intramuralist ™

As I wrestle with reaction to recent current events, I find myself mentally thumbing through the mantra of why we can’t somehow just all get along. We don’t. We won’t. And thus there seems too much infighting to make any authentic progression. So our means of crafting solution becomes less about listening, respecting, and evaluating varied viewpoint; it instead becomes more about recruiting others to our supposed side. If recruitment is significantly successful, listening, respecting, and evaluating varied viewpoint become no longer necessary.

What I’ve noticed in our recent infighting, is that we can’t even agree on what is bad.

I’ll say that again: we can’t agree on what is bad. We fight about even that. Where is the moral clarity? What is the definition of right and wrong? Does such exist any more?

Most of us (most of the time) agree with what is right… love, joy, peace, patience, perseverance, kindness, charity, etc. But agreeing with what is bad is harder for us.

The most succinct, complete list seems embedded in the ancient scriptures. Let me offer an abbreviated paraphrase:

1. No other gods, only me.
2. No carved gods of any size, shape, or form of anything whatever.
3. No using the name of God, your God, in curses or silly banter.
4. Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and mother.
6. No murder.
7. No adultery.
8. No stealing.
9. No lies about your neighbor.
10. No lusting after your neighbor’s house, wife, possessions, etc.

A couple commands would benefit from added explanation… The idea of “no carved gods of any size, shape,” whatever, for example, means that our own two hands cannot create something that authentically serves as a god.

Secondly, regarding the call to honor the Sabbath… I suppose we each do that differently; but I think the underlying idea is similar to being intentional in setting a time aside each week to be still — to thank and reflect upon the One who made us… resting… recognizing this world isn’t and has never been “all about me.”

Today’s challenge comes in the other eight commandments. I don’t think we agree anymore that those are really so bad…

Honor your father and mother? (… well, until those parents don’t raise you the way the rest of us think they should…)

Adultery? (… well, sometimes you were just meant to be with someone else… if it feels right, it must be right…)

And no lies? No lusting? (… oh, come on… we all do that!)

My point is that what’s bad has digressed into a point of contention.

Note that when a person walks up D.C.’s First Street steps to the majestic Supreme Court Building, near the top of the building is a sculpted row of the world’s historic law givers. Most of the figures face the man in the middle who is facing forward; it is Moses holding the Ten Commandments. Fascinating in regard to the acknowledged infighting, in recent years some have argued what Moses is holding; they are two stone tablets… but, as some contend… There’s no visible writing on the tablets… Moses could have been holding something else!

I suggest that a single, even halfhearted viewing of Charlton Heston’s most epic role will leave little doubt what Moses could and would be holding.

That’s it. We fight about it. If we can diminish any significance of the Ten Commandments — as noted by their prominence in the highest court of the land — then we can justify acting as if what they actually say isn’t that bad.

But if we can’t agree on what’s bad, it’s pretty hard to discern what’s actually good.

Respectfully…
AR

Many of our longtime Intramuralist readers are aware that my professional background is in human resources. I was privileged to spend several years consulting after a career working for a highly respected hospitality management company. While the “semi” of my oft repeated “semi-humble” status would never allow me to say I was “the best,” I do believe I was trained by them (… thanks, JG).

Over the course of the last several years, no less, consistent with the progression, digression, or whatever of society you wish to call it, the HR field has changed significantly. There was always a plethora of forms… taxes, immigration, demographic info, etc. HR directors ensure the company has all their ducks, details, and doctrines all in a row.

Human resources also oversees all new hires. We meet, greet, they apply, we interview. Sometimes there’s a second interview. In the hospitality industry, typically the first interview is with HR alone and the second with the probable future supervisor. If all looks good, we would then check the person’s references, ensuring they are who they say they are — or are how they represent themselves.

But a funny thing happened during these years of progression/digression…

It used to be when I’d call former employers, I’d ask them to tell me a little bit about the their former employee’s performance record… What is this person like? How’d they do? How was their performance? What were their strengths… weaknesses? How did they interact with their peers? … supervisors? … subordinates?

And near the end of our call, I would ask, “Why did they leave? Are they eligible for re-hire?”

This process was always helpful — gleaning information in order to best discern who to hire and who to not. Every HR professional wants the right person in the right position — making sure skill set, gifting, and experience are commensurate with the job. If the person excelled in a recent job, it makes sense to know that, thereby potentially affirming a perceived future fit. If a person struggled, it made sense to know that, too, discerning any applicable relevance.

This process, however, is no longer routinely, fully in use. Due to the subjectivity that may enter into an assessment of past performance, companies found themselves liable if their record or perspective painted any picture of a past employee as anything less than positive. Even if the assessment was true — that the employee, for example, struggled getting along with others, was late, rude, had a temper, stole, refused to follow the rules, etc. — even though this would be helpful for a future employer to know in discerning fit — applicants sued past employers because this made them look something less than wonderful.

That’s one thing I perceive in this progression/digression of society… we have trouble when we paint a picture of something less than wonderful.

We keep feeding a festering culture that is fearful of making another look bad. We like to paint the picture — often making it more positive than it really is.

I chuckled last week receiving one of those “proud parent of my honor roll kid” stickers from my son’s school. Yes, my son, JT, does very well academically. The sticker, though, was for my youngest — the one with special needs on a modified curriculum.

I love it — I’m thankful they want to honor each of my kids, but it’s ok to be truthful and accurate about the strengths and weaknesses in each of our lives. There’s no need to worry if he looks something less than wonderful (…I, for one, find him incredibly wonderful!). But there is no need to omit details and be so politically correct.

In our society, unless a person is perceived as a bigot, racist, or some other derogatory, socially unacceptable position — our progressive/digressive culture can’t always handle the truth.

Why does it matter to call something what it is and respectfully share something perceived less than wonderful? Because then we can wrestle with reality — and can make a better assessment of what should happen next.

Respectfully…
AR

One of our long time family traditions is that at the onset of any vacation or significant road trip, as soon as we hit the interstate, we pop in our fave Ricky Martin CD, skip to song #9, and blast it through the car speakers…

“Do you really want it?
Do you really want it?
Do you really want it?…”

And so begins Martin’s rousing “Cup of Life” rendition from 1999. After the bold question of whether we really want something, we are then encouraged to “go, go, go.” My question today is whether we really always want what we say we do.

Think about authenticity…

Authenticity is the respected trait of sincerity within existence, expression, or intention. It’s saying what you mean and meaning what you say. It’s getting what you paid for. It’s knowing what you hear, see, and sense is the real deal. It’s not fake. It’s synonymous with genuineness and bona fides. We say we really want it…

… or at least we think we do.

And yet as we continue to watch at least the vernacular of our current polarized, political climate seemingly spiral downward, we still cling to the perceived value of scripts.

Scripts are prepared texts of what a person will or will not say.

They are poll-tested, time-tested, and ensured as much as humanly possible to produce a specific outcome or emotion. They are often great speeches.

But… they are not written by the deliverer of the address. Scripts are typically written by screen writers, speech writers, or campaign staffers because they have the best education and experience aimed at eliciting the desired emotion. Scripts are not the authentic words of the one doing the delivery. The deliverer may pose that “this is exactly how I feel — thanks for writing this script” — but yet, it would be more accurately said that “this is better than I can say it” — meaning his or her actual own words may not produce the yearned for outcome or emotion.

Scripts are not authentic.

They are not genuine nor bona fide.

They are written for a reason.

But we say we want authenticity. In fact, while it’s no secret that this semi-humble current events observer has serious concerns about the economic effect of the advocated policies of a President Sanders, it seems that many are attracted to his perceived authenticity. Authenticity is refreshing… especially when too many others are so scripted.

But herein lies the problem; if a person’s authenticity leads them to say something that feels especially harsh or incorrect, we sometimes seem to prefer the scripting. We prefer the inauthenticity.

Really? Do we prefer a person who says what we want to hear? … one who knows what to share how, and with which particular audience — meaning they are utilizing their script especially well?

Or… do we prefer a person who is authentic? … transparent then, too?

My sense here is there’s a little bit of having our cake and eating it, too, as it’s not an easy choice. We want authenticity as long as we don’t disagree too much with what’s actually expressed; hence, we don’t always really want it. We aren’t quite ready to “go, go, go” and dispose of the long held script.

Respectfully…
AR