AR – Page 140 – intramuralist ™

05/23/201305/23/2013

a concerned citizen

Today the Intramuralist shares an interesting observation. I’ve noticed something. Put away your partisan hats. Squelch any innate motive to passionately pounce. Follow me here…

Each of us likes to claim we are honest and full of integrity. Most of us believe we actually are honest and full of integrity. But even the person who is not will still stake such a claim. Sometimes they are aware they are not but they know the claim looks good/sounds good/is good. Sometimes they are not aware. And friends, intelligence has zero to do with the awareness of integrity. As oft repeated amidst these posts, wisdom and intelligence are not synonyms. I have a son who has Down syndrome, and while he may not score as high on some intelligence tests, he has incredible wisdom. Wisdom is by far more important.

So I continue to wonder why administration after administration stakes the claim that they will be the most ethical… most transparent… and most responsible executors of government. And I continue to wonder why administration after administration is not the most ethical… most transparent… and most responsible executors of government. Again, no partisan pouncing; “administration after administration” includes all parties.

I am currently concerned about the extent of the Dept. of Justice and IRS scandals.

The DOJ privately sought affidavits — signed off on by Eric Holder, the Attorney General — claiming they needed secret access into phone lines and computers, citing the potential criminal behavior of reporters. The Associated Press, CBS, and FOX News each reportedly (thus far) were tapped; one reporter’s parents’ phone records were seized; the DOJ cited the reporter as a flight risk. But there was no criminal suspicion; there was no probable cause; the DOJ unjustly scrutinized them — secretly. The DOJ acted illegally even though they are supposed to be the administrator of justice in the land. Questions: who will be next? Where else will the Dept. of Justice unjustly act? Will we know? Who in the administration knew? This is alarming.

What concerns me as much — and what should unsettle every citizen — even though the DOJ activity is alarming — is the overreach of the IRS.

After the rise of the Tea Party in 2010, the IRS intentionally targeted conservative groups associated with either the party or 2012 election. The tax-exempt status of those organizations was either delayed or denied. Existing group status was upheld.

If you are no Tea Party fan, perhaps the overreach concerns you little. Perhaps quietly somewhere in the back of your mind you’ve thought somebody should keep those rebel-rousing patriots in place. Therein lies the problem… the fact that some thought it was ok… that our federal government secretly used their power to squelch the citizens’ influence… and the conclusion — just like the Justice Dept. — that if it’s a conservative group this time, there will be a next time… and it may not be a group you dislike.

Back, no less, to what looks good/sounds good/is good…

There is no positive way to spin these scandals. In regard to the IRS, we know that the IRS and White House have known about this scandal for some time. We know that the two toyed deliberately with how to break this story to the public. We don’t know exactly who knew what when, as the answers continue to be ambiguous. The former IRS chief, Douglas Shulman, can’t tell us how it happened… “I can’t say that I know.” The acting IRS commissioner, Steven Miller, doesn’t remember who was responsible… “I don’t remember, to be honest with you.” And Lois Lerner, the director of the IRS division that actually singled out the groups, pleaded the 5th Amendment before Congress yesterday. She said she didn’t do anything wrong; but then again, she refused to testify.

These are seemingly intelligent people, friends — in both the IRS and DOJ — but from our limited perspective, they have not acted wisely. Their actions continue to be disturbing. They are not being ethical, transparent, nor responsible.

Hence, more questions: what other motives are in play? Who or what are they trying to protect? Are they still claiming to be honest and full of integrity? Or do they even realize they are not? “NOT” is the key word.

Respectfully,

05/21/201305/21/2013

storms

With neighborhoods flattened and dreams blown apart, the pictures are both devastating and shocking. It’s awful. It’s hard to know what to say.

If I were to say anything, it would probably be something like this…

Life’s too short to take it for granted…

… we are promised no length to our days…

… we need to treat one another better and well.

(… we don’t always treat one another well.)

We never know from where life’s storms will come…

… we don’t know how strong they will be…

… some won’t be physical…

… and yet, man will never be stronger than the forces of nature.

(… do we ever think we’re stronger than nature?)

Here come the climate change claims…

… climate change, global warming, or insert the-most-politically-correct-up-to-date term here…

… there have been significantly fewer tornadoes in Oklahoma this year…

… the data always seems ambiguous…

… it also always omits any reference to a higher power…

… now is not the time for these claims.

Hopefully, too, the most important news stays the most important news…

… the destruction in the Sooner State is heartbreaking…

… the loss of life is paralyzing…

… especially the children…

… pause…

… the children.

Other current events remain significant…

… albeit paling in comparison…

… not even close…

… the overreach and abuse of the IRS…

… the overreach and abuse by the Department of Justice…

(… several are probably thankful for the diversion of the storms…)

Count your many blessings…

… name them one by one…

… count your many blessings…

… yes, see what God has done.

Yes, it’s hard to know what to say…

When all else crumbles to the ground, what will stand as our support?…

… what will we put our faith in?…

… will we put it in something that will actually last?

Or will we put it in something that can be flattened or God-forbid, blown away?

With prayers for those in the path of destruction…

… if I were to say anything…

Respectfully,

05/19/201305/19/2013

IRS questions

If you spend some time with me for a while, you will soon notice I have a few quirky quirks and even odder (albeit fairly creative) obsessions. I even have a favorite form of punctuation. I absolutely adore the question mark!

Question marks. What other punctuation mark spurs on continued discussion? What other punctuation mark encourages dialogue — and thus, solution and growth? What other mark allows best for active listening? The Intramuralist has lots of questions.

Most recently, we have lots of questions about the IRS… the branch of the federal government that reports to the Executive Branch, that was intentionally targeting conservative and religious groups…

Who knew what when?

Who is responsible?

Why can’t the acting director inform us who was responsible?

“Why did the IRS await until after the election to admit wrongdoing?” (… from NBC’s Lisa Meyers…)

How can the commissioner say that “it is absolutely not illegal”?

Why were liberal groups not treated the same way?

How are we to believe the motive was not political?

Is “not remembering” a convenient way of not admitting truth?

Who in the White House knew?

Is it possible Pres. Obama could not have known?

Why didn’t the President answer who in the White House knew?

Is it a requirement for the Press Secretary to be honest and transparent?

Or are all press secretaries simply poised to diffuse controversy?

How significant is it that all parties are outraged at the IRS activity?

Can we trust the IRS as an objective enforcer of Obamacare?

Is it concerning that Sarah Hall Ingram, who served as the head of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations — during the time they targeted Tea Partiers — now serves as the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act division?

Is that wise?

And perhaps my number one question this day…

Is there a better case for limited government?

Friends, that’s not a political talking point. My opinion is this… as the size of any entity increases, so does the potential for inefficiency and corruption. That’s a logical conclusion. Too many people are seduced by the power; people are not all motivated by what is good. I don’t believe that the unscrupulous behavior in the IRS was known nor directed by the entire agency nor entire Executive Branch; there are many aspects of which we are unaware. However, the simple fact that the federal government has grown in size, stature, and massive dollar amount is reason to pause — knowing the potential for greater overreach and abuse is more likely in the future.

Respectfully,

05/15/2013

credibility

Several years ago, I was given a sweet book entitled “The Valley of Vision.” Truth be told, I didn’t totally ‘get it’ right then. Nice alliteration. Neat looking book. But I stumbled at the simple thought of how one was supposed to see from a low lying level of the land.

Down at the lowest point? Seeing life from there? And then it dawned on me…

Only from the bottom are we forced to look up. Only from the lowest levels do we put other people above ourselves, crafting a humble yet healthy respect for other people. We were created to respect one another — without allowing differing opinion or perspective to justify arrogance.

Where does arrogance come from? The person who never looks at life through the valley of vision. Arrogance evolves in the person who must always stand on top, so-to-speak — thus justifying looking down on those below, thinking they always know best.

As I’ve watched the events of the last few days unfold, I’m unsettled by what’s happening… something less than transparency in Benghazi, something conflicting with impartiality by the IRS, and something obviously not just in the actual Justice Department. An accurate account wasn’t shared about Benghazi; the IRS targeted conservative groups leading up to the last presidential election; and the Justice Dept. has been secretly stealing the press’s information. Hence, there are continued reasons for distrust in a growing American government, and those reasons are not rooted in extremism.

When the reputations of solid establishments are pierced by corruption, we crave wisdom; we long for leadership. We long for men and women of integrity to point us to prudent perspective and encourage accountability. We thus long for leaders who humbly exercise the vision gleaned from the valley.

This week concern by the Intramuralist has significantly increased. Similar to the 2 most recent White House occupiers, soon into a second term, a credibility crisis has arisen. The crisis is evident via the questioning and criticism by seemingly likeminded partisans.

Pres. Clinton’s credibility began to crumble with his perceived dishonest response to involvement with Monica Lewinsky. Pres. Bush’s credibility was pierced by his perceived too stoic response to Hurricane Katrina. I say that with no disdain for either leader. The reality is that once a leader’s credibility is damaged, their influence also dissipates. From my limited perspective, the influence of presidents Clinton and Bush began to wane due to their chosen responses. This week we’ve noted the response from Pres. Obama.

Typically, when the events receiving increased publicity are obviously good (i.e. the capture of Bin Laden), we hear a lot of “I”… I did it. I promised. I am responsible. When the events are negative (i.e. the fragile economy), there’s blame casting, distancing, and absolving of individual accountability. When it was unveiled Friday that the IRS has been intentionally targeting groups based on their beliefs, Pres. Obama waited the weekend, then hedged his initial comments on whether or not this was true (even though the IRS had already publicly apologized); and then, while calling the if-true acts “outrageous,” he referred to the IRS as an “independent agency.” The IRS is a bureau of the Treasury Dept., which in turn reports to the Executive Branch; they are not independent. Thus, it appears an attempt to put distance between the agency and administration. Obama is beginning to respond differently, but who will forget Clinton’s wagging finger regarding Lewinsky and Bush’s fly-by pic over New Orleans? The first response is always remembered, for it’s typically not as calculated as the impression management tactics political advisors later recommend.

Friends, I am not suggesting Pres. Obama was personally involved. My point is this… With the not-so-perfect storm of altered Benghazi accounts, biased IRS auditing, and an unjust Justice Dept., we need wise leadership… to take responsibility… to be accountable… to adopt Truman’s bold mantra of “the buck stopping here.” Every CEO is accountable for his business. We thus need leadership that looks at the storm from the valley of vision — meaning instead of finding ways to deflect blame and diffuse controversy, look up; lead us out of this; respect other people as you are motivated only by integrity and truth. Let there be no distancing, hidden political motive, or continued blame.

Only an accountability-accepting response — for both the good and the bad — regardless of direct involvement — demonstrates the humble, effective leadership that keeps one’s credibility from crumbling.

Respectfully,

05/14/201305/14/2013

the best we’ve got

There was a special election last week in South Carolina. Granted, most deemed it “special” because the vote was held to replace a senatorial appointee. However, the Intramuralist finds it “special” because of the uniqueness of the candidates.

While each candidate certainly sported a resume that deserved serious consideration, neither was noted most for any professional qualification. The Republican candidate was Mark Sanford, known most as the former governor who resigned 4 years ago after lying about his whereabouts as opposed to being forthcoming about his affair. The Democrat candidate was Elizabeth Colbert Busch, known most as the sister of popular satirist Stephen Colbert as opposed to any individual accolades. From a distant, arguably judgmental vantage point, it seemed a poor choice of candidates.

Poor indeed. Sanford won by an approximate 10% point margin.

While not a resident of the Palmetto State, part of me wonders if this is the wisest representation for the people of the 1st Congressional District. A former governor… a man who left because of lies — granted, they were entirely regarding his personal endeavors — left his wife, children, and statehouse to pursue the object of his infidelity. He is engaged to her today.

Ah, yes, I hear the rousing chorus of “amen’s.” In fact, I read the screeching comments in cyberspace and selective editorials in the immediate aftermath. “Is this the best we’ve got?” seemed the strong — and even oft articulated — implication.

Truthfully, I agree. Is Sanford the best we’ve got? Now many of you have participated in this dialogue long enough to know that the Intramuralist unabashedly believes in the giving of second, third, and even fourth and fifth chances. Many times I have mercifully been on the receiving end of those grace extensions, and hence, I believe wholeheartedly in the generous outpouring to others. But that outpouring is accompanied by one caveat. Only one. But a significant one at that.

In order to freely offer that second or even seventeenth chance, the heart of the recipient should be willingly repentant. True, no man can fully gauge the heart of another, yet the question is: was Sanford repentant of his actions? Was he truly repentant of the destruction of his family? Or rather, was he simply sorry he got caught? Repentance and remorse are two totally different things.

Again come the “amen’s,” especially, I assume, from those who supported the candidacy of Sanford’s opponent. Of course. That’s the way partisanship sadly works in 21st century America. When we desire the liberal candidate, we loudly pounce upon the indiscretions of one conservative Mark Sanford. Oh, wait; many of us will then turn a blind eye to the indiscretions of a liberal Eliot Spitzer or Anthony Weiner, two more whose unscrupulous behavior merited their political exit but are seemingly, currently, waiting for enough time to pass so they, too, can re-enter the political arena. Again, let’s ask the question: are they repentant of their actions? Or are they only waiting for enough time to pass? Better said: has the heart of the man changed?

Too often we assume the heart has changed because the candidate in question advances our desired political cause. Sorry, but that’s not enough for me. Call me an idealist. But the Intramuralist wants representation by a person who is wise and of solid integrity. Note that I’m not talking about a man who is perfect and ever without error. A man of solid integrity still makes mistakes. But he doesn’t hide them. He doesn’t repeatedly lie about them. He doesn’t just “repackage his behavior” in order to make himself sound better. He also doesn’t merely wait for enough time to pass so that we forget about the magnitude of his indiscretions — and so he can resume a desired political career. He is instead truly repentant for what he’s done.

“Is that the best we’ve got?” The best, my friends, equates to nothing less than a man of integrity.

Respectfully,

05/12/201305/12/2013

the IRS

And then there was this… (from the Associated Press…)

Lois Lerner, head of the Internal Revenue Service that oversees tax-exempt groups, apologized today for the IRS inappropriately flagging conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.

Lerner said organizations that included the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their applications for tax-exempt status were singled out for additional reviews. Speaking at a conference in Washington, she said the practice was initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati.

The Associated Press is also now reporting that senior IRS officials were aware in 2011 of this behavior. There are also reports that some Jewish groups were targeted. Wow…

Here is an organization that is by no means supposed to be partisan. And here in their supposed-to-be-nonpartisan existence, they intentionally decided to scrutinize specific conservative and religious groups more. In fact, in multiple cases, groups were asked to provide a list of donors for review, typically a violation of IRS policy. The IRS scrutinized activity based upon any overt, conservative leanings of the supporters. Hmmm… and one wonders why citizens continue to lose faith in government…

More and more government tends to emphasize “think like me.” “Join me.” “Do what I do.” “Refute the voices of those who think differently.” “Reject the two party system.” “One party is always right.” “I am always right.” Friends, one huge, massive, like-minded, political group has never proved nationally beneficial; historically, the accompanying power with a singular massive party leads to corruption and inefficiency, and yet so many still seem to strive for such a dominant arrangement. The partisan admission by the IRS is evidence of such corruption; it is also irresponsible and foolish.

Who asked them to do so? Who persuaded their partisan directive? Who guided them (as the Intramuralitst oft likes to say) to no longer oversee a united state of America?

According to Time Magazine — and a reaction on both the proverbial right and left…

“The IRS has demonstrated the most disturbing, illegal and outrageous abuse of government power,” said Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots. “This deliberate targeting and harassment of tea party groups reaches a new low in illegal government activity and overreach.”

The revelation didn’t sit much better with groups on the left. “Even the appearance of playing partisan politics with the tax code is about as constitutionally troubling as it gets,” said Michael Macleod-Ball, chief of staff of the ACLU’s Washington legislative office.

So let me get this straight…

In addition to the known previous functions of the IRS, here is also now the government agency that is responsible for enforcing Obamacare. My sense is that few Americans are aware of this role. Beginning in 2014, this agency will be the one which requires each American to carry health insurance. We will have to disclose our personal identifying health ID number to the IRS — in addition to the nature of our insurance and any additional information the IRS decides to demand. The IRS is the enforcer.

Logical questions here, folks…

How can an agency that has admitted political bias be an objective enforcer?

How will we know the agency is free from continued corruption?

Great questions. I’m unfortunately fearful of the answers.

Respectfully…

05/09/201305/09/2013

to listen or reject?

On Sunday, the President gave the commencement address at The Ohio State University. In his address, Obama included the following:

“Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.

We have never been a people who place all our faith in government to solve our problems. We shouldn’t want to. But we don’t think the government is the source of all our problems, either. Because we understand that this democracy is ours. And as citizens, we understand that it’s not about what America can do for us, it’s about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government. And class of 2013, you have to be involved in that process.”

I appreciate the President’s comment that “we have never been a people who place all our faith in government” and that “we don’t think the government is the source of all our problems.” The balance of those isolated statements seems prudent indeed.

However, the Intramuralist is concerned about one aspect contradictory of our mantra…

“… nothing more than some separate, sinister voices…”

No, I don’t care about that. There are people on the right, left, middle, all-over-the-place who call certain somethings “sinister.” That doesn’t alarm me.

“… tyranny is always lurking just around the corner…”

Lurking? Lurking?! Well, maybe. But that sounds more like an emotional plea designed to drum up passion. The President, his opponents, and supporters all seem to resort to emotional pleas when unfortunately deemed necessary. I, for one, believe arguments should be debated more on their logic than on all the accompanying emotion. But alas, I again digress…

“… And class of 2013, you have to be involved in that process.”

Excellent! We need to get the younger generations involved! You need to understand how government works! … it’s efficiencies and inefficiencies; it’s up to you to change this… to improve it… to be involved. Well said, Pres. Obama.

What concerns me? One line: “You should reject these voices.”

As long apparent amidst our postings, the Intramuralist always — yes, I said “always” — encourages dialogue. The only way to encourage dialogue is to also encourage active, sincere listening — and active, sincere listening of those who feel differently than you. If your argument is solid — absent of logical loopholes — there should be no reason to outright reject opposing voices. While there is no doubt Pres. Obama is an articulate, intelligent man, his admonition that the younger generation should simply reject the voices of those who passionately advocate for limited government seems unwise to me.

If — and I realize that’s a mighty big “if” — if we would entertain why there is a vocal desire for limited government — if we listened to those voices — what would we learn? Would we learn about where government is both efficient and inefficient? Would we learn about history? … where some governments have overreached and thus prompted national demise? What’s wrong with listening to those voices as opposed to rejection?

Listening, my friends, is wiser.

Respectfully…

05/07/2013

a “bad” experience

Years ago when my oldest son was a wibbling, wobbling toddler, I will never forget the day his stuffed Curious George went sailing through the aisle at our local grocery. While first appalled that my son would turn his beloved companion into a public projectile, I couldn’t help but chuckle as George came to rest in the narrow gauntlet between multiple canned goods. I may have even grinned from ear to ear.

Unfortunately, my laughter quickly subsided, as George landed a mere 3-4 feet in front of one of those motorized carts, donned by an obviously, elderly lady.

“I’m sorry, ma’am. My son threw his favorite stuffed animal.”

Instead of the articulated grace perhaps far too naively expected, the lady’s countenance turned immediately stern, glaring at me, squinting her eyes, and then retorting, “You need to get better control of your children!”

I was shocked. What? I need to get better control? There is no grace for a harmless throw of Curious George?

Let me tell you what I did not…

I did not conclude that all elderly women are as withholding of grace as she. I did not conclude that all persons on motorized carts have lost respect for the rest of the waiting world. No. I made zero conclusions about the elderly nor those on those oh-so-cool motorized carts.

However, my sense is that refraining from making conclusions — when we have 1 “bad” experience — is the rarity as opposed to the norm.

How often do we do that? How often do we make conclusions about an entire demographic because of a singular experience? For example…

Have you had 1 “bad” experience with a Christian? (“Bad” equates to harshness and immediate judgment.) Have you had 2, 4, maybe even 17 “bad” interactions? There are billions of Christians on this planet. Even 17 so-called “bad” experiences pale in comparison.

Have you had 1 “bad” experience with a Republican or Democrat? (“Bad” equates to arrogance and a clear failure to listen.) There are millions of partisans on this planet; they are not all the same. In fact, I have a brother who is a state legislator. He is ethical, fiscally responsible, and he listens to those he represents. More of our representatives — regardless of party — should be like him.

Have you had 1 “bad” experience with a member of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community? … or with someone who believes LGBT behavior is unnatural? (“Bad” equates to so passionate they actually justify condescendence of persons with differing opinion.) I have friends who are gay… and friends who believe homosexuality is sinful. I have both who still love and respect their neighbor.

Friends, one of the most accepted forms of arrogance on this planet is when we make judgments about entire people groups because of 1 “bad” experience. Sure, we don’t feel it’s only 1. We find other likeminded persons to “amen” our experience, so we’re never confronted with the darts that pierce our self-inflated bubbles; we’re never confronted with the reality that challenges our self-created reality. In other words, we allow 1 or 2 or even 17 “bad” experiences to tell us what we want to hear — as opposed to be on a continuous seeking of actual truth. Too many times, experience trumps truth.

When the lady at that grocery challenged my parenting, I wish all could have witnessed the astonished look on my face…

“What? I need to get better control of my children?”

I knew her response was not the response of all people. It was not even the response of all elderly women on motorized carts. Hence, I smiled, paused, and said the first thing that came to mind…

“Have a nice day, ma’am. I will, too.”

Respectfully…

05/05/201305/05/2013

fixing our eyes

Let me be frank: there is one thing I have hated my entire life. No, not pickles. Not even disrespect. Unfortunately, too many times in my playful adolescence, I partook of both.

While it is true our family has attempted as best as possible to adopt the “hate what God hates” mentality (which thus allows pickles to remain a non-hated option), the Intramuralist must confess to a tinge of hypocrisy, as my enduring hatred has yet to be mentioned negatively in any even dead sea scroll.

I have always hated running. Yep, running. Moving one foot in front of the other for an extended period of time, without a book to read, show to watch, or witty person to talk to. Dwelling on my perceived boredom associated with the activity, I remember years ago during pre-iPod/Walkman days, donning my cool cassette player and a basketball, thinking perhaps the clever combination of music and dribbling would somehow ease my pain. Note: it didn’t work.

In recent years, no less, I have been humbly graced by the friendship of a few persistent, pesky, and pretty perky runners in my life. God bless you, guys, but that’s still not my ‘thing.’ But yet, they’ve taught me something…

My running friends profess the process is more mental than physical; running has more to do with the mind and spirit as opposed to the actual body. Mind over matter. A reshaping of the mind. As one wise friend says with unparalleled passion, “whatever we pay attention to grows.” If we pay attention to how much our body hurts when running (or how bored we may be), we will fail to persevere. We’ll miss the run. Hence, the question is: what’s our focus? On what are we fixing our eyes?

Where we go, what we do, the successes we enjoy, the places we falter… on what are we fixing our eyes? Allow me to thus assert, that whatever our eyes are fixed upon is solely what we will see. For example…

… if we fix our eyes upon Boehner or Barack’s broken promises, we’ll miss their promises kept.

… if we fix our eyes upon one party’s infinite wisdom, we’ll miss our own lack of objectivity.

… if we fix our eyes upon another’s lack of grace, we’ll miss the times we ourselves have justified refusal.

… if we fix our eyes upon the praise of NBA’er Jason Collins — who was vocal about his sexuality last week, we’ll miss the criticism of NFL’er Tim Tebow — who many have asked to remain silent.

… if we fix our eyes upon the need for all to have free education and healthcare, we’ll miss that our government doesn’t have enough money for it to be free.

… if we fix our eyes upon our government’s lack of money, we’ll miss how to care for “the least of these.”

… if we fix our eyes upon the emotion stemming from the victims in Newtown, we’ll miss the rationale for the 2nd Amendment.

… if we fix our eyes upon the existing prejudice of many white people, we’ll miss the existing prejudice of many black people.

… if we fix our eyes upon “if-it-feels-good-do-it,” we’ll miss the negative impact of moral relativity.

… and if we fix our eyes upon the ‘speck in another’s eye,’ we’ll miss the log in our own.

Such begs the question: what should we fix our eyes upon? What’s so worth it — that the focus does not result in blindness elsewhere? What lasts? My running friends suggest we must keep our eyes on the prize — on where we want to end up — on the big picture, so-to-speak. Only by keeping our eyes fixed upon where we want to go will our gaze not prompt blindness somewhere else.

Meanwhile… yes… true… I’ve started running. Shocking, I know… I, too, am a little dumbstruck. But my focus is no longer on the perceived boredom nor bodily harm; it’s on something bigger.

Respectfully,

05/01/2013

community

Imagine if America was a community… one large, real, significant, interactive, healthy community. What would that change? What would we be like?

Perhaps some would suggest: we already are a community — maybe not so healthy — but we’re still a community! It ‘takes a village,’ you know.

I think not.

To be a community — an authentic community — is first, not something forced upon us. Community is a choice. It’s a choice, in its simplest manifestation, to do life together.

Does that mean there never exists disagreement? Of course not. Disagreement does not equate to disrespect (… a few more of us could learn that, I’m thinking…).

But if we functioned as an authentic community, we would never work so hard to squelch or silence opinion solely because it’s different. Dare I say that neither the Executive nor Legislative branches consistently practice such wisdom. Far too often, P.R. campaigns and rhetorical put-downs are instead, lavishly employed.

To live in community means to be on mission together… We saw that in the days immediately succeeding the Boston Marathon bombing. Not solely the city proper nor the Commonwealth of Massachusetts but rather, seemingly the entire U.S. of A. was passionately seeking the arrest of those responsible. Cheers, tweets, and texts rang out when the suspects were apprehended. Being united in purpose prompted a truer sense of community.

Hence, what mission could endure in this country? What mission could a “united state” of America join in on together? A mission that would last? …

To fend off all evil.

To pursue life.

To pursue liberty.

To even pursue happiness.

To recognize that opposition does not equate to evil.

To recognize that evil is the utter absence of God.

To defend our inalienable rights.

To recognize that those rights come from someone bigger and better than you and me.

To learn to preach to ourselves as opposed to listen to ourselves.

To acknowledge God.

To relentlessly pursue his blessing and perspective.

To extinguish terrorism.

To recognize that there exist multiple, organized, anti-Christian organizations that wish to bring us serious harm.

To seek God’s best for all people.

To be humble enough to pray.

To submit.

To do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit.

Again I ask, what mission could we join in on together?

As I look at the purpose articulated by current leadership — regardless of party affiliation — I don’t see much of the above. Instead, it seems we have a plethora of “me first”… “Party first”… and a generous helping of “I know best.”

I don’t see a lot of humility, submission, and putting others before ourselves.

The reality, therefore, is that I don’t see a lot of community.

Respectfully…