Posts

Posted on

slugs & jabs

FullSizeRenderSunday afternoon I had the pleasure of watching one of my son’s games. Like all proud parents, I enjoy watching my sons in their respective activities. Thankfully, my pleasure is no longer dependent upon the number of points they score, complete games they pitch, or whether or not they have a lead role. I’ve matured to a point (thanks, God) that I can celebrate each child for who he is and how he is uniquely gifted — as opposed to basing my pride on performance and accomplishment.

My youngest son, Josh, has helped much with that. It’s hard to adhere to pride based on performance when you have a special needs child. Life becomes a little more clear then — what’s most important, that is (another “thanks, God”).

There was one moment in Sunday’s basketball game which I found to be particularly insightful. There was a perhaps 11/12 year old boy on my son’s team, who was no more than four feet tall; he was actually quite physically skilled. He could dribble, shoot, and was unquestionably assertive on the court. Most of his peers were significantly taller; however, since the individual physical and cognitive disabilities differed, size did not dictate athletic dominance.

At one point, the small young boy dribbled smack dab into the middle of the lane, and a taller — albeit seemingly more physically challenged teen — stood directly in his way. The taller boy had flimsily stabbed at the ball a few times; it was a rather meek effort, but a stabbing just the same. His goal was to stop our enthusiastic, assertive four footer.

My four foot friend was obviously annoyed, though, as he encountered the defense; someone was opposing what he wanted to do. Hence, the four footer dribbled and penetrated, dribbled and penetrated, and then stopped dead in the lane, picking up his dribble. Then in his next, seemingly instantaneous move, the boy moved the ball to under one arm and used his other arm to slug his defender. He popped him right in the shoulder. The four footer then resumed his dribble, having subdued his opponent, and proceeded to follow through with his shot. (Thankfully, the defender was not hurt — granted, it was not from a lack of trying).

Now one of the many things I admire about my son and his peers is that they invest very little time in impression management; they don’t typically fake things, say things, or do things in order to control the image others have of them. They tend to live more freely — not allowing emotion to get in the way; they thus, also, typically do not hide how they feel. So on Sunday, when the young man was frustrated with the opposition, he slugged him; he threw a punch. He found the opposing of his ambition annoying, and so he simply let loose, so-to-speak.

It made me wonder: how often do we just “let loose” when someone gets in our way? … when someone opposes us? … when we find the opposition of another annoying?

Most of us are surely wise enough to refrain from physical slugging, but what keeps us from administering a verbal blow? …

Feel like someone is keeping your idea from being heard? … feel like their idea might be accepted by others? Shout at them; talk louder. 

Don’t like something someone says that refutes your feeling or logic? Just insult them; maybe it will stick; maybe others will believe it. 

The old adage that “sticks and stones will break our bones, but words will never harm me” is not one we believe in — otherwise we wouldn’t spend so much effort justifying the verbal jabs when there’s opposition in our lane. We should listen more, speak less, refrain from insult, and ask more questions in order to comprehend.  And if we ever pick up our dribble, we should never feel justified slugging away… even with verbal jabs.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

the rhetorical dance

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

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

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

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

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

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

So back to the evolving irony…

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

Something is not ok about that. Something is inconsistent.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

it is what it is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

great scott

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boo-yah, Stuart Scott… boo-yah.

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

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.

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

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

the company we keep

johnny_deeper(Soon this new year I may share my own resolutions. Until then… 🙂 )

My resolution for our leaders is to consistently act with wisdom and integrity. Integrity means their leadership is beyond reproach. It doesn’t mean we always agree with our leaders’ choices, but integrity does mean we don’t question their values, their decision-making process, and the core of their character.

So my mind is wandering somewhat today… looking deeper.  As I examine questions of integrity, how does a person like Al Sharpton have such generous access to the sitting President of the United States? According to the White House visiter log — which was last released in August — Sharpton has already visited 61 times since Obama became President (and this prior to the tragic, racially-charged incident in Ferguson, Missouri). Granted, Sharpton’s been included in certain ceremonies and bill signings. He’s also visited to discuss specific policy initiatives — on civil rights, yes — but also regarding job creation, health care, education, and immigration. He has even been invited to Obama’s birthday party. Sharpton thus seems in close contact with Obama. Such an extensive relationship causes me to question this aspect of Pres. Obama’s leadership, as the company we keep, friends, makes a difference.

According to Politico’s senior staff writer Glenn Thrush, what melded the relationship between Obama and Sharpton was their “shared commitment to racial justice and a hardheaded pragmatism that has fueled their success.” Thrush further elaborates that Sharpton not only visits the White House regularly, but also frequently texts and emails with top aide Valerie Jarrett and Attorney General Eric Holder. As said of Sharpton by his colleague, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, “He’s the man who’s the liaison to the White House; he’s the one who’s talking to the Justice Department.” The relationship between Sharpton and Obama is ongoing and real.

Wanting to be respectful of all yet not in denial, let’s acknowledge that this is the same Al Sharpton that came to fame by loudly and falsely accusing and defaming a white prosecutor in the late ’80’s. He has made controversial, derogatory public comments about Jewish, Mormon, gay and lesbian people amongst others in the succeeding decades. He has faced questions of marital infidelity and also over a million dollars in unpaid taxes and penalties. He currently faces questions regarding inciting unrest directed toward the nation’s law enforcement.

The Intramuralist has long been an advocate of second and third chances, so-to-speak; each of us has something to offer, as we are capable of change. With the extended, inflammatory record of Sharpton’s, however, I find myself seconding the question posed earlier last year by New York Post editorial writer Michael Goodwin: “How is it possible… that he [Sharpton] carries so much tainted baggage from the past, yet still enjoys enormous pull with the political class?… Why isn’t he politically toxic?”

Why does Pres. Obama allow Sharpton such access and influence?

In all fairness, from our obvious, limited vantage point, we cannot discern exactly how much influence Sharpton actually has with Obama. We can’t tell how much he has altered or added perspective or policy on job creation, health care, education, immigration, etc. But that’s the problem: we can’t tell. If we can’t tell, then both the decision-making and hence, integrity are in question.

With the recent racial conflicts, Al Sharpton has been more visible, making louder public statements. He has somehow become the President’s “go to guy” on race. Sharpton has thus been very focused on the behavior of others — on the so-called large “specks in another’s eye.” Perhaps it would be first wise to wrestle with the “log” in his own.

Back to working on my own resolutions… my “specks” and “logs,” too…

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

happy new year!

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

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

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

For example…

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

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

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

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

For the IRS… I resolve not to be biased.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Al Sharpton… I resolve to quit inciting disrespect.

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

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

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

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

Respectfully… and Happy New Year…

AR

Posted on

tragedy


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What words and truth actually heal?

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

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

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

Respectfully… always…

AR

 

Posted on

who are we?

A fascinating statement…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

hope & pain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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



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



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

Respectfully… with hope… always…

AR

Posted on

music in my ears

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully…

AR

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