Category: Current Event

Posted on

the rhetorical dance

FullSizeRenderAs we witness the world’s reaction to the pursuit of the Islamic terrorists, there exists an evolving irony I just can’t seem to shake. I can’t quite put my finger on it, and yet it’s an inconsistency potentially saturated in some degree of ignorance and/or hypocrisy. Here are these terrorists… men and women motivated to kill based on religious reasons. So many leaders, however, tiptoe around the stated motive.

As previously referenced here, even though the terrorists shouted Muhammad’s name in France last week, our leaders were silent about the stated motive. In the initial public response by the White House last Wednesday morning, spokesman Josh Earnest even refused to call it “terrorism.”

But it’s not simply the omission of the motive that’s glaring; it’s the accompanying, rhetorical dance. In their first public comments, both Earnest, French Pres. Francois Hollande, and others declared multiple times that Islam is a “peaceful religion.” It’s as if the leaders of both France and America bend over backwards both to praise Islam and omit it as the killers’ motive at the same time. Their rhetorical two-step is a seemingly intentional attempt to both appease and ignore.

The dripping irony I thus see is the contrast with how America’s most popular religion is publicly articulated. According to Pew Research, over 75% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Christians are persons who have faith in the saving power of Jesus Christ. And yet, as previously discussed by the Intramuralist, there seems an intentional movement to remove any accreditation to God and Jesus in our country; there is very little public praise. No, I am not referring to the so-called “war on Christmas” or “war on teachers” or any other rhetorical misuse of military terminology. I do passionately believe, however, that although the pursuit is somewhat subjective, in recent years we have witnessed calculated, adrenalized attempts to remove the name of God and Jesus from our society.

Let me be more clear…  I am not speaking about the separation of church and state; respected persons have valid perspectives on all sides of said argument. I am instead addressing the removal of church from state — the total removal of God’s name from far more than our state. Separation is the intent expressed by some, for example, for the expulsion of seasonal nativity scenes on the public square.  Separation (albeit a comical stretch) is the school systems which no longer allow for the mention of Santa (… uh… even though Santa is already separate from the church and state). Many persons work to omit any reference to God or Jesus, with many also seemingly wanting to eliminate Christianity from the public narrative.

Just last week NBC aired a commercial in which the Pledge of Allegiance was articulated. The chorus echoed it as follows: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” They omitted God’s name; no one nation “under God” was acknowledged. In a later, apologetic statement — only after a social media uproar — NBC acknowledged the elimination was intentional.

So back to the evolving irony…

Our leaders are going out of their way to intentionally characterize the religion of Islam as one that is peaceful and rational. Less than 1% of America’s overall adult population identifies themselves as Muslim. Obviously, therefore, our leaders either believe or want us to believe that the terrorists are distorting the religion. My presumption is that in order to counteract the negative impression that is building by the multiple terrorist attacks continuing across the globe, our leaders are speaking out on Islam in order to paint a more respected impression. At the same time they publicly praise Islam, though, many are accepting of being quiet about the saving power of Jesus Christ.

Something is not ok about that. Something is inconsistent.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

it is what it is

FullSizeRenderLongtime friends of the Intramuralist will be familiar with my lack of fondness for the term, “it is what it is.” My opinion is based on the inherent reality that “it” is always something more. “It is what it is” is what we say when we don’t know what else to say…  like when Ted Turner didn’t want to elaborate on his multiple divorces, saying, “I regret that I wasn’t more successful with my marriages, but it is what it is”… or after the NBA’s Pacers and Pistons brawled in the stands, and guard Reggie Miller said, “Obviously, you never want to see something like that happen, but it is what it is.”

We claim “it” to be “what it is” when there’s more to the situation than we either can — or want — to divulge. Today the Intramuralist advocates for the respectful calling of what “it” actually is…

Yesterday, most of us saw that Islamic terrorists shot and killed 12 persons at the Paris office of the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo. Four of the magazine’s well-known cartoonists, including its editor, were among those killed. The weekly newspaper is known to be irreverent, anti-religious, and left-wing. While they have been threatened, hacked, and even fire-bombed by those taking issue with their satire of Islam, the publication’s shtick is to poke fun at all religion.

Note that I called the gunmen “Islamic terrorists.” I call them “terrorists” because the men created terror by gunning down innocent victims. I call them “Islamic” because witnesses said that they heard the gunmen shouting “we have avenged the Prophet Muhammad” and “Allahu Akbar” (“God is Great” in Arabic) during the the attack.

In response, Pres. Obama initially called the attacks “violence,” but then invited the press into the Oval Office and condemned the “horrific shooting.” An official White House press release then called it a “terrorist attack” and noted how France “has stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the fight against terrorists who threaten our shared security and the world.” Sec. of State John Kerry called it a “vicious act of violence.” Homeland Security Sec. Jeh Johnson said that the “terror threat is complex.”

They each agreed with the identification of terrorism. They each also omitted one specific adjective. Simultaneously (based on this observer’s very informal perusal), ABC News, CNN, FOXNews, and Reuters were identifying the attack as both “Islamic” and “terror.”

Friends, I understand the need to be cautious and not to incite. Such is part of the reason I’ve been respectfully critical lately of some specific, civil activists. But why the omission of the specific, motivation here, actually articulated by the terrorists?

For the past 13 years, our one nation under God has been more intentional in rooting out the terror that passionately desires to destroy us. We can’t, however, be victorious in that pursuit if we are unwilling to call “it” what it is. “It” is Islamic terrorism. As even the oft disrespectful TV host Bill Maher articulated last fall, “Vast numbers of Christians do not believe that if you leave the Christian religion you should be killed for it. Vast numbers of Christians do not treat women as second class citizens. Vast numbers of Christians do not believe if you draw a picture of Jesus Christ you should get killed for it.” Maher added that to claim that Islam is like other religions is “just naive and plain wrong.” He’s calling “it” what it is.

Please know I would never knowingly advocate for disrespect. I do believe, though, that in order to root out this obvious evil, we must first be willing to call “it” what it is.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

great scott

stuart-scott-293x350I suppose it’s true that most of us will go out not with a bang but a whimper. Longtime ESPN anchor Stuart Scott was right when he remarked the following to the watching world last July: “When you die, it does not mean that you lose to cancer. You beat cancer by how you live, why you live, and in the manner in which you live.”

Stuart Scott passed away Sunday morning after a seven year, ongoing battle with cancer. He was 49.

I’ve thought about how to best honor Scott here. I did not know him. Granted, I have heard his trademark “BOO-YAH” for years — and chuckled almost always right on cue. Scott joined ESPN in 1993 when they established ESPN2. His colloquial style and honest approach caught the eye even of the less traditional sports fan. He had an authentic warmth that seemed to exude through any screen.

My heart is perhaps most touched thinking of an exchange Scott offered some five years ago. At the time, Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow was attempting to transition from the college to professional grid iron. Tebow, ever a gentle gentleman, often found himself the center of controversy by his choice of eye black — the small black patches many football players don beneath their eyes in order to reduce the glare. Like many, Tebow was intentional in placing a message on his eye black. His contemporaries — players such as Rey Maualuga, DeSean Jackson, C.J. Spiller, and multiple others — also customized the patches — highlighting everything from their parents, high school nicknames, and even Spiller’s hometown church.

But Tebow consistently wrote scripture references on the glare-reducing tool. In fact, in the 2009 BCS Championship game, Tebow wrote “John 3:16” on his eye black. In the succeeding 24 hours, the scripture reference was the most searched phrase on Google, generating over 90 million searches. That much attention generates even more controversy.

A man named “Dave” from Maryland questioned the practice in an online ESPN chat room. He wrote: “What’s with the Bible citations on Tim Tebow’s eyeblack, Stu? If I were a player and had ‘There is’ written on one side of my face and ‘no God’ on the other, would that be okay?”

Stuart Scott minced no time nor words in his gracious response…

“Dave, if that what you want to do, I don’t care. But Tim and I and billions of other believers in the world know you’d be wrong.  I’ve seen the workings of God many times in my life, like when my two daughters were born.  If you don’t believe in God, watch a child be born.  Then if you still say you don’t believe in God, that’s okay. The thing is, I think He’ll watch over you anyway!”

Boo-yah, Stuart Scott… boo-yah.

T.S. Eliot may have been right when he ended his infamous “The Hollow Men” poem years ago:

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.

Stuart Scott was also right; the bang or the whimper doesn’t matter. What matters is how we live.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

happy new year!

ChampagneHappy New Year, friends! I was thinking of the brand new year and all it entails, and I must confess: yes, I was thinking of making resolutions. I get that resolutions are something we tend to simultaneously love and loathe. We know they’re good for us; we just don’t always enjoy the discipline healthy ambitions typically require.

Let’s also face it: often our list of annual ambitions is fairly similar to the year prior… we want to eat better, exercise more, and be a little nicer. Those are healthy aims. They’re still not always fun to resolve to do and then be held accountable.

Hence, I’ve been tooling with how to minimize the loathing for this year’s process. I wonder… how would it affect our fair-weather moods if instead of the stereotypical, annual process — instead of making challenging resolutions for ourselves — we made resolutions for other people?   🙂

For example…

For all teenagers (and adults)… I resolve to never text and drive.

For the NFL’s Roger Goodell… I resolve to be consistent in my discipline.

For NYC Mayor Bill deBlasio… I resolve to support both the people and police with both actions and words.

For all federal, state, and local governments… I resolve to not spend any more money than I take in.

For the IRS… I resolve not to be biased.

For Pres. Obama… I resolve to remember I’m only the President and not a writer of law.

For Congress… I resolve to remember I’m only a legislator and not the executor of law.

For Joe Biden… I resolve to run for President (please… your expressions would make it so much more entertaining for us all).

For Jeb Bush & Hillary Clinton, etal… I resolve to finally realize we don’t need the same families always in the White House.

For Chris Christie… I resolve to lose another 50 lbs. (I’m telling you; it’s your way to most effectively relate to half the population of the country — far more effective than any policy initiative).

For all politicians… I resolve to rely less on my teleprompter and speak more transparently than utilizing professional-speech-writer’s, rhetorically-pleasing remarks.

For Al Sharpton… I resolve to quit inciting disrespect.

For all cyberspace users… I resolve to never allow Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, Tumblr, or texting to substitute for authentic conversation.

(And again) For all cyberspace users… I resolve to be respectful in each of my expressions and rants.

Ok, ok… maybe we’re distorting the process here slightly. It’s not our job — nor are we capable of establishing aims for other people. Each of us has to choose to work on what’s healthy. I do wish we’d all be respectful… I do wish we’d realize that respect doesn’t equate to allowing a person to speak but still quietly inside, hold on to how stupid we think they are… I do wish we’d learn to listen, converse, and ask questions of all. That’s challenging for most of us — and for many of the above.

It may be easier to eat better, exercise more, and be a little nicer.

Respectfully… and Happy New Year…

AR

Posted on

tragedy


30439_1506502386326_1347283030_1356311_8331309_nAfter a third day of searching — with seekers and searchers and planes equipped with all sorts of rescue gear scouring the waters of a square mile area comparable to the State of California — they have now found traces of AirAsia Flight QZ8501. All 162 passengers are feared dead. More information, bodies, and debris will most likely be heartbreakingly discovered after this posting.

This is a tough one, friends. Granted, it’s no tougher than the never-found Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 last March or the intentional shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over the Ukraine in July. It’s hard to fathom the depth of the tragedy.

Tragedy is not indigenous to airline malfunctions. It is a tragedy to watch a loved one suffer, the disabled struggle, or a child starve. It’s a tragedy to witness any heart that breaks. Tragedy is one of the admitted, hardest challenges as a known part of life on planet Earth. As we’ve watched the search and rescue teams from a combination of countries anxiously search the Asian waters, that gut-wrenching reality has become all the more clear.

I continue to see pictures of the passengers’ families — relatives heartbreakingly huddled in a small room filled with little but shock and somber apprehension. There are no smiles. No laughs. Only tear-laden, grim glances, rarely looking up, as the hopes of individual survival dissipates each added tick of the clock. The pictures make the empathetic heart only share in such tears and grim glances.

So I think to myself… if one of us were to walk in that room right now, what would we say? What would we share?

If we were to walk into the room of those hurting, huddled masses yearning for their loved ones, what would we, could we, possibly utter?

I’d like to somehow humbly offer here, how the Intramuralist has just the right answer — that we know just the right words to soothe the aching heart — but I do not. Tragedy is not something that can be healed or glossed over by words or empty promises. Tragedy and brokenness can also not be soothed by any arrogance… self-servingness… revenge… rhetorical Band-Aids… insult or oppression of someone else…

And then I think of other tragedies outside of airplane accidents — especially these past few months — and how too often the hollowness of all of the above is justified. It cannot fill the ache.

What words and truth actually heal?

As we come to the end of another calendar year, I am poignantly reminded to focus on what’s most important and to always live with eternity in mind — to remember that there must be more to this life — more than just trying to make it through the day. I try to think of what’s bigger. Who is this great big God of the universe — who had to have created me — because something cannot come from nothing. What would God desire of me? If I can figure that out, my strongest sense is I will have value, purpose, and hope… a hope that would gird me through these tragedies.

Would I say that to the huddled masses in that room?

No… not right away at least. For now, I would simply be by their side… saying very little… praying… quietly letting them know I share their broken heart.

Respectfully… always…

AR

 

Posted on

who are we?

A fascinating statement…

With the questionable on-again/off-again moves by Sony Pictures these past two weeks considering release of a controversial movie after threats from North Korea, Pres. Obama addressed the issue in a year end press conference. He said, “We cannot have a society in which some dictator some place can start imposing censorship here in the United States… that’s not who we are.”

When Obama announced this fall that he has the executive authority to alter immigration law, he delivered a prime time address in which he acknowledged that while criminals still need to be deported, deporting millions of others “isn’t realistic.” To defend his controversial move, he added, “It’s also not who we are as Americans.”

Again, after a controversial, questionably substantiated report was released in December by Senate Democrats regarding CIA tactics after 9/11, Obama publicly responded, “Some of the tactics that were written about in the Senate Intelligence report were brutal and, as I’ve said before, constituted torture, in my mind. And that’s not who we are.”

We are always declaring who we are not. It’s also not always Pres. Obama…

Last week as the annual bowl game season commenced, Brigham Young and the University of Memphis found themselves in a tight, two-overtime contest, with Memphis finally edging out the Cougars 55-48. With the game complete in addition to both teams’ dreams of winning, a brawl broke out on the field. Dozens of players partook in the punching. Said Memphis coach Justin Fuente in the immediate aftermath, “I don’t know what happened at the end… It’s not who we are.”

So what is this notion of declaring “it’s not who we are”? Note that the practice is not to actually declare who we are; it’s declaring who we are not.

Who, no less, is capable of declaring such? And what’s the reason for the declaration?

As with many rhetorical one liners, it seems to this semi-humble observer that impression management must be motive #1… “impression management”… saying or doing things around other people in order to convey a specific impression. Obviously, for example, the head coach of the Memphis football team does not want the watching world to think of his team as a bunch of thugs who beat up on other people… “that’s not who we are.” True. They are not. But they are a team who got into a significant fight at the end of the game…

… we are a nation that deports the illegal… we are a nation that has struggled with censorship… we are a nation which had to find a way to respond to 9/11… we are a nation that has made good decisions and poor decisions… and we are a nation that often disagrees on what those are.

My point is that the “not who we are” line is more about controlling the narrative that an actual truthful statement. Allow me to speak for myself. I’ve made my share of foolish mistakes. I’ve said some stupid things, done some stupid things, and put my foot in my mouth on one too many occasions.  It still — unfortunately — happens.  Is that who I am?

That’s not the right question. Better put would be, “Is it consistent with who I want to be?” No, not at all. But we are each capable of saying and doing some stupid things. That, truthfully, is who we are.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

hope & pain

150334_162204953821786_100000968467983_295251_2467866_n[Borrowed and slightly edited from a blog this week by Justin Taylor, Crossway Sr. VP & publisher, in a historical account giving each of us hope amidst our pain — putting life into perspective…]

In March of 1863, 18-year-old Charles Appleton Longfellow walked out of his family’s home on Brattle Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and—unbeknownst to his family—boarded a train bound for Washington, DC., over 400 miles away, in order to join President Lincoln’s Union army to fight in the Civil War. Charles was the oldest of six children born to Fannie Elizabeth Appleton and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, the celebrated literary critic and poet. Charles had five younger siblings: a brother (aged 17) and three sisters (ages 13, 10, 8—another one had died as an infant).

Less than two years earlier, Charles’s mother Fannie had died from a tragic accident when her dress caught on fire. Her husband, awoken from a nap, tried to extinguish the flames as best he could, first with a rug and then his own body, but she had already suffered severe burns. She died the next morning, and Henry Longfellow’s facial burns were severe enough that he was unable even to attend his own wife’s funeral. He would grow a beard to hide his burned face and at times feared that he would be sent to an asylum on account of his grief.

When Charley (as he was called) arrived in Washington D.C. he sought to enlist as a private with the 1st Massachusetts Artillery. Captain W. H. McCartney, commander of Battery A, wrote to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow for written permission for Charley to become a solider. HWL (as his son referred to him) granted the permission.

Longfellow later wrote to his friends [Sen.] Charles Sumner, [Gov.] John Andrew, and Edward Dalton (medical inspector of the Sixth Army Corps) to lobby for his son to become an officer. But Charley had already impressed his fellow soldiers and superiors with his skills, and on March 27, 1863, he was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the 1st Massachusetts Cavalry, assigned to Company “G.”

After participating on the fringe of the Battle of Chancellorsville in Virginia (April 30-May 6, 1863), Charley fell ill with typhoid fever and was sent home to recover. He rejoined his unit on August 15, 1863, having missed the Battle of Gettysburg.

While dining at home on December 1, 1863, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow received a telegram that his son had been severely wounded four days earlier. On November 27, 1863, while involved in a skirmish during a battle of of the Mine Run Campaign, Charley was shot through the left shoulder, with the bullet exiting under his right shoulder blade. It had traveled across his back and skimmed his spine. Charley avoided being paralyzed by less than an inch.

He was carried into New Hope Church (Orange County, Virginia) and then transported to the Rapidan River. Charley’s father and younger brother, Ernest, immediately set out for Washington, D.C., arriving on December 3. Charley arrived by train on December 5. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow was alarmed when informed by the army surgeon that his son’s wound “was very serious” and that “paralysis might ensue.” Three surgeons gave a more favorable report that evening, suggesting a recovery that would require him to be “long in healing,” at least six months.

On Christmas day, 1863, Longfellow—a 57-year-old widowed father of six children, the oldest of which had been nearly paralyzed as his country fought a war against itself—wrote a poem seeking to capture the dynamic and dissonance in his own heart and the world he observes around him. He hears the Christmas bells and the singing of “peace on earth” (Luke 2:14) but observes the world of injustice and violence that seemed to mock the truth of this statement. The theme of listening recurs throughout the poem, leading to a settledness of confident hope even in the midst of bleak despair…

I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day, 
their old familiar carols play, and wild and sweet the words repeat
, of peace on earth, good will to men.



I thought how, as the day had come,
 the belfries of all Christendom, 
had rolled along the unbroken song
, of peace on earth, good will to men.



And in despair I bowed my head:
 “there is no peace on earth,” I said,
 “For hate is strong and mocks the song
, of peace on earth, good will to men.”



Then pealed the bells more loud and deep: “God is not dead, nor doth he sleep;
 the wrong shall fail, the right prevail,
 with peace on earth, good will to men.”



Till, ringing singing, on its way,
 the world revolved from night to day,
 a voice, a chime, a chant sublime,
 of peace on earth, good will to men!

Respectfully… with hope… always…

AR

Posted on

music in my ears

As Christmas is coming, the goose is getting fat, and the mall subtly echoes jingling melodies in every shopper’s ear, it causes this semi-humble observer to pause and reflect upon the reality of the season. I actually find it fascinating, how the life and death of Jesus Christ is one of the few events in which we allow time to alter history. “It happened so long ago; we just can’t know for certain,” becomes the familiar, sometimes accepted, societal refrain. And yet, we don’t allow time to change the fact of the reign of the Roman Empire nor that Columbus sailed the ocean blue. The life of Jesus, however, perhaps because of how we feel about some of his teachings, is often a fact rationalized away via the passage of time.

Allow me to humbly share this day a few facts that cause me to pause — brief reasons I know he is real. I speak not from scripture itself (… which I also find to be incredibly fascinating… all the ways inspired prophecies are fulfilled hundreds of years later… so humbling and overwhelming to actually study and read… putting my predetermined opinions aside). There are a few significant facts, no less, that strike me… even with that music in my ears:

  • There exist more than 5600 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, the biblical account that begins with the birth of Jesus and then chronicles his life. Contrastingly, we have 7 Greek manuscripts of Plato’s work, 49 of Aristotle’s, and 643 of Homer’s “Iliad.” Academia presents each of these as unquestionably true.
  • Jesus is acknowledged in the major religions which do not worship him. Islam says he was a great prophet. Judaism identifies him as a great teacher. The bottom line is that neither denies Jesus walked this planet.
  • Hundreds of witnesses attested to Jesus’s life and death. People who actually saw him and saw his death spoke of it. Allow me to quote Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, Professor Emeritus of History at Miami University, as told by writer Josh McDowell: “What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, ‘If you do not believe me, you can ask them.’ Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago.” Let’s take the more than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His death and burial, and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 people were to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50 hours of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and you would well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history.

I will admit to often wrestling with some of the things Jesus said. They’re not always easy to apply, and I don’t always like the way I feel about what is said. Rarely, however, do I wrestle with what is true.

I’m thus quietly, gleefully moved by that music in my ears this time of year.

Respectfully…

AR

[Intramuralist note:  multiple sources were used for this post, including but not limited to the following: “Archaeology and History Attest to the Reliability of the Bible” by Richard M. Fales, Ph.D., “Unshakeable Foundations” by Norman Geisler & Peter Bocchino, the works and studies Josh McDowell, and Wikipedia.]

Posted on

a lack of comprehension

I witnessed a fascinating exchange this week. ABC’s “The View” hosts were again passionately bantering — this day about the evolution and effects of racism — when Whoopi Goldberg and Rosie O’Donnell seemed to somewhat tear into one another. O’Donnell boldly made the comment that “you don’t have to be black to know what racism is!” Goldberg immediately fired back, “Yes, you do!”

I find that fascinating. I mean, I get it. I really get it. I get that when we have a unique scenario or hardship in our life, we conclude that others who have not the hardship do not comprehend what we do — that others are actually incapable of understanding. Those who have been oppressed by racism, for example, have experienced a plight that others have not. It’s a plight that hurts… that’s hard… that comes with a unique set of challenges. We must not diminish the plight of another even and especially when different than our own.

We’re tempted, no less, to reserve that lack of comprehension distinction in other areas…

You don’t have to be an atheist to know what unbelief is…

You don’t have to be adopted to know what rejection is…

You don’t have to have cancer to know what suffering is…

You don’t have to be a single parent to know what loneliness is…

You don’t have to be gay to know what discrimination is…

You don’t have to be poor to know what sacrifice is…

And still many of us adamantly respond: yes, you do.

Like I said, I get it. I get how we conclude that someone who shares not our circumstances or life stage is incapable of comprehension. To the Intramuralist, that’s a logical conclusion. It’s also a conclusion I’m thankful to have not always made.

Once again on Thursday, I referenced the wisdom of my youngest son. Yes, Josh is pretty amazing. He’s a growing, budding, delightful young teen who seems to be sprouting in wisdom in a whole new way. He has changed the way I think, and he has challenged me to grow in areas I otherwise would have missed. Josh has Down syndrome.

When Joshua was born 13 years ago, I remember quickly connecting with other parents of kids with such a special need. We somewhat flocked to one another, as we shared a similar, obvious plight. My sense was we were able to more immediately empathize with one another, recognizing that each of us faced a shocking loss in the expectations of who our children would grow up to be.

While I’ve come to realize as a parent that we have to alter the expectations for each of our children (with Josh, that change was simply forced at birth), I learned something else at the time which I believe was also especially wise…

While flocking to those with like scenarios was comforting because I knew they understood, it was wrong of me to assume that those who did not share my circumstances were incapable of understanding. The longer I clung tightly to my bubble of disbelief — that similar experience was the only means to comprehension — the longer I was challenged to grow outside that bubble.

Friends, there is no judgment in my words. Like I said, I get it. I get it. It is tempting when we experience a plight that hurts, that’s hard, and that comes with a unique set of challenges, to conclude that no one else gets it. The added challenge is that we then widen the division with others, and end up bantering and shouting and making assumptions — instead of ever positively and productively dealing with the issue and emotion at hand.

Respectfully… never with shouting…

AR

Posted on

peace on earth

As we watch the world around us, I see so many struggling for peace. We want it; we crave it. We keep looking for peace, albeit often in all the wrong places.

We look for peace in human history, but the pages are littered with centuries of war and conflict. We look for peace in current events, and yet…

… there is no peace in the racial unrest, seen vividly via protest (some peaceful — some violent) around the country…

… there is no peace in the religious unrest, seen vividly via violence around the globe (possibly motivating this week’s hostage siege in Sydney, Australia).

Just last week four children — all under the age of 15 — were beheaded by ISIS, the raging, radical Islamic group. What was the supposed sin of the four murdered in Iraq? They refused to renounce the name of Jesus Christ.

There is no peace in the conflict with ISIS. If we were one day able to fully thwart their barbaric behavior and future capability, halting their cruelty still fails to change the heart of the radical who still savors savaging the infidel. Stopping ISIS does not solve the unrest; it does not create permanent peace. And if peace is not permanent, I question if it’s truly peace.

There is no peace in the current racial tension. As rallies swell in the streets from San Francisco to New York City, this lack of peace is gut-wrenching; people are hurting. We hear the understandable chants of black lives matter — and they do… They do! But now it has become disrespectful and politically incorrect to acknowledge that “all lives matter” — which they also do. But until we get that — until creed or color is never seen — until we all stop empathizing only with some — assuming another side is ignorant or stupid or some other derogatory term — there will be no peace. Again, there will be no condition that’s permanent; and that’s what we truly crave: permanent peace.

So I ask: can peace on Earth truly exist? And if so, how?

Surely it’s not by shouting at one another, demanding others must “think like me”… surely it’s not by declaring how right “I am” and pouncing on the presumed sins of another — how wrong they are… surely it’s not by any means of intentional dishonor or disrespect. Where then does peace come from?

I find it eerily ironic that here we are with so much obvious unrest in the world — from the streets of Ferguson to the deserts in the Middle East — and yet it’s hard to escape the “peace on Earth” mantra that is continually piped into our ears this holiday season. This time of year, seemingly all around us, from the constant car radio to the musical tracks subtly echoing in the local mall, we hear that bold, prominent proclamation, a promise of hope and of lasting peace… a peace that’s permanent… “Peace on Earth… good will to men.”

As I think of this unrest and despair on planet Earth — in these conflicts in which we clamor for peace — I’m reminded of the that “old familiar carol” that plays, as penned by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow in the latter half of his song:

And in despair I bowed my head: “There is no peace on earth,” I said; “For hate is strong and mocks the song , Of peace on earth, good will to men.”

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep: “God is not dead, nor doth he sleep; The wrong shall fail, the right prevail, With peace on earth, good will to men.”

Till, ringing, singing, on its way, The world revolved from night to day, A voice, a chime, a chant sublime, Of peace on earth, good will to men!

We hear the refrain in the music in the malls. We hear the claims of available peace amidst all conflict. I want a peace like that.

Respectfully…

AR