced the independence of the 13 sovereign states and that the American colonies would no longer be under British rule. The colonies seemingly operated independently for decades; this, no less, was the official decree…

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

The Intramuralist is no historian. I come from a layman’s perspective at best. But even sifting through the historical papers and accounts depicting the times, I still can’t completely grasp all that led up to such a decree. Learning much regarding those key political events from grade school on (… thank you, Mr. C… thank you still, Miss Jane…), after Britain neglected their American children for so long, when they finally did step in and attempt to actually focus on those across the Atlantic, Americans must have felt as if government was so out of touch… the rulers had been too distant and did not have Americans’ best interests in mind.

So what does one do? What does one do when our sense is that government is so out of touch?

I don’t believe we’re going out on too much of an editorial limb here to assert that a significant number of Americans — all over the partisan map — has felt government has been out of touch for years… decades, for some. Our self-evident truths have been distorted… “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”

The truths have not changed, but perceived distortion has been prominent.

Noting first that according to the declaration,“Governments are instituted among Men” in order “to secure these rights” — and also, that government’s power comes only from “the consent of the governed” — it seems we are struggling as a society for multiple reasons — reasons far bigger than the ego and efforts of any of the recent elect.

Distortion of the self-evident truths comes when we are judgmental… We sometimes look at ethnicities, ages, genders, and the religious faithful, etc. as something less than equal. We, for example, at times feel emboldened to judge both the LGBTQ and evangelical community. My sense is that we are not to aver nor render consequence upon either.

Distortion comes when we are demanding… We sometimes declare that in order for “me” to pursue “my” happiness, “you” need to accept what “I” do as good… “you” need to believe what “I” do… for “you” need to realize that “I” speak truth and therefore “you” do not. Friends, I wholeheartedly believe there is a respectful way to embrace “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” without demanding that everyone else thinks like “me.”

And finally, distortion of these truths comes when we no longer thank nor acknowledge who our unalienable rights have been endowed by. Government is not the giver of every good and perfect gift. Government is not omniscient nor omnipotent — especially in a government that only has power because the people governed have consented to such.

While the rhetorical, political climate seems to continuously digress — with each so-called “side” believing they are somehow justified in their denigration and denouncement — I am increasingly concerned that more will advocate for a separation from “the political bands which have connected them.” Granted, there’s a key difference between now and 241 years ago…

The persons who were out of touch in 1776 lived approximately 3,539 miles away. Today, the persons we may perceive to be out of touch might live right next door. Hence, a separation is not helpful, healthy, nor effective. Also not helpful is judgment. Demandingness. Nor a lacking in true thanksgiving.

This 4th of July, may we follow the founders’ final written words… together… with our neighbor… who may or may not think differently than we… “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

A brilliant declaration indeed.

May we mutually pledge our respect and support to one another.

Cheers. And happy 4th.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

amazing (judgment &) grace

What grace do we give to other people?
What grace do we give them, especially when they think differently?
Have we — maybe just you, maybe just me, maybe only the likeminded — have we cornered the market on wisdom?

I read a fascinating editorial this week, written by an online news contributor who consistently advocates for solely one side of the political aisle. I admire her eloquence. I admire the respect in her tone. I also admire her passion and compassion. She was sweetly advocating for loving our neighbor well.

As a person for whom loving our neighbor well is one of my top two priorities in life, I still found myself pausing at one point, troubled by her conclusion. To those who disagree with her chosen political approach, she wrote the following:

“There is a divide between our worldviews that can never be bridged… our disagreement is not merely political, but a fundamental divide on what it means to live in a society, how to be a good person, and why any of that matters… I can’t debate someone into caring about what happens to their fellow human beings.”

If one does not believe what the author believes, the author has concluded that the other person does not care about “what happens to their fellow human beings.”

The author has convinced herself that the other so-called side doesn’t care as much about other people as she does; she has found fault in their thinking. Finding fault only in another’s thinking, she no longer needs to wrestle with any fault in her own. She also then fails to wrestle with any validity in the opinion of another. While perhaps unknowingly done, that seems potentially judgmental and lacking in grace.

I wish we did a better job as a society of recognizing that we don’t know how each of us cares for other people. We don’t know how each of us uses our time, talents, and money as a means of loving God and our neighbor well… however perceived little or much time, talent, and money we’ve been given… how do we each use it well?

Who among us supports the building of an orphanage in Romania? … who among us gives annually to the Down Syndrome Association? … who among us uses our vacation to build a water system in Kenya, where there is no clean water for a remote, unpublicized village? And who among us volunteers for Hospice, visits a prisoner, or personally packs backpacks of food for the homeless?

And if others don’t do what we do, does that mean that they don’t care? … does that mean that only the person who gives their time, talents, or money is caring? … only they are empathetic? … that only the giver of that particular time, talent, or money — or holder of a specific political approach — loves their neighbor well?

We don’t know what each other does. Isn’t it therefore possible that we care for others differently but still well?

There’s no need to compare what we each do; there’s also no need to judge. Judgment is merely another form of comparison. Judgment also too often justifies the ending of respectful dialogue. I was sadly struck, in fact, how this editorial’s author added that she’s “done trying to convince these hordes of selfish, cruel people to look beyond themselves.”

… hordes of selfish people … cruel…

Is that us? … because we care differently?

My point is that while I appreciate the compassion behind various approaches — from government paying for healthcare to wanting government to be solvent to building that orphanage in Romania — it’s inaccurate to assume that a different approach equates to caring lesser. It’s inaccurate to assume that only those who want to give their time, talents, and money as we do, are empathetic. And to then suggest that there’s no need to talk to another any more… well, that seems to say more about a person’s impatience and unwillingness to listen than it says about the holder of a seemingly opposite approach. It’s not just a singular set of people that need to “look beyond themselves.”

I’m reminded of an incredible book I read years ago, “What’s So Amazing About Grace?” by Philip Yancey. In it, Yancey shares tale after tale of generous grace offerings, extensions of practical love that are so much broader and extensive than I have ever done, much less even considered. Each instance was an intentional choice of grace over judgment, when truthfully, judgment is most always the easier path.

Seeing how hard it is for us to give grace to one another consistently — especially to those holding varied opinion — grace is amazing indeed.

Respectfully…
AR