Hopeful Thinking

Would it surprise you to know that I have a great deal of difficulty following my own advice? It shouldn’t surprise because, of course, I’m human too. But that’s a little indicator of the inner contradictions we often have when seeking, receiving, and/or implementing the advice of others. We ask for advice from other humans, who have human failings and inconsistencies. We conclude that if they can follow their own advice, it’s worth following. Or at least it’s advice we think we should follow, if only we were better at following advice. But when someone cannot follow their own advice, instead of sympathizing with the advice-giver’s humanity, we minimize the advice they gave. Or rather, we let ourselves off the hook for not having to follow it ourselves. This is very satisfying. We get to criticize other people, while not having to bother with any effort of our own. But let’s consider this thought, which I’ve often used as an example: If a smoker tells you not to smoke, are they correct...

I’ve been working very hard on my “before” photo. I’m a bit zaftig. Saying I have a “dad bod” would be a slight exaggeration of fitness at the moment. So it’s time to make a change.  Approaching my mid-50s has been increasingly about taking responsibility for the past and future. There’s a fair share of regret. But even more, gratitude. Glad to still be here. But I find myself recognizing that the choices I make right now, at this particular stage of my life, will set the tone for the rest of it. How do I want these next decades to unfold? At first, this past autumn, when I decided to take my own waistline a bit more seriously, I thought of it in terms of dieting. Even while knowing full well that the worst kind of health decision one can make is to “go on a diet.” It’s been long demonstrated that diets, per se, may cause us to lose weight, but they don’t work to the benefit of our bodies or our self-image. They make them both less healthy. So, wanting to avoid the pitfalls of bein...

I am definitely a person who wants to be on the right side of history. But that’s my pride talking, frankly. As a point of my faith, namely the commandment to love my neighbor as myself, I also want to be on the right side of love and justice. When I first heard of the term “white privilege” I already knew enough about how racism and discrimination function in society that I wasn’t particularly triggered by it, as some are. I was immediately curious about its implications, however. I’ve heard some White men in particular, bristle strongly at the suggestion that they are somehow privileged in our world simply because they are White and male. They see only through the lens of their own experience and know how hard they’ve worked and how they often feel they’ve little to show for it. So to be described as “privileged” is the opposite of their own lived experience.  Yet, privileged we are. Even though, as a member of the LGBTQ+ community, I have a modest understanding by comparison of ...

When someone decides to become a member of a church where I serve as its Minister, there’s a crucial discussion to be had: Getting to know one another.   I need to know them. I need to understand what they each believe as individuals with their own minds and ways of perceiving the Ultimate Reality. For I hold that the individual faith perspectives of those who attend on Sunday mornings should be the sole determining factor of what occurs during services. So I need to know them. But they, by contrast, have a right to know me.  The two sister congregations I serve each have a right to know who is directing the spiritual makeup of their church. They have a right to know what my personal beliefs are, what my worldview is. They have given me keys to centuries-old institutions that are not guaranteed to see the end of the 21st century.  Even though you’re not entrusting me with an institution or a piece of historic architecture, you also are entitled to know who I am theol...

About a month ago, I was at the grocery store waiting in the checkout line when I overheard an employee of the store disparaging transgender people while bagging groceries one aisle over. She was easily twelve feet away from me and the aisles were full of people also within level earshot of her unloving candor. I couldn’t help myself. Loudly across the distance between us, I said, “Ma’am, you are representing the company while speaking like that about people. It’s bad enough that you hold this opinion yourself, but now you’re representing the company as well.” She shouted back, “I’m not representing the company. And you’re just taking this too personally!” I said, “I’m not taking it personally. You’re wearing their uniform and performing your job at this exact moment. And clearly, you know nothing about the subject or else you wouldn’t be saying any of this.”  Our exchanges continued for a bit. Her’s hostile, mine refusing to back down. Until I decided my point had been made and I ...

I’ve been paying attention for a while now when people say “have a nice day.” What I’ve been noticing is how often it is said mindlessly. Thrown out as a habituated thing-to-say, rather than a genuine hope that my day be optimal. Have a nice day. Same to you.  It’s made me more aware of how I use the phrase myself, and the distinct change in people when I sincerely say it rather than just casually throw it out there.  Several years ago I began replying to “have a nice day” with a smile and an “I will if you will!” I’m not being sarcastic, despite the way it reads. Tone of voice is everything, of course. I am completely sincere whenever I say it. Which is often. It has the effect of disrupting the moment in a positive way. If I don’t get much of a response, even a slight reaction means I was at least subconsciously apprehended by them in a way that wouldn’t have been true if I’d just replied in kind. But sometimes it gets quite a response. Always good, thankfully. I’m not reply...

What do we think of when we consider words like disruption, anarchy, and chaos? I know many peoples’ first reaction will be apprehension at a minimum, and terror at a maximum.  But take note that our concern over these ideas is mostly about our fear of change. Of course, we assume that any change born from anarchy or chaos or destruction would be an unwelcome change. But what if it isn’t? Let’s think for a moment about disruption, for example, as a spiritual practice. Most spiritual practices are intended to be a disruption, actually. We are supposed to disrupt old patterns of behavior, often behaviors which do not serve us. What would it mean to disrupt those? Anarchy is a word that represents disorder in the absence of authority. But not all authority is worthy of their lofty position. So are all forms of disorder stemming from our lack of recognition of a particular authority truly disordered? In other words, when we choose to disregard an authority figure because we cannot resp...

What does it mean to be “at one” with something? We often think of our compatibility with someone or something when using a term like that. The term must be at least a bit of an exaggeration, though. Because two things cannot really be one. Right?  Not so fast. There is a fascinating paradigm in the scientific world referred to as quantum entanglement. Albert Einstein referred to it as “spooky action at a distance.” It's when two entangled particles are not really two separate particles, even when literally separated from one another. No amount of distance technically separates them. They are not simply in communication with one another, they literally are one another. When something happens to one of them, it happens simultaneously to the other, regardless of their distance.  Einstein was baffled at how this could be since it violated all the known laws of physics and causality as he understood them. It definitely violated his belief that nothing can travel faster than the s...