Saying good bye

  When departing from someone or something... how do you say good bye? And what do you mean when you say ... 'good bye'? Does it mean - The End? Does it mean a parting for awhile? How do you feel when you say those two words? Relieved? Sad? Both? And how do you feel when you hear them? Our reaction to hearing or saying these words says a great deal about how we look at endings and at change. Once heard what do you do next? Walk away? Look around a bit baffled?

  The context here is more of the long term separation 'good bye' then simply saying 'ta' because you'll soon be seeing them. This good bye could be... forever, though you may still keep in some kind of contact with them. What are your feelings and thoughts and how do you say this 'good bye'? I have found that many times I am a tad surprised because what I thought was only a short separation became a long term one. And I do find it difficult maintaining long distance relationships. It's difficult keeping someone apprised of what's happening in your life just as it is for the other person to keep you involved.

  Regardless, saying the more permanent 'good bye' can be an emotional wrench once we accept the finality. It still may be the best (?) for all concerned even if we do have issues with the reality. Sometimes holding on when you know that 'it's over' is far more difficult to handle once the 'over' is finally accepted. Regardless of the 'type' of good bye, there are emotional issues we have to confront as well as the other attendant issues such as intellectual - if they are the prime person you go to with your wonderings. However... it is our emotions that tend to be the most difficult to resolve.

  IF we can view a 'good bye' as a new 'Hello' - then we have a new mindset that is definitely more proactive. And while it isn't always easy to accomplish, once we have accepted the good bye we should be aware of the new hello's that can emerge. It's just like a 'no' may become a better 'yes' - it is all about our view, our attitude, and how we face and deal with those issues like good byes. A good bye can really be the beginning of a new adventure and that is not dismissing what has been. It's simply accepting the whole of what was but venturing into a new what may be.

Prove it!

  How do you hear those two words... as a challenge? As a disbelief in (fill in the blank)? What are your feelings that emerge - anger? Shock and surprise that you, your word is questioned? Did you make your comment that invoked those 2 words unthinking and now you need to provide the basis or source of what you said? An off handed remark? A foundational principle? But along with your reaction to hearing those words, you now need to make a reasoned response.

  No matter how those two words are said, they really are a challenge. Accept that. Perhaps the speaker really doesn't accept whatever you said or maybe they hold a contrary view. Whatever their position, their comment needs a response. Most people will start by giving their interpretation of  (fill in the blank) but my point would be... what needs proving? Is it you that's being put to the test or what you said or the foundation on what you said rests? Starting by defending may not be the best approach, especially if you hope to influence their thinking and subsequent involvement.

  I would recommend that you start by clarifying what it is they want proved. And the best way of doing that is to ask questions. If you defiantly respond and/or as a question you are likely not to get their true focus because now you've put them on the defensive. As much as possible try to give the impression that you are attempting to clarify but need more information from them as to what it is they don't agree with. In fact, you can give them suggestions - in the form of a question - as to what may be the basis of their disagreement. Escalating the emotional tension is not the most profitable way of reaching agreement.

  Finally you have to allow the other person their right to disagree and be able to acknowledge this so they know they are heard and valued. After that then seriously listen and ask questions where you need clarification. Who knows, they may have a 'better mousetrap' - keep an open mind. If, in the final analysis, your position has to be followed and accepted, then allowing the other person their opportunity to be heard may be the best way to help them to be involved.

  'Prove it!' can be spoken in a variety of ways and heard in a variety of ways and no commonality between them. Rather than assuming, use the scriptural suggestion - 'come let us reason together'.
 

Is it OK to have doubts?

  The short answer is - absolutely! What isn't OK is to try and deny that you have doubts... or that doubt isn't that important... or ignore the doubt. Doubt can be a part of resolving any issue. I find that doubt can 'stir the pot' but it isn't the pot nor is it the answer nor can it control - unless we let it.
Doubts are more of an analysis rather than a catastrophic rejection of the object/subject of the doubt. However, I admit that most people become engulfed by the doubt which then leads to further doubts without really resolving the initial one.

  The only real power doubt has occurs when we aren't confident of (fill in the blank). It may not be the object that is doubted but our belief or confidence in 'it'. Anything can be attacked by doubt but the real question is what do we do when doubt emerges? We may not be able to stop them from coming but we certainly can stop them from controlling. Let me ask a different question... have you/do you ever have doubts about those areas (fill in the blank) that you don't doubt? How did they move from a question to a point of confidence? My guess would be your experience.

  Those things that have given us a foundation of experience (both those that we believe and those things we don't believe) provide the strength of our stand. Simple example: I know that if I don't look both ways before entering an intersection that I have put myself in harm's way and could become involved in an accident. That knowledge came from a variety of sources - my parents instructions, witnessing someone who didn't do this, coming close myself to being in an accident, what happens when I do heed this warning - all of those experiences form my foundation of fact v. doubt.

  You can always choose not to follow your knowledge but you always reap the consequences of that act. Doubts may begin the process of understanding but it's up to us to act on the result. My advice is to never be fearful of doubt, never ignore, never underestimate. Always use the doubt to strength your convictions. Eventually you'll get to the place where that doubt won't exist. If you think about it for a moment you'll discover those areas that you no longer doubt....

Mistake!

  I've come to the conclusion that 'mistake' has subcategories. There are those mistakes that prove to be a complete surprise to you. There are mistakes that you really should have known better, and probably did, but went ahead anyway. Then there are the mistakes made by others but laid at our feet. There are mistakes that you really, really are sorry for but can only apologize. There are mistakes that were 'worth' the effort to try something new or different. I could probably continue but I think that I've made my point about the multitudinous aspects to the word - mistake.

  The only 'type' of mistake I truly dislike are the ones that cause hurt, pain, or anguish to someone else and there's little I can do to correct or mitigate against the ramification of what happened. Those are personally painful. My 'learning' is - would I do it again? Was the unforeseen result something I hadn't envisioned or simply bad planning on my part? My point is - on retrospect can we always see the mistake coming? Can we learn from what was or wasn't done? Will we? Another interesting by-product is that sometimes we can't, at the moment, see a different decision than the one we made but as time passes, we do see what might have been done. The focus shouldn't be on what was or wasn't done but on what we can learn so we don't repeat.

  Mistakes are a way of life and I defy you to show me people who don't make them. Those who learn from their mistakes won't make it a point of repetition. Like history, if we don't learn then we are doomed to repeat. But the underlying question is... how do you define 'mistake'? Webster says: "to be in error, a misunderstanding or misconception, and.. an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc." Truth be told, it's the 'etc.' that always gets us.

  From catastrophic to 'oh, oh', mistakes are part and parcel of our lives. Mistakes are givens. The only variable is how we react to and then respond to mistakes. We can fear making them and become paralyzed to act or we can choose to learn from them. Apologize, if necessary, learn from, move on - those are the proactive responses.

A more convenient time...

  Is this how we respond to the Lord? My answer would be a resounding - 'yes'. When we feel a stirring from Him then, sadly, we typically respond by saying that we will get back to Him ... later. He, on the other hand, is always ready, now. And to be honest, when we go to Him with our needs and requests, we do expect Him to be available and respond - now, not at a 'more convenient time'. We do operate on a double standard. I suspect we all put off reading from His word, praying, listening to Him, sharing Him with others, growing in who we are, etc. until a more convenient time. When does this 'convenient time' occur? Ever? Do we ever think about Who we are telling to wait on... us?

  Granted we all live lives that are cluttered with so many people, things, projects, opportunities, etc. and no, they aren't all bad, but when we put our time with the Lord into a 'later' proposition, then it is. Our problem is that whether or not we realize it, we need Him NOW - regardless of problems or the apparent lack of them. Do the people and things in your life take precedent over time with the Lord? If so... then... is that putting the Lord as a second class consideration in your life. I know that might sound harsh, but that doesn't make it less true. Think about it. How would you react if your family or best friend(s) continually told you that they'd get back to you later? Hurt? Frustrated? Angry?

  Thankfully how we might react to be relegated to 'a more convenient time' that might never come is not how the Lord reacts to us. Our coming to Him is too often based on what we need and what we want - our prayers are focused on changing the other people or things in our lives. There is little 'scheduled' time that's for just the Lord. When we do ask for ourselves is it the eternal things we seek to grow in or is it the things of the world? Personally I do not see how it's possible to live an abundant life if He is not intimately involved in my daily moments.

  When you are honest with yourself and really look at your own behavior, do you make time to grow in your walk with the Lord or do you relegate this part of your life to the 'convenient' status? Do you know why? I suspect most people are not trying to deliberately be uninterested or unwilling, so what is the 'cause' or our excuse? Only we can change our attitude and behavior. Only we can choose to make our time with the Lord a priority in our daily schedules.

YOUR 'rights'

  First: you do know that in exercising your rights there is a price - yes? There's also a cost when you don't exercise them as well. How and what do you do to reconcile these two? Can they ever be compatible? Can you ever exert your rights without trampling on the rights of others? Is there really such a thing as win-win? There is a great deal to consider in acting on your own rights but I suspect we rarely take the time to consider the ramification from our actions.

  However, if you don't exercise your rights do you give others the right to take yours away? Do know that you do have the right to exercise your rights... as long as you don't trample on others in the process. For me, one of the primary, overriding considerations is a quote by Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." (Actually, Burke made a number of thought provoking statements.) This is the no compromise time. And no, this doesn't make every difference an issue of my rights (a good) v. your rights (evil). But it does provide a context.

  Part of my answer to those questions lies in the difference between need and want. If I'm exerting my rights based on something I need v. want then that produces an entirely different dynamic. However, the same issue of me v. them still can exist. Can we join to make it a concerted win for both of us? Obviously this depends on: the issue, the other person, the willingness of you and the other to 'compromise' - among other considerations. Do you want to produce a win-win or is the issue one of there really is only one answer?

  One point to ask yourself is... is exercising (fill in the blank) your right or your privilege? These are two totally different mindsets and you need to be clear about which one you are asserting. Paul's comments (1Corinthians 8:9; 10:23-24): "But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. ...  All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own, but each one the other's well being."  With this mindset our rights won't be trampled on nor will we trample on others.
 

Priorities

  I know, I know. In some fashion I always seem to be talking about priorities directly, indirectly, by implication if not by intent. I probably always will. It's because we all function on our own frame of reference, our own predilections consciously and subconsciously. AND I think many of our 'mistakes' or mis-steps, our repetition of previous mistakes, being blindsided, etc. come from our lack of awareness and/or acknowledgement of our own priorities (and maybe... how they are received). But also remember that our successes, our growth, our becoming also rests on our frame of reference - our starting point. Other than not taking the time to know, there is nothing inherently 'bad' with priorities unless you attempt to force others to accept them.

  Simultaneously, if you act and react according to your priorities it stands to reason that others do the same - you should never be surprised at this reality though you may find yourself surprised at the expression. And though it may be hard to accept, your priorities may not be the same as someone else's - at least not their ranking. I suspect this is the source of problems of not understanding or surprise. Bottom line is that if you retain your right to your frame of reference, your priorities then you have to accord others the same right.

  Priorities move us, they form the foundation upon how we react. It also stands to reason that the higher the ranking of the underlying belief, the more entrenched it (and we) may become. All this is based on our understanding and appreciation of differences. Without our knowing why we hold a particular belief and where it falls on our intractable scale, the more we will find ourselves in the midst of misunderstandings and miscommunications. At the same time, our level of confidence in the ranking and the inclusion, the more we are able to understand why a different position may be held.

  Priorities, to me, are a 'good' because they not only let me know how I stand but where I stand. And seeing the reactions from others tells me their position in relation to mine. This is not a wrong/right issue, it's a point of understanding. We can always debate the issue, not attack the person. And as iron sharpens iron we may come to a deeper appreciation and understanding not only of the other person but our own frame of reference.
 

Take Charge!

  Are you the 'take charge' type? Or... are you the 'follow after' type. Maybe you're the 'snipe at' whoever does take charge type. Me... I'm the take charge one. In a crisis or panic or emergency situation, I typically allow for a 3 beat count and then if no leadership emerges... I do. Not a huge surprise? My point is we all tend to take on the characteristics of one of those three with our own personal, individualistic style. The overriding question is how we display our type. 'Which' may be question 1 but 'how' is definitely question 2 and is crucial to effectiveness.

  What does it mean if you are a take charge type? How do you express your type? Do you become a kind of despotic leader? Or are you a 'brook no interference' leader? How do you 'take charge'? For me there are some definite initial assessments that are important to know and acknowledge - especially if you are desiring people to follow your leadership: 1- a quick survey of the strengths and abilities of those involved, 2- a quasi-democratic approach to problem solving which depends on the degree of crisis/panic/emergency and the time available for resolution.

  There is a time for a 'come let us reason together' style and give our own understandings and interpretations of what's going on. This approach requires that there is a great deal of time and the ability to facilitate everyone's input. While it may be one's personal preference for leadership style, it rarely works when people are needing an answer now and a way to proceed... now. This particular time is the 'crisis' mode time and you are in charge, but of what? And how do you emerge as leader?

  I think the most critical component is that you do see a plan, procedure to meet the situation. Then you need to be able to articulate it so that others understand. Next is to help them to 'own' the decision and make suggestions. Last is to implement the plan allowing those who have the skills to take the leadership in their particular areas of expertise.  In crisis times, leadership is all the more important so that energy and resources aren't wasted. Those of a 'take charge' nature can resolve much of the problem by utilizing the strengths of those that they work with and not 'order' others or feel the need to do everything themselves. How do you take charge?

The HOW we use the spoken word

  I love words. I love the pictures they paint and the places they take me - if only in my mind. I love the sounds they make. There really is very little about words I don't like... except when people use them to hurt others.  People can take a word, which initially isn't used negatively, and how they speak it will convey an entirely different interpretation. It's like dogs - there is no such thing as a bad dog only the 'owner' who mis-trains. Same with words - it's how we speak and how we use them. Basically it comes down to our motives. Do your words enlighten, uplift or do they condemn, judge?

  Let me give an example. In describing people of 'mature' years, the words: elderly, old, senior, etc. are typically used. In an of themselves those words are colorless but far too often they are used to disparage the person being 'tagged' by the words. In days of yore, a person who has advanced to an age of 70, 80, 90 was typically respected and their advice sought. Today... not so much. Like youth, most of these people are dismissed by the 25-65 crowd. And yes, I realize that is painting with a broad stroke and I'm also beginning to move away from the thrust of this conversation.

  How we speak, the tone we use attributes more than just the mere word(s) we speak. We can paint an entirely different picture by the words we choose and how we say them - often changing the definition and intent of the word. And don't tell me you never realized this - of course you do, we all do. Example: sarcasm is a method of displaying our disregard or lack of respect of a person, an idea. With the idea, that is typically less personal and different than when it is used against another person. In this instance, sarcasm is most often used to belittle the focus of our comment(s). A lack of care of other's feelings is definitely in evidence.

  We should never not be aware of what we say and how it is received. Especially if our goal is communication, then being alert and aware of reception will give us invaluable information. All this goes back to our attitudes, our character, our motives. Do you ever think about why you want to say (fill in the blank) to someone (s)? Do you ever think ahead of time about how your words will be heard and received? Does this influence how you say what you say? And yes, all of that can be done in a split second. How we express the spoken word is incredibly important and in the last analysis... probably says more about who we are.

Vicissitudes...

  Isn't that a great word?! What is it? I'll spare you the time to look it up but it means: a condition of constant change or alternation, as a natural process; mutability. CHANGE! We are always dealing with change and there are a whole grist of people that really don't like change and will waste precious time fighting or attempting to ignore it. It will win out... it always does. Our issue is - how do we handle the 'vicissitudes of life'? What do we do with unknowns? Because change always, always, always brings unknowns in its wake.

  In the particular scenario I'm referencing those times and instances that you really don't know... and with some issues, it's all right, but not always. What you do with your not knowing when it is important? How do you react to those areas in your life you don't have your answer(s)? Contingency plan? Ignore? Could you have prepared for the inevitable change? Like death and taxes, vicissitudes will happen.

   Not certain what I'm talking about? Example: 'Battles'. Fighting, even though we know we are in a war and that we must stay prepared typically almost always seems to be against an unknown and sometimes unexpected - how strong the 'enemy' is, what equipment we have to enter into the fight are some of the questions we will need answers to, and fast. First, make certain that it is your fight. During our lives we become embroiled in many battles. However, it is ALWAYS our decision whether or not we will engage in the fight... and equally important, how we fight. How prepared are we? How strong are we? What damage will occur if we lose? Duration of your fight would be another unknown because there are so many variables that impact.

  Another unknown issue is 'authority'. Without the authority you are severely limited in your ability to accomplish anything. In the Greek, authority means: having the right to do something and having the power and ability to do it. It is always critical to know what authority you have and who has the authority over you. I have always felt that if I had the authority in (fill in the blank) then I also had the responsibility. The buck really did stop with me. They go hand-in-hand... if you want the authority then you have to accept the responsibility.  

  Unknowns should never spark worry, though they inevitably do. You can never worry about something you don't know anything about or even if it will impact you but somehow we always seem to do this - it's another example of the negative part of 'what if'. Too often we approach change as our enemy and this accomplishes nothing except to waste what time, energy and resources you have. Our condition is change... have you ever thought of embracing it rather than fighting???