The Choice to Serve Life

So I wrote this as I began my PhD, a few too many years ago. But as I can't find it published anywhere I thought I would share it now. 

**

Where servant leadership can sometimes suggest ONLY serving those you wish to lead, "serving life" serves everything.  What I find I need to do is explore the meaning and value of "choice" and "service".

For now I will focus on service.  Is service "Whatever you say I will do?"  Is that a good servant leader?  No.  While that is exercising one's choice, I think that method is very limiting in the "big picture".  A CEO who says to his company "whatever you say I will do" will soon realize someone else is leader.  But maybe that is where the PEOPLE are.  And they say, "whatever you say we will do."  Again, I find that will be limited as a mode of service.

To offer the best of one's service had come to mean knowing somethings about one's "self".  Who am I?  What are my strengths?  What do I believe?  What are my weaknesses?  What are my boundaries (can I do that which I believe to be wrong)?

Service and being a servant then do not suggest to me "doing whatever the people I am serving want".  Choosing to be a servant is a choice to serve from my best, from who I am.  While I have found the core of who I am to be fairly stable, the expression of that and many of the details have changed overtime.  Thus I conclude that who I know myself to be evolves over time.

"Life" on first look is "easy".  EVERY thing on this earth is life.  Every thing in the universe is life.  While that seems easy to me to say, the difficult part is uniting my being "a servant of life".  Life is me and all I am am.  It is my wife Trixy and all she is.  It is our dog Jordan.  It is our yard and all that creeps and crawls in it.  Life is our neighborhood and town and all the people and things in it.  Life includes the wilderness areas, cities, crime and goodness.  Life is healthy and unhealthy.  Life includes the bonds that unite people together.  Life includes the wedges that divide people.  Life includes belief systems of all sorts: those who believe in some form of God and those who do not.  Life is "the big picture" and everything in it.

The choice to serve life:  I must serve myself.  I must learn to love who I am while not being selfish  complacent.  I have growth to do.  I must serve my wife.  I must learn to love who she is, encourage her to love herself, yet not be complacent (MUCH harder to do).   I extend this to my friends; coworkers; bosses; employees.  Every time "love" must be present.  I MUST learn to love people I don't like.  But how do I show "love" to my neighborhood, town, wilderness areas, people I have never met?  My mind sometimes just spins at the thought of it.   

As I reflect, the choice to serve life is the choice to serve the big picture.  I need not try to love those I don't know and haven't met and may never meet.  By my serving life where I am, in what I do, in my attitudes, in my communications, I WILL serve those I don't know and haven't met.  

Some illustrations come to mind:  

A child who is learning to walk.  S/he takes a step or two and falls down.  Do we focus on the fall? or do we focus on the next step?  I believe serving life focuses on the next step.

Learning to ride a bicycle (walk a balance beam etc), do I focus on my feet?  Do I obsess with my shakiness?  or do I look forward?

There is a country where if you injure someone you must pay their hospital expenses, but if you accidentally kill them you pay the family $300.  Or where the penalty for killing a cow is more severe than for murdering a person.  The choice to serve life must examine these for the big picture.  

When I think on these things I realize that the choice to serve life is not limited to Christian, or others who profess belief in God.   The choice to serve life is for anyone, just as any one in any belief system might NOT be serving life.

But I will close my thoughts with this:  My belief system suggests that anyone serving life from the root of "Love" (unselfish, unconditional, agape), is serving God, regardless of any identity, culture,  race, creed, or religion.  My faith system indicates that only God's true children love as God loves.  The God I worship and admire loves his entire creation and is the ultimate example of the choice to serve life. And therefore isn't limited to the box of my personal beliefs or faith tradition.

Friendship: A reflection

It was the summer of 1994 when I first made a real effort to understand the meaning of "friend" and "friendship".   Until that time I took friendly relationships for granted - at least I think that is how it was with me.  

Perhaps I had contemplated the terms and meanings before, but simply not given them "voice".  I have, over the years, had many friends.  There comes an ebb and a flow as people move around, change and grow, and so on.  On Facebook I have many "Friends".  Some I know very well from personal contact, others only through technology.

And so it was in the summer 1994 that I gave voice to my understanding and thoughts.  To this day I continue to refer to these observations.

***

Friendship is defined by Webster as 1) the state of being friends 2) attachment between friends 3) friendly feeling or attitude; friendliness.

Friend is defined as 1) a person whom one knows well and is fond of; intimate associate; close acquaintance 2) a person on the same side in a struggle; one who is not an enemy or foe; an ally 3) a supporter or sympathizer 4) something thought of as like a friend in being helpful, reliable, etc.

The word "friend" finds its root in the old English "freond" which was used as friend, lover, similar to the German "frijon" - "to love". The

Indo-European root goes back to the word "free". The root meanings here are -- not in bondage, noble, glad, illustrious, to be fond of, and to hold dear. In using "free" with "friend" then it could be concluded that a friend is 1) not under the control of the other person; that each friend is able to act or think without compulsion or arbitrary restriction; having liberty and independence 2) a friend is able to move in any direction; not held, as in chains; not kept from motion 3) a friend is not held or burdened by obligations, debts or discomforts 4) a friend is allowed to leave at any time and is not confined to the usual rules or patterns; not limited by convention or tradition 5) a friend is not restricted by anything except their own limitations or nature and 6) a friend is generous, liberal, frank and straightforward.

Friends and friendships then are a gift.

***

So in my religious philosophy I believe that God sees each person as a friend - even if that person may consider God an enemy. God wants a relationship with me and has chosen to extend love towards me.  Of course not only me but each person, those I care about and those I don't.  

Friendship with God is, by definition then, reserved for those who choose to enter into a "friend" relationship with God.  But what does this relationship look like?  I believe it is unique to each person.  I realize that not everyone agrees with me.  Yet it is my world view that God exists.  Given that as my baseline (and I accept that there are other views in which God does not exist).  But I am working to make sense of my own world view(s).  I am quite sure I cannot make sense of anyone else's.  Given my view that God exists, no longer does it matter to me if any one else thinks God exists.  

And so I am coming to the conclusion that I can be a friend regardless of another person's response or opinion of me.  I may not agree with their opinions, insights, or world views on any variety of topics.  

Friendship is reserved for those who respond.  I am not being a friend so another will reciprocate.  If they do - wonderful.  

When I try to restrict some one I profess to love I exclude myself from friendship with them.  Nor will a friend require from me anything I cannot freely give.

Be Kind To Doctors

Actually... be kind to all those we meet... the ripples of kindness should not be underestimated...

Contrary to popular media, doctors are human too. Doctors are born, live, and die just like everyone else. There is nothing inherently magical in the preparation of physicians that mould them from soft and fleshy homo sapiens with tender souls into hardened robots with scientific logic. In fact, doctors may be more fragile than the average population if one were to consider the statistics. Increased burnout. More depression. Higher rates of suicide.

And yet, the façade persists.

On the outside, you probably won’t see a difference. I doubt it’s possible to observe the slight tremor of my hand as I log onto the computer or the subconscious tremble as I ask what I can do for you as your primary care doctor these days. I hope you won’t notice actually. You can’t see the emotional scars that I carry from working in the field of medicine and occasionally getting caught in the crossfire of a frustrated injured patient hurtling arrows of hurtful accusations at the profession, or having a previously healthy man die underneath my hands doing CPR, or failing to resuscitate a tiny stillborn baby. Some arrows hit harder than others. More recently you might have heard the pieces come cascading down in a tumbling avalanche of shattered glass in fact. Those were the broken bits of my self-confidence and belief in the goodness of humanity slipping into a million tinkling shards that were washed down the drain by a flood of invisible heart tears.

Yes, doctors are humans too.

In spite of our outward professional personas of academic intelligence and logical reasoning fraying at the edges by a frenetic schedule of sick patient-visits and overwhelming written documentation, physicians are every bit as human as the breastfeeding mother in the nursery or the elderly man who sheds tears over his wife in the ICU. Doctors find themselves in those situations too – perhaps  they’re at a disadvantage because some have sat on both sides of the fence where a certain amount of “ignorance is bliss” might have helped.  

White coats and name titles like M.D. and D.O. do nothing to protect us against the stinging angry words of unhappy patients. 

“I find your attitude rude and arrogant!” the patient stormed out of the examination room.

“I’m so sorry. I truly didn’t mean it that way. I was just trying to provide the best health care for you…” my apology backpedalled aimlessly into the dust as the door shut against the agitated figure of the elderly patient. Her abrupt departure was unexpected to say the least.

My initial reaction was shock. What?! Did she really just leave?

Within seconds this morphed into a more enduring crush of nascent confidence. My stomach plunged to dark rocky depths in the split second it took to log off the computer and realise there was nothing I could do to placate the agitated patient-client. She was gone. Redemption disappeared at the slam of the door.

“Um,” I turned to the nurse helping me that day, embarrassment and shame slowly dawning upon me. “What should I do?” I asked her. “My patient just walked out on me. She said I was rude.” It hurt to admit anyone would ever say such a thing about me.  I like to believe that I am generally professional and able to communicate at least on a doctor-patient level with almost anyone. Clearly I’d struck a sore nerve. I had offended the patient. It was a miscommunication yet still it hurt.

It was an error in communication that ruined my day. As much as my intelligence assured me that I was still a competent doctor, I couldn’t shake that small nagging aura of foreboding. Someone out there hates me. Cognitively I know I will never please everyone but my heart still wishes such wasn’t the case.  In spite of my best efforts, I wish I could please everyone. My logical brain can accept that not everyone will be happy with my care. Statistically, I realise there will be a percentage of patients that are unhappy with my professional services for one reason or another, likely having nothing to do with my competence. Still… and yet… I felt horrible.

Yesterday a patient came to see me. “You’ve restored my faith in this organisation” she’d informed me. Her genuine gratitude brightened my day.

Others this week have smiled and thanked me for taking the time to listen to their concerns and answer their questions. “Is there anything else I can do for you?”

“No, doctor, you’ve taken care of me,” they’ve answered with smiles of relief that someone had taken the time to address their concerns. Now the multitude of their accolades was drowned out by the stormy waves of self-doubt. Why did one dissatisfied client erase so many positives? One angry customer nearly destroyed me. The peace of inner assurance in my abilities as a physician slipped away, overshadowed by the heated accusations of one unhappy customer.

Professional decorum dictates that I maintain a semblance of composure and immunity in such situations though. Tears were not appropriate. Other sick patients waited to be seen. There were many more hours to go until I could stop work. Life continued in spite of any personal feelings. “I feel terrible about this,” I lamented to my supervisor and again to my colleague.

“It’ll be ok. It’s happened to all of us,” my colleague gave me a sympathetic shrug. “Don’t worry about.”

“I know,” I gave a wan smile. “I still feel bad. It’s hard to hear how people misinterpret one’s good intentions …” my explanation trailed off. My colleague nodded. He understood. Neither of us needed to elaborate. I don’t know any physician who finds it easy to brush off the false accusations or dissatisfied frowns of short-tempered, angry sick patients.

Working with a population that is sick and frustrated with a complex healthcare system that treats them as a number and not a person, is inherently fraught with misunderstandings on all sides. Communication is never perfect and when physical illness is involved even less room for forgiveness is present. So why, in possession of this knowledge, do I feel so awful when someone is dissatisfied with my service or misinterprets my good intentions?

“I feel terrible.”

“I understand. I hate confrontation too. Even though I might not appear to mind, I still find such encounters difficult,” a more seasoned colleague tried to comfort me later.

“We’ve all had such patients,” another friend commiserated with me when I related my discouraging encounter. “It won’t be the first; it won’t be your last.”

I nod. What she says is correct. Still, it’s not terribly encouraging. Some days I think I must have chosen the wrong career. Perhaps I’m too sensitive. I wonder if I should gone into the food service business and found a job at Baskin Robbins scooping out ice cream to gleeful ice-cream fans or tossing pizzas for cheese and mushroom enthusiasts.

“I still get sweaty palms and palpitations when I have to confront certain patients. I know I’m doing the right thing by not prescribing their opioid pain medication but I still find such encounters very stressful.” It’s a common lament from many of my colleagues. On the outside, such doctors might appear strict and unyielding but inside most hate having to say no.

I don’t know any physician who finds it easy to disclose a terminal diagnosis to a patient and their family. It’s one of those inevitable responsibilities that fall upon a doctor; one that we shoulder as bravely as possible, but, like any human, not one we ever feel happy about. It’s not easy dealing with disappointed, suffering, disillusioned populations. And yet, physicians are asked to do such all the time. Mostly we manage. We muddle through as best we can – reassuring each other we’re doing the best we can while we reaffix our masks of professionalism at the beginning of our shifts. Underneath we are human though.

Yes, I realise people will get upset at just about anyone and misunderstandings happen under the best of circumstances. Still, I just want to say, please be kind to doctors. Physicians are humans too. We have feelings. Underneath our comforting smiles, cold hands (warm hearts), and white coats, we bleed blood crimson red just like everyone else. The tears that stain our hearts are not always visible to the public but that doesn’t make them any less real.

As I type these last lines I realise that the call to kindness is universal. It’s not just physicians who are fragile human beings that, in spite of their imperfections, still need that genuine kind attitude and loving concern. Each one of us carries those wounds in our hearts, invisible to the superficial gaze, yet very much real and so easily raked raw afresh. The Golden Rule comes to mind again.

“Treat others as you wants others to treat you.”

Kindness flows outward in a ripple of influences that shimmers beyond our imagination.

Be kind to doctors. Be kind to everyone. Be kind to yourself.

“Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.”

Ephesians 4:32

Perspectives

The subject that is running around my head today (and most days) is the idea of perspective - and really multiple perspectives.  The beginning of any exposition is perspective.  Each author is sharing perspective and even their perspective on multiple perspectives. 

My parents had a perspective on me as a child and I had a perspective of them as parents.  They were not perfect parents nor was I a perfect child.  But then again, what is “perfection” and we are back to perspective and multiple perspectives.  We can interview and survey vast numbers of people of what perfection is in their understanding.  Interviews will reveal stories and examples, surveys will force sort into categories (unless they allow for stories and examples).  Then it is up to the researchers to sort and code all of this.  Even the process of sorting and coding has the likelihood of bias due to the researcher perspectives.  

The Bible was written over millennia by many different authors, it has been copied and translated by many through the years.  Translation from one language to another is not an absolute - straight-forward process.  I remember when I was getting to know my wife.  I emailed her and she emailed back.  We have the potential to misunderstand each other in the same language, but she replied in a foreign language.  It took me about 30 minutes to find the language (this was before Google Translate and related tools existed).  The process to understand this new woman in my life was not only to understand her in English - we continue to work through that process still.  But having discovered the foreign language I began the process of translation.  I printed her email with gaps between the lines and then wrote in all the options that each word could mean.  Some words were very basic with one meaning and some words had several meanings depending on the context of usage.  It took me five hours to generally translate the paragraph.  This was enough time to learn basic word structure (root, prefix, suffix, etc).  Certainly not enough time to fully understand the context and culture behind the choice of words.  Since some of the meanings of the words could be benign to the risqué I did have to make choices as to her intent.  When I replied to her I did not try to prove my translation, but to respond in English my best understanding of her communication.

Though the years I have treated people through a filter of my own absolute rightness.  This is not healthy for me or the other.  Of course I have come to see through the years that I can hold something to be absolutely true for myself, but others see it otherwise. We have different interpretations of our shared experiences, different understandings of what what we read, different paradigms on which we have built our process of making sense of the world and all that it contains.

I have come to a place that I believe absolute truth exists but that none of us possess all knowledge, all understanding and thus none possess all truth. We possess a part of that truth, our lives bear witness to what we hold to be true, right, and good.  Even as I say that I realize my own continued failure to live up to all that I hold as ideal.  So the ideal may be more truth that what you see practiced in my life.  But perhaps that too bears witness to a larger truth.

The Golden Rule: A few thoughts

The Christian Golden Rule is usually quoted as found in the Biblical book of Matthew (chapter 7 verse 12).  Most Americans seem to memorize it from either the King James Version (KJV) or the New International Version (NIV).

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (KJV)

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (NIV)

Another iteration is Luke 6:31.

Does this assume everyone wants to be treated the same way?  Or does it assume that I treat everyone exactly the same?

Does this mean that I treat others as they wish to be treated?  Does a health care provider treat others as they want to be treated?  There are many clients who leave against medical advise because they do not want to be treated a certain way.  Does a parent give everything the demanding child wants?  The Biblical account suggests that God is generous and gives good gifts but not always what is asked for by his misbehaving children. 

I may not actually treat others as they want to be treated.  I may fail in small / invisible ways or it may be spectacularly public.  I think the real challenge is to continue growing in our understanding and practice of love.

What caught my attention recently is "for this is the law and the prophets."  There was an understanding of "an eye for an eye".  It was part of the Law (see Exodus 21:23-25; Leviticus 24:19-21; and Deuteronomy 19:20-21).  So one can hardly find fault with any Jew who fully practiced their faith.  My understanding is that the Jewish Law of "an eye for an eye" was intended to limit retribution.  But it seems in the modern world many Christians are not satisfied until no less than "an eye for an eye" as been met.

Does the Golden Rule mean that I, as a Christian, should treat others as they have treated me (the yang, to the Golden Rule's ying) as some sort of Karmic payback of my own doing? Is this what the radical Jesus taught?   If a Christian does this they have missed these verses: Luke 6:27, 28; Romans 12:14; and 1 Corinthians 4:12.

Turning the other cheek isn't intend to show weakness (or even meekness in my opinion) but strength of character and becomes the revelation of a noble calling.

But I am getting distracted.  "for this is the law and the prophets."  Jesus, the radical, when asked what the greatest commandment was said "love God with all your heart, mind, and soul.  AND the second is like it love your fellow human beings as you love yourself. On these two hang all the law and the prophets" (see Matthew 22:34-40; and Mark 12:28-34).  Jesus told his disciples in the upper room not long before he was taken to be crucified "Love one another.  Everyone will know you are my follower when you love one another." (See John 13:34).

Paul, a very well educated Pharisee, guardian of the Law, and follower of Jesus, understood Jesus to mean that all the law and the prophets could be summed up in "Love". (see Romans 13:8-9; and have a study of his letter to the Galatians).  [NOTE: I believe Paul valued the rich history of his people, he valued the law and the prophets.  He never, ever dismissed the Jewish faith - because he understood that the Law and Prophets were all about the revelation of God's love for humanity and really the universe for that matter.]  

What kind of love?  Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians gives us a description that love is not the same as wisdom, knowledge, or even martyrdom.  Rather it is patient, kind, respectful, full of honor, and so on, (see 1 Corinthians 13:1-8) and in his letter to the Galatians (Biblical reference Galatians 5:22-26) he surfaces that those who are aligned with Jesus are filled with the same Spirit: "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."

Another disciple/apostle, John wrote in one letter "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." (1 John 4:7-8).  

So the Golden Rule is a calling; an ideal; a promise of character development.  The Golden Rule is all about respect, compassion, empathy, kindness, self-control, etc.  It calls me to consider multiple perspectives (that is to say I consider the impact of my actions on myself and others).  It is in this way that I do consider the way others want to be treated.   But I am not restricted or limited.  The Golden Rule causes me to contemplate my actions as if I were on the other end of the "equation" and in a full context.  The Golden Rule is an ethic.

In the sense that I treat everyone with "the fruit of the Spirit" I find that I can indeed treat all in the same way, even if the actions look different when interacting with different people.  When in the "fruit of the Spirit" I end up treating most people how they want to be treated, even if the action is not fully satisfying to self or others.  The Golden Rule may look different in different cultures.  But where cultures clash people practicing the Golden Rule seek to understand.  

What does the Golden Rule look like in your world?  What do we do to one another, in the name of love, that may not be "the fruit of the Spirit?"  What does it look like in personal relationships?  Work relationships? Vendor/Client relationships?  Is it different if I have no power and authority versus times when I have power an authority?

Finally, is this type of love limited to Christians?  My own study tells me "no".  But that will be an exploration for another day.