prayers of our forefathers (guest writer #7)

On April 30, 1789, in the nation’s capital, George Washington was sworn in as the first U.S. President. In his Inaugural Address, the first words ever spoken by a president to this country, he proclaimed:

“The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself hath ordained.”

Upon completing the speech, Washington walked a few blocks down the street, leading America’s first senators, representatives, and cabinet to a place called St. Paul’s Chapel. They prayed together, asking for God’s protection on the new nation.

America is a different country today. There are those who think our current course risks disastrous consequences. Others think those people are crazy.

I am one of those people. And I’m not crazy. My concerns are financial, moral, and spiritual…

The financial issue is straightforward. We are drowning our children in an ocean of red ink. The national debt exceeds $16,871,725,000,000. Economists argue about whether the economy will crash at 80 or 90% of Gross Domestic Product, the size of the entire economy. We currently stand at 76%.

At that point, the government will have no choice:  turn on the presses and start printing money. That inescapably results in hyperinflation. Let me describe how that works. There are currently about $3 trillion dollars in circulation. If the government prints another $3 trillion to make a small payment on the debt, everything will double in price. So if gas costs $4/gallon, it will cost $8. If they print $17 trillion to pay off the entire debt, the money supply increases by a factor of 6.7, and gas will cost over $25, $400 to fill a 15-gallon tank.

People old enough to remember recall this is exactly what happened in pre-Nazi Germany. Their economy in shambles from World War I, they printed money, hyperinflation ensued, and there were vivid pictures of people taking wheelbarrows of money to the store to buy groceries. This is what led a nation to turn itself over to the rule of Adolf Hitler.

This is the path we are on, to say nothing of Obamacare and Social Security. Continuing to kick that can down the road with zero hope of financial solvency once baby boomers hit retirement may be the most unconscionable sin a generation has ever passed on to its children.

But there is plenty of sin beyond that. Any sense of moral standards has eroded in our society. Media once considered pornographic are now broadcast into our homes. Drugs are being legalized. Each week brings news of yet another senseless shooting. Over 40% of children are now born out of wedlock, and the number of abortions exceeds the entire populations of Canada and Australia combined. People took to the streets celebrating the redefinition of marriage from what it has meant for all of human history.

It is worth noting that the founding fathers provided processes for deciding important questions such as these last two. But advocates of minority positions bypassed the democratic process through the Supreme Court. In spite of the Constitution being silent on both issues, 5 of 9 people dressed in black robes overruled the legislative will of 300 million. The comparisons to Hitler are again appropriate.

Finally, there are spiritual overtones to all of the above. I’ve studied biblical prophecy about the end times. If anyone says they know when this is happening, they are wrong. But I believe that if every prophecy about the first coming of Christ was fulfilled in exact detail, then so will every detail of the Second Coming. These prophecies include ten nations coming together, led by a charismatic leader who will first befriend, then declare war against Israel.

One thing is crystal clear:  in those days, America will no longer be a superpower. If any nation declared war against Israel today, we would put a stop to it. Since such circumstance is foretold, we must no longer have that capability in those times.

Here is my point. I don’t know if America’s demise is imminent or 1000 years away. But the problems we currently face have the potential to bring us down. Spending ourselves into more debt than we could ever hope to repay and a moral decay that can only result in anarchy or tyranny could someday leave the world wondering about our country no differently than the Roman Empire. But the root of the problem is turning our backs on the God our forefathers entrusted with the protection of the nation.

Let me not leave you without hope. Second Chronicles 7:14 says, “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.” I take great comfort from the fact that the solution to this problem does not require me to change the mind of anyone who disagrees. It only requires those of us who agree to start acting like it.

Let me close with a history lesson. Washington, D.C. did not become the capital of the United States until 1800. The first capital was Philadelphia, and under the Continental Congress and Articles of Confederation, the capitals included Baltimore, Princeton, Annapolis, and Trenton. When George Washington became the first President in 1789, the capital was New York City. Washington was inaugurated in Federal Hall, and he walked down Wall St. as he led the Congress to St. Paul’s Chapel.

The building in which the first government committed our country’s future to God’s protection is located directly adjacent to Ground Zero. St. Paul’s Chapel sat untouched, despite every building around it being damaged or destroyed on 9/11.

“The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself hath ordained.”

Respectfully,

MP

being in relationship with each other (guest writer #6)

“Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?”  — Mary Oliver

 

We could debate the issue all day… and I have done so on occasion.  But honestly, when people believe, deep down in their hearts that homosexuality is a sin, I’ve learned that the debate goes nowhere.  When we already have our minds made up, that’s that.  End of story.

 

When the conversation hits that wall, when conversation breaks down, that’s when I most want to invite people to the church I pastor so they could meet some of our members face to face.  Let’s not talk about issues; let’s meet real people.  Let’s invite God’s children to look each other in the eye, to behold someone made in God’s own image.  Let’s invite everyone to the Table, or any table for that matter, to break bread with one another and pray, just as the early church did.  See, I pastor a Christian church which prayerfully discerned in the 1990s that they were called to a profound outreach ministry:  to declare themselves a church open to and affirming of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people.  For nearly two decades, the folks of this little church have extended an extravagant welcome to people who have been rejected at other churches, told they were going to hell, sent away to rehabilitation camps, rejected by their families and communities of faith… or at best, told they were welcome, but must come to terms with their sinful ways and change.

 

That “best” option isn’t better at all, by the way.  There’s a confusing, internalized, self-hatred that grows when you’re told, repeatedly, that you are damaged goods, while simultaneously being told you are created in God’s image.  I’ve sat in our sanctuary with sobbing men and women who wandered in off the street because the rainbow pride flags hanging from our building beckoned them in.  For so many, they sit there and sob, awash in mercy, amazed by God’s grace, astounded that there is a church where the promise of their baptism is affirmed — you, yes, YOU are God’s child and God is well pleased with you — for that matter, we’re all well pleased with you.  They’re shocked to find a church that will not closet nor condemn them all the more.

 

When I think of inviting some of these folks I’ve debated with (or stopped debating with) to church, I can’t help but think of the Gospel text about Jesus and the disciples walking through a field on the Sabbath.  Both Mark’s and Matthew’s version come to mind, for differing reasons.

 

In Mark, Jesus responds to the letter-of-the-law keepers by helping them understand how laws ought, and ought not, to be used: the Sabbath was made for people, not the other way around.  The people were hungry and we are not supposed to work on the Sabbath — these two things are true.  For Jesus, it comes down to people’s need.  Hunger trumps rule following.  Human necessity trumps the letter of the law.  I can’t help but think, if folks who are so wedded to their interpretation of the letter of law regarding homosexuality would come spend a Sunday at my church, for them, then, it could be like walking through the field with Jesus.  Meeting the lesbian couple that’s been together for 43 years, talking with the gay man who’s rediscovered his faith again because he’s affirmed instead of shunned, listening to the young female couple make plans for their wedding at the church, standing side by side with straight allies who make up over half the congregation — I can’t help but think this could be a revelation: human need trumps the letter of the law here, too.

 

And for folks for whom this particular walk with Jesus through the fields falls flat, maybe Matthew’s version of the story would come alive.  Here, Jesus surmises that mercy should rule.  Don’t sacrifice the guiltless, the guiltless who are judged by some to be guilty.  Let mercy rule.

 

But, who knows, really.  Who knows what would happen?  This blog post is, after all, more talk.  And as I said in the beginning, talk doesn’t go very far when we’ve shut the doors.  The God who couldn’t stay away from us, the God who couldn’t be aloof, but had to come to earth, walk around in our skin, know what it was like to hold a hand, wipe a tear, laugh, and feel his heart break, that God, the God we know in Jesus the Christ, comes knocking on the shuttered doors of our hearts, and beckons us to be in relationship with each other — real, human, relationship.  After all, when we love somebody, we see the face of God.  Maybe if we got to know each other, we might find a way to love each other and God’s face would be revealed.  So, know that you are welcome any time.  If you are one of those folks who just can’t fathom how gay people could be created good as gay, come to church.  Any time.

 

Respectfully,

LRM

the season (guest writer #1)

Every year our divine hostess AR invites me to chime in on the Intramuralist and give my two cents worth around this time. And I heartily agree. This year, however, I find myself not so au currant on anything current. Like, at all.

 

I have found myself simply burned out on all the news of the day. The tantrums, the spin, the gotcha journalism. The celebrities who seem to make bad choices, or are famous for only being famous, the refusal to accept that the other side of any debate may have an actual belief as strong as yours for saying what they say, and doing what they do — imagine that! So, I have checked out as of late. I peruse the headlines; make sure I am not missing anything too important. And then, I simply move on to the demands of my real life.

 

So, as I sat down to write this, I racked my brain about what I could contribute this time around? I have spent my entire summer crafting my next book — fiction so no reality to write about there. And at the baseball diamond, watching the Ames High sophomores battle through a tough schedule and season that has seen as many downs as ups, while we parents line the bleachers and cheer our hearts out.

 

Any parent of an athlete will tell you, when your son or daughter plays sports, your entire life is taken up by their schedule. You make friends with the other parents, akin to how it must feel to be set afloat on a lifeboat from an enormous ship. Before the season, you might know their names, their faces, who their child is.  But after? After you are bound together by hours of hot sweaty, delirious passion for each other’s kids, for the team, and also for each other.

 

And it got me thinking, this group of adults, all from different backgrounds, races, education, some married some not, some born and raised in our town some, like me transplants still trying to feel at home. But yet, all of us have come together this summer, clocking hours at a time side by side in those bleachers.

 

I have no idea what religion or political party any of them subscribe to or believe in, no idea what channel they get their news from. I know each of them is a dedicated parent, a lover of baseball. And, that’s enough.  Wouldn’t it be amazing if the rest of society could function like that? The advent of Facebook and Linked In and Twitter makes it oh so easy to learn everything you might want to know about someone without even meeting them.  You can pre-judge anyone you want with just a few clicks through their profile page. They “like” Fox news? Must be a close-minded conservative. They “like” the Clinton Global Initiative” Must be a bleeding heart liberal with no concept of hard work. Catholic? Pedophile! Muslim? Terrorist! Agnostic? Heathen! Watcher of Honeybooboo? Idiot!

 

Whatever happened to just getting to know people, live and in person?  Imagine the level of understanding we all might have for one another if we actually got to know people personally, their personalities, and hearts, before we made assumptions about their belief systems. I’d like to think we’d become a much less fractured country than we are.  What I have learned this summer about humanity is summed up much more accurately from the diamond than from anything I’ve read on line or seen on TV.

 

If there is a tent put up to block the sun in the bleachers all are welcome to sit under it, but you may have to hold the poles on a windy day.

 

If a player’s sibling is in line with you at the concession stand, you may have to loan them a dollar or two so they can get that extra popsicle or candy bar their parent said they could have only if they had enough money.

 

The same goes for the players themselves; any trip to the concession stand may find you buying an extra hot dog for a player who forgot his money, or an extra Gatorade for the red faced teen who has already gone through the ones he bought. On that bench they all are our children.

 

All bags of peanuts are community property.  Bring enough to share.  Same goes for tootsie pops.

 

If your son strikes out or misses an easy out, rest assured the parents around you will shout out encouragement to him, knowing those words are heard easier to his ears than that of his own parent sometimes.

 

If your son only goes in at the end when the score is lopsided for either team, expect his triumphs to be as heralded as that of the starting line-up.

 

Advil, ice packs, and cold towels are readily given to any player in need of them, regardless of what parent brought them.

 

Winning is exhilarating, losing is heart breaking. Every time. Period.

 

This season has shown our team some amazing lessons. We have won some tough games, and lost the same way. We have had injuries and illnesses and long stretches of games away from home. Our fans are loyal, and loud and for the most part happy to be there.

 

We have a boy who has battled back from cancer, and his parents, happy to be doing something as normal as sitting in the bleachers and not in an exam room. We have stars who shine brightly some nights, and fall short others. We have the head down workers, whose steady contributions may go unheralded but for a brief cheer from the crowd. We have kids whose time on the field is little, but whose support from the bench loud and proud.  But they are a team, they lift each other up, pat each other on the back. Win or lose, it has been a joy to watch them come together as a true team.

 

We are our own mini society. We have our book keeper, our nurse, our head cheerleader, our statistical expert, our field expert. And someone to fill whatever blanks we may need along the way.  It has not been a perfect season, far from it. But it has been a fulfilling season that is for certain. And I will miss going to those bleachers three times a week. I’ll miss the laughs, the support, and the wild cheering with abandon. But mostly, I’ll miss the people.

 

I may not know who any of them voted for, how they feel about gun rights, or gay rights, or separation of church and state. But I know, if my son drops an easy fly ball, everyone of them would yell, “Shake it off, you’ll get it next time.” I know their hearts, and maybe because of that, even if their beliefs are different than mine, I know that belief comes from somewhere good. And maybe that’s how we go about finding common ground in America today.  Maybe it isn’t about sorting people by Blue or Red or whatever else divides on the surface; maybe what’s underneath is much more important. Discovering who people are by what they do for each other, not just because of what pew they sit in or who they back in the next election.

 

As I said, I learned everything I need to know about the current state of the world this year, at the baseball diamond. And you know what, I have more faith in our future now than I did at the beginning of the season.

 

Respectfully,

Jules

ESPN news

To hear the sportswriters tell it, it was “the best round of his life”… “a most improbable win”… “completed in stunning, awe-inspiring fashion”…

 

On Sunday, golf’s most popular lefty, Phil Mickelson, captured the coveted Claret Jug, as the winner of this year’s British Open.  He was 5 strokes behind the leader when the day began, and as one writer penned, “Mickelson barely got a mention on the broadcast.”

 

Before we continue, friends, let me offer an initial, concise caveat.  While the Intramuralist is without question a lover of sports, this is not a sports post.  Not at all.  In fact, with all due respect to the male members of my extended family, I’m actually not incredibly passionate about watching that little white, dented ball be smacked around on the grass all day.  Play and partake?  Gladly.  Watch 4 hours on TV on a regular, weekend basis?  No way.  It’s just a little (ok, maybe a lot) too slow a sport for me.

 

Being that sports lover, however — and living in a household uniquely dominated by testosterone — it’s rather important that I am “up on” and equally knowledgeable regarding all that occurs in the athletic world; we have some great conversations around our house.  Hence, I subscribe to regular sports updates from ESPN, the unquestionably successful Entertainment and Sports Programming Network.  Throughout the British Open, they sent me multiple daily texts, alerting me to the Open’s current status.

 

Here’s the non-sport-aspect challenge…

 

All 4 days of the British Open, ESPN sent me updates about Tiger Woods.  Tiger was never in the lead.  He spent most days somewhere around 6th place.  But every text from the sporting news network — save for when Mickelson finally seized the lead — included information about Tiger Woods.  In fact, going into Sunday’s final round, when Tiger had crept to a then current second place tie, the person with whom Woods was actually tied with was omitted from ESPN’s tweets.  ESPN’s British Open tweets were always focused on Tiger Woods, regardless of who was performing better.

 

My “a-ha” moment came somewhere between rounds 3 and 4…

 

Does ESPN think I only care about Tiger Woods?

Why are they so seemingly fascinated with him?

Who then is deciding what is “news”?

Is the network deciding for me what’s newsworthy — even if it’s not?

 

I wonder.

 

I wonder how often media outlets dictate our news.

 

Are there times the media omits relevant information because of what they feel will gain greater ratings?  … a larger audience?  … and increased revenue?  Are they, then, actually dictating what is “news”?

 

For the record, the answer is Hunter Mahan.  Hunter Mahan was the professional golfer tied with Tiger heading into the fourth and final round of this year’s British Open.

 

Note:  the Intramuralist will never intentionally omit a relevant detail in order to sway your response.  We will not be the decider — nor, uh, the manipulator — of what is actually news.

 

Respectfully,

AR

advice column

In 2 intriguing developments…

 

John Rosemond has written a nationally syndicated parental advice column for years.  In addition to his column, Rosemond has authored multiple bestsellers, such as Parenting by the Book and Making the ‘Terrible’ Twos Terrific!  When responding recently to a question of how to handle their “highly spoiled underachiever” son, Rosemond advised the parents to strip the boy’s room down to essentials, take away electronic devices, and suspend privileges until the boy’s grades improved.

 

The State of Kentucky — specifically, the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology – then declared that by offering such one-on-one advice, Rosemond is engaging in the “practice of psychology” – something he is not entitled to do in the state since he lacks a Kentucky license, as even though he is a nationally syndicated columnist, his North Carolina credentials are not valid in Kentucky.

 

The bottom line:  the government says a citizen is not qualified nor allowed to do what he does without the government’s supervision, authorization, and approval.

 

Steve Cooksey, no less, is a blogger from North Carolina.  He encourages others, prompted by the passion of his own experience.  Listen to Cooksey’s brief bio:

“To summarize my story, I was an obese, sedentary, recently diagnosed diabetic when I began this journey.  I was on diabetes, cholesterol, and hypertension drugs as well as taking 4 insulin shots per day.  But within days things began to change and within a few months, I WAS A NEW PERSON!” 

Cooksey’s health improved drastically due to utilization of the growingly popular, high-protein Paleo Diet.

 

Yet alas, the State of North Carolina — specifically, the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition — told Cooksey the advice-like language throughout his blog — and his offering of personal support to those attempting to transition to a “Paleo” lifestyle — were illegal.  Let me say that again:  illegal.

 

The bottom line:  the government says a citizen is not qualified nor allowed to do what he does without the government’s supervision, authorization, and approval.

 

Interestingly, both Rosemond and Cooksey have sued the government on the grounds of free speech and the First Amendment.  Let me also add that I’m certain there exist aspects in each case that we don’t know.  My prayer regardless is that their ongoing cases will be heard and directed by wise, fair-minded persons.

 

However, what concerns me is the potential precedent and lingering questions…

 

Is only government able to decide who is qualified?

Is only government able to decide who is allowed?

 

I wonder… in the future… if not in possession of a state teaching license, will parents be deemed qualified to teach their own children?  Will they be allowed?

 

I have no idea whether the words and wisdom of Rosemond and/or Cooksey are actually wise or not; the potential precedent, however, of the government’s increasingly intrusive, larger role disturbs me.

 

What if the citizens’ words are not wise?  Does the government still need to control that?  Are only wise words allowed to be shared?  And is only the government capable of determining what wisdom is?  Must they supervise? … authorize?  … and approve? …

 

… Be honest.  Be kind.  Love people well.  Never run from truth.  Don’t be afraid of the hard stuff.  Be respectful.  Be compassionate.  Say what you mean and mean what you say.  Forgive.  Forgive again.  Figure the faith thing out.  Don’t spend what you don’t have.  Exercise.  Ponder.  Reject hypocrisy.  Be humble.  Laugh often.  Make good friends.  Be loyal.  Invest.  Embrace your family.  Love through thick and thin.  Enjoy ice cream in the summer.  And read the Intramuralist faithfully.

 

There.  There’s my advice for today.  It’s free.  You’ll have to discern whether or not it’s wise.  Actually, that’s our job.

 

Respectfully,

AR

racist

Sometimes as I witness society’s reaction, my soul is left disturbed.

 

Perhaps like several of you, I have turned off the television after my jaw dropped too many times watching reaction to George Zimmerman being found “not guilty” of the murder of teen Trayvon Martin.  Was he really “not guilty”?  Was he “guilty”?!  I don’t know.  I wasn’t there.  I wasn’t even in the courtroom.  Like positions, however, have not kept others from adamant declarations.

 

The reality is that Trayvon Martin’s tragic death has evolved into an issue of race.  It shouldn’t be.  The question should be whether or not a criminal act took place.  However, declarations of innocence and guilt have seemingly since been driven more by ethnicity than on evidence — or the lack of it.

 

Does skin color matter?

 

Unfortunately, to too many, it does…

 

… it matters to the female convenience store clerk, shown on a YouTube video, who told an African-American pastor, “We don’t serve your kind”…

… it matters to the Illinois, African-American man who beat up an American caucasian because he was so mad at “white boys”…

… it matters to CNN’s Nancy Grace, who during jury deliberations, said “[Hispanic Zimmerman’s been] out on bond, driving through Taco Bell every night, having a churro.”

 

It matters to too many whites… too many blacks… too many Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, etc.  Unfortunately, it matters.

 

My current sense is that most of the protests after the Zimmerman verdict were peaceful.  (Note:  the most sensational moments — however infrequent — receive the most media attention.)  Still, seemingly intelligent (and not so intelligent) persons say disturbing things…

 

For example, in response to the verdict, an associate professor at the typically esteemed, Ivy League’s University of Pennsylvania’s Department of Religious Studies called God a “white racist.”  Excuse me, but this professor who is teaching our children, is she attempting to divide — or to heal unite?

 

I look forward, friends, to a day when skin color truly does not matter to any of us… when it doesn’t matter to the whites, to the blacks, to every other color God created.  I look forward when there exists no justified prejudice — stemming either from initial ignorance or from retaliatory response.

 

I look forward to the lion laying down with the lamb… the leopard lying down with the goat… the cow feeding alongside the bear and their young lying down together.  I look forward to a day when none of the external “stuff” we so passionately cling to matters, when none of us judge by what we see with our eyes or hear with our ears.  I look forward to us being directed more by a Spirit of wisdom and understanding than by skin color and self.

 

I look forward to that day.  For each of us.  All of us.  Only then will skin color truly not matter.

 

Respectfully… always…

AR

hypocrisy?

I’m not exactly certain how to pen today’s post.  It has something to do with hypocrisy.  I can just feel it.  Articulating it and putting it down on so-called cyber paper, however, is a completely different story.

 

As we watch life’s events unfold in recent months, I get a sense that many among us want to be our own deciders of what is good and true and right.  We should be able to choose for ourselves what is right and wrong.  We know best.  We should be allowed to choose what is moral, ethical, and good.

 

There’s much within that thinking that I agree with.  Too many times on this planet we seem to reserve the right to be the convictor of right and wrong within one another.  Last I read, that job has a few more divine requirements than I will ever possess.

 

But I hear a chant that we should be the deciders of what’s individually best for each one of us.  How many times do we hear the calls for independence?  … to make our own choices?

 

In fact, watch each teen as they approach adulthood faster than a speeding bullet.  What do they want arguably more than anything else?  What do they crave — even exhibited by the experimentation phase that so many encounter?  They are learning to decide for themselves what is right and wrong.

 

Yet while on one hand we chant that “yes, we know best,” on the other hand, it seems persons on all sides beg the government to be the moral slapper of the other side, so-to-speak…

 

Tell them… tell them what’s right and wrong!

Make them comply!

That’s it; set up a new law.  Do it!

 

And yet, somewhere in there is where this hypocritical sense comes over me.  We want to be able to choose what’s right or wrong, but we also often cry out for some official aspect of government to tell those who disagree with our stance or activity that they are wrong.

 

Perhaps we cheer on legislation.

Perhaps we amen the Supreme Court… (only when they agree with us, of course.)

 

My point is that we can’t have it both ways.  We can’t say, “I should be able to choose the path that seems right to me,” but then advocate the government dictate the ethical path or standard for someone else.

 

The reality is that we cannot be the convictor of truth in one another.  It’s not our job.  We are not even capable of such.  We are not the director of another’s behavior nor their conscience, nor their inner giver of peace, nor their decider of ethical activity.  If we aren’t that for one another, then government can’t be that either.  We can’t crave the freedom to choose but then ask government to interfere in the choosing for others.

 

I’m not exactly certain how to pen today’s post.  It has something to do with hypocrisy.  I can just feel it.

 

Respectfully,

AR

defense of what?

Let’s face it.  This is a tough issue.  What is marriage?

 

I mean it.

 

Where’d it start?

Who ordained it?

What’s the purpose?

 

Contrary to the politicized, popular belief, the gay and lesbian persons in our communities are not any new kind of super-villain.  Contrary, too, to the polar opposite, politicized, popular belief, the evangelicals in our neighborhoods are not holders of hatred and wishers of evil.  The reality is that each is a group of individuals attempting to follow a way that seems right to them.

 

But funny how we work sometimes.  We aren’t always ok with allowing others to seek the way they currently feel is right — especially when that path is the opposite of what we embrace.  So many on all sides (even those who consider themselves highly intelligent) prefer squelching opposing paths and opinion.

 

So where is the conversation?  Can we discuss what marriage is about?

 

The discourse is certainly not being currently held on Facebook or on any social cyber-space site (which in my opinion, may be the final frontier of where arrogance is still both lavishly practiced and praised).  Those one-liner status updates on all sides of the issue are not helping, friends.

 

Where is the conversation?

 

What’s the purpose of marriage?

 

Was it established by the organized church?  If so, then what role does the government play in offering any definition?

 

Also, for those who stand by the historical tradition of one man and one woman united in holy matrimony, where is the respectful conversation regarding how pathetic (sorry, I truly mean no disrespect), but yes, how pathetic some of our heterosexual cultures of marriage have become?  What have we taught and accepted in regard to addiction, adultery, absent fathers, divorce, pornography, etc.?  Yes, some of us have been in some tough situations.  I’m only asking what are we teaching?  And when we teach and encourage, do we do so with a truth and grace applicable to all?

 

Men are called to cherish women; women are called to respect men; it’s wise that we both cherish and respect one another.  But we get angry or hurt and then feel justified in withholding one of those actions.  Then the so-called, damaging ‘crazy cycle’ begins.  That cycle — regardless of gender — also seems to clash with any concept of a God-honoring marriage.

 

Friends, I do not know all the answers.  I know that there are good people on all sides of this debate; many, too, remain somewhere in the middle.  My desire, no less, is to engage in a humble, respect-filled conversation where we quit assuming all who feel differently than us are either ignorant or evil.  Some of the cheers and chants and status one-uppers — while perhaps fun to pen — do not help the conversation… and they do not create positive dialogue.

 

Hence, here’s the question:  what is marriage?  What is worth defending?

 

Perhaps if we started there — with listening and respecting replacing boasting and chastising — we would influence others in a way that not even the Supreme Court can.

 

Respectfully,

AR

the rest of the story

In Sunday’s blog there was one embedded comment that is perhaps relevant in most — maybe all — of the events we examine.  It’s arguably applicable in each of our opinions.  And it’s probably the one aspect that’s hardest for us to admit, especially when our emotions are enflamed.

 

As previously stated:  “None of us know everything; we continually make judgments and build perspective based on limited information.”

 

We continually make judgments based on limited information — although we assume we either know it all — or at least enough to form (and adhere to) an opinion.

 

That means from where we stand, we can’t tell what Paula Deen did or did not say…

We can’t discern the guilt — or innocence — of either George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin…

We can’t tell if the administration lied about Benghazi… or if the previous administration lied about known weapons of mass destruction…

We truly don’t know if the unfair targeting of conservative groups by the IRS generated from Washington or anywhere near the White House…

We don’t know with certainty if LeBron James is an arrogant or humble winner…

We have no idea if the Justice Dept. is telling the truth — or lying — regarding their motive for identifying reporters as potential criminals in order to secretly spy on them…

We don’t know if the current immigration legislation being crafted is all good or all not (… granted, those senators voting on it would know a little more if they’d actually read the proposed bill)…

 

We don’t know; our information is limited.  That should alter the passion prompting our perspective.

 

Years ago I was involved in a professional situation in which most all who articulated an opinion were seduced by the limited-information lure.  An angry hotel employee of mine had alerted the local papers and television stations, that our staff had unfairly discriminated against him because he was gay.  He told the awaiting microphones that we wanted to fire him because of his sexual preference/orientation.

 

The tapes were rolling; there was much to record.  “Discrimination!” was uttered in some of the shouts.  The employee was passionate and articulate.  He seemed to have a believable story, as yes, it was true that he was gay and also that we planned on terminating his employment.  However believable, it was also incomplete.

 

The information he chose not to share with the media that morn is that in an elegant setting, he began publicly cooking breakfast for our hotel guests wearing Spandex shorts and flip flops, while smoking a cigarette.  When he was asked to exit and don an appropriate uniform, he refused — and instead locked himself in a hotel room.  It was from that room in which he called the local media.

 

Friends, I never felt free to disclose all aspects of that scenario.  While the employee chose not to share the “rest of the story,” so-to-speak, neither did I.  We never made our case to the media.  We never gave them complete information.  Hence, all conclusions made in regard to the fate of our former breakfast cook were based on limited information.

 

What don’t we know?  … about Paula Deen?  Benghazi?  … the IRS, Justice Dept., George Zimmerman, and more?

 

In each of the above — no matter whether we passionately believe or doubt the account shared — our passion is based solely on limited information.  We will most likely never “know the rest of the story.”

 

Respectfully,

AR

truth in advertising

Here’s the challenge…

 

No matter the merits…

No matter the goodness…

No matter the efficiency…

No matter the cost…

 

Instead of engaging in dialogue that encourages actual, objective analysis, we instead attempt to seduce audiences into thinking all is good or all is not.  In other words, we don’t fairly evaluate the merits of an issue, policy, or proposal.  We don’t examine efficiency.  We instead spend more effort and energy into “talking people into things.”

 

This summer “Organizing for Action” — the organizational successor to Pres. Obama’s campaign arm — began advertising their perceived positives regarding Obamacare…

 

“The truth is, Americans are already seeing the benefits…

Better coverage and lower costs.  That’s what Obamacare means for them.”

 

Are the above statements true?

Maybe.  Maybe not.  But “Organizing for Action” is spending over a million dollars on their current cable television ad buy in order to appeal to us emotionally — and thus convince us such is true.

 

As one who has watched the healthcare debate closely and carefully studied the legislation, my sense is that the above claims cannot be made with certainty.  However, such misses the point of today’s post.  This is not an analysis of the merits of the newly imposed Patient Affordable Care Act.

 

The point is that many (on multiple issues) encourage little to no honest dialogue.  There are seemingly few attempts to forthrightly decipher what is good and what is not… what will work and what will not… and what works for one person but for another will absolutely not…

 

Instead of objective analysis, far too often our goal seems to manipulate the audience — bypassing any unbiased examination — bypassing total truth in advertising — and emotionally convince others that our perspective is entirely accurate and good.  In other words, once again, we stink at dialogue.  Actually, we don’t stink; we simply skip the step.

 

Let’s instead ask better questions.  Let’s work to inform, discuss, and help all affected comprehend.  Let’s understand the positives and pitfalls together — as both exist and both are relevant.

 

Let’s do that instead of spending massive money on emotional appeal.

 

True, the current ad buy is only an approximate million dollars by a political action committee.  That number, however, can be added to the federal government’s previous tens of millions of dollars — taxpayer dollars — spent hiring PR firms to promote the law.  Something tells me that such can’t be all good either.

 

Dialogue would be better.  By far.

 

Respectfully,

AR