AR – Page 96 – intramuralist ™

03/03/2016

singing

When contemplating today’s post, I knew it would be challenging for me to write. It was a year ago yesterday my 34 year old sister lost her courageous battle with cancer. FYI: I don’t like the word “lost” in that sentence. Nicole has always been beautiful and brave. Now, though, I fully trust that she has a far better eternal perspective than any of us here. That doesn’t equate to “losing” to me.

That said, knowing the emotional hurdle necessary to pen any post about anything lesser (which includes all that small stuff we still seem to sweat), I pulled out last year’s post, entitled “That’s My Sister” — a heartfelt tribute to Nicole in how she sharpened me and many… encouraging us to focus on what’s most important… on powerfully showing by example how deeply our faith matters… and on how we can hold onto hope regardless of circumstance.

I get that such is easier said than done. It also would have been easier for me to run with the previously penned post.

Yesterday morning, however, I noticed something. Alone in my quietness — wrestling with the weight and awareness accompanying this sobering anniversary — I heard a single sound…

I heard a bird outside, singing.

Then it donned on me… I know it takes time to grieve — lots of time. And I’m not certain my heart will ever fully be the same. But I never want the pain on this planet to keep me from hearing the bird outside, singing.

I believe that those who’ve faithfully gone before us — those who now have that unprecedented, amazing, unparalleled, eternal perspective — would encourage us to quit sweating the small stuff… to quit getting bogged down in the daily crud of life that causes us to be so demanding and self-focused. I believe they would encourage us to…

Keep the focus on what’s most important…
Grapple with your faith…
Come near to God…
Hold onto hope…
And never be so bogged down with the messiness of life that we miss the bird outside, singing.

Nicole, too, had a blog in which she sometimes chronicled her experience. In one of her final posts, she shared the following:

“As this journey may be tough for me, I know that many others are struggling with something in their life and I just ask that you take a moment and say a prayer for them. This weighs heavy on my heart, feeling like I have it pretty easy compared to so many others out there.

That being said, I would like to share the lyrics to a song by Steven Curtis Chapman that has hit me the past couple of weeks…

‘… I know this is not
Anything like you thought
The story of your life was gonna be
And it feels like the end has started closing in on you
But it’s just not true
There’s so much of the story that’s still yet to unfold

And this is going to be a glorious unfolding
Just you wait and see and you will be amazed
You’ve just got to believe the story is so far from over
So hold on to every promise God has made to us
And watch this glorious unfolding

God’s plan from the start
For this world and your heart
Has been to show His glory and His grace
Forever revealing the depth and the beauty of
His unfailing Love
And the story has only begun…’ ”

I hear her voice. I hear her hope. I also believe with all the wisdom Nicole has now she would encourage us to not get lost in the current events, emotions, and circumstances that threaten to pierce our peace; she would encourage us to trust God… and to always hear those birds…

…outside, singing.

With truth in my tears…

02/29/201602/29/2016

election update

Let’s be honest: it’s hard to talk about the 2016 election process.

Wait. I take that back.

It’s actually not hard to talk about it; there are many who are talking. They just aren’t all talking very respectfully.

The reality is that we don’t always talk respectfully either.

My sense is each of us is prone to falling prey to engaging in the ignorance or disrespect, trumping (tee, hee) one aspect over another… ignoring some of the realities of this race, due to preconceived ideas or desired results…

For example — and please don’t get mad — my desire here is to wrestle honestly and respectfully with the truth… each of these statements is — [sigh] — true…

… one party frontrunner has been regularly offensive to multiple people groups… another party frontrunner is under investigation by the FBI… multiple contending candidates have been caught in lies or mistruths… one candidate is touting socialism as a healthy form of economics… another candidate has articulated seemingly zero willingness to compromise… some have very little knowledge of foreign policy… and…

… I think arguably all candidates have forgotten that whoever is elected will represent all of us — not just a few, loyal, select some.

Part of the challenge is that we compare and contrast — suggesting that one person’s lack of integrity in one area — be it personal or intellectual — is not as bad as someone else’s. The challenge is that as soon as we make that conclusion, we often justify ignoring our preferred candidate’s obvious (to everyone else) flaws, and sometimes, often perhaps, then also justify in joining in the chorus of disrespect.

Let it be said that there is nothing wrong with healthy, constructive criticism. But from my limited vantage point, there is nothing healthy about any adult calling another a “lightweight,” “dope,” or “enemy” or referring to the size of another candidate’s ears. That, my friends, is not constructive criticism. Dare I suggest it’s not intelligent either.

And so this day I come with two questions:

First, what am I overlooking in my preferred candidate that’s significant?

And second, what have I ignored in my preferred candidate because the flaws of another make my candidate seem so smart, wholesome, and good?

As I wrestle with those questions, my primary concerns in this election currently are as follows:

(1) That we are overlooking what may be significant.
(2) That we are focusing too much on too few.
(3) That we don’t have the best candidates in the race. (… Joe, Condoleezza… where are you?)
(4) That we are not utilizing our critical thinking skills. And…
(5) That we are justifying disrespect.

As said, it’s hard to talk about the 2016 election process.

Change that: it’s hard to talk about it thoroughly, wisely, and respectfully.

Respectfully… yes…
AR

02/28/2016

childlike

All week I’ve been wrestling with the encouragement to become like a child… to think like a child… that there’s something about being childlike that’s actually good!

I struggle with that sometimes… holding on too tightly, perhaps, to all the knowledge and experience — like it or not — that accompanies us into adulthood… believing that’s all so beneficial and so much more vital than being a kid. And then a tiny moment reminds me that adulthood often serves as more of a distraction than any perch of wisdom…

Last weekend I had opportunity to get away for the weekend for some fun and reflection. While away, my spouse took two of my sons bowling. While bowling is not a frequent activity for our household, when it occurs, it is typically met with ample enthusiasm. It also can become quite competitive, as we tend to enjoy the competitive process (insert subtle “tee hee” here).

My hub was pleased; he still has it after all these years. My seventeen year old was also pleased; he enjoys his share of athletic success. And then there was my son, Josh.

As has been referenced here on multiple occasions, Josh is a thriving, articulate teenage boy. He does all those things fourteen year olds typically tend to do… talk, text, try to sneak a few things by the ‘rents, if you know what I mean. Josh also has Down syndrome.

One of the beautiful things about Josh’s so-called “special need” is that it seems to maintain that childhood status to some degree… acting like a child… thinking like a child. But it’s made me ask, “What does ‘childlike’ mean?”

I wish I had an easy answer. For a while, I camped on the concept of equating being like a child to something simpler — simpler thinking, something not as complex as us ever-knowledgeable and experienced adults. But that doesn’t totally make sense to me.

Then I wrestled with the idea of a “childlike faith” and all the accompanying misapplications… maybe not needing all the things we seemingly intelligent adults need to prove that we’re right… “No, we won’t believe… we won’t believe in something until they can prove it to us! We will not be fooled! Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, well…” Something about that doesn’t seem quite right either.

A wise friend then summed it up for me in eight words… eight words. To become like a child means to ask oneself: “what if I could lay aside my fear?”

… my fear of being wrong… my fear of not being perfect… my fear of failure… my fear of not looking good… my fear of needing someone or something more… my fear…

What if I could lay aside my fear?

What would I do? What would I think? How would I change? How would I grow? How would I relate to other people? How would I articulate opinion? Again, yes… how would I grow?

When I returned home for the weekend, Josh was sitting on the outside porch, eagerly awaiting my return. (Let me offer a quick, brief tangent: there’s something beautifully special about having your own enthusiastic welcoming committee each time you return home.)

But after a few, semi-subtle bear hugs and joyful jumps of unparalleled glee, Josh said, “Mom, Mom, guess what? Guess what?! You’re never going to believe this!!”

Note that my spouse had warned me that Josh might be a little discouraged after the bowling outing. They bowled two games without the bumpers. Josh scored a 40 and a 22. That’s averaging a mere four and a little more than two pins per frame. Hence, by all intellectual accounts, Josh bowled pretty poorly.

But Josh says, “I did it, Mom! I did it! I got my first strike without the bumpers!!”

The kid was overjoyed. Embedded in his ten-frame score of 22, there was a single strike — a strike both preceded and succeeded by gutter after gutter ball. Instead of being emotionally pierced by any ball in the gutter, Josh only saw what was best. He was not deterred nor distracted by any knowledge or experience…

“I got my first strike!”

May we aim for that childlike faith… may we never miss the beauty of the barren strike. May we know that it is good.

Respectfully…
AR

02/25/201602/25/2016

forget you (ooh, ooh, ooh)

As our ongoing dialogue continues, I remain fascinated by the diversity of our audience — by the many of you hailing from varied walks of life and who thoughtfully, consistently chime in with me, either publicly or privately. I deeply value your opinion and the ensuing, mutual sharpening. I have much to learn.

While there exist differences in the degree to which we individually sense challenges across the globe, one of the areas in which I see significant commonality among the diverse is the recognition of a seemingly ceaseless, moral digression in society.

One of the areas, however, in which I see significant uncertainty among the diverse is the reason for such perceived, moral digression.

Each May, in fact, beginning in 2002, Gallup polls Americans on their outlook on the state of values in the United States; it’s termed their “Values and Beliefs” poll. When asked last year whether the “state of moral values in the country as a whole is getting better or worse,” 72% said that they believe that the paradigm is worsening; in contrast, just 22% said that it is improving.

Consistent with the identified diversity of the Intramuralist’s audience, clear majorities of conservatives, social moderates and liberals agree that America’s moral standing is on the decline. Again according to Gallup’s results: 81% of conservatives say that moral values are worsening; 76% of social moderates concur, as do 58% of self-identified liberals.

Let me ensure I am totally transparent: I cannot offer the exact right answer as to why such a perceived decline exists. I don’t know. I doubt any could concisely identify the exact right reason (even if they rhetorically attempt to attach a political promise to such a perception). But as all good bloggers bravely do at times, I’m willing to take a semi-humble stab… as every now and then in my regular research and reading, a potential answer appears that hits me over the head — about as subtly as a divine two by four.

In the ancient scriptures, written thousands of years ago, I stumbled upon the following, profound question this week:

“What other great nation has a god so near to them like the Lord our God whenever we call on him?”

What a cool concept to think of a higher power being known so intimately and being so in tune to the needs of the people and what’s happening on the planet… One so known by the people that he is recognized to be there whatever the circumstance… one fully engaged… fully aware… omniscient and omnipotent… and… available… “whenever we call on him.”

The question, no less, is followed by:

“Again, however, pay very careful attention, lest you forget the things you have seen and disregard them for the rest of your life.”

Pay careful attention.

The above thus begs the question: is there a relationship between the current moral digression and not paying careful enough attention to what may be good, right, and true?

Have we forgotten something?

Do we teach what we’ve learned?

Is there truth we have callously disregarded?

Just asking questions, friends… wrestling with none other than those divine two by fours…

Respectfully…
AR

02/23/2016

best recent stories

With the plethora of polarizing stories in Washington these days (and with the Intramuralist taking a few extra days to invest in intentional respite), I found the following to be the more encouraging reports of the week. While aspects of each sometimes serve cause for annoyance for some — missing the bigger picture, I believe — the reality is that the bottom line of each brief story has something to do with great joy, empathy, and hope.

From NBC News this weekend…

“This 106-year-old admitted she never thought she’d live to visit the White House — and then gave the president and first lady a surprise of their own.
Virginia McLaurin danced her way across the room as she met Barack and Michelle Obama as part of Black History Month.
‘Slow down now, don’t go too quick!’ joked the president, clearly taken aback at the diminutive centenarian’s energy. The first lady told her: ‘I want to be like you when I grow up.’
McLaurin was born in 1909 in South Carolina and moved to Washington, D.C., in 1941, according to a community Facebook page set up for her. She told the Obamas: ‘I thought I would never live to get in the White House… I am so happy — a black president.’
The video of the meeting received almost 11 million views on the White House’s Facebook page in the first six hours after it was uploaded late Sunday.”

From ABC News…

“John Kasich ended his town hall at Clemson University in South Carolina this afternoon with a hug from a young man who told the Republican presidential candidate he gave him hope amid his personal despair.
During a question-and-answer session, 21-year-old Brett Smith told the Ohio governor he had driven up from Georgia to see him. A man close to him had recently killed himself, his parents had divorced and his father had lost his job, Smith said.
Amid a dark time in his life, Smith said, Kasich gave him hope.
‘I found hope,’ he said, standing before around 200 attendees. ‘I found it in the Lord and in my friends, and now I found it in my presidential candidate that I support, and I’d really appreciate one of those hugs you’ve been talking about.’
Kasich obliged, coming down from the stage and embracing the young man, a senior at the University of Georgia, as he choked up and blinked away tears.
‘The Lord will give you strength, I promise you, if you ask him,’ Kasich said in Smith’s ear.”

And finally, from the homily delivered by Rev. Paul Scalia, the son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, at the funeral Mass for his father on Saturday…

“…In the past week, many have recounted what Dad did for them. But here today, we recount what God did for Dad, how he blessed him…
God blessed Dad, as is well known, with a love for his country. He knew well what a close-run thing the founding of our nation was. And he saw in that founding, as did the founders themselves, a blessing, a blessing quickly lost when faith is banned form the public square, or when we refuse to bring it there. So he understood that there is no conflict between loving God and loving one’s country, between one’s faith and one’s public service. Dad understood that the deeper he went in his Catholic faith, the better a citizen and public servant he became. God blessed him with the desire to be the country’s good servant because he was God’s first…”

Here’s to great joy, empathy, and hope. May those aspects never annoy us. May we never miss the bigger picture.

Respectfully…
AR

02/21/201602/21/2016

the only angle?

Sixteen years ago, many of us were rocked by a shocking incident. The innocent lives of twelve teens and one teacher were claimed instantaneously. Awful. Twenty-four additional others were injured in the attack. The two responsible then committed suicide.

Two teen boys… killed themselves.

At first, there was shock. Then there was outrage.

On April 20, 1999, senior students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold committed the sadly infamous, Columbine High School massacre. Last week, for the first time — yes, sixteen years later — Sue Klebold spoke out.

Sue is the mother of Dylan. She spoke with ABC’s Diane Sawyer…

Like many parents, Sue Klebold was certain she would have known if something were wrong with her son. Allow me to say that again: she was certain that she would know.

But she did not.

“Before Columbine happened, I would have been one of those parents. I think we like to believe that our love and our understanding is protective, and that ‘if anything were wrong with my kids, I would know,’ but I didn’t know, and I wasn’t able to stop him from hurting other people. I wasn’t able to stop his hurting himself and it’s very hard to live with that.”

Isn’t that the reality?

We think we know when something’s wrong and when it isn’t.

But we don’t.

Said Klebold…

“I want people to be aware that things can seem awfully right when things are terribly, terribly wrong.”

What she wants to say to Columbine survivors and victims’ families…

“The one thing, of course, that I want to say is I am so sorry for what my son did, yet I know that just saying ‘I’m sorry’ is such an inadequate response to all this suffering. There is never a day that goes by where I don’t think of the people that Dylan harmed.”

Diane Sawyer emphasized, “You use the word ‘harmed.’ “

To which Klebold continued, “I think it’s easier for me to say harmed than killed. And it’s still hard for me after all this time… it is very hard to live with the fact that someone you loved and raised has brutally killed people in such a horrific way.”

Truth told, I’m not sure what the bottom line message is here today. I think the point is that it’s easier for us to cast fingers and stones when someone does us wrong. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris did us obvious, awful, heinous wrong.

But is that the only angle there is, to process what happened sixteen years ago? Is that the only perspective?

What helps us work it through even now?

What empathy is necessary for others involved? Is any empathy appropriate? Is it inappropriate?

Great questions. Wish I knew all the answers.

Just thankful we’re humble enough to ask and attempt to answer the questions.

Respectfully…
AR

02/18/201602/18/2016

the replacements

The hottest topics of the week seem to be whether or not Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia should be replaced by Pres. Obama or how Taylor Swift finally let Kanye finally have it at the Grammys. Since I prefer to focus on the supposed positive, let’s take a look at the court.

Justice Scalia passed away Saturday morning. The politics started that afternoon. (You may have just heard me sigh.) The question raised is whether Scalia’s seat should be filled by a nominee chosen by the sitting president or if the person elected in the November of 2016 elections should instead hold that responsibility.

First, some background…

Article II Section 2 includes the following: “He [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law.”

There is nothing that usurps the responsibility Pres. Obama currently holds to propose a nominee.

However, multiple Republicans have averred that Obama should not make such a proposal. Most notably, Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

Immediately there were claims of obstructionism.

Next, a problem…

In the summer of 2007, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) spoke to the left-leaning American Constitution Society. Note that at the time, Pres. George W. Bush had a year and a half left in his term. Schumer said: “We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not… I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally on the court.”

Note that Schumer’s vow was met with significant applause.

Hence, my conclusion…

Obstructionism occurs by both parties, but outrage is only claimed, feigned, and encouraged when it’s happening by someone else. Also, claims of obstructionism seem utilized most in attempts to turn the public against the so-called obstructionists. Sometimes it works. [Did you hear another sigh?]

Charles Lipson, the well respected, moderate Professor of Political Science and founder and director of the Program on International Politics, Economics and Security at the University of Chicago, has concisely positioned what’s happening like this:

No. 1: No nominee for the high court can get through the Senate before the election. No one.
No. 2: President Obama and the Democratic candidates for president know that. So do Republicans. All God’s children know it.
No. 3: Since the nominee will not be approved, Obama will use the opportunity to advance other goals. He will propose someone who burnishes his own progressive credentials and shows why control of the court depends on the November election. Putting Senate Republicans in an awkward position would be a nice bonus. But the target is November.
No. 4: Obama will nominate someone whose demographic characteristics help in the contests for president and U.S. Senate. That is not just his main criterion. It is his only one. The candidate could be from a purple state. Or a Latino. Or openly gay. Having finished law school would be a plus.
No. 5: The proposed candidate will not receive a Senate vote before the election or in the lame-duck session. If Mitch McConnell even considered it, he would become the former majority leader.
No. 6: Democrats and Republicans will both use the issue to show voters why it is crucial to elect them — and not the other party. Democrats will add that this again shows we have a “do nothing” Congress. Republicans will say it shows we have “do too much” judges.
No. 7: All the rest is political theater, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Political theater… signifying nothing. Ok, I’ve changed my mind… maybe we should go back to talking about Taylor Swift and Kanye.

Respectfully…
AR

02/16/2016

Scalia

There are all sorts of ramifications surrounding the unexpected death of a Supreme Court justice of the United States of America. Within hours Saturday, after news of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia — described by The Washington Post as “the intellectual cornerstone of the court’s modern conservative wing, whose elegant and acidic opinions inspired a movement of legal thinkers and ignited liberal critics” — politicians, pundits, and all sorts of people were pondering the path advantageous to pursue. In other words, we often become [sigh] political.

I can’t say I knew Scalia nor his opinions extraordinarily well. But fitting with the mantra of the Intramuralist, there is one aspect about him that stands out to me. I speak neither of the “elegant” or “acidic.” I speak of something arguably more profound. Here is an excerpt from the story that ran a year ago in the Los Angeles Times…

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia seem unlikely friends.

Though both grew up in New York City and graduated from Ivy League law schools, Scalia went on to become a lawyer in the Nixon administration and a founder of the conservative Federalist Society, and Ginsburg led the women’s rights project at the American Civil Liberties Union.
He’s brash and burly and believes in strict adherence to the Constitution’s original text. She’s soft-spoken and slight and believes in a “living Constitution” that can change with the times. On controversial cases, they are often the most likely of any pairing of the nine Supreme Court justices to disagree.

Despite their standing as the intellectual lions of the left and right, Ginsburg and Scalia have forged an uncommon bond on a court where close friendships outside of chambers are rare.

Their areas of agreement may be few — which is likely to be the case this month when the justices decide whether gay and lesbian couples have a right to marry — but they maintain a tone of respect. Scalia, 79, and Ginsburg, 82, frequently dine and vacation together. Every Dec. 31, they ring in the new year together. Their relationship has even inspired an opera, set to debut this summer.

In joint appearances, their mutual affinity and gentle joshing delight audiences, particularly at a time of bitter partisan differences that have made friendships across the aisle difficult.
“Call us the odd couple,” Scalia said this year at a George Washington University event with Ginsburg. “She likes opera, and she’s a very nice person. What’s not to like?” he said dryly. “Except her views on the law.”

Seated next to Ginsburg on the stage, Scalia teased her about the minor uproar that occurred after they were photographed together on an elephant during a trip to India in 1994. “Her feminist friends” were upset, Scalia said, that “she rode behind me.” Ginsburg didn’t let him have the last word, noting that the elephant driver had said their placement was “a matter of distribution of weight.” The audience, including Scalia, roared with laughter.

She describes her fondness for “Nino” by recalling the time she first heard him speak at a law conference, before they became judges. “I disagreed with most of what he said, but I loved the way he said it,” Ginsburg recounted…

Their off-the-bench friendship grew over time, aided by Ginsburg’s husband. By day he was a Georgetown law professor and one of the nation’s foremost experts on tax law. But, outgoing and funny, he also was an extraordinary self-taught chef. When Scalia and his wife, Maureen, came for dinner at the Ginsburgs’ Watergate apartment, part of the attraction was the meal Marty prepared.

Shortly after her husband died of cancer in June 2010, Justice Ginsburg came to the court to deliver an opinion. As she spoke, Scalia sat a few feet away, wiping tears…

The bond between Scalia and Ginsburg was special. It was authentic.

Said Ginsburg on Saturday: “He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh. The press referred to his ‘energetic fervor,’ ‘astringent intellect,’ ‘peppery prose,’ ‘acumen,’ and ‘affability,’ all apt descriptions. He was eminently quotable, his pungent opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader’s grasp.

Justice Scalia once described as the peak of his days on the bench an evening at the Opera Ball when he joined two Washington National Opera tenors at the piano for a medley of songs. He called it the famous Three Tenors performance. He was, indeed, a magnificent performer. It was my great good fortune to have known him as working colleague and treasured friend.”

Antonin Scalia was 79 years old. God be with him and his family. May we learn from his example… and from his sweet friendship with Justice Ginsburg.

Respectfully…
AR

02/14/2016

shepherded

Let’s stay on the leadership theme for another day here; it’s an area so relevant to us all, and there’s an additional insight I believe wise to discuss.

I keep toying with what makes a good leader… yes, from the presidency to the pulpit to our places of business… from our homes to our sports teams to all heads of state; this affects each of us.

And I keep coming back to one, profound line:

“So he shepherded them according to the integrity of his heart, and guided them with his skillful hands.”

(Hence, fully in touch with my inner nerd — as I love word studies!) Allow me to first define a few key words…

shepherd (v.) – to feed a flock, to tend to

integrity (n.) – moral uprightness, wholeness, without any evil purpose

heart (n.) – the inner most part, mind, will, soul, understanding

guide (v.) – to lead forth, to show or indicate the way

skillful (adj.) – intelligent, understanding, insightful

When I read that brief but excellent description, I sense that’s what’s scarce in current culture. Instead of men and women focused on carving out the character it takes to emulate each of the above, we instead have persons in authority or seeking authority who value the cameras, microphones, and social media more; they seem so enamored with all sorts of selfies and hearing themselves speak. In other words, too many leaders are “me-oriented” — forgetting that it’s not about who is right, but what is right.

What strikes me, no less, about the above, bold description, is who the “he” is — who the comment was actually said about. It comes from the historical scriptures, in reference to David.

According to all accounts, David was a clear leader. When he led; people followed. When he spoke, people listened. He was powerful and effective.

But what strikes me as profound — and what’s relevant here regardless of being a regular reader of scripture — is that David was quite the flawed individual. He screwed up… he had an affair… he arranged a murder… he covered it up. He was a bit of a mess at times in my book.

Yet — and this is a big “yet” — his flaws did not disqualify him from leading. Let me say that again: his flaws did not disqualify him from leading. In fact, they may have actually made him more effective.

There is no perfect person; there is no person who has never screwed up.

And so all this image casting that we see on a daily basis — be it in press conferences, primaries, or any sort of Snapchat — reflecting an image of always, unprecedented wisdom and ability — is inauthentic. Why? Because it omits our flaws.

The difference with David is that his flaws were not omitted. And by admitting his own foolish mistakes — seeking then both the necessary forgiveness and repentance — David again led well… not attempting to be something he was not… not solely casting himself in the best light… but relating to others via his humility and weakness. That is a humble, effective leader. There was no trace of a boast.

The problem with so many seeking leadership today is that they fail to recognize that the admission of weakness and inability shows us that you actually are “one of us.” We don’t want our candidates/coaches/QB’s/etc. to be perfect; we want them to be real. I will follow the one that’s real.

I will follow the one who gently and insightfully tends to his or her people without any unethical purpose…

I will follow the one who leads according to the integrity of his heart.

Respectfully…
AR

02/11/201602/11/2016

rare leadership

More and more I think we struggle from a lack of great leadership in our country. While I would hope to never fall prone to the historical temptation of clamoring for a king, I do crave wise leadership… from the presidency to the pulpit to our places of business… from our homes to our sports teams to all heads of state. We thrive from great leadership; we suffer from that which is something lesser.

I’m mindful of a piece published in Forbes two/three years ago. In it, contributor Mike Myatt wrote a great piece. Allow me to include a short excerpt here:

“If you ever wonder why we’re in a crisis of leadership all you have to do is to watch and listen to those in positions of leadership. While there are clearly many aspects of leadership that must work together in harmony in order for leaders to be effective, everything breaks down when leaders don’t understand how to engage effectively.

Let’s start with what leadership is not: Leadership is not a monologue, a speech, a lecture or a filibuster. Leadership is not talking at or over people. Leadership is not sequestered, does not live in a bubble or operate in a vacuum. Leadership is not exclusive or arrogant. Leadership is not about the leader.

What we see all too often in today’s leaders are little more than egocentric talking heads. They are so enamored with seeing themselves on camera or listening to themselves talk they have forgotten it’s their job to solve problems, not create or exacerbate them.

History’s best examples of leaders are of those leaders who were/are highly engaged, very inclusive, deeply caring, and highly empathetic. They don’t fear being proven wrong, but are deathly afraid about the thought of being wrong and not knowing it.

The best leaders are not interested in who is right, but what is right. They not only embrace dissenting opinions, but they seek them out at every opportunity. Real leaders are just as at ease when unlearning as they are when learning. And perhaps most importantly, they never pass up an opportunity discuss, converse, dialog, or debate. They know that their leadership is only as good as their ability to engage, listen, discern, and to act.”

Myatt — who describes himself as one who likes to “write about leadership myths, and bust them one-by–one” — hits the nail on the head, in my opinion.

“Everything breaks down when leaders don’t understand how to engage effectively…” how many times have leaders been silent — not engaging, not trusting supposed subordinates with information or perceived transparency. Often they ask for a following, albeit absent any authentic engaging.

“Leadership is not a monologue…” Sorry, I don’t care how brilliant a person is or what his/her teachers in school told him/her. I don’t care about their mind-blowing talent or extensive, academic affirmation. I don’t want my leaders shouting at me nor being the only ones talking. Great leaders need to be able to listen better than they speak. Leadership is not about the leader.

“Leaders are so enamored with themselves…” I have seen far too many whose humility seems to be siphoned away with all upward mobility. They forget that humility is perhaps the most attractive trait in any leader. Note: I speak not of passivity. I speak of a bold, embedded empathy — a mindset of which I never question if the person cares most about self and hearing themselves speak. Yes, history’s best examples of leaders were/are marked by being “highly engaged, very inclusive, deeply caring, and highly empathetic.”

“The best leaders are not interested in who is right, but what is right…” Again, the best leaders care less about their role, their ideas, and their success… the best leaders don’t excessively use first person pronouns… “I/me/my/myself” will always be secondary to “you,” “us,” and “we.”

Oh, how I crave wise leadership… recognizing what a rarity it can be.

Respectfully…
AR