Will Hathaway's Blog

The God Portal

“I really just want to grow closer to God....”
It’s a phrase I’ve both heard and said multiple times.  Typically it has accompanied some deep yearning for some sort of change in my life or a new resolution to seek out greater spirituality.  
Maybe you’re like me and perhaps you’ve said or pondered it as well?   And if you are like me, that quest to “grow closer to God” was more than likely followed by a new commitment to studying my Bible, spending more time in prayer, and more time soul-searching.  Often my pursuit of God has caused me to withdraw from the busy world surrounding me and retreat to places of solitude in hopes of getting better spiritual reception so as to clearly learn and discover God’s next steps in His plan for my life.  
In recent years, I’ve found myself pondering the elements of this spiritual journey I’ve embarked on, and the constant quest to attain spiritual harmony with the Almighty.  One of the big questions that has begun to haunt me is how can I know that I love God if I’m not really sure I know Him all that well?   I mean I think I love Him....I feel positive feelings surrounding the thought and idea of Him......but if I must seek to strive to draw near Him......that means I have spent a great deal of time in my life “not” near Him.  And if I haven’t been near Him, how can I know I really love Him......like......love who He really is......rather than who I want Him to be?  
Christians believe that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. If we are honest with ourselves, we have to address the fact that it was the religious people who struggled with Jesus the most-- the very people who “loved God” and “were striving to draw near” to Him.  In fact, the people that Jesus seemed to do the best with were all the same people whose behavior we in the church world still to this day seek to avoid and not emulate.  It was the religious that sought His death. It was the ones seeking God the most who most failed to recognize Him in their presence.  To be objective to that thought, I must honestly ask myself.......if I were suddenly in the presence of God in the flesh......would I even like the guy?  After all He did seem to have quite the tendency to make people feel uncomfortable. How do I know He wouldn’t do the same to me?  
What is the personality of God really like?  We can easily say “perfect” but what is perfect?  If we each have a different perspective of what perfection is then that complicates things a bit, doesn’t it?   And if we all agree that nobody is perfect......that would indicate none of us has ever seen or experienced a “perfect person.”  If nobody has ever seen perfection in this manner then how would we recognize it if we ever actually were to experience it?  We clearly didn’t do a very good job of recognizing it the one time it did show up on Earth as we ended up rejecting and nailing that perfection to a cross.
One of the most troubling questions I’ve ever had to ask myself was whether I really loved God for who and what He really is.......or.......did I love the image of God that existed in my mind?  When we consider the two great commands of Jesus Christ, to love the Lord with all of our heart, soul, strength, and mind and the second which he declared to me like the first, to love our neighbor as ourselves....an interesting dilemma begins to develop.  
One of those commands involves a subject matter that is much more tangible than the other.  It seems easy to love God....especially when I have so little to work with in regards to who and what exactly He is like.
Or do I?
In this world where God chooses to subtly exist invisibly, then the next best thing I have to work with would be dealing with the tangible creatures made in His image. The ones with which I can interact with every day.  After all, if I struggle to love other people in this world and those people are made in the image of God, then is it possible I also struggle to love God?  With God, I can mentally and emotionally fill in the personality gaps with what I’d like Him to be. With people, it’s different.  People have the capacity to annoy, irritate, anger, and frustrate us......yet......even with these detracting attributes, they are still made in the image of God. 
Perhaps in seeking to draw nearer to God I’ve been frustrated by the fact that for most of my life I’ve sought God in ways that allow me to bypass others.  But what if others are actually the gateway to God?  What if the only way to truly grow close to Him is through each other?  He did say that where two or more are gathered in His name He is there also.....an interesting comment for a God of love.  Perhaps it is though the others, including the very people with whom I struggle the most, that my doorway to the Almighty exists.  Perhaps it has been in my confusion of love the emotion versus love the action, the attempt to feel good things about people rather than to do good things for people no matter my emotions, that have tripped me up on my journey to climb God’s mountain?  Perhaps the greatest mystery in discovering God is that to see His wonders we can look to the heavens but to learn His heart.....I must travel though yours.  

Miracles, Signs, and Wonders.......Oh My

Contained in the pages of the Old Testament of the Bible there exists a story that is among the favorites of those who draw faith from the ancient writings.  In Chapter 18 of First Kings, Elijah, the prophet of God, finds himself squaring off against 450 pagan priests who worship the god Baal.  In the course of the story, a challenge is established between the 450 priests and Elijah. Two sacrifices are prepared, one for the priests and one for Elijah.  Each will in turn cry out to their god and whichever answers by setting the sacrifice ablaze will be established as the one true God.  
In the story, the 450 priests go first.  After preparing their sacrifice, they began crying out to Baal to light the slain bull atop the altar and prove himself to be the one true God.  All day they cry out in vain, even to the point of cutting their bodies in desperation for him to reply.  During this ordeal, the prophet Elijah begins to taunt and mock them, suggesting perhaps he’s on vacation, using the restroom, or taking a nap.  
At the end of the day, dejected from their lack of answers, the priests finally give up and it is Elijah’s turn to cry out to his God.  But prior to making his plea, Elijah takes things a step further.  He first orders that his sacrifice be soaked in water, to the point of making a trench around the altar to hold all the water that is being used to saturate his sacrifice.  Then, on his first attempt, Elijah cries out to God, who responds with fire so intense, the sacrifice, the water, and even the rocks that made up the altar were consumed in the inferno........leaving absolutely no doubt as to who was the one true and real God.  
It’s a colorful story with a great flair for the dramatic, which I’m sure is one of the reasons it is such a favorite among Bible believers.  But another reason I suspect it is a favorite comes down to the final result of the encounter.  No, not the burnt offering, or evaporated water, or stones burnt to the point of dust.....those are fun details, but they aren’t the final result of being a firsthand witness to such an event.  
For most people who are governed by faith, an experience like this is coveted because it would not just confirm their faith.......it would actually remove all need for it.  After all, for “faith” to exist, one cannot be completely certain of something...thus the need for faith.  But if God (any god,really) was to reveal Himself in such an undeniable way, then man’s search for God would be made simple. There would no longer be any room or need for doubt.  
One of the things that the non-religious find odd about the religious is their ability to believe in things like fires from heaven, parting oceans, miraculous healings, men walking on water and rising from the dead.  It is in clinging to the possibility such events occurred that millions place their bets of faith in hopes to secure a place in the next life. 
Strangely, it is Jesus himself who creates the ultimate paradox when He bristles at the requests of others to perform signs to validate He has the authority to teach the things he taught.  Things like love.  Love God, Love Your Neighbor, Love yourself.....they seem like great teachings at face value.  But as simple and clear as they seem, they clearly weren’t that obvious to many of His hearers, as they often asked for some sort of a miracle to validate these teachings.  
It was Jesus himself that pointed out in the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man that if people couldn’t be convinced of truth based on the teachings that already existed in this world, then even a man returning from the dead wouldn’t be enough to convince them.....an ironic point if there ever was one.  
The Gospels contain an interesting progression as Jesus teaches love and is asked for a “sign.”   He is irritated at the request but eventually heals a man with a withered hand.  Impressive but not enough that his detractors are convinced, he then heals a blind man.  Nice try, but still not enough. He raises Lazarus from the dead, only to have his enemies seek to re-kill Lazarus.  Lastly, Jesus himself returns from the dead only to return to a world that still contained people that simply could not accept...and still do not accept….his teaching of love.  
In fact, when given the choice, many today would rather focus on His miraculous resurrection than all of the lifechanging teachings that proceeded it.  We’d rather base our “salvation” on believing He rose from the dead instead of striving to embrace and fulfill his greatest calling....the calling to love.  
And let’s face it....when given the choice of believing a man rose from the dead or having to love my enemies.....the easier choice of the two is faith in the miracle. 
In the end, was the resurrection of Christ really to prove he was God?  Or was it to prove the fact that it was actually His great and profound love for all that displayed His true divine power...and if one can’t see how clearly special that was........even a man returning from the dead won’t be enough to convince someone otherwise.  

The Gift of Conflict

Conflict......that explosive concept that threatens to destroy marriages, end friendships, and sever the bonds we share with each other. There seems to be a growing gravitation towards seeking to disavow those with whom we disagree. To create distance and retreat to the safe confines of like-minded individuals while using the likes of social media and such to blindly lob verbal bombs of disdain into a crowded cyber world of opinions.I must admit, I’m growing fearful of what appears to be a social tactic of avoidance when it comes to interacting with those with whom we fail to see eye to eye. Lately some of the more high profile examples have been with sports teams, or individual stars, deciding whether or not to accept invitations to the White House should they have the opportunity to receive one. And while that is only one example, there are countless others that take place on a regular basis where people are unfriended or unfollowed or un-whatever other ways we can “un” people, due to the inflammatory emotions they may provoke within us. And, in all honesty, who can blame anyone for not wanting to associate with someone who upsets them?Yet while it might be human nature to avoid these interactions, the great danger that lies in the byproduct of such actions is that for change to take place, people who see the world one way will have to be convinced to consider seeing the world a different way. Somewhere, in some way, someone must be convinced to change their mind....and in some instances, we must consider the possibility that that someone might even be ourselves. But even if it isn’t us, if one feels powerfully about the need for transformation in society, then refusing opportunities to have an audience with those with whom we disagree doesn’t lead to change...it, in fact, secures a reality in which change will never actually occur.To use the example of the sports teams, it is extremely rare that members of a nation gain the opportunity to have a one-on-one interaction with their highest leaders. So when such opportunities present themselves, it seems to me that it would be extremely important for the people who disagree with political leaders take that opportunity to have a chance to talk to them in person. If the only people who ever meet with those in power are those who agree with the positions they hold, then we solidify the only opinions and perspectives they will hear. They are all voices from the same echo chamber. Likewise, when we come across people in our daily lives with whom we disagree, rather than batten down the hatches and fight, we may have to swallow our pride enough to listen to their case in order to have an opportunity to present ours.In the war of ideals, the only way ground is gained is to seek opportunities for those interactions. For when we fail to do so, and we seek to avoid opposing thoughts, surrounding ourselves with those of like mind to affirm our believes and perspectives, we risk transforming the war of ideas into just war.......where we literally turn to violence to overpower those with whom we disagree. And that is a type of war that nobody wins.

Solitary Confinement

Solitary confinement.Considered to be the worst of all punishments for a human being.Complete and total confinement, absent of any other person...full and absolute existence only with one’s self.How ironic, the greatest fear and torment of the majority is to be trapped with the most intimate relationship any human could have....me.Whether we are a celebrity with millions of followers or a world leader with throngs willing to obey our every command....in the end....we all are alone.In the depths of our being, in the deepest recesses of our souls..it is still just the individual.Alone we take our very first breath, even if we are surrounded by loved ones. And alone we take our final breath… even if we are surrounded by loved ones.We can seek to occupy ourselves with every distraction possible. We can spend hours in the company of others....but ultimately ....the true person we must learn to come to terms with is the individual that nobody else on earth can possibly fully know....the true self that lies within us all.The one we often seek to drown out with exterior elements is the one that most haunts us.....the true self.We can strive and crave affirmation from others, but ultimately, the affirmation we need most doesn’t come from outside sources, but from the ultimate internal source.Made in the image of God, it is in the core of the individual that peace must be made with our creator. It is there...in the depths of our individuality that we must ultimately come to terms with our maker and our purpose. And it is only there that true fulfillment, purpose, and peace can be found.

A Case For Nationalism

Recently the president yet again made news for a controversial statement that he is a “nationalist.”  For those who support the president, this was seen as a good thing and for those who dislike him this was seen as disturbing.  As the political landscape of our society seems to be moving more and more to a place of polarization, at least in the competition for the attention of the nation, it seems that topics are seldom ever examined from a position of moderation. Almost all topics are dangerous when carried out to extremes in any direction, but must every single topic always be viewed from the position of the extreme?  
For instance.....regarding the topic of nationalism.  When taken to the extreme, you have the Nazis who promoted the belief that every nation, culture, and way of life was beneath them and therefore was subject to conquest.  To the other extreme you have the anti-nationalism dream of a utopian dream world with no borders, no nations and peace and love on Earth.  
Either extreme would be difficult to achieve. World conquest has been attempted a number of times with devastatingly destructive consequences.  The other extreme...Utopia...to this point in history, has been make-believe due to the perpetual and eternal existence of...idiots. 
While a utopian world is something noble to strive for, to ignore setting in place precautions to deal with the world as it currently is would be irresponsible.  It is pretty safe to assume that there will always be people in this world that will attempt to seize power if given the opportunity, and while that might be a pessimist outlook, I have the entire history of humanity on which to base that premise going all the way back to the earliest recordings of man.
If we have learned anything from history, the greatest threat to personal, individual freedom isn’t tyrants...it's the consolidation of power.  It is possible for a society to live with great freedom and liberation under a king provided the king is good and benevolent.  But when that king’s reign ends, all the power found in the position of a king is already consolidated so that all that is needed is for a bad king to take his place and the whole society changes.  But in a society where the power is dispersed among the people, even tyrants can exist but their influence is minimal due to the fact that they don’t possess the individual power to do much. Thus, the difference between a tyrant king and the idiot next door (a phrase I use only to make this point...my actual neighbors aren’t idiots...in fact I like the people next door, just to be clear).
While it has had its flaws, the democratic form of government, complete with checks and balances of power, has so far led to the greatest realization of freedom for the common man.  Extreme nationalism is dangerous as it leads nations to “inflict” their way of life and government upon the rest of the world, which if ever successful would lead to world conquest and an eventual one-world government.  
Extreme anti-nationalism would lead to the dissolution of nations as we meld into a utopian world that for organizational purposes still needs....a one-world government.  
If the consolidation of power is the greatest threat to personal freedoms, then nothing would be more dangerous than a single world government.  While there are still very flawed national systems around the world in which people live under oppression and tyranny, the mere existence of nations looking out for the interest of their own people helps to create a worldwide check and balance as to the influence and power of any particular culture or society.  
Among nations that provide the most personal freedom for their citizens, there are systems in place to provide checks and balances to disperse power within that country.  Here in the U.S., we have three branches of government. We have a congress composed of 535 people, 50 states that each have their own three branches of government, and from there counties and municipalities, etc.  Other free nations have similar setups that disperse power throughout their societies. 
If freedom and liberation are ever to be attained worldwide for the common man, our best chance for it will be for the power of the world to be distributed among nations that check and balance each other, who maintain a form of nationalism so as to look after their own interests but not seek to trample others. And among those nations, governmental systems that disperse and balance power among their inhabitants must be in place.  In that setting it might be possible to one day have the ideal world we strive for, one of peace and freedom for all.  But we will always need a structure in place that won’t allow any one person to obtain too much individual power.  

The Church of State

“...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”  - Thomas Jefferson
A common statement I’ve heard among church goers is that America is a “Christian Nation.”  And while it might be true that many of the founders of America were of the Christian faith and were influenced by Christian values, they also saw the dangers of blending the elements of church with the governing responsibilities of the State.   
Growing up in a religious home and going to church my entire life, I didn’t always see the wisdom and benefit that comes from the idea that Church and State should be separate matters.  I was taught that God should permeate every element of our lives, and therefore be included in our governmental decisions and policies.  
It wasn’t until I got a little older and gained a better grasp on how our government works that I began to see the wisdom and benefit to Jefferson’s observation that we should possess a “wall of separation between Church and State.”  
Like most kids, I only saw the world from my prospective, and since I was a Christian, naturally that perspective was from the platform of Christianity.  I used to believe that our nation would be better if there was a strong infusion of Christianity into our government. Then it occurred to me......if our nation is a republic with democratic ideals, then what would happen if the demographic of our nation were to become less and less Christian? What would happen if our nation became dominated by some other religion  whose values I didn’t share?  If that were to occur, would I want my nation to already have the established practice of following the tenets of the majority religion?  My answer to this was a firm “No!”  And with that realization, I began to understand the meaning of Jefferson’s idea.  If I don’t want the government imparting a religion on me that I was not inclined to adhere to....then I couldn’t wish for the government to impart my religion onto others.  
The other component to this wall of separation is that the wall works both ways and serves to keep the State out of the Church as well.  While the concept of this wall has been in effect since our nation's founding, the adherence to it has not necessarily been followed.  With the granting of tax exemptions to churches, the state reached into church and offered a special treatment that can be revoked should the church not behave in ways the State deems appropriate to maintain that tax exempt status.  
Likewise, as can be seen in the realm of marriage, the church has reached into the State with the religious institution of marriage, and what was once a religious practice is now something that must be done with the permission of the State in the form of a marriage license.  Even the term “legally married” has worked its way into church vernacular as being the standard that legitimizes a marriage.  

With the recent gay marriage rulings, many in the church were upset with the State’s attempt to “redefine” marriage.  The problem is that marriage was never the business of the State to begin with as it is a religious institution. And since it is the job of the State to protect people’s freedom to worship as they please, the gay marriage issue wasn’t one that should have needed to go to the State for definition.  Gay people should not have ever needed to petition the State to seek the “right” to marriage.  Under the freedom of religion, should a religion have emerged that agreed with gay marriage, then they could have been married in that setting with no interference from the State.  
In short, that should always have been a church issue, not a State issue.  As a result of this blend, ordained ministers are licensed by the State to perform marriages on behalf of the State.  And since the State must treat people alike, the door has been opened for ministers to perform marriages they may not agree with. As a result, they end up becoming representatives of the State when it comes to marriage.  Had the State and church not blended over the topic of marriage, ministers and parishioners alike could have pursued or rejected the theologies and practices of their choosing with no fear of retribution from the State.  
Want to have a gay marriage?  Fine, go to a church that will do that for you...the State won’t stand in the way.   Don’t want to perform a gay marriage as a minister?  Fine, go ahead and refuse with no worry that the State can try to force you to as an agent of such.  

But what happens in a nation where people become more and more secular?  What about all the people who don’t believe in God, or theology, or organized religion?  After all, there are many people, perhaps even a majority now, who would not consider themselves to be “religious” yet still believe in the basic premises of caring for their common man.  What happens to the “wall of separation” for those who only have a State but no “church?”    
From its outset, the concept of “Church” wasn’t simply for the purposes of worship but also mobilization.  The community of church allowed for people to organize and become more effective in implementing their world view through the power of community.  This is part of why the separation of Church and State is so important. We can see, historically and contemporarily, the power of theocracies to use the power of State to inflict the world view of a particular religion upon its people.  
But in a secular society....or for members of a society that consider themselves secular, adhering no particular “church”, there is no church from which to separate their State.  As a result...to the secularist...there is great danger in the State BECOMING this person’s church.  Think about it.  People of different religions naturally believe a certain way...thus the reason they join their church.  And churches are organizations in which people use to attempt to influence the world around them.  If you have no “church” then the natural place to turn to influence others with your world view is...the State.  
Without realizing it, we begin to use the State as our mobilization force to care for the sick, tend to the weak, and take care of the poor.  Each of these things being elements that used to belong to “the church”, whatever that church might look like.  
The purpose of State in the American paradigm is to limit power.  Therefore it is dangerous to blend the ideals of compassion and care for your common man as responsibilities of the State. In doing so, the State becomes more powerful with each citizen that becomes dependent upon it for sustenance.  While it might not feel compassionate, to confuse the role of the State to be the distributor of care rather than the limiter of power is to continue to blur the line Jefferson so wisely established as completely separate responsibilities.  
The care and compassion for one another must rest in the hearts and minds of the citizens that compose a nation.  It is a personal responsibility belonging to us as individuals, a decision that rests between us and the God we worship or the god we don’t worship.  But to begin to legislate that compassion through the State tears down Jefferson’s wall by creating the Church of State.  

CNN vs The Whitehouse

As our nation seems to be daily moving farther and farther apart ideologically, the recent confrontation between the White House and CNN’s Jim Acosta seems to perfectly capture where we stand today as a society.  
Over the past few days, I’ve seen posts explaining how Acosta “put his hands on” a White House intern, followed by “Acosta never touched her,” followed by “his credentials being suspended is a violation of the freedom of the press.”
The most disturbing element of this entire saga is not the drama between CNN and the White House.....it is us.  We the people have become so blinded by our own loyalties that we seem to be intentionally blinding ourselves to the reality of a situation that has played out before our collective eyes.  Sadly, as people, we seem intent on seeing the situation from the perspective of the side for which we root.  
If we the people are ever to be “We the People” we must at least learn to be honest with ourselves about the theatrics we are presented by BOTH the government that oversees us and the media that exploits us for the financial gain of good ratings.  
During this exchange, Acosta asked the President a question.  The President answered the question before, Acosta who didn’t like the answer, began to challenge it with not just follow up questions, but follow up commentary about his perception as to the reality of the situation.  When told to hand over the mic, he became confrontational with the President, who became confrontational with him back.  An intern came over to retrieve the mic and Acosta pulled away, trying to maintain control of the mic. His left hand made contact with the lady’s arm.  
The claim of the White House that Acosta “put his hands on” this young lady is a very gross exaggeration of what occurred as the contact was slight.  
At the same time Acosta’s claim that he “never touched her” is equally false as he clearly “touched” her however incidental that contact might have been.  
CNN has since accused the White House of doctoring the footage of the incident to make it appear the contact was more aggressive than it was, a claim that may very well be valid.   Yet the hypocrisy of CNN to accuse the White House of doctoring footage is glaring, as they have already been caught several times manipulating footage of events to make them appear different than they were.  The selective editing of a video involving the sister of Sylville Smith comes to mind. She was made to appear as if she was calling for peace, when the entirety of the incident shows she was calling for violence in a different neighborhood.
The president then takes a few moments to scold Acosta for being rude, another hypocritical act from a man who takes to Twitter to berate people on a regular basis.  
After all of this, when Acosta’s press credentials are revoked, there are hysterical cries that the freedom of the press is under assault by this action.  This completely disregards the fact that Acosta on many, many occasions seeks to grandstand with the White House and monopolize the media time by interrupting and essentially robbing all of the other press outlets time to ask questions of their own.  
What “We the People” might want to eventually consider...is that when the White House calls CNN “fake news” and CNN accuses the White House of being divisive and fear mongering....rather than take sides.....perhaps we should be open to the possibility that both of them are right.      

The “Freedom”of the Press

One of the great realizations our founding fathers had, in addition to the importance of the freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, and the ability to petition the government, was the significance of a free press.  Students of history need not study long before coming to the realization that the repeated story of humanity is one of power, oppression, and the steps many of us take to obtain those things.  From the moment Adam and Eve first reached for that forbidden fruit with the intention of becoming like God, mankind has continued reaching for that elusive goal of shedding our mortality in an attempt to grasp what isn’t available to us.  In doing so, if we can’t become gods, the next best thing is to at least rise above each other to live lives of power and comfort on the backs of those who will serve us.  
A long list of kings, emperors, dictators, and rulers litter the text of our history books. Seldom found are stories of societies consisting entirely of free and liberated people.  Our founders knew that one of the most dangerous elements to freedom is the existence of unchallenged power.  
With the five pillars of the very first amendment to what would become the Constitution of the United States, they established the principles needed to allow for the people to hold those in power accountable by having the freedom to question and challenge a government meant to represent them rather than rule them.  
The mere existence of these articulated rights creates an accountability on the part of the government. When those rights are infringed upon, it serves to sound the alarm to the people that someone is moving in on their freedoms.  
But.........what if it were possible for a government to allow the people to maintain these freedoms on paper and yet still quietly rob them of the benefits they provide?  The purpose of a free press was for it to work on behalf of the people to keep the government in check and provide a voice for the people.  By allowing for the free press, the founding fathers opened the door for the people to get their information from multiple sources, providing checks and balances to the information we receive.  If the government were every to attempt to take over the media, it should be obvious to the public that an attempt was being made to infringe on their freedoms. That same brief look through history should teach us that eventually, people will attempt to consolidate power through the government for their own gain.  
But what good is a free press if that free press becomes so competitive and greedy for the money that comes from ratings that it no longer seeks to provide people with boring truth so much as tantalizing content to keep them glued to their particular “news” outlet?  What if those running the “free press” become so confident in their own personal opinions that they lose the ability to objectively share information with the public and allow the people do decide for themselves what they believe about situations?  What if the press became more interested in using their free speech and freedoms to impress the public with their superior intelligence and insights, choosing to tell people what to think about things rather than telling them the things to think about?  What if the press outlets became so divisive and competitive with one another that people no longer knew who to believe?  What if the government no longer had the need to infringe upon the freedoms of the press, since the press had used that freedom so recklessly that it was no longer believed by the people it was meant to represent and protect?
Our founding fathers sought to set up a government less powerful than the people so that it could never overpower the people.  But sadly, government need not take power from a people who freely give that power away....and if history teaches us anything.....it teaches us we eventually will do just that.     

Go Ahead...Be Offensive

“Learn to laugh at yourself!”  
I was young when my father uttered these words to me. I can’t remember what I was specifically upset about, but I know it was something for which I was feeling embarrassed. I’d probably tripped on something or said something silly, and rather than embrace the humor of the moment, I chose to get upset at being laughed at.
Few things can trigger greater reactions from insecure people than feeling mocked or laughed at.  And when my father chose to console me not by scolding those laughing (my siblings), but instead encouraging me to join in, finding the humor of a situation coming at my expense, I didn’t immediately realize the path to liberation he was sharing.  After all, it felt bad enough to have other people laugh at me....but for me to laugh at me???  That seemed like the highest level of self betrayal. But I was wrong.
Lately in our society, strong messages have been sent on the importance of not being offensive to others.  And we are seeing the results of that in a society that seems to be becoming more and more fragmented and disgruntled.  The natural result of not being offensive is that it sends an secondary message that it's ok TO BE offended.  This is a dangerous position for anyone. It creates a dynamic where our happiness rests firmly in the hands of the people who are offending us.  If they change their behavior and stop being offensive....I can be happy. If they don’t.....I’ll remain in my caustic misery of being offended.  Ultimately, they are in control, they decide my happiness.  
When I demand others stop with “offensive rhetoric” or whatever we wish to call it, I am essentially demanding the whole world behave in a manner that doesn’t upset me.  And for every individual who might have the capacity and compassion to change their behavior to be less offensive, there will be another standing in line to take their place and keep me entrapped in my prison of offense.  
But what if instead we were to make a social push not about being less offensive.....but to being offended less?  After all, being offended is a choice I must make.  In fact, it's even worded that way.   People must “take offense” to things.  We “take” it. 
Imagine if someone were to place a goblet of what I knew to be poison before me and I were to drink it and get sick, then scold the person for placing the goblet there?  And what if they decided to keep placing more goblets and I kept drinking and scolding....only to stop when they decided to stop placing the goblets?  That would be crazy as anyone in their right mind would say, “Just stop drinking from the cups!!”  
But that’s not what we do with offensive material.  For unknown reasons we take information that will upset us and drink deeply from its bitter waters.  Then, as quickly as we can, we share it with others, willingly placing the chains of misery on our own shoulders to bear the darkness of angst spouted by others.  
When my dad told me to learn to laugh at myself, I didn’t immediately recognize that it's harder for others to laugh “at” me if I join them in finding the humor.  And by learning to not take myself so seriously, I found a greater liberation in my life with the understanding that I don’t have to let others dictate how I feel about myself.  Especially when those “others” want me to feel miserable.......so why let them?  Seems silly doesn’t it?  

Yet at times I still struggle with it to be honest. I still have to hearken back to those words spoken from a father to a little boy....the wisdom still had to be applied.  
For instance, as an author, why is it that I have to work harder at not being affected by the handful of negative comments from strangers about my work than the many positive ones from people I know and love?   My initial reaction is still to reach for the goblet.  And while I’ve gotten a lot better at not sipping its content, I still battle the temptation at times to reach before withdrawing my hand.  
It’s human to be defensive when we hear others bash our religious, political, social, and personal perspectives on things.  It’s even more so when they do it to us personally.  But in both cases, the key to our liberation isn’t them......it's us. It's our ability to recognize the poison flowing from their lips is a testament to what is within them......not us. Unless, of course, we decide to partake as well.  
So go ahead. Laugh at me. I’ll join you and we will both have a good laugh together.

The Real Message For #metoo

After the past couple of weeks regarding the Kavanaugh allegations one of the arguments I keep hearing is in regards to what message are we sending the young girls of our society should Kavanaugh confirmed?  Over an over I’ve heard that we are telling women who have been assaulted or raped that their stories don’t matter and that young girls still need to be scared of not being believed should they decide to every come forward and report something that has happened to them.  
As a father of a daughter, this mindset is infuriating to me as it confirms and advocates the complete and total victim mentality that some in our culture seem dead set in locking our daughters into.  
The real message here for young girls is that if something happens to you....when and how you decide to report it ACTUALLY MATTERS!!!!
The idea that you will be believed no matter what simply because you report something is a terrible president to set for our girls.  The truth is, if Kavanaugh really did to to Ford what she says he did, she sadly picked the absolute worst possible scenario in which to reveal it and be believed.....and like it or not.....that matters!
Had Ford come forward any OTHER time in the last 35.9 years with her story, it would have been quite different.  Had she reported it to law enforcement rather than writing a secret letter to a member of congress it would have been different.  Had her story not come out AFTER members of congress declared they would do everything possible to block this nomination to the court it would have been different, had it not come out AFTER protesters were brought into that Senate chambers to disrupt the hearings from the first day it would have been different.  Had her story not been released AFTER the confirmation hearings had concluded with the unsuccessful efforts oppose Kavanaugh by those opposed to him, it would have been different.  Had additional stories of other women, one of which was so absurdly unbelievable that it was dismissed by virtually everyone, it would have been different.  
When people say, “We are teaching our daughters nobody will believe them.”  I’m teaching my daughter that when you report things has an effect on people believing you.  And that is the real message for girls.  When you report things MATTERS! 
To teach our girls anything other than that does not empower them, it weakens them and it undermines the organizational structure of our society.  We can’t just make accusations whenever we want that will be believed under any circumstances and expect to have a functional society.  The lessons we should be teaching our girls are:
1. Report things quickly.2. Understand the longer you wait the more you will forget elements of the account.3. Don’t wait until your assailant is famous.4. Don’t wait until other’s have actively sworn to take all steps possible to oppose your assailant.5. Go to the proper authorities to report what your assailant did.6. Under no circumstances ever...........go to congress and expect to get anything but used by a politician.