Posts

Posted on

a diverse roundtable – part 4 of 5

q2hmrd-aook-victor-mirontschuk

[Over the past week, we’ve posted excerpts from a conversation with 6 diverse individuals: Brent, Janie, Mike, Roni, Ronnie, and Ruth. Each recognizes intentional respect as the first, best step forward in the polarized, political environment in which we live. Here is the second to last piece of our conversation, with the conclusion coming Tuesday…]
_____

AR: We’ve referenced a need to “overcome” — overcoming a nastiness on all sides… from the ugliness, hatred, arrogance… even from sides thinking they are “all in the right” and another is “all in the wrong.” How do we actually overcome? How do we “overcome someday”?

MIKE: I used to think the goal was a color-blind society. I no longer believe that. Racism exists, so we need to deal with it. I ask my black friends what it’s like, how they get looked at, and how I can help. I think it starts there — we all need diverse friends. We can’t understand what it’s like to be black, Hispanic, gay, liberal, or conservative until we sincerely get to know people who are.

RUTH: We need to recognize we are in this together. We need more intentional communication across lines of diversity, yes — and pursuing opportunity to grow in understanding, wisdom, and synergy.

JANIE: With my diverse friends, there is no subject we won’t talk about. We talk about what we don’t understand. I keep coming back to Ecclesiastes 3, said in Hebrew and English after the Virginia Tech shooting in 2007…. “a time to be born, a time to die, a time to plant, a time to pluck up that which is planted, a time to heal, a time to build up, a time to weep, a time to laugh, a time to dance, a time to embrace, a time to lose, a time to keep, a time to keep silence, a time to speak, a time to love, a time of peace… So perhaps wisdom comes with those words. Learning to listen… to walk in another’s shoes…

AR: So how do people fuel the division, even though they may not realize it? And is there ever a time to severe a relationship over political differences?

MIKE: Our language fuels division. Why is white always good, and black bad? White hat, dark side, blackball, etc. Calling myself pro-life implies you are against life. Calling yourself progressive implies I am against progress.
I never sever relationships. But I have blocked people on Facebook so I don’t have to listen to their incessant rants.

JANIE: I don’t severe relationships over political differences.

RUTH: I can’t see severing a relationship over political differences. As a respected leader in my life often says, “We don’t often get 100% agreement over things in our own household!” Life is full of negotiating differences in relationships. Political differences may go deep, but I hope relationships go deeper.
We all have reasons behind our political leanings, which always have the possibility to change. If we cut each other off rather than try to understand and graciously express reasons for our position — or at least discuss how to work together for the common good — doesn’t that in itself inadvertently perpetuate division?

Seems to me, if we are not intentional, we can fuel division by default. Unless we make efforts to stay open to listening — and if we don’t look for opportunities to reach across barriers to connect, then our circles of association will continue to drift further apart. If not intentional to search past our comfort zone of associates most like us, then social media feeds us our separate preferences, ingraining them further.

Also fueling division: presenting our opinions as judgments and labels against others — and in a manner lacking humility, mercy, and love even, for persons with opposing views.

RONI: So what can be done?
1. Recognize there are issues.
2. Create safe spaces, like this, for respectful discussion of solutions; solutions often take a long time.
3. Recognize that as you discuss there needs to be follow-up, because healing takes time.
4. Seek to understand the meaning and intent of others.
5. Respond with kindness when possible.
6. Understand that protests are not bad but part of the change process.
7. Value the first amendment while understanding your words/actions have consequences.

AR: How still is social media making this worse?

JANIE: Facebook tries to tell me I don’t know what I am talking about, even when I live here, witnessing reality. It incites the ugly and mean.

MIKE: So many ways, social media makes this worse. Fake news, anonymous trolling, etc. And with so many news sources, outlets seek out the extreme to get attention. But the biggest issue is being able to filter out news sources to see only what we want to see. We are continually reinforcing our own viewpoint without seeking to understand others.

RONI: Mike, I think you are right. We do give more grace to those we understand. We all tend to discount others. Part of that is the Western practice of only seeing things as right/wrong or good/evil.
_____

Recognizing that one “side” is not all good or all evil — encouraging each of us to seek to understand others first.

Great discussion. Our conclusion comes Tuesday…

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

a diverse roundtable – part 3

vekb7lp4w0o-jeremy-bishop

[The conversation continues with Brent, Janie, Mike, Roni, Ronnie, and Ruth… 6 diverse individuals who recognize intentional respect as the first, best step forward.]
_____

AR: So let me ask a question. When someone doesn’t share your stated fears or concerns, how do you work with that? How do you talk to him/her?

RONI: Often by what someone doesn’t say, you can ask questions to understand someone’s fears.

JANIE: Am I the only one in the “south” or close enough to understand the Confederate Flag remains a serious way of life? Not making fun of it. I’m saying that there exist regional influences. Hence, are the fears different depending on the region where we live?

AR: Great question, Janie. And whether we relate or not, share them or not, what should be our approach?

MIKE: First, I acknowledge that the fears are real, sincere, and not contrived. Then I would offer the hope that the demonizing in which both sides portrayed the other was probably worse than reality.

RONI: As far as the “fear factor,” it is real. It’s like the the reality my two sons face when dealing with police and others is very different. (I’m not against the police and am not saying they are bad.) One son is white, and one son is bi-racial and very brown. However, my “brown” son has been harassed when he was doing nothing. I truly fear for his safety. Both parties may have demonized, but there was an unleashed meanness that is real. I appreciate your perspective Mike, but am afraid Pandora’s box is opened and can’t be closed.

MIKE: I do think the demonizing exceeded reality, but I also recognize some ugly elements of society that embraced the candidates, and the candidates did not denounce them, because they wanted the votes. I certainly hope they don’t govern that way, but acknowledge that remains to be seen. Skinheads are not going to rule this country. The vast majority of us oppose that.

JANIE: Roni — Pandora’s Box! Thank you. I could NOT find that in my brain cell!

RUTH: That’s another shock — the seeming permission given (or taken) for an unleashing of such hidden ugliness and nastiness. I am shocked to hear those reports from here and there. The fears I can understand, but I hoped in reality we were past so much of the racism etc. as a society!
Has the perception of being disregarded, some thinking self-righteously that “since the constitution and executive powers have been overstepped,” they are justified in now ugly backlash unleashed? … by a “minority of the majority”? WAY too many bad stories. The only hope I take is that at least, like puss oozing from an infection, maybe now it’s out, we can begin to deal with it.

MIKE: Just as MLK taught, folks, we overcome hate with love. So as this ugly element of society feels more comfortable coming out into the open, let us be loving rather than hateful toward each other.

RUTH: Agree! We shall overcome… someday!

RONI: I agree.

JANIE: Forceful denunciation is missing — can’t come together when “you” are insulting the people with whom you want to become friends. I suggest re-reading Reconstruction and the Northern treatment of the South.

RONI: Ubuntu is missing. So is the concept of ichi-go-ichi-e. Heard an interesting movie line that seems to sum “thangs” up for the political parties:
Little Rascal one: “Why don’t you look where you’re going?”
Little Rascal two: Why don’t you go where you’re lookin’.”
I think this applies to both parties.
Both parties have ideology which diminishes healthy dialogue. I appreciate AR’s reaching out to lead to understanding, not necessarily agreement, but at least a way to provide a vehicle to deeper insight.

Learning styles and exposure of people’s life trauma seems to have been amplified by this election cycle with no healing mechanisms. You just don’t “get over” the opened wounds brought out this election.

RUTH: I, too am so blessed by a diverse network of family friends. I’d love to hear more definition of the concepts you mentioned, Roni. What do they mean personally to you?

AR: Yes, Roni… “ichi-go-ichi-e”?

RONI: “Ubuntu” — cooperation. I lift you and you lift me. “Ichi-gu-ichi-e” — one time, one meeting.
Only get today. Make the most of each new experience. Reconciliation hearings were painful but honest.

JANIE: WOW! Roni, we would be BFF’s!
_____

[It’s amazing what respectful dialogue can do.]

More soon in regard to how we overcome, how we each fuel division, and some specific insights. Two more posts. Stay tuned.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

a diverse roundtable – part 2

tctlx1z_pdc-clem-onojeghuo

[Continuing with Brent, Janie, Mike, Roni, Ronnie, and Ruth… 6 diverse, gathered individuals — all over the political, social, and demographic map. They each advocate for respectful dialogue — no matter the passion, no matter the supposed “side” — no matter the chickens, eggs, “tastes great’s” or “less filling’s.” Intentional respect is the first, best step forward…]

BRENT: I’m very curious to hear what everyone thinks along the lines of how much control truly lies with the people in our government, one that keeps growing in federal power.

RONNIE: Brent, my answer to your last question: zero, nada, zilch and none. Best thing to happen in this country in truly draining the swamp is have a good old revolution.

BRENT: How do we even begin to go about moving the power back to the states and localities? I also think a lot of the problem is that we now face a generation growing up where entitlements are the norm.

JANIE: I raised three non-political sons to always know who they liked and research the one they did not. Taught my college and high school students to do the same. Pick an issue you like and research the other’s viewpoint. We don’t encourage that today.

RONNIE: Could I post a few videos for Brent on what a real convention should look like if we want to drain the swamp?

JANIE: Wait Ronnie; the word “compromise” — today no one wants to use it. Working together. And no one takes the time to research or to listen.

BRENT: It’s comforting to know there are still teachers teaching kids critical thinking skills!

JANIE: Brent, thank you. Critical thinking is becoming a lost art and skill.

AR: So recognizing that several of you adhere to a specific party fairly loyally, how have you seen the party you most identify with dismiss/omit critical thinking?

BRENT: When you pander to the masses as your audience, it leaves little room for debate because it’s based on group think mentality.

MIKE: Well, politicians used to campaign hard, then work together to govern. Good ideas were advanced, regardless of which side of the aisle they came from. Now we are in constant campaign mode. Can’t support the other’s good idea, because you can’t let them earn political points.

[THUMBS UP FROM BRENT]

JANIE: The parties have lost their way. The great hope of the citizens is newer districts with real representation — not party representation!

MIKE: That’s a good point. There’s so much gerrymandering both ways; you create majority safe districts by creating minority safe districts as well — that for the most part, winning the primary means you win the general. That means both parties select candidates to the extreme — “I will fight for you!” — rather than the sensible person who can appeal to both sides, because you no longer need that person to win the general.

[THUMBS UP FROM RONI]

RUTH: Critical thinking — had to wonder, is there any on either “side”? There seems a lack on both sides — about consequences of policies and orders passed, on one hand — on the other, a lack of judgment and recognition of the power of words and tones, opening up stuff that should’ve been denounced, rather than played into so freely during the campaign. Seems as though the more critical thinkers were ruled out in the primaries.

RONI: (Going back a bit) I think fear also played a major role in this past election. Fear that “they” were/are taking over — applicable to both sides. I also am genuinely changed by the way I have seen this election deeply hurt my Jewish, Muslim, immigrant, and LGTBQ friends. The lack of empathy has disturbed me.

MIKE: Roni, I assure you that I take no joy in anyone’s fear, and I would stand with you fighting discrimination against any of the groups you mentioned.

RONI: That’s why I love you, Mike. I know that you would.

AR: Oh, this is good…
_____

More is forthcoming… how we overcome, how we work through political differences, and too, some specific topics. Again, stay tuned.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

a diverse roundtable – part 1

juoaonoxjqk-drew-coffman

No matter the potential controversy or intensity, the Intramuralist will not shy away, always advocating for respectful dialogue. No matter the deeply passionate, supposed “sides” — the chickens, eggs, the “tastes great’s” and “less filling’s” — I believe that intentional respect for one another is the first, best step forward.

The challenge is that we each receive ample encouragement to move forward alone — or only with the likeminded. We are encouraged to cut our losses and dismiss the value of “together,” falsely believing that one “side” is all right and the other is all wrong. Such grieves me, as it seems not synonymous with wisdom. Thankfully, however, I am not alone in said assessment.

A week ago I gathered 6 friends in an online discussion. These articulate 6 are all over the political, social, demographic map. At first glance, they look as if they have little in common. If they shared their political affiliations, they would appear to have even less. But what they do share is a commitment to take that first, best step forward. They do not believe in severing relationships. They believe in a respectful dialogue of current events.

Meet Brent, Janie, Mike, Roni, Ronnie, and Ruth. They are good people. While a few in the group knew another previously, they had never all met before.

Over this next week, I’d like to share portions of our diverse, roundtable discussion, starting with their introduction today…

RONI: I’m in! Thank you for the opportunity to connect with others.

MIKE: I’m in. Looking forward to learning from everyone.

RONNIE: I’m in… and since this will be like family, call me “Ronnie.”

JANIE: I am in and much prefer if family/friends call me Janie or JB. If you are “yelling” at me — which is fine — go with “Jane.” Disclosure… a U.S. Govt. educator since the founding of the country!

[AR: No yelling here, Janie. 🙂 ]

BRENT: I’m also in!

RUTH: I’m the late one to the table (no comments about “as usual,” AR! … can I call you “Annie”?? 🙂 ), but I’m in! Hi, new friends! Honored to make your acquaintances!

AR: Thanks for chiming in, all. So tell me: how would you describe this entire election/campaign season?

RONNIE: Short and to the point: insane and frightening.

MIKE: It was the craziest election of my lifetime. The dynamic of a celebrity candidate was bizarre. I did not appreciate how it became more about what was wrong with the other person rather than what they would do. Campaigns have been divisive in the past, but the vitriol has lingered so much longer this time around. A real turnoff.

BRENT: There are two main issues for me. First (coming from a 31 yr. old), there seems to be a large and growing chunk of people, a lot of them young, who are voting based mostly on “hearsay,” rather than research. Along with this, as the mainstream media has been consolidated into fewer hands over the years, the focus seems to have shifted from reporting the news as a watchdog to becoming a powerful propaganda machine.

JANIE: Sorry, but stuck with the educator hat at the moment… it used to be the party wasn’t nearly as important as the person.

RONI: Well, go to one retirement party and whoa, you miss the storm of thought. Loved reading
everyone’s thoughts!
This election was frightening, biased and had extraordinary efficiency gaps.

[“thumbs up” from JANIE]

JANIE: Were we all watching the same exact “show,” hearing the same words? How was there such joy and fear?

RONI: I agree, Janie; it is amazing how the views of this election are so different. The fears and joys are very real.

RUTH: Wow… Where to jump in? I’m “listening” and you all are fascinating! (I can tell already I’m going to learn a lot here.) My take on this election cycle was “shocking, but not surprising.” So much shock and drama: the shock of all the replayed disturbing words, the shock of dots connecting concerning influences, the shock of the seemingly least likely candidate winning the primary and then overtaking the shoe-in. Yet with what is glamorized and dramatized in our pop culture and “news” media, none of this should really come as a surprise. What did surprise me most was that some people really seemed to think one of the two candidates was really going to be so great over the other.

Much to chew on more than usual with this vote… More reason to dig down and consider what am I really voting for here. So it sobered me and drew me to research and pray much, much more than usual over an election.
_____

And there we start, friends… part two is on Tuesday… beginning with the value of critical thinking… and how it appeared absent in this past election cycle. Stay tuned.

Respectfully… always…
AR

Posted on

not news

wy_j0_9svfg-toa-heftiba

CEDAR PLAINS, PA — “After years of delays and mounting criticism from voters and political pundits, President Barack Obama finally followed through on a campaign promise he made in 2008 to spend one night alone in the abandoned Cedar Plains Family Fun amusement park, sources confirmed Wednesday.
At approximately 6 p.m. last night, members of the press reportedly looked on as Obama—carrying only a flashlight, a water bottle, and a backpack full of snacks—scaled the 9-foot-high chain-link fence and entered the derelict theme park, making good on a vow that had been a central component of his initial run for the White House.

‘Eight years ago, I made an oath that if I were elected president, I would spend dusk till dawn in this old, run-down amusement park, and tonight I am fulfilling my obligation to the American people,’ said Obama, who had been widely accused of favoring other legislative priorities above an overnight stay inside the dilapidated regional attraction that shut its doors in 2003. ‘Between now and sunrise, I will climb to the top of the Ripsaw roller coaster, I will throw a rock through the window of the snow cone stand, and just as I’ve said time and time again, I will wander around in the big concrete track where the Lazy River used to be. And to prove that I do not take your support for granted, I will also walk through the Hall of Mirrors at midnight,’ Obama added.”

Oh, did the Intramuralist chuckle when reading the above on “The Onion” — a news satire organization that’s been entertaining readers for the past 28 years. In other words, it’s not news. It’s fake.

As in any significant aftermath, new terms are coined, and the term “fake news” is now being introduced into our vernacular, after November’s perceived political earthquake. “Fake news” equates to “false and sometimes sensationalist information presented as fact and published and spread on the internet” (see Collins English Dictionary).

The incidents and events did not actually happen in the way in which they are reported. Hence, there exists concern that inaccurate news causes readers (who evolve into voters) to be misinformed and therefore make inaccurate conclusions.

Said concern is valid, in my opinion. But I’d like to go one step further in identifying that which is not news…

Remember that news is newly received, noteworthy information. As best as possible, it is an objective account. Editorials — or opinion pieces and opinionated pundits — are also not news. They are a subjective account; subjective is not synonymous with truth. Swaying an audience — albeit often arguably, unintentionally — is prioritized over offering objectivity.

In other words, if we only pay attention to the Huffington Post, the NY Times, Rachel Maddow, and Steven Colbert, we won’t have an objective (or accurate) perspective; if we only pay attention to the Drudge Report, the NY Post, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh, we also won’t have an objective perspective. Their political opinion skews their presentation of noteworthy information. Hence, this, too, is not news. That means the contributing journalists are also not news reporters. Opinion is altering the news.

Note Wednesday’s announcement, for example, that President-Elect Trump will nominate Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency…

HuffPo’s headline read as follows: “DIRTY DEAL: Trump Picks Fossil Fuel-Friend to Head EPA”
Drudge lead with: “Trump’s EPA Pick Spooks Liberals and the Environmental Lobby”

The two accounts were covering the same story.

Popular FOX News host Megyn Kelly shared in an NPR interview this week that “too many millions of Americans aren’t listening at all to what the press tells them.” I wonder if “too many millions” aren’t listening because they’ve realized too many journalists are offering something other than news.

It’s tough. It’s tough to ensure that what we’re reading and hearing is both not fake but also not opinion. Both are not news.

Reporting on Obama on that Ripsaw coaster would be easier. More entertaining, too.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

(not) something lesser

eikbsc3sdti-sonja-langford

Ok, I’ll admit it. I’m guilty. Totally guilty.

Sometimes I make this entire holiday season into something it was never intended to be. Sometimes I make it about materialism. Sometimes I make it about gifts. Sometimes I make it about something lesser.

Sometimes I pout. Sometimes I get something so stuck in my craw that I can’t emotionally shake myself out of it. I can’t always surrender to the Divine in order to help me navigate wisely through it. So yes, sometimes I focus on something lesser — not realizing that it actually is lesser.

A local church community created the below in video form last week. I thought it was brilliant — and relevant to each of us in different ways. It’s a message for Advent, a time of expectant waiting and preparation for future celebration. But sometimes we’re so busy that we miss the depth of the celebration. We miss what’s most important…

Everyone wants Christmas
To be meaningful
But, instead it becomes
Shop, shop, shop,
Credit cards
Traffic jams
To do lists
Useless gifts
Then off to church
Noel, Noel, Noel
Sometimes we’re just glad to survive it.
Did you know Americans spend $450 billion on Christmas every year?
EVERY YEAR.
So we ask?
How did Jesus celebrate?
Jesus gave
He gave himself
Relationally.
Incarnation.
Time, space, presence… (do you see where this is going?)
WHAT IF
you bought FEWER GIFTS
[that sweater she won’t like]
[that random gift certificate]
[that toy he doesn’t need]
And then instead of BUYING that gift
Give something valuable
LIKE
YOUR
TIME
Talk, eat, sled, bake, bike, read, play, create, craft
TOGETHER
Make gifts (like when you were a kid)
And remember that money you didn’t spend
What if you gave some of it away?
To the poor, the hurting, the lonely, the hungry, the sick, the thirsty
Since 2006 thousands of churches have been giving all over the world
That’s a lot of love… life
All because people
Spent LESS on gifts
And MORE ON relationships
LET’S FACE IT
Consumerism does not equal happiness, memories, meaning
Spend less on gifts
Give more on presence…

If we gave more on presence, I wonder what would happen… would our relationships be better? … would we be more empathetic? … would we be less accepting of division and writing people off? … would we learn to see more sides than our own?

I’m thinking I need to do this far more than this time of year.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

what’s in a name?

ohjmwb4xwle-bruno-martinsWe go by a lot of names…
Mom, dad, bro, sis, friend, foe, aunt, uncle, cousin, cuz, niece, nephew, grandma, grandpa, bestie, and BFF…
Engineer, astronaut, author, executive, critic, cook, customer service rep…
Actor, actress, flight attendant, and fireman…
Director, producer, priest, pastor, and salesman…
Mediator, negotiator, appliance repairman… spy, or a cool-as-a-cucumber secret agent…
Nanny, neighbor… teacher, student…
Client, patient, donor, doctor, even a volunteer.

That doesn’t count the more intangible…
Bridge-builder, helper, “the glue that holds it all together”…
Patriarch, matriarch… Leader.
Follower, believer…
Rebel, resistor…
Antagonist, protagonist…
Heroine, hero…
Rookie, veteran, pessimist, optimist, realist, and more.

Don’t forget our loyalties…
Cubs’ fan, Broncos’ fan, Duke Crazy, college basketball enthusiast…

And there’s a whole slew of those names…
Boilermakers and Bulldogs, Hilltoppers and Hurricanes (even Golden ones), not to mention the Ragin’ Cajuns and Green Wave.

We have our socio-political names…
Democrat, Republican, Libertarian… Conservative, Progressive, Socialist…
Feminist, capitalist, activist, and even the Polish Beer Lover in Poland (I kid you not).

And names identified via age…
The elderly, millennial, and Gen-Xer…

Or by our location…
Floridian, Californian, New Yorker.

Even the insults offer a name…
Bully, brute, villain, and bad guys.

We go by a lot of names.

That’s the bottom line. We can’t be identified solely by one.

Current culture seems to encourage a singular identity, i.e. “They’re just a ________!” Fill in the blank. Usually it ends with some kind of “-ist” or some kind of “-phobe.” And then that “-ist” or “-phobe” is somehow supposed to adequately explain all of another’s behavior or thinking, especially behavior and thinking that we don’t understand.

The inherent problem, however, is that one kind of name or a singular identification is inaccurate; it does not — and cannot — explain all who we are, all how we behave, and all how we think. It is not enough.

For the record (… and be prepared for my longest sentence ever here…), I am a Boilermaker, blogger, student, parent, child, friend, teacher, leader, Christian, coach, facilitator, female, John Grisham reader, administrator, donor, volunteer, Human Resource Director, mediator, special needs advocate, Hoosier, Buckeye, show choir nut, speaker, writer, work out enthusiast, cleaner, cook, encourager, loyal “Friends” rerun watcher, artist, piano player, pickle hater, pet owner, in addition to being a loyal fan of the Bengals, Reds, Gators, Colts, Packers, Pacers, and the WNBA’s Indiana Fever. I’m a fair-weather fan of many more and a zealous, unofficial member of fan clubs supporting Bon Jovi and Bruno Mars.

What’s in a name, therefore, I ask?

A lot.

But never enough.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

shocking

kyajrmvtwk0-jaspreet-monga

Not everyone rooted for them. Not everyone was a fan. In fact, I can’t promise you a clear majority was in support. Some actively cheered against them. Others called them a national hero. It can be a bitter, vicious sport at times.

Soccer, that is.

Associação Chapecoense de Futebol, commonly known as Chapecoense, is a Brazilian football club — a soccer team. Soccer is a “big deal” in Brazil.

Chapecoense, itself, is a relatively small club; however, for the past two years, they have played in Brazil’s top division, Série A, one of the strongest leagues in the world. The 20 clubs in Série A are thus also a “big deal.” With any “big deal” and all the inherent loyalties, there will be both passionate opposition and support. There will be persons who actively cheer the team on… and persons who sincerely desire for them to fail.

Late Monday night, Chapecoense was on their way to what was touted as the most significant match in their club’s history. Yet as their chartered jet approached the airport, intending to land in Columbia, it experienced electrical failure and shockingly, fell from the sky. There were 81 people on board: 72 passengers, which included the team and 21 journalists, plus a crew of nine. Only five survived.

The death of almost an entire team is tragic — almost unspeakable.

The crash of the airplane is equally shocking.

It’s awful… awful and heartbreaking.

While there is nothing good in the heartbreak itself, what I do suspect is happening in Brazil, is nothing short of sobering…

Gone is any disrespectful opposition…
Gone are the sincere desires for one to fail…
Gone is an emphasis on the smaller picture.

My sense is that today in South America, Brazilians have been shocked into seeing the bigger picture; they have been shocked into remembering what is most important.

Also, no doubt amid the shock, one of the most meaningful moments from the tragic day of 9/11 was when George W. Bush stood on that rubble with his arm around the fireman from company 164. With a bullhorn in one hand (and no teleprompter in the other), the President yelled:

“I want you all to know that America today is on bended knee, in prayer for the people whose lives were lost here, for the workers who work here, for the families who mourn. This nation stands with the people of New York City and New Jersey and Connecticut, as we mourn the loss of thousands of our citizens.

[Shouts come from some far back in the crowd… something along the lines of “I can’t hear you!” To which Pres. Bush responds…]

I can hear you! [applause]

I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon! [The crowd screams and shouts with massive enthusiasm.] The nation sends its love and compassion to everybody who is here. Thank you for your hard work. Thank you for making the nation proud. And may God bless America.”

The cheers and the unity manifest in that moment were absolutely beautiful. Unity… harmony… it is beautiful. On that day, we were all Americans.

In Brazil, right now, they are all Brazilians.

Does something tragic have to happen in order to shock us into remembering the bigger picture? … to shock us into remembering what we are? … who we are? … and who we are together?
And… that what we are… together… is actually beautiful?

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

the validity of the virtue

pbgwsmxxq4k-kristopher-roller

What would I most like to see?

What would I most like to see in all people… from all people… given to all people…

In all things… in sports, politics, relationships, families, you-name-it…

Instead of division… instead of the strife… instead of any arrogance, self-righteousness, or denigration… I wish for the following in all:

  • Love
  • Joy
  • Peace
  • Patience
  • Kindness
  • Goodness
  • Faithfulness
  • Gentleness
  • And self-control

That’s it. Easy. Well sort of.

Ponder what would be different if we never sacrificed any of the above… if we never deemed one of the above unnecessary… or if we never justified the omission of one.

I wish I would have never said, thought, or justified…

I’m so mad, I don’t need to love my neighbor well…
I’m so ticked off, I don’t need to be patient with another side…
I’m so right, I don’t need to be gentle, not to mention any thought of being kind…

I’m so something… something that dismisses the validity of the virtue.

And then we dismiss the need for goodness, faithfulness, self-control, etc.

Friends, against such things, there is no law; there are no restrictions. All of the above are always good. There is never a time synonymous with wisdom that omits any of the above.

Allow me to be more clear. I’m not always all that good at all of the above. Sometimes I’m not faithful, not gentle, and I have zero desire for kindness or self-control.

But my desire does not change what it good and true and right. What’s right remains right, whether I desire it or not. In fact, if my desire contradicts what is valid and virtuous, what is valid and virtuous is not what’s in need of change.

I offer great grace to those who struggle with one or more of the above. Allow me to humbly include myself in said mix, as I’m not sure any of us ever master the complete list this side of the human experience.

However, an inability to master does not preclude the need to work on it.
An inability to do it well consistently does not negate the need for growth.
And an inability to even desire such virtues never dismisses their validity.

Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control…

That’s it. Easy.

Well sort of.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

picking teams

q4esnb5f0ru-nathan-shively

On Saturday, Michigan at Ohio State and Florida at Florida State dominated our flat screen (… congratulations, Buckeyes and ‘Noles). It was great. In fact, this whole week has been sweet; it’s “rivalry week.” Rivalry week means the fiercest rivals finally face off against one another.

They bring their so-called “A” games. Emotions run rampant. They leave it all on the field. That’s key: they leave it all on the field. When the contest is done, they remember that they have more in common than they do not; after all, they both love football.

Because we both love football, we remember that we are not defined by our “teams.”

One of the clear challenges in current culture is that we are encouraged to “pick a team — any team,” but when we do, the encouragers want us to stick with it, always. They forget (and they encourage us to join with them in their unfortunately, seemingly self-serving forgetfulness) that the “teams” are only subsets of what’s bigger. Remember that both Michigan and Ohio State fans each love football. If only they could remember that we are “football fans” first…

The Intramuralist is concerned at the numbers of persons who justify forgetting what’s first.

Let me first not negate the fierceness of the above. Oh, no… not at all. I will not deny it nor encourage said denial in any way, shape, or form. The passions run deep; they are based on valid perspective, and thus our loyalties are strong. Because those loyalties are strong, sometimes we need a self-imposed timeout — not a timeout to regroup and figure out how we can go “get ‘em” or sabotage somehow; rather, a timeout to gather our composure, re-commit to listening, and figure out how we can move forward together, respecting all people; that’s right: respecting all people — which means respecting the other “team.”

Eight years ago, in our early days of blogging, we penned a post about the change in quarterback for the Green Bay Packers. Many were thrilled with some new guy named “Rodgers.” Others had invested years of emotion and support in former QB Favre. There were reasonable, objective arguments on both sides of the playing field — although many could only see the reasonable and objective from one side.

“What should I do now?” I then asked.

“…do I support the team even though I thought the other guy would be a more effective leader?… or do I remember that I’m a Packers’ fan first, and in order for our team to near any level of greatness, I need to respect the QB, whether I previously cheered him on or not.”

Respect takes on many forms, friends. It doesn’t mean I have to be happy nor fake it when I’m not. While it manifests itself differently in each individual, there do exist three common threads:

One, listening.
Two, humility.
And three, no disparagement of the other team.

Let none of us be arrogant. Let each of us be gracious. No team or QB is perfect; let us not dissect the specks in the eye of another without first wrestling with the logs in our own. There is indeed a bigger “team.”

Remember, too, that “rivalry week” is more than one game or one sport. In fact, it’s also rivalry week in my family’s fantasy football league. I’m playing my spouse, my fiercest competitor. One of us will win; one of us will lose. And let me raise the stakes a little higher: with a loss, one of us (moi) may be kicked out of the playoffs.

At the end of the day, however — maybe after an intentional cooling off period — we will remember that we are a part of something bigger. Not only is it bigger; it also is what is best.

Respectfully…
AR