intramuralist ™

Sometimes a day interrupts the “normal.” It interrupts the “normal” so much, it shocks us back into remembering what’s most important.

I imagine that’s what it was like the day JFK died. I wasn’t born yet, but I know the news spread quickly, as the sitting American President rode through Dealey Plaza in downtown Dallas, assassinated just after noon. It was November of ’63, and while Kennedy had not formally announced his re-election plans, it was clear he was gearing up to run again and seemed confident he would win. That moment, though, pierced the “normal” of the time, thinking our leaders were always respected and safe, when they were not.

It’s what obviously happened on 9/11. America had always, so beautifully embraced the idea of being a “melting pot,” a land that lauds its diversity, welcoming all tired, poor, and people with their accompanying demographics and beliefs. But that “normal” was disrupted by 19 men who took terror into their own hands in the name of their religion. Not all religion is the same. Not all adherents are wise. We were reminded that not all believe in a good and righteous God.

It happened, no less, again last week. There was a young, major league pitcher who played for the Miami Marlins, José Fernández. The 24 year old lost his life in a boating accident. Fernández was a star — the ace of the pitching staff. But Fernández was more than just a focus of the far-more-than-casual-sports fan. Note the below excerpt from ESPN Magazine’s pre-season cover story…

In an interview with rising MLB star, Bryce Harper, Harper was discussing how baseball’s “unwritten code” dampers self-expression. He singled out Fernández:

“You can’t do what people in other sports do. I’m not saying baseball is, you know, boring or anything like that, but it’s the excitement of the young guys who are coming into the game now who have flair.

José Fernández is a great example. José Fernández will strike you out and stare you down into the dugout and pump his fist. And if you hit a homer and pimp it? He doesn’t care. Because you got him. That’s part of the game. It’s not the old feeling — hoorah … if you pimp a homer, I’m going to hit you right in the teeth. No. If a guy pimps a homer for a game-winning shot … I mean — sorry.”

In other words, Fernández’s flair was not a sign of one-up-manship; recognized or not, it was instead a manifestation of the joy of playing the game — what should be the “normal” of baseball. When Fernández’s boat and body were recovered early Sunday morning, it reminded us that a game is just a game; life is more important. The tragedy thus pierced our “normal” that gets so out of control, as contemporary society focuses far too much on celebrity, status, and winning. The Marlins cancelled their game that day; winning didn’t matter. They were shocked into remembering what’s most important.

What strikes me this day is the potential for other “normals” that may also be pierced one day… shocking us at our core. You see, the piercing elevates the important.

Perhaps you, too, are struck by the “normal” in the current political environment. Sadly, there exists a glaring lack of civility. There is such a demandingness; that is our “normal.”

There seems this crazy, disrespectful acceptance of “if you don’t think like me, you’re either (a) wrong, (b) an idiot, or (c — and most likely) both of the above.” Our “normal,” friends, is that we have lost the ability to respect the person who doesn’t share our perspective. The current election season, the reaction to “Black Lives Matter,” the debates over gun control, socialism, minimum wage, a living wage, abortion, healthcare, centralized government… our new “normal” is that good-thinking people justify thinking “both of the above.”

I’m concerned.

What’s it going to take to pierce that normal?

It will be something. I’m fearful of what it may be. But I do pray it shocks us into finally remembering what is most important.

Respectfully…
AR

It’s finally over.

(And if you were hoping the election came early so all the memes, rants, and rotten rhetoric were over, my sincerest apologies. We unfortunately have 40 more days of this.)

Uh, nope. It’s “Brangelina.” Perhaps you heard; it’s over.

The marriage of Hollywood superstars Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie is coming to an end. Together for 12 years, married for 2, Jolie’s attorney announced last week that Jolie has filed for dissolution of their marriage. He adds, “This decision was made for the health of the family. She will not be commenting at this time, and asks that the family be given their privacy during this difficult time.”

Let me first say that privacy should be granted. Divorce is hard on everyone involved, regardless of reason. It’s hard on the parents, hard on the kids. Pitt and Jolie have 6 children.

Pitt met Jolie on the set of their 2004 movie, “Mr. & Mrs. Smith.” He was married to Jennifer Aniston at the time. While Pitt denies any physical affair, he did tell “Rolling Stone” magazine 4 years later that the Smith movie was his favorite “because I fell in love.” Pitt, though, is not alone in Hollywood in his extramarital affairs…

Julia Roberts and Daniel Moder… Moder was married to his first wife of only a few years when he got involved with Roberts.

Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward… These two were long celebrated as one of Hollywood’s greatest love stories, married for 50 years until his death in 2008. However, he was married to Jackie Witte when he met Woodward in 1953.

And then there’s Jerry Seinfeld and his wife Jessica Sklar. They met at an exclusive health club on New York City’s Upper West Side. Not only was Sklar married when they got involved; she had just returned from her 3 week honeymoon.

Let me be especially clear in each of the above: I do not believe in throwing stones. I believe in the application of generous grace, and I will gladly stand first in line, confessing my deep need for such. We have each made mistakes; we are each still capable of making mistakes; and we will each make more. Hence, there is zero reason for any of us to throw stones at another (… Note: another tidbit to be remembered during election season…).

So in my commitment to be the thrower of no stone, I will say nothing bad about Seinfeld, etc., nor about the latest marital casualty of Brad and Angelina. They do not deserve our condemnation. Again, divorce is painful enough.

Also, none of us know all the details regarding what factors were/are relevant in celebrity relationships forming or dissolving. Our perspectives are very limited (… another good thing to remember during election season…).

So no, they don’t deserve criticism or condemnation.

Here, though, is what we as a public don’t deserve:

We don’t deserve a media which takes a marriage — which only began by ruining another — and presents it as good and true and right. Without personal repentance from those involved — which we may or may not be privy to — we don’t deserve the media celebrating either the marriage or the dissolution.

So again, no stones; we each make our share of mistakes. I’m just uncomfortable ignoring one major huge detail in order to celebrate the other.

Respectfully… always…
AR

Tomorrow night is the first debate between the presidential candidates of America’s two most prominent parties. The Libertarian and Green Party candidates will not be included.

Hillary Clinton will try to convince us she is honest. Donald Trump will try to convince us he is presidential. Let me humbly assert that the bar for this debate thus seems pretty low. As an American, I expect any who serve in said capacity to be unquestionably both of the above.

But knowing we are a diverse nation — and knowing some of you love the Donald or love the Hillary — knowing some of you fear the Donald or fear the Hillary — and knowing even more are far less enthused for any — let me share one challenging aspect…

Right now there is growing unrest in our country in regard to racial reconciliation. This is not a “sided issue,” friends. Sorry, but “sided” implies we either come at something from the left or the right — and we assume if a person isn’t coming from “my” side, they are coming from the other. We are being seduced into believing that there exist only two possible sides to a problem.

Last week I had lunch with a group of wise thinking adults. We were discussing this issue and there were all sorts of angles and opinions shared at the table. There were comments of “black lives matter,” “blue lives matter,” “all lives matter,” and many more without any expressed mattering. But there was no dissing nor shutting down of opinion; there was no perceived arrogance. There were questions and comments and lots of “help me understand what you’re thinking” expressions. There was also ample admission by many that “I don’t think that way.” But there was no “because you don’t think like me, you are wrong.”

Obviously, the challenge here is that there is no simple fix.

There are racist attitudes that many of us have unknowingly adopted, growing up with them, having no idea we’ve allowed such to sink into our thinking. There are racist attitudes many of us have unknowingly adopted, embracing them as an adults, defending various people, political, and professional groups. And there are racist attitudes, within all ethnicities, which we have sadly, actually, knowingly adopted.

Here, no less, is why the presidential campaigns are relevant…

The current state of our political climate makes it impossible to solve the racial tension. (Yes, I did say the word “impossible.”)

For months, we have heard from our candidates how one is superior to the other. For months, we’ve heard each speak about how their opponent is entirely inferior.

Racism, by definition, is “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.”

While Clinton and Trump are not distinguished by their race, they each have actively promoted the idea that they and their party are far superior to the other. They have each, also, denigrated entire people groups, intentionally targeting the other’s supporters.

How can two people — and all the questionable “honest” and “presidential” candidates on their coattails — attempt to bring us together and solve this problem? How can two people who themselves claim superiority — and themselves identify others as inferior (and not just on specific policy disagreements) — how can they be credible and effective in any racial reconciliation? Our country’s current, vicious political climate thus seems a microcosm of the same problem — just not based on skin color.

In tomorrow night’s debate, both candidates will be jockeying to find the right words and right tone. How do we balance the rights of each person with the needs of each community? How do we discriminate against no one and simultaneously honor and respect law enforcement?

I just wish each candidate’s words would have thus far been wiser.

Respectfully…
AR

As we witness continued incredulous events in the news — as it too often seems as if only the names and faces change — I’m struck by a bold assertion…

People keep telling me how I feel.

And, if I don’t feel that way, they proceed to tell me how I should feel.

I don’t get it…

Are we not allowed to have varied perspectives any more?
And… can varied perspectives not be equally valid or true?

I read an opinion piece yesterday morn which asserted that white people are uncomfortable saying the word “black.”

I’ve read opinion pieces for months asserting that some people are afraid to say the phrase “radical Islam.”

Noting the discomfort and fear assigned above, let me attempt to process an idea that probably won’t be comfortable or popular. Granted, getting to the truth, always with respect, is a higher priority for me.

It is true that some won’t say “black” and some won’t say “radical Islam.” Frankly, I don’t have a problem saying or hearing either.

But where good-thinking people lose me is when they assume they can discern my emotion and all that I am thinking. Sorry… they’re not inside my head; they do not know. But yet, they assign an emotion to you or me, seemingly to further their own, adhered-to narrative. I don’t think it’s malicious; it’s just that if they can nice and neatly ascertain our emotions with 100%, pinpoint accuracy, then they don’t have to wrestle with the validity within any other perspective. Another perspective may complicate their clung-to account.

It seems as if this assignment of emotion is justified as people observe our behavior…

If I don’t react as strongly, then I must not care as much. (… Seriously, can they tell if I’m grieving inside? And wait; they don’t see me all the time; they don’t know how strong I react…)

If I don’t verbally rant and rave, then my silence says it all. (… What if my silence was instead time for my private prayers? Am I required to share that with them? And they don’t know what conversations I’ve had; they haven’t witnessed those…)

If I don’t yell and scream and say ‘I’m mad as hell and not going to take it anymore,’ then I must be indifferent. (… Tell me: what psych class teaches that emotions are only valid if expressed the same way?)

One of the wisest changes I wish for our increasingly polarized, digressing society is to give one another the freedom to react differently. It’s why both the 49ers backup quarterback is free to kneel during the National Anthem and why fans are free to be frustrated with his perceived disrespect. People express emotion differently. And… outward expression is not — I repeat, “not” — an accurate barometer of how people actually feel.

I get it; we say “enough is enough”! We want no more incidents of an innocent man killed, a police officer persecuted, or a dreaded terrorist incident. Enough is enough.

But until we give people the grace and space to process, grow, and express their emotions differently — consistent with our own, unique, internal wiring — we will not make significant progress nor craft solution.

We must stop demanding everyone “feels like me.” And we must stop believing we know how everyone feels.

Respectfully…
AR

On Saturday, a bomb detonated on West 23rd Street in Manhattan at 8:30 p.m., injuring 29 people.
A man claiming allegiance to the Islamic State stabbed nine people at a mall in central Minnesota.

On Sunday, four commando-style gunmen, armed with AK-47 assault rifles and grenades, burst into the brigade headquarters on an Indian army base that killed 17 soldiers.
In New Jersey, multiple explosive devices were found, one of which exploded near a train station.

Then just yesterday, Reuters reported that a ceasefire negotiated by the U.S. and Russia in war-ravaged Syria looked imminent in collapsing. Insurgents were mounting strategies and arms, ready to resume fighting.

And as I write this…

The U.S. Coast Guard is frantically searching for three missing boaters on Lake Superior, including a nine year old boy.
And on both the East and West coasts of Florida, authorities are investigating two unrelated, fatal shootings. One of the victims was a four year old girl. The other was only seventeen months old.

I understand why so many turn off the news — and not just to avoid the vicious vitriol disappointingly included in this year’s election cycle. We turn off the news because it’s full of heartache and sin. Too many people, too many victims, and too much wrongdoing. Yes, it’s too many and too much.

But let me say this…

In all of the moments where people arguably are intentionally bringing attention to self, each of the above atrocities are the moments, in my opinion, most deserving of “a knee.” There is the heartache. The heartache in their lives is “bigger than me.” To take a knee is to pay honor to them.

Football is just a game. It’s only a game. Granted, I think we learn a lot from even the lesser things in life. Those lesser, more routine things — it’s where God teaches us because we’re more apt to finally “get it.” So in football and this whole knee idea… on one hand taking a knee means the game is over; it’s synonymous with the “quarterback kneel,” when the outcome of the game is settled, the offense is aligned in their victory formation, and the knee is taken to run the clock down and preserve the win.

On the other (far bigger) hand, to take a knee is a show of respect. Taking a knee means we stop whatever we’re doing, momentarily ending our normal activity, and recognizing that there are other things more important than moi.

Truthfully, when the San Francisco backup quarterback originally sat in protest, I was a bit confused. The reality is that his sitting could have just as easily been motivated by his disgust with 49er management that he had regressed to backup, and there is/was no way to discern with certainty whether his initial act was a protest against perceived police brutality or the manifestation of a professional pout.

Then, however, the quarterback took a knee. To me, that means something different.

Taking a knee is a sign of submission. Again, it’s an awareness that something is bigger than self.

It’s why at game’s end of every NFL contest, regardless of outcome, members of both teams meet at midfield. The tradition began 26 years ago, in December of 1990, when 49ers chaplain Pat Richie and NY Giants chaplain Dave Bratton arranged for the first joint postgame prayer in NFL history.

As Richie said then — knowing these two teams detested one another — that they saw each other as the enemy — “I wonder if there’s something that we could do or should do, as far as a reflection of our faith. What if we did something as simple as pray with the New York Giants?”

Ah, what if we took all attention off of self, met in the middle, and interacted with those we detest? What if we recognized the real atrocities in this world? And what if we were each more submissive and respectful, willing and wanting to take a knee?

Respectfully…
AR