intramuralist ™

When contemplating today’s post, I knew it would be challenging for me to write. It was a year ago yesterday my 34 year old sister lost her courageous battle with cancer. FYI: I don’t like the word “lost” in that sentence. Nicole has always been beautiful and brave. Now, though, I fully trust that she has a far better eternal perspective than any of us here. That doesn’t equate to “losing” to me.

That said, knowing the emotional hurdle necessary to pen any post about anything lesser (which includes all that small stuff we still seem to sweat), I pulled out last year’s post, entitled “That’s My Sister” — a heartfelt tribute to Nicole in how she sharpened me and many… encouraging us to focus on what’s most important… on powerfully showing by example how deeply our faith matters… and on how we can hold onto hope regardless of circumstance.

I get that such is easier said than done. It also would have been easier for me to run with the previously penned post.

Yesterday morning, however, I noticed something. Alone in my quietness — wrestling with the weight and awareness accompanying this sobering anniversary — I heard a single sound…

I heard a bird outside, singing.

Then it donned on me… I know it takes time to grieve — lots of time. And I’m not certain my heart will ever fully be the same. But I never want the pain on this planet to keep me from hearing the bird outside, singing.

I believe that those who’ve faithfully gone before us — those who now have that unprecedented, amazing, unparalleled, eternal perspective — would encourage us to quit sweating the small stuff… to quit getting bogged down in the daily crud of life that causes us to be so demanding and self-focused. I believe they would encourage us to…

Keep the focus on what’s most important…
Grapple with your faith…
Come near to God…
Hold onto hope…
And never be so bogged down with the messiness of life that we miss the bird outside, singing.

Nicole, too, had a blog in which she sometimes chronicled her experience. In one of her final posts, she shared the following:

“As this journey may be tough for me, I know that many others are struggling with something in their life and I just ask that you take a moment and say a prayer for them. This weighs heavy on my heart, feeling like I have it pretty easy compared to so many others out there.

That being said, I would like to share the lyrics to a song by Steven Curtis Chapman that has hit me the past couple of weeks…

‘… I know this is not
Anything like you thought
The story of your life was gonna be
And it feels like the end has started closing in on you
But it’s just not true
There’s so much of the story that’s still yet to unfold
 
And this is going to be a glorious unfolding
Just you wait and see and you will be amazed
You’ve just got to believe the story is so far from over
So hold on to every promise God has made to us
And watch this glorious unfolding
 
God’s plan from the start
For this world and your heart
Has been to show His glory and His grace
Forever revealing the depth and the beauty of
His unfailing Love
And the story has only begun…’ ”

I hear her voice. I hear her hope. I also believe with all the wisdom Nicole has now she would encourage us to not get lost in the current events, emotions, and circumstances that threaten to pierce our peace; she would encourage us to trust God… and to always hear those birds…

…outside, singing.

With truth in my tears…

AR

All week I’ve been wrestling with the encouragement to become like a child… to think like a child… that there’s something about being childlike that’s actually good!

I struggle with that sometimes… holding on too tightly, perhaps, to all the knowledge and experience — like it or not — that accompanies us into adulthood… believing that’s all so beneficial and so much more vital than being a kid. And then a tiny moment reminds me that adulthood often serves as more of a distraction than any perch of wisdom…

Last weekend I had opportunity to get away for the weekend for some fun and reflection. While away, my spouse took two of my sons bowling. While bowling is not a frequent activity for our household, when it occurs, it is typically met with ample enthusiasm. It also can become quite competitive, as we tend to enjoy the competitive process (insert subtle “tee hee” here).

My hub was pleased; he still has it after all these years. My seventeen year old was also pleased; he enjoys his share of athletic success. And then there was my son, Josh.

As has been referenced here on multiple occasions, Josh is a thriving, articulate teenage boy. He does all those things fourteen year olds typically tend to do… talk, text, try to sneak a few things by the ‘rents, if you know what I mean. Josh also has Down syndrome.

One of the beautiful things about Josh’s so-called “special need” is that it seems to maintain that childhood status to some degree… acting like a child… thinking like a child. But it’s made me ask, “What does ‘childlike’ mean?”

I wish I had an easy answer. For a while, I camped on the concept of equating being like a child to something simpler — simpler thinking, something not as complex as us ever-knowledgeable and experienced adults. But that doesn’t totally make sense to me.

Then I wrestled with the idea of a “childlike faith” and all the accompanying misapplications… maybe not needing all the things we seemingly intelligent adults need to prove that we’re right… “No, we won’t believe… we won’t believe in something until they can prove it to us! We will not be fooled! Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, well…” Something about that doesn’t seem quite right either.

A wise friend then summed it up for me in eight words… eight words. To become like a child means to ask oneself: “what if I could lay aside my fear?”

… my fear of being wrong… my fear of not being perfect… my fear of failure… my fear of not looking good… my fear of needing someone or something more… my fear…

What if I could lay aside my fear?

What would I do? What would I think? How would I change? How would I grow? How would I relate to other people? How would I articulate opinion? Again, yes… how would I grow?

When I returned home for the weekend, Josh was sitting on the outside porch, eagerly awaiting my return. (Let me offer a quick, brief tangent: there’s something beautifully special about having your own enthusiastic welcoming committee each time you return home.)

But after a few, semi-subtle bear hugs and joyful jumps of unparalleled glee, Josh said, “Mom, Mom, guess what? Guess what?! You’re never going to believe this!!”

Note that my spouse had warned me that Josh might be a little discouraged after the bowling outing. They bowled two games without the bumpers. Josh scored a 40 and a 22. That’s averaging a mere four and a little more than two pins per frame. Hence, by all intellectual accounts, Josh bowled pretty poorly.

But Josh says, “I did it, Mom! I did it! I got my first strike without the bumpers!!”

The kid was overjoyed. Embedded in his ten-frame score of 22, there was a single strike — a strike both preceded and succeeded by gutter after gutter ball. Instead of being emotionally pierced by any ball in the gutter, Josh only saw what was best. He was not deterred nor distracted by any knowledge or experience…

“I got my first strike!”

May we aim for that childlike faith… may we never miss the beauty of the barren strike. May we know that it is good.

Respectfully…
AR

The hottest topics of the week seem to be whether or not Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia should be replaced by Pres. Obama or how Taylor Swift finally let Kanye finally have it at the Grammys. Since I prefer to focus on the supposed positive, let’s take a look at the court.

Justice Scalia passed away Saturday morning. The politics started that afternoon. (You may have just heard me sigh.) The question raised is whether Scalia’s seat should be filled by a nominee chosen by the sitting president or if the person elected in the November of 2016 elections should instead hold that responsibility.

First, some background…

Article II Section 2 includes the following: “He [the President] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law.”

There is nothing that usurps the responsibility Pres. Obama currently holds to propose a nominee.

However, multiple Republicans have averred that Obama should not make such a proposal. Most notably, Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

Immediately there were claims of obstructionism.

Next, a problem…

In the summer of 2007, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) spoke to the left-leaning American Constitution Society. Note that at the time, Pres. George W. Bush had a year and a half left in his term. Schumer said: “We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances. They must prove by actions not words that they are in the mainstream rather than we have to prove that they are not… I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally on the court.”

Note that Schumer’s vow was met with significant applause.

Hence, my conclusion…

Obstructionism occurs by both parties, but outrage is only claimed, feigned, and encouraged when it’s happening by someone else. Also, claims of obstructionism seem utilized most in attempts to turn the public against the so-called obstructionists. Sometimes it works. [Did you hear another sigh?]

Charles Lipson, the well respected, moderate Professor of Political Science and founder and director of the Program on International Politics, Economics and Security at the University of Chicago, has concisely positioned what’s happening like this:

No. 1: No nominee for the high court can get through the Senate before the election. No one.
No. 2: President Obama and the Democratic candidates for president know that. So do Republicans. All God’s children know it.
No. 3: Since the nominee will not be approved, Obama will use the opportunity to advance other goals. He will propose someone who burnishes his own progressive credentials and shows why control of the court depends on the November election. Putting Senate Republicans in an awkward position would be a nice bonus. But the target is November.
No. 4: Obama will nominate someone whose demographic characteristics help in the contests for president and U.S. Senate. That is not just his main criterion. It is his only one. The candidate could be from a purple state. Or a Latino. Or openly gay. Having finished law school would be a plus.
No. 5: The proposed candidate will not receive a Senate vote before the election or in the lame-duck session. If Mitch McConnell even considered it, he would become the former majority leader.
No. 6: Democrats and Republicans will both use the issue to show voters why it is crucial to elect them — and not the other party. Democrats will add that this again shows we have a “do nothing” Congress. Republicans will say it shows we have “do too much” judges.
No. 7: All the rest is political theater, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Political theater… signifying nothing. Ok, I’ve changed my mind… maybe we should go back to talking about Taylor Swift and Kanye.

Respectfully…
AR

There are all sorts of ramifications surrounding the unexpected death of a Supreme Court justice of the United States of America. Within hours Saturday, after news of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia — described by The Washington Post as “the intellectual cornerstone of the court’s modern conservative wing, whose elegant and acidic opinions inspired a movement of legal thinkers and ignited liberal critics” — politicians, pundits, and all sorts of people were pondering the path advantageous to pursue. In other words, we often become [sigh] political.

I can’t say I knew Scalia nor his opinions extraordinarily well. But fitting with the mantra of the Intramuralist, there is one aspect about him that stands out to me. I speak neither of the “elegant” or “acidic.” I speak of something arguably more profound. Here is an excerpt from the story that ran a year ago in the Los Angeles Times…

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia seem unlikely friends.

Though both grew up in New York City and graduated from Ivy League law schools, Scalia went on to become a lawyer in the Nixon administration and a founder of the conservative Federalist Society, and Ginsburg led the women’s rights project at the American Civil Liberties Union.
He’s brash and burly and believes in strict adherence to the Constitution’s original text. She’s soft-spoken and slight and believes in a “living Constitution” that can change with the times. On controversial cases, they are often the most likely of any pairing of the nine Supreme Court justices to disagree.

Despite their standing as the intellectual lions of the left and right, Ginsburg and Scalia have forged an uncommon bond on a court where close friendships outside of chambers are rare.

Their areas of agreement may be few — which is likely to be the case this month when the justices decide whether gay and lesbian couples have a right to marry — but they maintain a tone of respect. Scalia, 79, and Ginsburg, 82, frequently dine and vacation together. Every Dec. 31, they ring in the new year together. Their relationship has even inspired an opera, set to debut this summer.

In joint appearances, their mutual affinity and gentle joshing delight audiences, particularly at a time of bitter partisan differences that have made friendships across the aisle difficult.
“Call us the odd couple,” Scalia said this year at a George Washington University event with Ginsburg. “She likes opera, and she’s a very nice person. What’s not to like?” he said dryly. “Except her views on the law.”

Seated next to Ginsburg on the stage, Scalia teased her about the minor uproar that occurred after they were photographed together on an elephant during a trip to India in 1994. “Her feminist friends” were upset, Scalia said, that “she rode behind me.” Ginsburg didn’t let him have the last word, noting that the elephant driver had said their placement was “a matter of distribution of weight.” The audience, including Scalia, roared with laughter.

She describes her fondness for “Nino” by recalling the time she first heard him speak at a law conference, before they became judges. “I disagreed with most of what he said, but I loved the way he said it,” Ginsburg recounted…

Their off-the-bench friendship grew over time, aided by Ginsburg’s husband. By day he was a Georgetown law professor and one of the nation’s foremost experts on tax law. But, outgoing and funny, he also was an extraordinary self-taught chef. When Scalia and his wife, Maureen, came for dinner at the Ginsburgs’ Watergate apartment, part of the attraction was the meal Marty prepared.

Shortly after her husband died of cancer in June 2010, Justice Ginsburg came to the court to deliver an opinion. As she spoke, Scalia sat a few feet away, wiping tears…

The bond between Scalia and Ginsburg was special. It was authentic.

Said Ginsburg on Saturday: “He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh. The press referred to his ‘energetic fervor,’ ‘astringent intellect,’ ‘peppery prose,’ ‘acumen,’ and ‘affability,’ all apt descriptions. He was eminently quotable, his pungent opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader’s grasp.

Justice Scalia once described as the peak of his days on the bench an evening at the Opera Ball when he joined two Washington National Opera tenors at the piano for a medley of songs. He called it the famous Three Tenors performance. He was, indeed, a magnificent performer. It was my great good fortune to have known him as working colleague and treasured friend.”

Antonin Scalia was 79 years old. God be with him and his family. May we learn from his example… and from his sweet friendship with Justice Ginsburg.

Respectfully…
AR