Posts

Posted on

duck dynasty

 

“Do we always have to make people go away?”

 

It’s not like the Intramuralist to begin with or even include a quote from political commentator, Bill Maher, but irony seems oddly apparent this time of year… and Maher’s one time question begs asking again now.

 

Why is it that instead of entertaining dialogue — instead of engaging in an interactive, back-and-forth conversation — instead of listening and learning and actually humbly educating one another through public discourse — why is it we often instead attempt to silence an opposing voice?  Why can we not even entertain the conversation?  Is it just too tough?  Is it just so wrong?  Is it just that their opinion is so wrong no one deserves to ever hear it?

 

As many are now aware, popular “Duck Dynasty” patriarch, Phil Robertson, was suspended by the A&E network because of his comments in GQ magazine regarding homosexual intercourse, sharing his opinion in a rather coarse way that homosexuality is sinful.  Immediately, there were adamant calls for his firing and claims of Christian bigotry.  While questions instinctively arise as to why calls for Robertson’s release were passionately immediate — but calls for recent non-Christian rants have been similarly silent —  allow me to humbly return to what I believe is the better question:  why is there a need by some to silence Robertson?

 

Can we not handle the conversation?  Or do some, for some reason, not want us to even discuss this issue?

 

Friends, there exists all sorts of tangents to this controversy.  Is it a free speech issue?  Is it an issue of employment discrimination?  Is Robertson’s perspective biblical?  Is it contradictory?  Are we practicing tolerance?  Intolerance?  And why this controversy now?  As said at the onset of this post, irony seems oddly apparent this time of year.  I find it fascinating that Robertson’s interview took place some time ago; television executives had to have known what Robertson said.  However, only after the public pressure mounted by activist groups — and, immediately preceding A&E’s planned “Duck Dynasty” marathon — did the suspension — and supposed outrage — occur.

 

As typical then of the Intramuralist, let’s boldly but humbly ask the better question:  can we or can we not handle the conversation?  Can we wrestle with Robertson’s actual opinion?

 

Call me an idealist, but the Intramuralist adheres to the belief that truth always wins out in the end.  In other words, what’s good and right and true cannot be squelched by the foolish acts of an individual.  We cannot contain the truth.

 

Hence, wouldn’t it be wiser to allow the conversation?  To work less to silence an opinion but to wrestle with its validity or lack of it?  … Are we fearful? … are we righteous? … are we self-righteous?  I speak not only of this somewhat silly show; I speak also of politics… religion.  Again, quoting Maher, why do we always have to make people — and their opinion — go away?

 

My strong sense is the most effective way to influence others is to act wisely oneself — to engage in respectful dialogue — as opposed to dictating the dialogue.  No one need to ever reason nor conclude — or grow —  if opposing opinion is simply silenced.  Come now; let’s reason together, fording one another the freedom to decide what is actually good and true… regardless of irony.

 

Respectfully,

 

AR

 

Posted on

mandating behavior

In our 3 most recent posts, I’ve seen a trend appearing.  As a society, we struggle when anyone attempts to mandate behavior for the masses.  From how we teach our kids about Santa to how we care for the least of these to yes, even how and if we celebrate the Christmas season, we continually have persons who want to tell us what we can and cannot do.  Isn’t that our challenge?

 

I mean, the challenge on both sides of the equation within contemporary Christmas controversies is that people keep wanting to dictate what we do.  People keep wanting to mandate the specifics of how a holiday can or can’t or shouldn’t be celebrated.  We aren’t ok allowing the freedom of individual decision-making.  Why is that?  What’s the motive?

 

I see this pattern repeated in multiple scenarios.  Sometimes it’s packaged up a little nicer and neater — arguably a little more covertly — but there exist multiple examples of entities attempting to mandate behavior for the masses, attempting to require specific actions on our part.

 

Isn’t that the reality behind Pres. Obama’s broken healthcare promise — that “if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it?”  In my opinion, the President is too smart to have not known that such was untrue.  He’s a brilliant man; he had to have known the implications of the law for which he was advocating.

 

Please know I am not declaring that Pres. Obama lied.  Let’s face it; anytime we assert that one another is a liar, it complicates the conversation.  The dialogue becomes more passionate and emotional, and the temptation to become disrespectful increases exponentially.  So let me truthfully, transparently assert what I believe to be the primary motivation for the untruth:  those advocating for Obamacare are attempting to mandate behavior for the masses — and convince the rest of us that such is good.

 

All healthcare plans starting after 2014 are required to offer the same benefits but will have different out-of-pocket costs.  Question:  do we need the same benefits?  Does one size truly fit all?  Do men and women need the same healthcare?  Do men need maternity care?  Do persons in varied geographic areas need the same care?  How about the elderly?

 

Friends, I’m not attempting to be disrespectful in my questions; the reality is that by mandating the behavior for the masses, we end up mandating things for some that are unnecessary.

 

So what’s the motive?  Is the motive as some would suggest that people aren’t bright enough — that they don’t know what’s good for them — and so someone has to control the decision-making?

 

Or… is the motive more economic — that the only way to make the policy work for some is to mandate the behavior for all?

 

Under Obamacare, it’s great to be a woman.  Women can’t be charged more than men.  On one hand that sounds great; we can hear the rallying calls that no longer will women be discriminated against.  But let me also ask the next logical question:  is it discrimination if the woman’s care costs more because it actually covers more?

 

My sense is that in the case of Obamacare, the motive is economic.  The federal government charges the men more to pay for the women; they charge the young more to pay for the elderly; and they charge the upper and middle classes more to pay for the lower class.  Mandating the behavior of the masses is necessary in order to make the plan work.  What any individual needs is less significant than the macroeconomic approach necessary to support the totality of the system.

 

The lingering question is whether or not such mandating is good.

 

P.S.  Merry Christmas.  Happy Festivus, too.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

“war” on Christmas?

Every year at this time, we seem to hear the recharged vernacular about the existence of a “war on Christmas.”  Funny.  I mean, as a nation, I don’t think we’re all that fond of war, but yet we seem to find the term rhetorically pleasing when it best suits our passion… a war on Christmas, war on teachers… war on drugs, poverty, marriage, you-name-it.  As a nation not so fond of war, we sure speak of it frequently.

 

The Intramuralist cannot say with certainty if any “war” exists — and as I learned well from my respected friends in the military — I’m not comfortable with such casual use of the word, “war.”  War is an armed conflict between different nations or groups.  Last I heard, we were still called a united state of America.

 

The controversy, no less, refers to the acknowledgement of Christmas in government, media, and advertising.  Christmas, as evidenced in its name, is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, the long awaited day that the Messiah was embodied in human form.  That’s the meaning of Christmas.  I say that not with any disrespect to the person who does not believe in him.  I say that not with any disrespect to the person who — consistent with many religions, including Islam and Judaism — believes Jesus was a real person who walked this planet but was not the son of God.  I say that not with any disrespect.  I am simply identifying the basis for the holiday.

 

The controversy also is not as simple as some suggest, reducing it to the preference of articulating either “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays” or something jolly old else.  A person could say “Season’s Greetings” and still acknowledge God.  Hence, the question is whether or not there is an intentional attempt to omit God during the season.

 

So… asking the better question… I won’t ask whether or not there is any existence of war; but is there an intent to omit any acknowledgement of Jesus in the holiday that originated because of him?  I ask because of what we have again recently witnessed…

 

  • Although changing their mind after a significant nationwide outrage, ESPN rejected a commercial set to run during a college basketball game from Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center.  The executive director of the foundation said the ad was rejected because ESPN found the words “Jesus” and “God” to be “problematic.”

 

  • A nativity scene was removed from Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina.  The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which works to eradicate any reference to religion and especially Christianity, pursued the removal, calling it illegal because it was not erected near a chapel.

 

  • Or in College Park, Georgia — similar to multiple places across the country — where elementary school children were to perform their annual Christmas musical program, prior to which the parents each received a letter saying, “Religious songs will not be included.”

 

Not be included.  Intentional omission.  No acknowledgement.

 

I understand that in order to be completely politically correct, we often have to “water things down.”  The inherent challenge, though, is when we water things down so much that we eventually remove the reason for the season.  Make no mistake about it; Christmas is about Christ.  Each of us can choose if and how to celebrate it.  What’s challenging is when we choose how someone else can or cannot celebrate.

 

Interestingly, there actually is a new holiday this time of year.  Perhaps you’ve heard of it:  “HumanLight.”  It was invented by secular humanists 12 years ago, celebrated annually on December 23rd.  It is not a direct attempt to secularize an existing holiday, but it is an intentional attempt to omit any acknowledgement of God.

 

I wonder if HumanLight has any songs… wonder, too, if they can actually be sung…

 

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

income inequality

While many may attempt to tell us they pay no attention to polls, I have one thing to say:  I don’t believe them.  They do pay attention.  The more pressing question is whether or not people act upon polls — and whether politicians actually govern by them.

 

From my limited vantage point, that’s been obvious the past month.  With ongoing, bipartisan criticism of Obamacare — and its flawed rollout, higher premiums, false promises, etc. — the President’s approval rating has fallen to the lowest point of his presidency.  The White House has thus attempted to change the subject; they have returned to the primary, passionate subjects that initially propelled Obama to office.  There seems intent to rally the base, his most passionate partisan supporters, since his approval numbers have dropped significantly even among them.

 

Note that this poll-driven tactic of rallying one’s base is by no means indigenous to Obama.  I have little doubt that if it was a Republican president whose support was eroding, we would be hearing him on FOX News talking about cutting taxes.  Instead, we’re hearing Obama on MSNBC talking about income inequality.  My question isn’t in regard to drumming up support for a passionate, partisan cause; my question is in regard to the logic behind such cause…

 

Isn’t it interesting that when we want to sway people to our side, we package perspective in a way it sounds best?  From fantastic food to super savings to magnanimous, wonderful, wise whatever, products and policies are always promoted in a way that makes them sound most pleasing and persuasive.  Hence, in the past decade, we have been lured by a newfound focus on fairness and equality…  foreclosure fairness, the Marketplace Fairness Act, Paycheck Fairness Act, the Fairness Doctrine… ERA, the Equal Rights Amendment, Employment Equality, Marriage Equality, and the Equality Act.  I am not proposing that any of the above is or is not a wise pursuit; I am simply suggesting that utilizing the words “fairness” and “equality” is an intentional tactic designed to persuade.  Who among us would not desire to be equal or fair?

 

So in order to comprehend the challenge inherent within income inequality — as currently promoted — we must first move past the rhetoric.  The reality is that poverty is significant on this planet, and the compassionate, wise person has what I believe to be a calling to care for them.  The challenge, however, is when government mandates the means of that calling for the masses.

 

To support the current income inequality cause, people are pitted against one another:  the rich vs. the poor.  There is a strong suggestion and belief that if the rich weren’t as rich, then the poor wouldn’t be as poor — that success only stems from the expense of another.  There is a belief that wealth is limited, and thus, if it could simply be a little more redistributed, then life would finally be fair.

 

What I’m not always certain of is whether the intentional “pitting” is based on persuasion ploys or true belief.  Undoubtedly, when 2 groups are pitted against each other (i.e. Yankees vs. Red Sox, Duke vs. North Carolina, or Arabs vs. Israelis), we tend to more passionately favor one and denigrate the other.

 

The challenge within this argument then is that such assumes that wealth and money are equated.  Friends, wealth and money are not the same; money is a form of wealth.  Wealth can be manifested in a product or service or effort that adds value to someone else.  Wealth can then be traded for what the wealth creator needs or desires.  Hence, to assume that the “gain” of one is reflected in an identical “loss” of another — that his success only stems from that expense of the other — is a false concept of an economic transaction.  Furthermore, in my opinion, it is an illogical basis for the argument currently utilized to fight income inequality.

 

I do realize that the above discussion is undoubtedly incomplete.  It is also not offered without a genuine, gut-wrenching awareness of our ongoing need to care for the “least of these.”  But my point today is that the current call to combat income inequality — potentially driven by a drop in the polls — is based on incomplete logic… and possibly upon increased rhetoric and persuasion.

 

Respectfully… always…

AR

Posted on

the santa tradition

As the Christmas/holiday/yuletide/etc. season is quickly, post-Thanksgiving thrust upon us, a respected friend wrote about her family’s chosen approach in teaching their kids the meaning of this season.  Her approach is not necessarily the Intramuralist’s approach.  Still, I found her thoughts insightful, challenging, and at the very least, reasonable to wrestle with…

 

We don’t “do” Santa in our home. Or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. Some may gasp in dismay as they feel like we are robbing our children of the magic and fun of being a child and believing in such things. And these are also the ones who gasp and become offended when we share why we have chosen not to do what most of our society does.

Simply put, we don’t want to lie to our kids. “It’s not lying,” some will assert… “It’s pretending. It’s allowing them to believe in something magical… I grew up believing in Santa and turned out just fine.”

But when my child point blank asks, “Is Santa real? Is he the one who really puts the presents under our tree? How would he get into our house? How could reindeer actually fly? How would it even be possible for one man to deliver presents to all of the children everywhere?” I am stuck with a decision. I can either perpetuate a mistruth or I can be honest with them. The root of the Santa tradition (which is also now completely commercialized and heavily marketed) is fiction.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. When my son figured out the truth about all of these make believe characters (when he was 4-5-years-old), his response was: “So every parent lies to their kids? Is everyone a liar?” He seemed appalled at the perceived injustice; he went on to say, “I am going to tell all of my friends. They need to know the truth. They are not going to be happy when they find out about this.” I spent a long time trying to help him understand why people do this. I said things like, “They feel it’s more like pretending; they don’t see it as lying. Different people believe in different things, and that’s okay. We each have to make our own decisions.  And you can’t tell other kids the truth because their parents will be very upset with you, because that’s their job — not yours.”

He eventually calmed down. But how silly it all must sound as we are working so hard to teach our kids about telling the truth and not lying. Lying is bad… but it’s okay for us adults to sometimes lie to our kids — even lying about good or fun things — yet leading them to believe in something that so obviously could never exist. It’s a bit confusing.

Which is another reason we chose to be real with them about these things. We talk a lot about God in our home. We talk about having faith in the unseen. We want them to know and believe in God, and we want them to trust that when we say that God is real, that we aren’t just pretending. We don’t want our kids to question us down the road or be hurt because we led them to believe in something that wasn’t real. It could ruin our credibility.

I am simply sharing why we have chosen to do things the way we have. Each of us really does have to choose our own path, regardless of how less or frequently travelled. We also need to respect one another’s chosen path. Just as we do not condemn others for choosing to embrace the tradition of Santa, we, too, should not be condemned for choosing not to perpetuate what’s untrue.  But it’s funny how defensive people get.  As a society, we aren’t very good at allowing one another to choose; too many get too defensive by the different choice of another.  Why would others be offended when I say we didn’t want to lie?

We each have the freedom to raise our children the way we see fit. In our family, we do things differently. It may not make us the most popular or the most liked. But we do “real” in our home. Real love. Real life. Real celebration. Our hope is that we can raise kids who have real faith in a very real God.  And for us, Santa just didn’t fit into our family.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

mandela

Isn’t it interesting, when someone passes away, how so many seem to rush to claim him as “one of our own”?

 

When we observed even the anniversary of JFK’s death 2 and a half weeks ago, politicians and pundits and authors and activists again averred how Kennedy would undoubtedly be a staunch liberal leader or would have converted to strict conservatism if still alive today.  As initially addressed here, JFK advocated for a variety of positions, none wholly consistent with either contemporary party’s platform.

 

When respected “Fast & Furious” actor, Paul Walker, passed away in a tragic accident 2 weeks ago, fans rushed to express their adoration in their grief.  The massive outpouring made me wonder if Walker felt that strong connection with so many fans when still alive.

 

Once more, no less, in the death of former South African leader, Nelson Mandela, we see the inherent claims of Mandela being “one of our own.”

 

Mandela was unique…  an educated man… originally embracing non-violent protests… for a time associated with communism… serving 27 years in prison… working to extinguish apartheid, South Africa’s intentional system of racial segregation… becoming president… inviting other parties to help him govern… promoting forgiveness… mediating between other nations — such as between Libya and the United Kingdom in regard to the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103… developing a full and free democracy in his country… advocating for charity… respected by many… inspiring even more…

 

On par with Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., Mandela was one of the great moral leaders of the past century.  His significant, perceived positive, global influence is considered comparable to Churchill, Reagan, and FDR.  His consistent message of unity and forgiveness in a racially-charged world spoke volumes.

 

After passing away at 95 last Thursday, many have seemed quick to identify with Mandela, claiming him as their so-called own.  The challenge is that to identify with him, one must not only weigh — but also practice — the wisdom within the complete spectrum of his teaching.  In other words, his message of racial reconciliation is hollow without the accompanying forgiveness and humility.  To identify with the man means to believe and practice his actual words…

 

I stand here before you not as a prophet, but as a humble servant of you, the people.

 

Money won’t create success; the freedom to make it will.

 

A good leader can engage in a debate frankly and thoroughly, knowing that at the end he and the other side must be closer, and thus emerge stronger. You don’t have that idea when you are arrogant, superficial, and uninformed.

 

I detest racialism, because I regard it as a barbaric thing, whether it comes from a black man or a white man.

 

Does anybody really think that they didn’t get what they had because they didn’t have the talent or the strength or the endurance or the commitment?

 

I was not a messiah, but an ordinary man who had become a leader because of extraordinary circumstances.

 

Unlike some politicians, I can admit to a mistake.

 

With the wide number who claim to either identify with or revere Nelson Mandela mightily, we should perhaps first take stock of his words, humbly recognizing that some of his words may subtly — or sharply — rebuke us instead.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

together

Funny how there are some stories that are retold through the centuries with little question of actual occurrence due to widespread acceptance of the inherent wisdom…

 

David was up at the crack of dawn and, having arranged for someone to tend his flock, took the food and was on his way just as Jesse had directed him.  He arrived at the camp just as the army was moving into battle formation, shouting the war cry.  Israel and the Philistines moved into positions, facing each other, battle-ready.  David left his bundles of food in the care of a sentry, ran to the troops who were deployed, and greeted his brothers.  While they were talking together, the Philistine champion, Goliath of Gath, stepped out from the front lines of the Philistines, and gave his usual challenge.  David heard him.  The Israelites, to a man, fell back the moment they saw the giant — totally frightened.

 

But David, the youngest, smallest — thought to be weakest — was not afraid…

 

David took off from the front line, running toward the Philistine.  David reached into his pocket for a stone, slung it, and hit the Philistine in the forehead, embedding the stone deeply.  The Philistine crashed, facedown in the dirt.  That’s how David beat the Philistine — with a sling and a stone.

 

Something about that account makes me smile and cheer every time.  There’s something about David’s underdog status that feels good… something about the victor who no one simply expected to be there… something about not taking success for granted… something about faith and hard work and humility that’s attractive…

 

On Friday night my sons’ high school played in the Division II football state championship.  They had never won before; in fact, in the school’s 132 year history, they had been to the playoffs only 4 times, netting a single game victory.  The school had no championships in any sport.

 

We were playing a team known for their athletic tradition, a team coached by a well-respected man, whose son plays in the NFL — a team boasting several starters fully expected to also succeed at the collegiate level.  Noting the massive size of several of their lineman, the Goliath comparisons came quickly.

Imagine then our humble glee when on this freezing, snowy night, shockingly, our boys raced to a 34-0 halftime lead.

 

As the clock ticked away — and victory became more sweetly apparent, the thousands of us that travelled the approximate 4 hours, began to catch a glimpse of what we had actually grasped…

 

Here was a group of young men — young, impressionable teens — who were about to taste something that could propel their confidence to new levels, arguably spurring them on, boosting their self-confidence for whatever’s next in life…

 

They worked hard.  They believed in one another.  They encouraged one another and held each other accountable.  They played and prayed together.  They had a vision and belief in what they could accomplish together, united, as a team! … not this me-oriented thinking that is so prevalent in today’s society within leadership and perceived success.

 

The student body, staff, administration, and community all then rallied around them.  Friends from outside the community — former residents, adjacent school families — they rallied around.  There was no negativity, no permeating criticism, no dwelling on what we weren’t or aren’t or have never been; rather, there was a community focus on together, who we could be and what we could accomplish.  Let’s cheer these growing young men on… in celebration… together.  Amazing what unity will do… how good it feels.

 

There’s just something about the victor who no one simply expected to be there… something about not taking success for granted… something about faith and hard work and humility that’s attractive…

 

Well done, boys.  Well done.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

could you keep an open mind?

Rarely do I simply repost the words of another, but there are aspects of the below piece that strike me as profound.  It’s written by Kirsten Powers, a liberal Democrat I’ve admired for years.  Powers is a nationally known contributor to USA Today, Newsweek, FOX News, and The Daily Beast.  Here is an edited version of her story, sharing how of all the people surprised by her decision to become a Christian, it was she who was most surprised…

 

Just seven years ago, if someone had told me that I’d be writing for Christianity Today magazine about how I came to believe in God, I would have laughed out loud. If there was one thing in which I was completely secure, it was that I would never adhere to any religion—especially to evangelical Christianity, which I held in particular contempt…

From my early 20s on, I would waver between atheism and agnosticism, never coming close to considering that God could be real. After college I worked as an appointee in the Clinton administration from 1992 to 1998. The White House surrounded me with intellectual people who, if they had any deep faith in God, never expressed it. Later, when I moved to New York, where I worked in Democratic politics, my world became aggressively secular. Everyone I knew was politically left-leaning, and my group of friends was overwhelmingly atheist.

 

I sometimes hear Christians talk about how terrible life must be for atheists. But our lives were not terrible. Life actually seemed pretty wonderful, filled with opportunity and good conversation and privilege. I know now that it was not as wonderful as it could have been. But you don’t know what you don’t know. How could I have missed something I didn’t think existed?

To the extent that I encountered Christians, it was in the news cycle. And inevitably they were saying something about gay people or feminists. I didn’t feel I was missing much. So when I began dating a man who was into Jesus, I was not looking for God. In fact, the week before I met him, a friend had asked me if I had any deal breakers in dating. My response: “Just nobody who is religious.”

 

A few months into our relationship, my boyfriend called to say he had something important to talk to me about. I remember exactly where I was sitting in my West Village apartment when he said, “Do you believe Jesus is your Savior?” My stomach sank. I started to panic. Oh no, was my first thought. He’s crazy.

When I answered no, he asked, “Do you think you could ever believe it?” He explained that he was at a point in life when he wanted to get married and felt that I could be that person, but he couldn’t marry a non-Christian. I said I didn’t want to mislead him—that I would never believe in Jesus.

 

Then he said the magic words for a liberal: “Do you think you could keep an open mind about it?” Well, of course. “I’m very open-minded!” Even though I wasn’t at all. I derided Christians as anti-intellectual bigots who were too weak to face the reality that there is no rhyme or reason to the world. I had found this man’s church attendance an oddity to overlook, not a point in his favor.

As he talked, I grew conflicted. On the one hand, I was creeped out. On the other hand, I had enormous respect for him. He is smart, educated, and intellectually curious. I remember thinking, What if this is true, and I’m not even willing to consider it? 

 

A few weeks later I went to church with him… [when] the pastor preached. I was fascinated… Each week, [Pastor Tim] Keller made the case for Christianity. He also made the case against atheism and agnosticism. He expertly exposed the intellectual weaknesses of a purely secular worldview. I came to realize that even if Christianity wasn’t the real thing, neither was atheism.

 

I began to read the Bible… After about eight months of going to hear Keller, I concluded that the weight of evidence was on the side of Christianity. But I didn’t feel any connection to God, and frankly, I was fine with that. I continued to think that people who talked of hearing from God or experiencing God were either delusional or lying. In my most generous moments, I allowed that they were just imagining things that made them feel good.

Then one night in 2006, on a trip to Taiwan, I woke up in what felt like a strange cross between a dream and reality. Jesus came to me and said, “Here I am.” It felt so real. I didn’t know what to make of it. I called my boyfriend, but before I had time to tell him about it, he told me he had been praying the night before and felt we were supposed to break up. So we did. Honestly, while I was upset, I was more traumatized by Jesus visiting me.

 

I tried to write off the experience as misfiring synapses, but I couldn’t shake it. When I returned to New York a few days later, I was lost. I suddenly felt God everywhere and it was terrifying. More important, it was unwelcome. It felt like an invasion. I started to fear I was going crazy.

 

I didn’t know what to do… I was desperate. My whole world was imploding. How was I going to tell my family or friends about what had happened? Nobody would understand. I didn’t understand. (It says a lot about the family in which I grew up that one of my most pressing concerns was that Christians would try to turn me into a Republican.)

I remember walking into the Bible study. I had a knot in my stomach. In my mind, only weirdoes and zealots went to Bible studies. I don’t remember what was said that day. All I know is that when I left, everything had changed. I’ll never forget standing outside that apartment on the Upper East Side and saying to myself, “It’s true. It’s completely true.” The world looked entirely different, like a veil had been lifted off it. I had not an iota of doubt. I was filled with indescribable joy.

 

The horror of the prospect of being a devout Christian crept back in almost immediately. I spent the next few months doing my best to wrestle away from God. It was pointless. Everywhere I turned, there he was. Slowly there was less fear and more joy. The Hound of Heaven had pursued me and caught me—whether I liked it or not.

 

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

losing faith

What happens when people lose faith in the one who calls the shots?

 

I wonder what happens when the people’s trust erodes…

… when results fail to match unquestionably high expectations…

Can the leader still be effective?  Can the leader still lead? …

 

In Houston, once hoping to soar to unprecedented professional heights this season, the Texans found themselves losing multiple games and their leader, Texan QB, Matt Schaub, throwing multiple interceptions.  Once revered as the beloved franchise quarterback, Schaub found himself instead the target of weekly, intensifying boos.  While Schaub was mercifully bailed out by an injury that deemed him unable to play, now healthy, he has not returned to the starting lineup.  So even though his peers in Philadelphia, New York, and Cleveland provide some semblance of solace, a clear majority of people no longer trust Schaub to do his job well.

 

In Washington, once buoyed by the support of far more than party loyalists, the administration found the Obamacare rollout severely flawed and their leader, Pres. Obama, initially repeating promises that were untrue.  You cannot automatically keep your insurance if you like it, and you may not be able to keep your doctor or hospital either.  Once revered as the strong leader of the Democratic Party, Obama is finding himself instead the target of intensifying criticism.  In a new CNN/ORC International Survey, an unprecedented 53% of Americans now believe that Obama is not honest and trustworthy.  While the Intramuralist’s perspective is certainly limited (and also somewhat biased because I believe Obamacare to be unwise, massive policy), my sense is Obama is hoping to be mercifully bailed out by a website that finally works.  My sense is he would also like to be mercifully bailed out by a press that changes the subject.  Nonetheless, a clear majority of people, at least at this point, no longer trust Obama to do his job well.

 

At the North Pole (sorry), once alive and well in the imaginations of young children,  Santa Claus has found himself competing with the latest technology and fingertip information that threatens to pierce the reality of his fictional existence.  Once revered as the jolly old icon of the Christmas season, Santa is finding himself the target of intensifying disappointment, as he is clearly unable to meet all the desires and demands of each child — and as we live in a world continually drained by materialistic expectations.  Just last week, this semi-humble blogger only added to the growing disappointment, as when my young son asked to pause and take his picture with the bearded fellow at the local mall, I immediately dissuaded him.  “He charges money for that.”  To which my impressionable young son replied, “Why would Santa charge money?”  An arguable majority of children no longer trust Santa to do his job well.

 

What happens when our trust in our leaders erodes?  … when results fail to match expectations?  What happens when we no longer have faith in their performance? … and… or… who they are?

 

Granted, there’s far more to the NFL than the Texans quarterback, far more to Washington than the White House, and far more to Christmas than Santa Claus.

 

Come to think of it, Santa doesn’t have anything to do with faith.

 

Thank God.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

false integrity

Gotta’ love our leaders.

 

We choose men and women to lead us because of their ideas and intelligence, courage and creativity.  However, sometimes all of the above veil integrity — or the lack of it.  Yes, sometimes we perceive our leaders’ actions or orations as so brilliant, we forget that actions and orations cannot substitute for what is deeper — for those motivations of the heart and soul that are often repackaged and massaged for the world to see in a more pleasing form, even if the ethical motivations don’t truly exist.  In other words, perceived integrity is often false; it isn’t authentic.  It’s more a personal marketing scheme.

 

The challenge is that we aren’t capable, consistent barometers of discerning those schemes.  In fact, I often wonder if it is our emotions that cause us to assume integrity… because a leader makes us feel a certain way when they speak — when they do something good — they must be a good man… they must be a good leader.  And so we allow their ideas and intelligence and courage and creativity to cover up for what most needs to exist.

 

I had to laugh seeing such on the NBA floor last week.  And truthfully, since the context was on the hardwood and not affecting so many people or policy, it was far easier to chuckle and almost applaud the creativity; the creativity was brilliant!

 

According to USA Today:

 

With eight seconds remaining and the Nets with no timeouts left, [Brooklyn Nets coach Jason] Kidd subbed in Mirza Teletovic for Tyshawn Taylor.  As Taylor headed to the bench, he bumped into Kidd, spilling Kidd’s soda on the court.  The liquid needed to be cleaned up, giving the Nets, who were trailing 97-94, time to huddle and draw up a three-point shot…

According to amateur lip-readers, Kidd said, “Hit me,” to Taylor…

“Sweaty palms,” Kidd explained after the game. “I was never good with the ball.”

Taylor also tried to say it was an accident.  “It might ice a free-throw shooter and be a timeout when you don’t have one.  But that wasn’t the thought process,” Taylor said.

 

So Kidd can’t lead his team within the rules, so he designs a masterful way to accomplish what he desires anyway — and then, lies about the incident.  He’s dishonest in all immediate, succeeding interviews.  Even more remarkable, the player involved, Tyshawn Taylor, a loyal follower of this leader, also lied in all immediate, succeeding interviews.  He even exasperated the lies, saying, “Coach was in my way…’Coach, get outta my way, bro.’”

 

Again, the leadership is brilliant!  Way to be creative!  Way to accomplish what you feel needs to be accomplished!  Way to get your loyal followers to toe the party line!  Ah, but the end result is more important than the integrity of the process.  I wonder if that’s wise.

 

I wonder where else that happens… when else that happens…  when integrity is so brilliantly veiled by actions and orations… when those actions and orations cover all else up… when we are seduced into thinking that’s wise leadership… when we applaud the creativity because of how we feel… when we are again inaccurate barometers of authenticity.

 

At least Jason Kidd’s intentional deception was caught on camera.  My sense is that such isn’t always the case.

 

Respectfully,

AR