Month: November 2024

In recent weeks, via group chats on social media and elsewhere, it’s become increasingly clear that we have a bit of an honor scarcity. My jaw drops often, in fact, noting the many who find it unnecessary or undeserved. It’s ok. Count me among them many days. It seems such an old-fashioned act. Surely it isn’t so relevant any more?

But I’m thinking we don’t really understand what honor is — and that’s why we withhold it with an all too convenient ease…

Honor is more than respect.

It’s more than being kind.

It’s more than any nicety, sincerity or formality, too.

Honor is greater.

To honor is to intentionally treat another with great esteem not solely because of what they have done. We also honor another because of who they are.

For example…

We honor our parents. We honor the elderly. And we honor them precisely because that’s who they are.

Granted, that’s where the rub comes in. None of our parents are/were perfect (shocking), and many raised us or cared for us in some damaging ways, ways we’re still navigating through in an attempt to be healthy, functioning adults.

And the elderly — just because you’re old doesn’t mean you’re virtuous, wonderful or even good. Some older people just seem so stuck in their ways and not open to any new ways of thinking. So why in the world would we engage in such an old-fashioned effort? They don’t deserve it.

Therein lies the issue. We make a judgment on whether another person is deserving or not. And if another is not living up to our standards or expectations, then it makes sense for honor to be withheld; it makes conditional honor completely appropriate.

Sure. Until we realize what the opposite of honor is…

Shame.

And shame is never good. It’s never good and never wise. And also, never appropriate. As noted researcher and storyteller Brené Brown says, one who has spent the past two decades studying courage, vulnerability, shame, and empathy, shame often comes out of emotional responses based on our insecurities… “You lash out and, often, shame other people in retaliation.” That’s not good.

It would thus seem that the better response is not to spend our time and energy on whether another person is deserving or not.

Wiser would be to alter what honor looks like… pushing ourselves a little perhaps, but doing what we can do. For example once more…

Sitting beside the adult with special needs, so they won’t be alone and would actually have a new friend… paying for the coffee for the person behind you in line… showing up at family dinner, even when the relationships have been hard in recent years… refusing to believe the worst about a friend, precisely because they’re your friend… sending an email, a text, just reaching out… forgiving, even when no one has asked… thanking the veteran for serving… etc. etc.

The list goes on.

The reality is that we have regular opportunity to be creative in our honor. We also can do it in a way that works for us, sensitive to when it’s hard. Truth is it will always be healthier than shame.

Respectfully…
AR

Just a brief few thoughts in the holiday week before us…

Isn’t it interesting that some of the wisest people we know are also some of the most grateful people?

And that’s when we realize that giving gratitude on Thanksgiving is great, but expressions of thanks aren’t made for simply singular days of the year.

Note…

The wisest people practice gratitude all year long.

The wisest people give thanks in all circumstances — not for all circumstances. 

The wisest people are overabundantly generous in their thanksgiving. 

Ah…

This Thanksgiving — and for the next holly/jolly season, too — let us be wise people.

It starts with a commitment to practice.

Blessings, friends. I am so grateful for you!

Respectfully…

AR

One term that’s been thrown around increasingly more in the most recent decade is this concept of “identity politics.” As with most broad scale initiatives, there are multiple meanings in play and oft the concept is weaponized, meaning it’s exploited to attack a person or group. So let’s attempt to initially define the notion prior to the point of today’s post.

Loosely speaking, the largest, relevant umbrella definition of identity politics would seem to be an approach that encourages evaluating issues through the lens of a person’s association with a specific people group.

No doubt it makes sense that our association with a specific demographic influences our passions, priorities and how we view the world. It also impacts the angles we see most effective in solving what we perceive as the world’s biggest problems. It thus is a beautiful thing that in a country that has long yearned for the tired, poor and huddled masses to be free, we acknowledge and celebrate our diversity. 

And that’s just it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with celebrating our diversity. I mean, who are we kidding to expect us all to think exactly alike?

Hence, identity politics can be an insightful outlook when it encourages compassion and sensitivity to look at life through a lens different than one’s own.

Simultaneously, however, there exists an explosive untenability within the approach. Too often looking at life through a perceived, singular identity pits us directly against someone else. In other words, one group can’t thrive unless another people group becomes lesser. And thus we set up success to be dependent on the loss of power/prosperity/status/etc. of others. That is an impossible reality. Why? It makes politics like a sporting event, in which only one team can win. The other will have to lose.

Perhaps that’s why there’s so much misunderstanding these days… I can’t understand how a person could vote that way!… how in the world could they support him or her?!… don’t they see what they’re doing? … what they’re actually supporting?… do they hate me? … how can they support such hate?…

Identity politics puts too much focus on the lack of discernment of everyone else… everyone but “me.” And maybe, just maybe, part of the problem is that in our pursuit of solution and desires from singular lenses, we miss how we are pitting groups against each other. There’s got to be a better way… a way that more than only one can win.

I have an idea. It may not be the easiest. I mean, the demographics we identify with are meaningful — and I have absolutely zero desire to tamper those traits; I believe our diversity should be celebrated.

But I think one helpful tool would be to broaden what we see our greatest identity in. 

To be clear, our identity is what or who we are. And yes, we are male, female, black, white, tall, short, Latino, you name it. And those are things indeed to be celebrated!

But if that’s the primary thing we find our identity in, we have narrowed who we are. The question is how we broaden the base, how we enlarge the scope of our identity so that more are included, so we aren’t so pitted against one another, and so that we therefore look at others in regard to what we have in common as opposed to what we don’t.

For me, the most helpful, enlarged lens is looking at absolutely every person as someone God created and loves. I may have trouble getting along with someone… I may struggle with their angle, expressions or personality quirks… but I try to remember that the great big God of the universe made them, loves them like crazy, and thus they are no different from me — whether they believe in him or not.

A couple of weeks ago, I was speaking to an immigrant friend — now US citizen — who was all excited to vote in this past election. Voting wasn’t a right she had so freely before, so she was thrilled for her newfound opportunity. I have to admit, I wasn’t where she was. I was not excited to vote. As long known, I preferred a better election selection. 

But what a beautiful thing to sit with my friend, to listen and learn from her, and amidst our differences, to realize how incredibly much we had in common… how we are a part of the same people group after all.

Respectfully…

AR

I actually kind of love this question. I’ve been playing with it for a bit. Who has the wherewithal to make that decision… What is moral? What is not? Who defines the principles of right and wrong behavior?

There are multiple relevant memes and chants that have long circulated. They go something like this…

We can agree to disagree on things like coffee, pineapple on pizza, etc. — but not on basic common decency or human rights. That’s not a difference of opinion; that’s a difference in morality.

Wow. That’s hard. And there’s some truth in that — right?

It’s exactly the foundation of the Israeli/Hamas conflict, for example. At the core of Hamas is their long-established charter which outlines their aims and identity. The covenant is often downplayed publicly, no doubt because of what it actually says. It says that destroying Israel is essential. 

Sounds like that makes “agree to disagree” a little complicated. It feels as if one perspective is more in regard to morality.

So what do we do? How do we find a solution when it feels so complicated and difficult? This is about far more than Israel and Hamas. 

Let me suggest a few simple angles, with absolutely zero intention of dismissing the difficulty…

First, I think we learn to listen — we seek to understand that which we don’t. It doesn’t hurt to sit down and listen to someone. We’ve all heard some contend that “I’m not going to validate them by being in the same room with them!” Ok. But how does a person grow in their opinion or perspective if no one ever engages with them in a respectful give-and-take, where ideas and angles are shared in a way people can actually hear them? We can’t bully another into thinking like us. In fact, this is precisely the reason I think it’s a poor idea for those considering skipping the Thanksgiving dinner this year because of a diverse table of opinion. Boundaries are one thing — and are prudent indeed — but avoidance and lack of listening change no one’s opinion.

And second, we refrain from thinking we are fully capable of discerning what’s moral. The question, friends, isn’t: who’s prudent enough? The question is: who’s omniscient? And since none of us that I’m aware of have actually walked on water on this planet, my sense is there exist holes in each of our thinking — places where our passion obstructs our wisdom, because we’ve prioritized one angle of an issue and can no longer see another. That’s where we declare it to be a difference of morality instead of opinion. See the convenience of that? If I make it about morality, I never ever have to listen to anyone else nor grow in my own opinion.

Here’s where groupthink gets in the way. One person posts a meme; another reposts it. One person claims an opinion; another repeats it. The challenge is we just blindly or emotionally follow the lead, when it’s rarely so black and white.

I couldn’t help but think of this a few weeks ago when traveling through Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix. All these people were waiting for the tram to take us to the terminal. Many were seemingly in a rush.

The waiting area was crowded and people didn’t know where to go or what to think. But they assumed because all the people were looking in the same direction for the tram on the right side, that had to be what was true…

… until the tram showed up on the left. You had to be willing to look in a direction other than those all around you.

Sometimes, often times, groupthink gets in the way. It keeps us from listening to the different. It keeps us from sitting at diverse tables. It keeps us from discerning what’s moral… what’s good and right and true.

Still something I’m growing in… hopefully always… as I’ll never be one walking on water.

Respectfully…

AR

One of the core advocacies of the Intramuralist is that most often, we have a limited view… meaning we see things — and we see them accurately — but we don’t see everything. Our angle is finite. 

It’s one of the reasons I believe so many sociopolitical arguments ensue. We are convinced our perspective is valid — and it is. But we don’t realize multiple, different, valid perspectives exist. Why? Because we can’t see them.

Such may be the case in a significant legal event that has been happening concurrently with all the election activity/analysis as of late. A man named Daniel Penny is on trial in New York City, charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide in the death of Jordan Neely. Allow us to lay out the facts…

On May 1, 2023 Neely boarded an NYC subway train and immediately began screaming, making a large commotion and drawing attention to himself. Reportedly, he stuck his hand through a closing door, violently threw his jacket on the ground and began to yell. He howled that he was hungry. Penny recounted Neely saying, “I’m gonna kill everybody. I could go to prison forever, I don’t care.” 

Witnesses did not see Neely actually physically assault anyone, although they described his words as “insanely threatening.” Neely moved toward multiple people, ranting, throwing trash at them, menacing those on the train. One witness testified to the grand jury that Neely’s words included, “Someone is going to die today!” Another with her young son, who attempted to hide behind his stroller during the ordeal, told the grand jury that Neely said he wanted “to hurt people.” That same mother testified Neely came within “half a foot” of multiple passengers.

Daniel Penny was on the same subway car. He approached Neely from behind and put him in a chokehold. At least two other men helped hold Neely down. The chokehold would last somewhere between 4-6 minutes. 

Neely went limp during the hold. Police arrived soon after, finding only a faint pulse. Neely was pronounced dead upon arrival at a nearby hospital.

What’s the right response in regard to who’s responsible for what? Is Penny guilty of homicide? Is he a killer? Is he a hero? Or somewhere in between? There are so many significant details, and depending on our angle, we may settle on a conclusive perspective and appropriate judgment. So let’s add a few more factual details…

Penny is 26. He served 4 years in the U.S. Marine Corps. He is an architecture student and was on his way to the gym that day after leaving class.

Neely was a homeless man. Only 30 years old. His mother was murdered by her boyfriend when Jordan was 14. He was placed in foster care. He also had over 42 prior arrests, and while several were for reported local law violations (such as open container), 4 were for alleged assault, with one active warrant for assault. 

As said, multiple details are in play. Multiple perspectives could be valid.

If we only see the incident through the eyes of Neely, no doubt he had a tough, challenging life, one full of hardship and heartache, and he certainly did not deserve death as a result of his crying out in hunger, erratic as it was. Mental illness must also be seriously considered.

If we only see the incident through the eyes of Penny, no doubt he was trained to protect people in potential danger. His background and bravery prompted him to initiate contact in order to keep the passengers from harm. Unfortunate as it was, he did what needed to be done.

And if we only see the incident through the eyes of the woman and her son behind the stroller, we’re just glad the situation stopped. She was fearful. Penny’s actions subdued her fears.

Note: each of the above was actually, physically there. 

Multiple others have chimed in, asserting they can discern just consequence, believing they can fully determine killer vs. hero status. But again, they weren’t there. Their perspective is even more limited.

So again we ask: what’s the right response in regard to who’s responsible for what? And… Can we maintain compassion for all even when assigning responsibility?

Indeed. But it starts with acknowledging that multiple, different, valid perspectives are in play. And also noting we weren’t there.

Respectfully…

AR

Allow me first this day to sincerely thank you for trusting us by visiting here. We take seriously the idea of being a safe space. Let us define what a safe space is and is not. A safe space is a place where all opinions are welcome. We won’t tell you what to think nor believe that we’re capable of telling you. We will not shame you, attempting to make you feel lesser for what you believe.

What a safe space is not is a place where we refrain from challenge. We believe there is nothing wrong with disagreement or taking exception to a perspective. In fact, we believe it to be just the opposite; challenge sharpens us. One of the misnomers of our culture is the notion that within challenge, it’s ok to berate. No. To berate is to bully. It also makes no one want to think like us.

So with respect as our perennial backdrop, allow us a few final observations on the week that was…

• There was a wide variety of reaction to the outcome, ranging from glee to despair. Some were fearful. Some didn’t care. All were valid, although none seemed a clear majority, even though some reactions were louder than others. As hard as this is to sometimes admit, strong as we may feel, there is no such thing as only one right way to vote. No doubt we oft wonder how a person could come to support the other candidate, but our lack of understanding doesn’t make me right and them wrong.

• As we’ve long shared, neither presidential candidate had favorable ratings. Gallup, etal. consistently had each polling less than 50%, which speaks to that lack of a majority.

• It makes sense now why the parties worked so hard to keep No Labels and their Unity Ticket off the ballot. The parties knew their candidate was unpopular; thus they didn’t want to allow us another choice. They didn’t want the democratic process to play out. That was difficult to witness, how the parties’ behind-the-scenes behavior contradicted their public talk about being so supportive of democracy.

• Speaking of the democratic process, I’m not sure if it was good or bad that Harris avoided the primaries. On the plus side, she was able to become the nominee, something unattainable 5 years ago. On the negative side, by avoiding the process, she also missed needed practice in answering the tougher questions posed during the campaign. That was a struggle for her.

• Still playing with how big of a factor Pres. Biden played in this race. He had reportedly signaled to aides at the beginning of his term that he would be an intentional one-term president, but somewhere along the line, he changed his mind. He changed his mind again after a public debate performance that revealed his decline. If he had gotten out sooner, I wonder if that would have helped Harris. Since he also had negative favorability ratings, I wonder, too, what difference it would have made had Harris been able to articulate her differences with the current administration. And lastly here, I wonder what difference it would have made if those around him would have been honest about his decline.

• For those who’ve shared with me how they voted, I haven’t gotten the impression that most are really “fans,” so to speak, actually for neither. Some are, but for most of the Trump voters who’ve provided us with specific feedback, it was more a choice between two less than desirable candidates, and they felt the country was stronger economically and safer globally under his previous tenure; the border was better, too. For Harris voters, the conversation was interestingly oft less about Harris and more about Trump, with a pervasive feeling that a large many voted for her primarily because she wasn’t him.

• In the days/months ahead, while there are many who have been pleased with Trump’s cabinet naming thus far, many others are concerned and even fearful as to what Trump will attempt to immediately implement. Was his campaign comment to FOX’s Sean Hannity about not being a dictator “other than day one” a vow or instead the manifestation of his longstanding grandiloquence? Time to see what’s true and what was triggering campaign rhetoric.

• If this analysis was a little more subjective, I’d offer the least commendation for the media, simply because it’s so clearly not news. Wrote Newsweek live news editor Carlo Versano: “The path of traditional media’s institutional collapse is really two intertwining stories: a breakdown of its business model exacerbated by a breakdown of influence, the extent of which became clear this campaign cycle. Behind it all lies a growing sense among Americans that the media cannot be trusted to tell them the news they believe is fair.” Amen to that. Too many are attempting to manipulate us. Too many of us don’t realize we’re being manipulated. Not only that, but we acted as if only the Trump voters or only the Harris voters were manipulated. And that’s part of why there was a wide variety of reaction, ranging from glee to despair.

• And lastly, I’ve seen many people suggest something along the lines of look at how “all _____ people” voted. They then treat that entire people group with mockery, scorn, revenge, spite, you name it — something bad. Friends, there is no such thing as “all _____ people.” No entire people group voted or should be expected to vote exactly the same way. And no member of a people group is any less a member because of how they voted or thought. It’s time we do a better job of honoring “all _____ people.”

I know this post isn’t easy. I know it’s harder for some than for others, and I want to be sensitive to that. This place will always be a safe space, even when it’s challenging.

Respectfully…

AR

There was a moment this summer when my family was gleefully cruising the Mediterranean on a beautiful, populated boat. It was absolutely delightful. Beautiful seas… scrumptious, indigenous foods… and sweet interactions with people all across the world.

Time in the cabin was intentionally minimal, but in a moment of downtime, we turned on the TV to get a brief glimpse of what was happening outside our very comfortable vacation bubble. We had 3 news stations to choose from: the BBC, FOX News and MSNBC. (Lucky us.)

What happened next was slightly astonishing in my opinion. And allow me a brief introductory caveat: please don’t take this as support for one party over another or for one candidate over another; it’s not. It would be naive of us to suggest only one party has cornered the market on such behavior.

It was prime time. The station we had tuned into had 4 of their most noted hosts manning the desk. They proceeded to have a serious, in depth discussion on political ideology… on how they were “thinkers”… they like to analyze… they have “complex” thoughts. They then juxtaposed themselves vs. the other party… the other party is so “simple”… not only are they “simple,” but “we use adjectives,” they are reduced to merely nouns and verbs… they don’t develop thoughts like we do… 

Oh my.

I sat there, listening intently, not because I thought I was witness to a moment of journalistic brilliance, but more because I couldn’t believe the audacity of those with a mic in front of them. They had an entire conversation conveying their perceived intellectual and ideological superiority.

And just like that I thought, “And you want more people to think like you?”

Insults and praise can’t come out of the same mouth. It makes neither effective.

Friends, right now there are a lot of “now what’s.” And with two candidates who each had strong perceived negatives, those “now what’s” are all over the place… should we fight? … dig in? … move to the middle? … resist the more extreme policy efforts? … compromise? … offer an olive branch? …what?

But let me suggest a “now what” that I think best applies to all…

At the core of Judeo-Christian values is the Imago Dei. It’s the Latin translation of the “Image of God” and the fundamental teaching that humans were created in God’s image. That means that there’s a part of each of us that reflects God’s nature, that we have some kind of likeness to Him.

Don’t let me act as if I fully, completely understand it and how it applies, but what I do know is that each of us has it… each of us was created in that image…

That then includes Donald Trump. Kamala Harris. And all those loud people with the mics in front of them.

That includes each of us now. It includes the people who are hurting. The people who are celebrating. And the people who are confused, don’t care or none of the above.

It includes all the people who don’t think like us — even if the issue is one we’ve concluded is a moral one.

The best “now what” in my semi-humble opinion has nothing to do with digging in or compromising or proclaiming moral superiority on TV. The best “now what” — the wisest “now what” — would be challenging ourselves to see other people — especially those we don’t like or understand — but to see them as just as equally, just as masterfully, created in the image of God.

Let us ask ourselves: am I treating that person as if they were created in God’s image just as much as I am? 

If I was, what would I do different? Would I listen more? Would I honor? Would I stop looking down upon them?

Such a “now what” makes us kinder. It makes hate harder. And it makes wisdom more prevalent immediately.

Respectfully…

AR

Since absolutely none of us have cornered the market on wisdom, let us simply encourage a few significant things this day… things we believe to be of foremost prudence and importance…

Love your neighbor well.

Seek to understand them.

Refrain from judgment.

Refrain from any salt-putting in wounds. Gloating is never attractive.

Know majorities portray popularity — not necessarily wisdom. 

Watch the insults.

Maybe stay off social media. Watch the regular media, too; the bias is bad and not always admitted. This isn’t news, friends..

Know when to speak and when to be silent. 

Put yourself not only in another’s shoes — but in the shoes of many. 

Be humble in victory and gracious in defeat.

Treat everyone with dignity.

Honor whoever is in authority.

No shame. Ever.

Work for unity; know that unity doesn’t mean others finally come to think like me.

And remember there are things — people and relationships, family and faith — that are far more important. They always will be.

Friends, the reality is this election will come and go. Don’t over index to the moment.

And for the record, I wrote this post prior to any public results. I actually wrote it days ago.

Why? And why still post?

Because I’d say the exact same thing… today, tomorrow and all the days after that.

Respectfully, peacefully, and desiring to be honoring of all…

AR

It’s such a strong word. Hate. If I’m fully transparent, it makes me a little uncomfortable. My sense is the discomfort is wise.

I remember when my kids were younger and found confidence or solace or something in the reactionary use of the verb — be it hatred of raisins, the Patriots or the mean kid next door. Our abridged encouragement was to strive to hate only what God hates — things such as haughtiness, lies or the shedding of innocent blood. Nowhere can we discern that God hates a person.

I’ve asked myself many times, especially in this heightened election season: why do we as adults justify hatred of other people? We know it’s wrong. So why do we spew such fighting words and demean others and tell them if they continue to think or behave in said ways, we are done with them, they are evil, or their character is completely in question? I mean, we recognize that’s hate, right?

hate  | hāt | verb – to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest.

Yep, that’s hate. So why do we do it? 

As some friends have insightfully shared who have worked to resist the attractive lure, we hate because we fear. We fear and we often feel threatened.

No wonder campaigns and surrogates and water-carrying media outlets attempt to get us to fear their opponent… He’s a fascist! She’s a socialist! Democracy may cease to exist!

If people can make us fearful, they can make us hateful. And if they can make us hateful, they can make us forget what’s most important… relationship, respect, faith, family, love, and acceptance. Note what’s not most important: consensus and agreement.

Yuval Levin is a thought-provoking, Israeli-born, American writer. He makes an interesting conclusion about the election now before us. He suggests, no less, that “close contests matter less.” Writes Levin:

“In the buildup to the 2024 election, Republicans and Democrats have not agreed about much, but they have agreed that the stakes of the race could not be higher. ‘If we don’t win this election, I don’t think you’re going to have another election in this country,’ Donald Trump told a rally in Ohio earlier this year. Kamala Harris has said much the same. ‘At stake in this race are the democratic ideals that our Founders, and generations of Americans, have fought for. At stake in this election is the Constitution itself,’ she told supporters in Pennsylvania in October.

Such rhetoric has become par for the course in our presidential contests. Every election is said to be the most important of our lifetimes, holding in the balance the direction of America’s future if not the very possibility of a future. The narrowness of our elections intensifies this perception of the stakes. The outcome rests on a knife’s edge. Things could easily go either way. This motivates apocalyptic rhetoric to get out every last voter, but it also contributes to a heightened sense of the significance of the outcome.”

Levin goes on to say that the nature of the American government — unlike the consolidated parliamentary systems around the world — requires broad majorities enduring for an extended period in order to craft legislation that survives all the embedded checks and balances. Hence…

“Presidential elections always matter, but close ones tend to matter less. If we are in for another tight election, then we are also likely to be in for another presidency characterized by lots of aggressive talk, little durable action, and much partisan frustration. That’s not great news if your party wins and you want to see dramatic change. But it does suggest that if your party loses, it will have another shot soon enough, and the country won’t be lost in the meantime.”

Such means that “both partisan hopes and partisan fears are misdirected in an era of narrow majorities.”

Friends, I’m sensitive to this not being a popular stance. Fear has taken root. I get it; we are passionate. And we indeed feel that this is the most important election in our lifetime! 

My sense, no less, is the most important election of our lifetime will always be the next one. 

So maybe I’m wrong. And know I will examine such as the week goes by and we respectfully wrestle with the results. Maybe, too, it’d be wise to evaluate if we’ve allowed any fear to creep into our thinking. 

Let us never justify the hate. Of any. Let’s hold on to what’s most important.

Respectfully…

AR