Honor and Bravery and Truthfulness and Integrity. And did I say Honor?

Kevin Horrigan’s article in the February 2^nd Denver Post, hits many nails on the head from my perspective. In response to the outrage about Francesco Schettino’s “cowardly” behavior in leaving his sinking cruise ship, he asks whether our outrage is justified, whether any of us would have behaved any differently. “In our imaginations,” he says, “we are all noble and brave. But honor and self-sacrifice are qualities far rarer than we’d like to think. Look around. People are copping pleas and making excuses all over the place.”

And isn’t he right? What is this about? Why are we so guilty of this? Where have we learned not to take responsibility, not to bear the consequences for our actions?

Granted, consequences are not fun! If I spill the milk (or the peas or the chocolate syrup or the hair dye), I have a mess to clean up. The rest of my family is not likely to take kindly to my just leaving the house and expecting them to clean it up! If I don’t make the car payment, the bank is likely to come and take my car, and probably won’t accept my excuses. And I am not going to be too happy about figuring out how to make do without a car. And, of course, there are behaviors with far more serious behaviors, like the Wall Street executives who caused the collapse of the world economy.

But is it any great surprise that these executives are not taking responsibility when we have accepted a society of excuses? When we so rarely hold ourselves responsible? Why can’t we take responsibility? Why can’t we say, “I blew it and I hate the result and I know I have to make it right and I will make it right?” Of course, we would rather not suffer the consequences. But what does it say about our society that we don’t tend to own up to our mistakes, realize that everyone makes mistakes, and become determined to rectify the problem and make amends? What does it say that we don’t feel justified in holding other people’s toes to the fire when they make mistakes, while still caring for them, helping them to make it right, and helping them to do better next time? What keeps us so fearful of telling the truth that no one can help us to do better, to learn, to improve, to avoid the big disasters?

Wouldn’t doing just that have created a different culture on Wall Street, one that would allow people to be honest earlier on, and stop the mistakes from escalating into an all out world crisis? It’s almost as though the message is that we are all supposed to be perfect, and if we aren’t, then we have to hide it so people won’t . . . won’t do what, realize that we aren’t perfect? Ask us to make things right? Ask us to take responsibility and be honorable? Are we really so loath to do that? Do we really think we are fooling people into thinking we are perfect? Do we really have so little self-esteem that if we don’t look perfect, we will be nothing?

Well, the mental health professionals have some answers for these questions – things related to poor self-esteem and problematic child raising and psychopathology and . . . . But perhaps the most important questions to ask are aspirational questions, questions about honesty and integrity and how we can become the best we can be. Questions like, “Really, you think that hiding or lying is going to get you to a better place? To a place that you want to be?” Or, “Do you think that no one else has ever made a mistake?” And, “Let’s talk it all out and together we will figure out where to go from here.”

And perhaps the most important answers to seek are to the questions, “How can we care about one another more aggressively so that we all know that there are people to stand with us even when we blow it?” “How can we talk openly so that we are walking the path together, helping one another out, catching one another when we fall, and helping each other get back on the path when we veer off track?” “How can we know the truth about one another so that we know how best to care and encourage and correct?” “How can we model openness in our endeavors to demonstrate good character so that people see us fail as well as succeed, and thus know that we believe each day is a journey, not the end point, and that no one reaches perfection, so any attempt to look perfect (whatever our definition of perfect) is a lie?”

“So, Francesco Schettino, you blew it big time. Time to invest incredible amounts of energy in restitution and accountability. Perhaps you can’t make it right – after all, people lost their lives, and we desperately hope that it wasn’t because you were doing something other than being the captain you were supposed to be. But regardless of the causes, own up to your failures. Tell the truth – people won’t necessarily like it, but they would rather have the truth than have you telling them lies. Accept the consequences you deserve. Spend the rest of your life trying to make up for this tragedy, giving of yourself voluntarily. Be a role model of contrition in both words and behavior. We need more of that in our world if we are to turn it around, if we are to get beyond excuses to responsibility, beyond law suits to healing. Won’t you give it a try? Perhaps if you take the lead, others will follow. And so on, and so on, and so on. . . .”

Beyond “Dr. No” to “Dr. Yes”

Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald wrote an article this week with the above title. In it, he spoke about Michael Jackson, about the fame and power Jackson wielded that made it difficult to say “no” to him. In fact, says Pitts, if his doctor had said “no,” Michael would still be alive.

But beyond the illegalities of drug addiction and excessive spending and inviting children into your bed, isn’t it also true that we need either an internal or an external “Dr. No” if we are to behave in accordance with positive values? If we look carefully at the times in which we have crossed over an ethical boundary, hasn’t it been because we wanted a “yes” and we were going to take it however we could?

Perhaps it was a “yes” to paying less taxes, or a “yes” to having a bigger car or a bigger house, or a “yes” to going out on a Friday or Saturday night when our spouse didn’t want us to, or a “yes” to eating just a little more dessert, or a “yes” . . . well, you continue the thinking as it might best apply to your life.

Beyond personal “yeses,” perhaps the auto industry said “yes” one too many times to those in power rather than those who many years ago could have created better and more fuel efficient cars. Perhaps the mortgage brokers said “yes” to one too many loans that they shouldn’t have. Perhaps the bankers said “yes” to too many risky investments or income increasing strategies. It seems clear that, in these situations, as with Michael, the failure to say “no” has damaged the very core of our society and our trust.

We seem to understand, if we are parents or other adults who work with children, that children need clear limits in order to learn right from wrong. They need parents who will serve as “Dr. No’s.” They need someone outside of themselves saying, “Here is the limit of what is right. When you step over this line, you will have stepped into a danger zone, either for yourself, for someone else, or for property.”

We are supposed to eventually grow out of the need for external controls. We are supposed to internalize our parents’ or our society’s messages about right and wrong, how to decide among options, and how to choose what’s best for ourselves, for those we love, for our organizations or communities, and for the physical world around us.

Sometimes tragic circumstances hinder our development. And sometimes issues are very complex, and require carefully weighing of benefits and harms to determine what the best choices might be.

But sometimes, we just want what we want when we want it. And if we can get away with it, we sometimes just take what we want when we want it. And sometimes we feel guilty. And sometime we don’t. Sometimes we say, “It isn’t hurting anyone.” And sometimes we realize that harm is happening. The harm is just to someone or something “out there,” where we have no personal connections to the people who might be hurt, where no one can connect the misbehavior to us. Sometimes we figure that whatever harms happen, they will be to people that we don’t know or care about, or to a world many years in the future when we are no longer alive. Such an attitude takes a toll on our souls, on our beliefs about ourselves, on our sense of self-worth, our sense that we are good and valuable people.

But I think that “Dr. No” doesn’t go far enough. I think we need to get to a “Dr. Yes.” Sure, as people and as a society, we need to say “no” to greed and mistreatment of others and breaking the law. But plenty of research and stories tell us that merely focusing on what not to do doesn’t get us where we want to go. People don’t like to be told “No,” and so they rebel and try to find any way they can to get around it. But even those who rebel at “no” can be inspired toward “yes.” We need to aspire toward becoming “Dr. Yeses.”

Dr. Yes points us toward what is good and healthy and positive in ourselves, in other people, in our institutions, and in our communities. Dr. Yes doesn’t rely on the sensationalism of crime and dastardly deeds to get our attention, but instead tries to draw attention to businesses that treat their employees well, schools that educate well, and people who contribute to their communities. Dr. Yes buys advertising in programs that advocate for what is best in our people and our communities. Dr. Yes boycotts products and companies that harm people and the environment. Dr. Yes encourages people to be the best that they can be, rather than stopping at minimal requirements. Dr. Yes, urges people to aim continually upward, toward personal and family and community growth. Dr. Yes holds up character traits and behaviors, like integrity and tolerance and caring and responsibility and wisdom and courage, that we can aspire toward. Dr. Yes says we can always aim upward toward something better and we should never stop trying, that we never really arrive, that personal, moral, ethical, interpersonal growth is a lifelong endeavor. Dr. Yes looks for the possibilities of who we can become, and believes that we are better people than we know. While Dr. No may always be necessary to ensure a certain minimum, Dr. Yes holds possibilities for transformation – of ourselves, our families, our communities, and the world. Won’t you become a “Dr. Yes?” If we all become “Dr. Yeses,” I believe we have the power to change the world.

Virtue vs. Vanity

Here we are in the New Year, a new decade, a time that most of us hope will be better than the last couple of years. If you are like me, you have either thought about New Year’s resolutions, are avoiding thinking about them, or are wondering when you will find the time to carefully consider what you want your life to look like in the New Year.

But whatever state your resolutions are in, what are your thoughts about how to decide what you will aim for? Will you decide on “fixing” areas of your life that are in disarray? Will you decide to become something that you are not? Will you let vanity overwhelm values? Or do you have other strategies?

I ask these questions because of what our resolutions typically look like. I have heard many people aspire to lose 20 pounds; to get in shape; to buy the new car they’ve dreamt about; to get the mess in their house cleaned up; to make $1,000,000; to change jobs; to get the big promotion. . . . Well, you get my drift. Is it any wonder that we hear over and over again how few people actualize their resolutions?

Could it be that whatever needs fixing can’t be fixed with just a decision, that some depth work, some digging is needed to recover from past experiences? Could it be that we are aiming for something that has little real worth, something that won’t really fix our lives or bring us joy? Could it be that we are trying to reach our goals by ourselves, without asking for help from others or from a Higher Power? Could it be that we have set our goals without consulting the people who really matter to us, and had we consulted, we would have discovered the need for some compromising in order to ensure that we weren’t impinging on another’s dreams and hopes and resolutions? Could it be that our resolutions are really just responses to external pressures, rather than drawn from our innermost selves, and that as a result, a healthy part of ourselves rebels against merely doing what others seem to want?

What would it look like to do New Year’s resolutions differently? What would happen if we considered making Resolutions to be an opportunity to get our lives in order, to become clear about who we want to be, how we want to live and work, and how we want to do relationships – at home, in the neighborhood, and at work? What would happen if we used this opportunity to set aside regular time for reflecting, for talking seriously with the people who matter to us? Might our resolutions turn out differently if we made them more an exercise in discovering our values than in feeding our vanity (you know, the car, the figure, the body, the money)?

For instance, if we chose several character traits to aim for (e.g. integrity, trust, courage, wisdom, caring, respect), reflected on them each morning with our coffee, and decided to do just one thing of character each day – what might happen? If we chose several areas of our lives (e.g., our relationships, our work, our commitments to “giving back”) or only one to focus these character traits on – might we actually make our resolutions a reality? Consider how your world might change if you decided. . .

• to smile at everyone whom you encountered;
• to look into the eyes of people who were talking with you so as to really
hear them and understand them;
• to take on one new thing each day that you’ve never done before;
• to approach every conflict or disappointment with peacefulness in your heart;
• to get rid of the impatience in your voice as you spoke with your children
or employees;
• to always tell the truth, even it is hard;
• to see the people around you as people, rather than as instruments to help
you to reach your aims
• to ask yourself, as you approach each relationship or conversation, what you
might offer to the other person?

Well, these are some of my ideas about living with character. But no one can decide for you. You have to decide what being wise means, how to be caring, where you need to be courageous. You get to decide what your life will look like this year. Make it a good, well-considered choice – and remember, you get to decide what “good,” or “better,” or “best” is. May you make it the best year yet in very important and meaningful ways!

Beyond “Dr. No” to “Dr. Yes”

Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald wrote an article this week with the above title. In it, he spoke about Michael Jackson, about the fame and power Jackson wielded that made it difficult to say “no” to him. In fact, says Pitts, if his doctor had said “no,” Michael would still be alive.

But beyond the illegalities of drug addiction and excessive spending and inviting children into your bed, isn’t it also true that we need either an internal or an external “Dr. No” if we are to behave in accordance with positive values? If we look carefully at the times in which we have crossed over an ethical boundary, hasn’t it been because we wanted a “yes” and we were going to take it however we could?

Perhaps it was a “yes” to paying less taxes, or a “yes” to having a bigger car or a bigger house, or a “yes” to going out on a Friday or Saturday night when our spouse didn’t want us to, or a “yes” to eating just a little more dessert, or a “yes” . . . well, you continue the thinking as it might best apply to your life.

Beyond personal “yeses,” perhaps the auto industry said “yes” one too many times to those in power rather than those who many years ago could have created better and more fuel efficient cars. Perhaps the mortgage brokers said “yes” to one too many loans that they shouldn’t have. Perhaps the bankers said “yes” to too many risky investments or income increasing strategies. It seems clear that, in these situations, as with Michael, the failure to say “no” has damaged the very core of our society and our trust.

We seem to understand, if we are parents or other adults who work with children, that children need clear limits in order to learn right from wrong. They need parents who will serve as “Dr. No’s.” They need someone outside of themselves saying, “Here is the limit of what is right. When you step over this line, you will have stepped into a danger zone, either for yourself, for someone else, or for property.”

We are supposed to eventually grow out of the need for external controls. We are supposed to internalize our parents’ or our society’s messages about right and wrong, how to decide among options, and how to choose what’s best for ourselves, for those we love, for our organizations or communities, and for the physical world around us.

Sometimes tragic circumstances hinder our development. And sometimes issues are very complex, and require carefully weighing of benefits and harms to determine what the best choices might be.

But sometimes, we just want what we want when we want it. And if we can get away with it, we sometimes just take what we want when we want it. And sometimes we feel guilty. And sometime we don’t. Sometimes we say, “It isn’t hurting anyone.” And sometimes we realize that harm is happening. The harm is just to someone or something “out there,” where we have no personal connections to the people who might be hurt, where no one can connect the misbehavior to us. Sometimes we figure that whatever harms happen, they will be to people that we don’t know or care about, or to a world many years in the future when we are no longer alive. Such an attitude takes a toll on our souls, on our beliefs about ourselves, on our sense of self-worth, our sense that we are good and valuable people.

But I think that “Dr. No” doesn’t go far enough. I think we need to get to a “Dr. Yes.” Sure, as people and as a society, we need to say “no” to greed and mistreatment of others and breaking the law. But plenty of research and stories tell us that merely focusing on what not to do doesn’t get us where we want to go. People don’t like to be told “No,” and so they rebel and try to find any way they can to get around it. But even those who rebel at “no” can be inspired toward “yes.” We need to aspire toward becoming “Dr. Yeses.”

Dr. Yes points us toward what is good and healthy and positive in ourselves, in other people, in our institutions, and in our communities. Dr. Yes doesn’t rely on the sensationalism of crime and dastardly deeds to get our attention, but instead tries to draw attention to businesses that treat their employees well, schools that educate well, and people who contribute to their communities. Dr. Yes buys advertising in programs that advocate for what is best in our people and our communities. Dr. Yes boycotts products and companies that harm people and the environment. Dr. Yes encourages people to be the best that they can be, rather than stopping at minimal requirements. Dr. Yes, urges people to aim continually upward, toward personal and family and community growth. Dr. Yes holds up character traits and behaviors, like integrity and tolerance and caring and responsibility and wisdom and courage, that we can aspire toward. Dr. Yes says we can always aim upward toward something better and we should never stop trying, that we never really arrive, that personal, moral, ethical, interpersonal growth is a lifelong endeavor. Dr. Yes looks for the possibilities of who we can become, and believes that we are better people than we know. While Dr. No may always be necessary to ensure a certain minimum, Dr. Yes holds possibilities for transformation – of ourselves, our families, our communities, and the world. Won’t you become a “Dr. Yes?” If we all become “Dr. Yeses,” I believe we have the power to change the world.

The Path Out of Upheaval (July 2009)

Not a day goes by these days when I don't awaken to reports on NPR of the numbers of lives and businesses and communities in upheaval due to the economic crisis. Whether loss of jobs, loss of homes, loss of retirement, or loss of companies, a large number of us are struggling to survive, and during the struggle, having to figure out how our lives will transform over the next few years. It helps to know that we are not alone, that the vast majority of us are not to blame. It helps to know that recessions turn around. It helps to know that, because so many people are being affected, we can commiserate, talk more openly with one another, and in doing so, build and experience a sense of community that may sometimes have been lacking before. And part of that community seems to be an increase in the degree to which people are reaching out to and caring for others in need, in the sense that we are all in this together and that we need to help one another, in the sense that we are all connected and that what one person does can't help but trickle out and down to the rest of the community. I see more people taking action politically and in service to make things better in our world.

While reading recently, I was introduced to some theological concepts expressed in Ronald Rolheiser's book, The Holy Longing, that I find pertinent to our current turmoil. I realize that not everyone will be familiar with or committed to Christian concepts, but bear with me for a moment while I share what has most moved me. Rolheiser speaks of the hope of the Pascal Mystery (that is, the series of events surrounding Christ's death and resurrection) for our lives in a way that I have found personally relevant, but think could be relevant to others and to our community at large as well. The series of events are Good Friday (when Christ dies on the cross), Easter Sunday (when He rises to new life on Earth), a 40 day period before the Ascension (when He rises to heaven), and the Pentecost (when the Holy Spirit is received by his disciples). Now I realize that these are esoteric ideas to those who don't share this faith, but stick with me for a moment.

Rolheiser parallels what are fundamental Christian events to the patterns of our lives in order to create hope. For instance, he points to the shock to our system of a "death" experience, whether loss of a home, a job, a marriage, a child, etc. (Good Friday). Sometime after that death experience - it may take a while -- we may have a sense of "rising" to a new life - some sense of meaning that our lives are to have, some calling that has been shaken loose by the loss, some reevaluation of what is really important in our lives (Easter). Consider, for example, the long effort to get a mandatory seat belt law passed in Florida by a man whose daughter died as a result of not wearing a seat belt. Consider the passion with which the founder of Mother's Against Drunk Driving developed her organization after her child was killed by a drunk driver. Each of these "callings" arose from tremendous personal tragedy.

But even if we have felt called to a new life, there may be a long period of time (the 40 days) in which we are living with both the death and the new life - We are experiencing the profound sense of loss, the wish to return to our previous life, the wish to all that we have been forced to leave behind. But we are also experiencing the hope of a new life, the hope generated by the new sense of meaning and call. We may wonder how long this struggle will last, the struggle to let go of what's past and to fully embrace what is to come. We may wonder why we continue to feel depressed or sad when the promise of something better is in front of us. We may not truly want to let go. We may have no clarity about the process involved in actually getting to that new life. And some friends and family members may urge us to let go and move on before we are truly ready, before we have fully grieved the loss.

At some point, however, we reach the time for embracing the new life. And Rolheiser parallels this to the Ascension - That is, we need to let the old go, allow it rise and die (at least in some form) in order to fully receive the spirit of the new life to come (Pentacost).

I find myself reassured by this sense of a life and death cycle. It feels hopeful, promising. It gives the sense that we all have to go through this sort of a cycle when we experience a loss. No one escapes experiencing losses. But there is the promise of something better at the end of the cycle that can encourage us to fully embrace the cycle.

It is holding onto the notion of this cycle that offers us a sense of promise about our country's (well, world's actually) current condition. Many people are losing. Many other people are reaching out to help them. Hope comes from knowing that "this too shall pass," from many people being in the same boat, and from focusing our blame externally rather than toward ourselves. Obama and other leaders have made bold sweeping promises about the government's determination to raise people from the holes that they have been dropped into, to a place of partial government help (unemployment compensation increases, for example) while what is to come is "created," and to give all of us time to discover what that better will be.

We need to do what's necessary to recognize the "death" or loss for what it is: painful, awful, hurtful, but only the first step in the cycle. We need to call out for guidance and vision about where we need to go and have the hope that it will come. We need to surround ourselves with supportive people or groups to hold us while we are in the waiting period, experiencing both the loss and the hope in an alternating pattern. And eventually we will need to give up the anger and hurt and pain, allow it rise and move away. When we have learned all we can from it and let it go, we will be able to fully receive the "spirit" of the new life, fully embrace a hopeful future. It will no doubt look different than we ever imagined.

In the picture as Rolheiser describes it, I find hope. I find encouragement to be patient with myself through the waiting period of not knowing where my path may lead. I find promise that new life will come. It seems to me that if we have faith that the future does indeed hold a "new life" for us, then we can allow ourselves to be here, now, where we need to be. We can embrace both the pain and the promise. We can be patient with ourselves and with others. In the letting go are both sadness and gentleness, hurt and patience, trust in ourselves, others, and the universe at large. In fact, we can celebrate the talent of the many working together to raise ourselves out of the mire in which we have found ourselves.

So whether it is the personal loss of a home or job or family member, or the group loss of a pastor or teacher or leader, or the company loss of assets or clients or the CEO, we have choices. We can choose fear and anger and reactivity which may energize us to take needed action. But when we lose energy and feel depressed, or sad, or lose hope, we may also need promise and vision and call to hold onto. We may need to embrace both our attachments to what we have lost, and our hope for what is to come. And we will need cojourneyers along the way to hold out a hand and remind us of who we are, what we are called to do, what the promise is. Eventually, we must make the choice to allow our loss to rise and move away so that we can receive the spirit of our new life. But while we await that point, perhaps it helps to know that a waiting period is expectable, and normal, and will not go on forever.

Remaking America (March 2009)

Perhaps I am a little late with this blog about the inaugural address. But it still rings through my heart, and is resuscitated each time I receive an email or video from the Obama machine. I can only hope that you too were encouraged and enlivened and inspired by Obama's call to "remake America." And did you notice his call to character as central to this effort, that he rejected the false "choice between our safety and our ideals." Did you notice his call for justice, hope, virtue, humility, restraint, and depending on the "force of our example." He urged us to return to the truths upon which our success has always depended: honesty, courage, fair play, tolerance, curiosity, loyalty, patriotism, faith, determination, selflessness. I have rarely heard values and ideals ring so centrally in a politician's speech.

Obama urged us to return to the "ideals of our forbears," the ideals and virtues that shaped our country, the ideals that kept the country's founders struggling and sacrificing and working "'til their hands were raw so that we might live a better life." "Those ideals still light the world and we will not give them up for expedience sake," he said. "Greatness is never a given. It must be earned." The "journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted" or the lazy or the greedy. He urged us to give our "all to a difficult task" "brave once more the icy currents and endure what storms may come." He pointed to the courage that would be necessary for the journey to greatness, including the courage to make "unpleasant decisions."

Obama also stressed the strength of our "patchwork heritage" and the need to cooperate and value diverse points of view and talents, because America is "bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction." We must strive for "common purpose and humanity" and offer "opportunity for every willing heart . . . because it is the surest route to our common good." We need to choose "hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord," and to end "petty grievances and false promises." We aim to "move beyond narrow interests," and to use "imagination" to surmount the "stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long."

And Obama refused to settle for caring for ourselves at the expense of others. He pointed out the need to reach out to those less fortunate: "we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect." We must "embody the spirit of service: a willingness to find meaning in something greater than" ourselves. And by doing so, we will carry "forth that gift of freedom and deliver it safely to future generations."

Whatever our politics, can we really disagree with these aims? Perhaps we don't know how it will be done yet. Perhaps some will point to the unrealistic nature of these lofty ideals. But without the light shining in front of us, without pushing ourselves to the limit, without inspiring everyone to take part in "remaking America, how will we have the courage or strength to keep going for the long haul, to reach for the best, to make the optimal a reality? Wouldn't you rather live in a world that held these values central? Wouldn't you rather work with people whose aspirations rise above the drudge? Wouldn't you rather live in a neighborhood in which a focus on such ideas draws you together in a common effort? Aren't you more inspired by Obama's vision than you have been by any other in a long time? I certainly am.