Unitarian Universalist Church of ChattanoogaWarren’s narrative of the U.S. economy, and the banking industry in particular, was very clarifying. For most of U.S. history, our country went through repeated periods of boom and bust, with all the consequences of those cycles. But after the Great Depression, a number of new financial regulations — rules for the road — were put into place that were designed to protect average Americans in particular from the continued abuses of the big banks and the often terrible results in bad times for ordinary people. Two important examples were the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to protect people’s savings and the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 to prevent banks from speculating with depositors’ money. And the new rules worked for several decades, creating both prosperity and security for many American families and an emerging middle class. But starting in 1980, the rules were first watered down and gradually removed, and banks were free again to engage in both the abusive and very risky speculative behavior that helped to bring on the Great Depression, and resulted again in the current Great Recession.
She explained how credit card and mortgage application forms used to be only a page or two and were both clear and understandable to the average person — even allowing people to easily compare and contrast the deals offered. But now, as all of us know, these forms have expanded to 30 pages or more with lots of complications, hard to comprehend provisions, and “fine print” that cleverly hides a long list or traps, tricks, and a myriad of both exploitive arrangements and outright abuses that greatly benefit banks at the expense of borrowers and card holders. In clear moral terms, Warren described the current behavior of our biggest banks as deliberately deceiving, entrapping, and cheating unsuspecting customers into very precarious and ultimately disastrous financial positions. And with no more rules of the road, the banks were leading their customers into the financial ditch. An economic crisis has been the result with massive suffering and pain for millions of Americans.
We are now living in a “lawless” economic environment, according to Warren, where our biggest banks have become our most dangerous predators — and with no protections for the rest of us against the “law of the jungle,” as she puts it. The consequences for our economy, our culture, our families, and even our souls have been disastrous. This is not the way we should want to live, Warren says, and it is creating a world which we should not want our children to grow up in. She makes the urgent case for reform with the compelling analysis of a top economist, the family values of a grandmother, and the moral arguments of a person of faith. The sins of the financial world have become both a moral, and even religious, issue from the perspective of the Methodist tradition “which still shapes me.”
Warren is the “mother” of the idea for a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA),which is in the current financial reform bill recently passed by the House of Representatives, and is now slowly making its way through the U.S. Senate. But the big banks are aggressively fighting back, trying to prevent their own regulation only one year after the financial meltdown for which they were in large part responsible. There seems to be no remorse, let alone repentance, from the big banks — only record new profits enabled by their taxpayer-funded bailouts, and enormous bonuses to the executives who made the very decisions that brought the economic system down on the heads and hearts of so many Americans. The biggest banks in America are giving shame a bad name.
Why are new rules, regulations, and protections necessary? Because of the human condition, the realities of human nature, and a biblically orthodox understanding of human sinfulness. Yes, the reasons we need the protections offered by a Consumer Financial Protection Agency are as theological as economic. And it is amazing to me how many of those who oppose any regulation of Wall Street also claim to be religious conservatives. They subscribe to what I label in my new book, Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street — A Moral Compass for the New Economy, “the myth of the sinless market.” I am a conservative Christian too, conservative enough to have a healthy appreciation for human sins, human failings, and fallen-ness, and after witnessing the behavior of America’s biggest banks during this economic crisis, an old theological term called human depravity. It is simply bad theology to trust large corporations not to pollute our waters, poison our air, or cheat their unsuspecting customers. They have to be prevented from doing so for the sake of the common good. Good financial and economic rules reflect, not only good economics, but also good theology. And the free market fundamentalism of Wall Street’s defenders is, among other things, bad theology.
But as Elizabeth Warren, a good Methodist, warns, the banks are trying everything they can think of to kill financial reform. And we must not let them do that. In the name of a fairer economy, of family values, of moral values, and of sound biblical theology, the faith community must now make itself heard on the urgent issue of financial regulatory reform. We must hold our biggest banks accountable to the common good.
So let our Senators not just hear from the bankers, but now also from pastors who see what such abusive banking behavior has done to their families and parishioners, to devastated communities with shuttered houses, to the prison of debt that more Americans find themselves in.
People of faith across the land must now tell their elected representatives that we will be “watching and praying” to see what they will do about necessary financial reform. We don’t have the money in our financial coffers that the banks do to finance their political campaigns, but we do have our voice and our votes which will be turned against them if they vote against the best interests of our people and for the greed of the bankers. Jesus said it well — choose this day who you will serve, God or Mammon (Money). Let’s now put that choice to our Senators, who need to hear from us this next week while they are in their district offices during the Presidents’ Day recess. Critical decisions are being made for or against critical financial reform right now.
Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street — A Moral Compass for the New Economy. He is CEO of Sojourners and blogs at <www.godspolitics.com>
I don’t normally like to post political messages, but this was different–Jeff Briere
*****************************
My clunker was a ’64 Ford Galaxie, logging maybe eight miles to the gallon on level ground, the back seat burned to the coils by a knucklehead friend who left a cigarette to smolder. When it died, just short of 140,000 miles, everything went. Sold it for scrap and $50 — with the tow.
Today, I’d trade that dog on wheels in a New York minute for the upgrade, some smart mileage car that is one of the autos zooming off my neighborhood lot as part of the Cash for Clunkers program.
But according to a barnacled cluster of senators, this program must be sunk, now. It’s been far too successful — dealers have been swamped, people are lining up to buy cars that burn less gas and bring instant cash to crippled local economies.
This is old fashioned stimulus of a sort that Republicans have always advocated, using financial incentives to change behavior. Representative Candice Miller, a G.O.P. lawmaker — albeit from the car-dependent state of Michigan — called it “the best $1 billion of economic stimulus the government has ever spent.”
But look where the rest of Miller’s party is. Last week, Senator John McCain threatened to lead a filibuster rather than let Cash for Clunkers continue to September, as the House has agreed to do with an additional $2 billion from money already approved in the stimulus law.
He backed off this week, though he and other critics continued to treat Cash for Clunkers like swine flu with a steering wheel.
They hate it, many of these Republicans, because it’s a huge hit. It’s working as planned, and this cannot stand. America must fail in order for President Obama to fail. Don’t be surprised if the tea party goons now being dispatched to shout down town hall forums on health care start showing up at your car dealers, megaphones in hand.
But there’s another reason, less spoken of, for why some people get so incensed over little old Cash for Clunkers: it helps average people, and it’s easily understood — a rare combination in a town where the big money deals usually go down with packaged obfuscation.
The overall amount of money is paltry, to the government. But to a typical family, a $4,500 break on a new car with greater gas mileage is a big deal. Consider the extraordinary giveaways of your tax dollars that happened without serious filibuster threats by the protectors of free enterprise.
The granddaddy of them all, of course, was President George W. Bush’s $700 billion bailout of banks, insurance companies and Wall Street miscreants who helped to run the economy into the ground. As presented initially, remember, the bailout had to pass in a day or two, with minimal debate. Or else.
“The goal isn’t to control markets, but to revive them,” the Wall Street Journal editorialized at the time, backing perhaps the greatest reward for bad behavior in the history of capitalism.
Yet, when a tiny fraction of that amount went to strapped consumers this summer for their revival, The Journal jumped back on their Adam Smith pedestal, calling Cash for Clunkers “crackpot economics.”
Then there is the American International Group, the pariah A.I.G., now being kept afloat by the taxpayers to the tune of nearly $180 billion. This money from us to them didn’t sell any cars. It didn’t improve gas mileage. It didn’t help neighborhood businesses. It went to fortify an insurance giant that made terrible bets on complex securities and then threatened to bring us all down with them. McCain was there for A.I.G., no filibuster in his quiver.
And when it came out that some of those same corporate welfare titans would still be giving each other bonuses, former Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani rode to the rescue. Bonuses, he argued, trickle down to waiters, limo drivers, cafes that sell donuts to cops — cash for dunkers.
But try to give struggling families a one-time boost to buy a more fuel-efficient car, with an amount that wouldn’t pay for paper clips at A.I.G., and it’s … outrageous!
Reports from car dealers show that clunker stimulus has boosted show room traffic up to 200 percent. The most common vehicles being traded in, they said, are pickups and S.U.V.’s; the most popular replacements will save drivers more than $1,000 a year in gas costs.
Those who oppose this program on principle argue that government should not be choosing winners and losers in the marketplace, even in a down economy. But both parties have long used federal money for precisely that, intending to change society, in ways big and small. What was the G.I. Bill but the greatest escalator to the middle class for returning war veterans? Home mortgage subsidies allow millions of families to own their own house, benefiting realtors, drywallers, roofers and assorted contractors.
I don’t like that big agriculture gets rewarded for monopolizing rural economies while stuffing nearly every processed food with the dreaded high-fructose corn syrup. I was against giving $35 billion in federal help for oil and gas companies over the next five years, as Republicans advocated during last year’s campaign.
For that matter, I hate to see small independent book stores disappear from the landscape.
But Cash for Clunkers is a bare slight against free market chastity. It’s simple stimulus, caught up in a much larger system that’s always been there for the big money players, but holds a much higher standard for anyone else.
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company, 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018
Welcome to the new normal.
Your 401(k) has tanked, your job is hanging by a thread, and purchases you once considered routine are now major life decisions.
Many have suggested the current economic challenges are causing us to rethink our values.
That may be true, but I’m also still hearing people talk about when we get over “this” and things get back to “normal.”
Exactly which normal are they talking about? The normal where people saved money and their assets grew? Or the normal where people financed granite countertops with their home equity line or charged flat screens on their VISA?
I’m all for economic stability, but do we really want to go back to the way we were?
The universe is an amazing teacher, and sometimes we get two curriculums for the price of one. In this case, perhaps we’re getting more than just a tough lesson in fiscal responsibility. Perhaps we’re also getting a lesson in gratitude.
My heart breaks for the people who don’t know where their next meal is coming from. But many who are lamenting our losses have lost sight of just how good we still have it.
While we’re crying over our brokerage statements, other families (including people in this country) are wondering how they can keep their kids safe.
While we’re missing going out to restaurants, many families would love to sit down at an old kitchen table with a big pot of macaroni and cheese.
Just because other people have it worse doesn’t mean that your problems aren’t real and significant. My husband and I lost a family business in this mess, so trust me, there’s been no shortage of pity parties at our house.
But if we’re honest, and I certainly include myself in this, while we may be whining about what we lost, the truth is, we weren’t very grateful for the good times when we had them.
When we whipped into Applebee’s or picked up Chinese food because we were too tired to cook, did we appreciate that we lived in a country where there was plenty of good food and that we had enough money to buy it? Or did we whine about how exhausted and stressed we were?
When we got assigned yet another endless project at work, did we appreciate the fact that we had a job and that our paycheck didn’t bounce? Or did we grumble about how misguided or demanding our boss was?
Times are tough. But how much more do we have to lose before we learn to be grateful for what we have?
People say that when God wants to teach you lesson, first he whispers; then he shouts; then he smacks you over the head with a two-by-four.
The reality is, we’re only at the shouting stage. We haven’t yet been hit by the two-by-four. Yet.
Losing your money or your job or your home can be a devastating setback. But losing your sense of purpose or the people you love or the opportunity to shape your future would be even worse. And so far, that hasn’t happened.
The lesson is becoming pretty obvious, or at least it is to me:
Be grateful for today, because tomorrow is uncertain. It always has been and it always will be.
Maybe this is the new normal we’ve been waiting for. Less stuff and more gratitude, I think I’ll take it.
Lisa Earle McLeod is an author, keynote speaker, nationally syndicated columnist, business consultant, and media personality. Read more at <www.forgetperfect.com>.
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice extends our deepest sympathy and our prayers to the family of Dr. George Tiller, who was assassinated this morning in the lobby of Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas, where he was a member of the congregation. Dr. Tiller was a person of conscience and faith, who provided abortion services for women in the greatest medical need despite frequent threats, lawsuits and violence. He was one of the very few doctors providing medically indicated late-term abortion services and he did not waver from the provision of this service, although he was well aware he was never far from danger.
While we do not know at this time if the murder of Dr. Tiller was religiously motivated, the fact that the murder took place in his church reminds us that some people use religion as an excuse for acts of hatred. Let us remember that violence and murder are perversions of religion, and let us– as people of faith – speak out forcefully and unambiguously against those who foment hatred by their words.
As people of faith, the RCRC family condemns both words and acts of hatred.
Tragically, there were many warning signs that this cruel act could take place. Dr. Tiller’s clinic was severely vandalized earlier this month and it was reported that Dr. Tiller had asked the FBI to investigate the incident. Today, as we mourn the loss of Dr. Tiller, we urge the federal government to take swift action against the person or persons who committed this act.
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice is the nation’s interfaith coalition of religious and religiously affiliated organizations from 15 denominations and faith traditions that support reproductive choice on religious grounds.
It was an unlikely marriage. He was a scientist and she was a religious studies major. He went on to win a Pulitzer Prize for a book about evolution. She became a children’s book author, often writing about religious holidays.
But it was their pillow talk about Charles Darwin and his devoutly religious wife that prompted her to explore the intimate details of another marriage of science and religion, the marriage of Charles and Emma Darwin.
Author Deborah Heiligman’s newest book “Charles and Emma: The Darwins’ Leap of Faith,” has its roots in the bedtime conversations she had with her husband, Jonathan Weiner, while he was writing his award winning, “The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time.”
Weiner shared with Heiligman that Darwin’s wife Emma had been deeply concerned that Charles’ work on evolution was going to sentence him to eternal damnation, and that they would be separated for eternity.
As they discussed Charles and Emma’s differing perspectives, it was obvious that the Darwin’s marriage was not unlike their own. Two intelligent people of strong convictions who loved each other, but who looked at the world through different lenses.
Science versus religion arguments continue to rage even today, 150 years after Darwin first published the Origin of Species, but Charles and Emma’s differing perspectives didn’t divide them.
Quite the contrary; the deeply religious Emma was Charles’ most frequent and helpful editor, and much like Heiligman and Weiner, the Darwin’s marital dialect expanded their partners’ perspective rather than assaulting it.
Drawn from first person diaries, family letters and Darwin’s published notebooks, “Charles and Emma” opens shortly after Charles Darwin arrived home from his famous voyage as a naturalist on the HMS Beagle, where he collected the data that would later form the basis for his controversial work.
As a young man from a prominent 19th century London family, Charles was expected to marry and start a family. However, he felt conflicted. So, ever the researcher, he drew a line down the middle of a piece of scrap paper, on the left side her wrote Marry. On the right he wrote Not Marry. And in the middle: This is the Question.
The pros ultimately outweighed the cons, and Charles found a soul mate and spouse in his cousin Emma. “Charles and Emma,” (a rousing romantic narrative aimed at young adults but enjoyed immensely by this 40-something reader) provides an intimate glimpse into the Darwin’s marriage and a life different from the stereotypical reserved Victorian household.
Charles Darwin was, for the times, a radically involved father playing with, and even bathing his children. He worked right in the middle of their home – Down House – with his children running in and out of his study all day and he frequently involved them in his experiments.
He also routinely discussed his work with Emma, whose opinion was of utmost importance to him. His love and respect for his intelligent and deeply devout wife caused Charles to rethink how the world might receive his ideas, prompting him to document his theory of natural selection for decades before publishing it.
Heiligman (www.DeborahHeiligman.com) says she wrote “Charles and Emma” to demonstrate that “people who have differing opinions can live together and love each other, and keep talking about it.”
Science and religion, it was a happily ever after for the Darwins; perhaps the rest of us can make the marriage work as well.
Lisa Earle McLeod is a syndicated columnist, author, keynote speaker and business consultant who specializes in helping individuals and organizations create happiness and success. For more info – www.ForgetPerfect.com <www.ForgetPerfect.com>
Susan Boyle, who recently performed on the U.K. television show “Britain’s Got Talent,” has captured the world’s attention.
In case you’ve missed it, she’s a 47-year-old unemployed charity worker who lives with her cat in a small village in Scotland.
As soon as she walked on stage, the audience began to snicker and roll their eyes. Simon Cowell, the show’s host, asked her some pre-performance questions in his famously condescending style, and to the audience’s enjoyment, she answered awkwardly.
She was painfully ordinary, and everyone was prepared, looking forward even, to see her fail.
By now, if you don’t know the story, you could guess it, right? She more than wowed them. She opened her mouth to sing, and, as judge Piers Morgan later said, she had “the voice of an angel.”
She wasn’t painfully ordinary; she was amazingly extraordinary. The audience immediately jumped to a standing ovation and stayed there until the end of the song. The YouTube video of Susan’s performance has, as of Tuesday, received more than 35 million views.
We are riveted, and a recent article in USA Today does a good job of cataloguing all the reasons. We prejudged her by her looks and were fooled. We experienced the gamut of emotions in a few short moments: guilt, shame, vindication, hope. She’s a modern-day Cinderella, and these days, it’s a wonderful distraction and inspiration to witness the triumph of the human spirit.
But there’s something else Susan Boyle awakens in us as we watch her come out of her shell: our own selves. Who among us does not move through life with the hidden sense, maybe even quiet desperation, that we are destined for more? That underneath our ordinary exterior lies an extraordinary soul? That given the right opportunity, the right stage, the right audience, we would shine as the stars we truly are?
That promise underlies most successful advertising campaigns: the desire to transform from caterpillar to butterfly. Maybe if you buy that (fill in the blank), people will see you for the sophisticated, cool, gorgeous, talented, lovable person you know you really are.
But in our less desperate moments, we know we can’t purchase that transformation. Although Susan Boyle became an overnight sensation, hers was not an overnight transformation. She’s been practicing singing since she was 12. In her case, overnight was 35 years.
It’s easy to admire Susan. But it’s far more interesting to be transformed by her. “There is grace,” a friend recently wrote to me, “in being molded by your own gifts.”
To allow yourself to be molded by your own gifts takes courage. You have to be willing to stand there, exposed and authentic, while the audience rolls their eyes at you and sneers, expecting failure. And then, of course, you have to fail, laugh or cry, and keep going until, one day, they stop laughing and start clapping.
But you can’t do it alone. Susan Boyle didn’t; she had a voice coach, Fred O’Neil, who worked with her for years and encouraged her to audition. And she had her mother.
“She was the one who said I should enter ‘Britain’s Got Talent.’ We used to watch it together,” Boyle told the British paper The Times of her mother, who died in 2007, “She thought I would win. … I am doing it as a tribute to my mum, and I think she would be very proud.”
If we’re lucky, we have parents who encourage us. Nothing really replaces a mother or father who believes in you. But even if you don’t have parents who believe in you, it’s important to have someone. Someone you trust, enough that when they offer criticism, you know it’s to draw you out more fully, not shut you down even partially. iReport.com: Have you been judged on looks?
And a good supporting friend even sees through the talent, right through to you. With her mother gone, Boyle still has O’Neil. And recently he said to The Telegraph that he was worried all this attention was obscuring “the real person” he knew.
“I am concerned about her being surrounded by all these PR people,” he said, “that she will not be given the time to sing.”
Susan Boyle is a phenomenal role model for all of us, not just because of her talent or her courage or her perseverance or her supportive friends. She is a phenomenal role model for us because she is us, in all our awkward ordinariness and amazing extraordinariness.
Peter Bregman is chief executive of Bregman Partners Inc., a global management consulting firm, and the author of “Point B: A Short Guide to Leading a Big Change”. He writes a weekly column, “How We Work,” for HarvardBusiness.org.
Do you ever feel like you’re just faking it?
You know, walking around in a grown-up body acting like you know what you’re doing, when really you have no idea who you are inside.
We all play-act. We don a suit, go to work and act like the other people at the office.
We get married, have kids, buy a house and join the PTA, yet secretly wonder if the other grown-ups feel just as clueless as we do.
We frequently put so much energy into being who we think we should be that we forget who we actually are.
It’s amazing how much of our identity is tied up in the roles that we play. We often assume that because our job title reads VP of Development, church secretary or head widget maker, that’s the net sum of identify.
But talk to anyone who has lost their job, or their savings (or worse) and they’ll tell you, you are not your job description. Nor are you your home, your bank account, or even your body.
Like it or not, the angst of our times is forcing us to do some serious soul searching, yet the person we often the most afraid of discovering is our real authentic self.
In his newest book, “Be Yourself, Everyone Else Is Taken,” author Mike Robbins writes, “We live in a culture that is starving for authenticity. We want our leaders, our co-workers, our family members, our friends, and everyone else we interact with to tell the truth and to be themselves.”
But beyond wanting others to be authentic, we also want permission to drop our own masks as well. Robbins (www.mike-robbins.com) says, “We want to have the personal freedom and confidence to say, do and be who we really are, without worrying so much about how we appear to others and what they will think or say about us.”
“Sadly, however,” he writes, “even though we may say we want to live in a way that is true to our deepest passions, beliefs and desire, most of us don’t.”
Busted. (And you thought it was just you!)
How many of us can honestly say that we’re living a life that is 100 percent true to our values? Much less the inner yearnings of our souls?
The sentiment, “Be yourself, everyone else is already taken” was originally penned by famous nineteenth century author and poet Oscar Wilde. But the words resonate in today’s environment.
I would never minimize anyone’s money woes, or other suffering, but perhaps with some of our outer trappings stripped away, we’ve been given the opportunity to discover who we are inside. The prospect is both scary and exciting. Robbins says that, “the paradox of authenticity is that we both seek it and fear it at the same time.”
What if I reveal who I really am and nobody likes it?
But then again, what if Mike Robbins and Oscar Wilde are right? What if all the other roles are taken? What if there’s nobody left to be but yourself?
It’s a tough call, you can keep on faking it, which is even harder to if you’re anxious and broke. Or you can decide that there really is only one you, and that you’re already good enough, smart enough, and tough enough to handle whatever the Universe sends your way.
So just be you, it’s cheaper, it’s easier, and you don’t even need a costume.
Lisa Earle McLeod is an author, keynote speaker, nationally syndicated columnist, business consultant, and media personality. Read more at <www.forgetperfect.com>.
Eight in ten Americans support repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” A majority of service members in a recent Zogby poll have indicated they are ready and willing to serve with openly gay colleagues. Our men and women in uniform have come to the unmistakable conclusion that open service only enhances our military’s ability to get the job done.
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is anti-family, anti-military and un-American.
Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. John Shalikashvili and the first 3-star female Army General, Claudia Kennedy, have called on Congress to end the ban.
The time to do the right thing is now.
Click on this URL to take action now!
“Here’s the big secret about forgiveness – you don’t do it for them, you do it for you.”
“I can never forgive him.”
How many times have you heard that?
We all want our own mistakes to be forgiven. But how many of us truly want to forgive? Especially on the big stuff?
Every time I write about forgiveness I get angry letters from people virtually shouting, “Why should he/she be forgiven? What they did was wrong.”
I would never minimize anyone’s pain, but isn’t that kind of the point of forgiveness? If they hadn’t done something wrong, there would be no need to forgive them.
The whole act of forgiveness is predicated on the understanding that the other person committed a transgression.
I think one of the reasons that we’re often reluctant to grant someone the grace of forgiveness is because we don’t want to validate their bad behavior. We might forgive a spouse who forgets to bring home the dry cleaning, but if someone cheats on us, steals from us, or does something even worse, we want them to have to pay for their actions.
And if they refuse to own up to it, forgiveness is even harder to find.
So how do you forgive a person who shows no remorse? And why would you even want to?
Here’s the big secret about forgiveness – you don’t do it for them, you do it for you.
It’s been said that denying forgiveness is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die. When you refuse to forgive, nothing bad happens to them, but a lot of bad things happen to you.
Think of the most resentful, angry, unhappy person you know. I bet they can rattle off a whole list of all the people who have done them wrong. Some of them probably even have it written down.
Doesn’t that sound like a fun way to go through life?
I have no idea how people forgive drunk drivers who mow down their children, or evil leaders who commit genocide, or even spouses who cheat.
But they do, and I notice that the common denominator amongst people who can forgive is peace.
When someone does something awful to you, they take power away from you. But when you forgive them, you take it back.
Think about it, if someone sincerely apologizes and asks you for forgiveness, don’t you feel better? Of course you do, because you feel heard and in charge of what happens next.
But you don’t have to wait for them to show remorse to start.
If you’re struggling to forgive someone, and they haven’t owned up to their mistake, find a sympathetic ear, speak the hurt out loud, let the other person validate it, and begin the process of moving on.
Yes, you deserve to have your hurt acknowledged. But the person who caused it doesn’t even have to be involved.
For what it’s worth, in all likelihood whoever hurt you probably had some hurts done to them and they were just simply playing it forward. I know that can be hard to hear, and it doesn’t mitigate whatever they did to you.
But it does illustrate why it’s in your best interest to stop the chain of pain. Forgiving doesn’t mean forgetting, but it does give you the power to move on.
Because who wants to spend the rest of their life with a belly full of poison?
Lisa Earle McLeod is an author, keynote speaker, nationally syndicated columnist, business consultant, and media personality. Lisa Earle McLeod’s comments can be read at <www.forgetperfect.com>.
“How satisfying it would be to call so-and-so on the carpet for their wicked ways. Whether it’s the crazy sister-in-law, the negative co-worker or the selfish spouse, there’s nothing like the dysfunctions of others to bring out the beast in us.”
You know it’s bad when you start practicing the speeches.
You know, the little speeches you rehearse in your head for the grand and glorious moment when you finally get to tell so-and-so what you really think about them.
Your monologue gets more brilliant each day as you practice it over and over again in you car or shower, clarifying your thoughts, honing your points, preparing for that big day when you finally let them have it.
The stunning clarity and accuracy with which you deliver your soliloquy will be amazing. It’s fantasy you can practically taste, that beautiful moment when you finally take the filters off and confront them with the truth.
The truth about their selfishness and dysfunctions.
Or the way they misrepresent facts and manipulate others into taking their side.
Or how they blame everyone else for their problems and refuse to take responsibility for their own self-created mess.
Or the way they conveniently rewrite history to suit their story and get away with it because nobody is willing to call them on their lies.
Or how they hurt people and don’t even seem to care.
Oh, it will be a moment alright. Because once you finally speak the truth, there can be no more denials; because, as everyone knows, there is no defense against the truth – the real truth that is.
In fact, they will probably be rendered absolutely speechless, because they’ve finally been outed.
No more manipulating, no more game playing, no more falsehoods, and no more lies.
Now, thanks to you, they have been exposed and the whole world knows who and what they really are.
We’ve all been there.
Scheming and dreaming about how satisfying it would be to call so-and-so on the carpet for their wicked ways.
Whether it’s the crazy sister-in-law, the negative co-worker or the selfish spouse, there’s nothing like the dysfunctions of others to bring out the beast in us.
And what makes us even crazier is the way everybody else lets them get away with it. It’s almost like no one but us is willing to see the truth.
So we rehearse the speeches, savoring the righteousness of our words as we turn them over and over again in our mind, dreaming of the day when we can expose the evil one. So that God and everybody else will finally know the true nature of their wrongs.
Well, guess what? God already knows.
God knows all about their silly little games. Just like God knows all about your silly little games, and my silly little games, and all the other ways that we human beings make each other nuts.
But God – and feel free to apply that term as literally, conceptually, specifically or vaguely as you like – has decided to love them anyway. Because the mind of God is large enough to hold a person’s negative behavior and their positive attributes, at the same time.
And therein lies the problem. We human beings think in terms of either/or, but God created a world of AND.
As in we’re selfish and we’re selfless; we’re kind and we’re mean; we’re judgmental and forgiving, each and every one of us.
Nobody is all good or all bad, and alerting the world to the flaws of others never changes things at all.
So the next time you start practicing your speech, you might want to ask yourself what little speech might someone be preparing for you?
Lisa Earle McLeod is an author, keynote speaker, nationally syndicated columnist, business consultant, and media personality. Lisa Earle McLeod’s comments can be read at <www.forgetperfect.com>.