Adam Smith got it right. We human beings, given the chance, act out of our own self-interest. Lebron James proves that point but not for the reason you think.
In a story that took on epic proportions because of the slow summer news cycle, Lebron James chose the Miami Heat over the the New York Knicks, the Chicago Bulls, and even his hometown Cleveland Cavaliers for one reason. Not money. Not championships and rings. Very simply, Lebron is looking for love not loot. And all the critics, who have skewered Lebron for the over-hyped way in which his free agency decision arrived, have missed this basic point.
If Lebron were merely looking for loot, or even for fame, he certainly would not have chosen Miami. He will end up with less salary there than from any of his other choices. If he were seeking the vainglory of championship rings, Lebron would have selected Chicago, which has a full roster in place with comrades like Derrick Rose, Carlos Boozer, and Joiakim Noah. After all, basketball is a team sport played by five men with a group of reserves to complement them. Chicago has that, and at present, Miami does not. The Heat now have a roster with just four players: Lebron, Chris Bosh, Dwyane Wade, and Mario Chalmers. They have no fifth starter, and they have no bench. Their salary cap is nearly expended, so they have little money to find the additional parts of the whole. Teams win championships not threesomes. Just ask Wilt, Jerry, and Elgin.
So why in the world did Lebron James land in Miami? Love and family.
In April, I enjoyed a nine hour flight to Poland where I would do some teaching and also some sharing of my new book, Confessions of a Mega-Church Pastor: How I Discovered the Hidden Treasures of the Catholic Church. On that flight, I watched every movie that was available on the airline seat viewer. My final foray into obscure video came in the form of a documentary called More Than a Game. I had never heard of it, but nine hours is a long time and I was willing to watch anything.
The documentary chronicles the boyhood and development of Lebron James in his hometown of Akron, Ohio. As is well-known, Lebron never had a relationship of any kind with his father. In fact, it is unclear if the identity of his father is even known. I will not bother to comment on the lawsuit filed on the day of Lebron's free agent announcement by a man claiming to be Lebron's father and seeking $4MM in compensation. How one would seek money from a child you never claimed or supported is beyond me, but I will leave that analysis for another time.
Nevertheless, More than a Game reveals the innocence and needs that the young Lebron experienced. His need for love, family, and direction were filled by a group of childhood friends with whom he formed such a close bond that they played youth league, AAU, and then high school ball together. Very little change occurred in that group. They bonded, and with the help from a few teammates' fathers, Lebron emerged as the best high school basketball player in America. However, he did not emerge as the leader. Other players in that childhood fraternity led the team; Lebron starred. And there is the crucial difference.
Lebron found family and home in that group. He found strong men who helped him along the way. Simply watching that film brought tears to my eyes because the Lebron of the documentary is a boy looking for love, not fame or success. On that team, Lebron did not have to lead; he merely needed to play ball well. His was an unusual role of the star whose performance is complementary. As a result, he found a bond that still exists to this day as evidenced by most of the friends who still surround him. That group from his childhood team IS his family. Lebron became who he is today because of a small group of people that became his family. We all want to be loved. Love and family are powerful motivators.
Lebron chose Miami because he can best replicate there that sense of family with his two close friends, Bosh and Wade. These three played together on the 2008 Olympic team. They bonded. More importantly, Lebron will not have to lead. Miami is Dwyane Wade's team. Lebron got enough mantle-carrying in Cleveland. The top dog role does not suit him well. Deep down, he prefers to draft behind the leadership of a stronger personality – his point guard in high school, and now Dwyane Wade in Miami. Lebron is Pippen. Wade is Jordan.
All this leads to two crucial points.
First, fathers play an indispensable role. It is no accident that lead dogs like Kobe, Jordan, and Wade all had strong fathers in their lives. Lebron did not. As a result, he is still emerging as a man. He is still just 25. He will find warmth and comfort in the presence of Dwyane Wade. He will find the love and family that he has not replaced since leaving Akron and receiving the mantle he was not prepared for in Cleveland.
Lebron was thrust into a leadership role at age 18, straight out of high school. He had no father to prepare him. Nor did he have a coach like Dean Smith or Tom Crean. His one consistent touchstone is that basketball family from his childhood, that band of brothers and a surrogate father.
Second, Lebron provides an important lesson in Adam Smith thinking. We act out of self-interest, which is not always measured in money. Countless employees decide every day to remain where they are or to take new jobs not for the money but for other reasons. Stability, less pressure, location, or a sense of value and affirmation just to name a few motivators. Self-interest is not necessarily the same as money, greed, or avarice.
Many leaders do not understand this point. Money does not motivate most health-care providers. Other reasons like mission or compassion do. Money does not motivate most immigrants. Opportunity, freedom, and hope for a better future do. And money certainly does not motivate Islamic terrorists. Mission and a perverse faith do. Self-interest comes in many forms. Money is merely one of those.
Lebron has money and fame; he is looking for love. He hopes to re-create in Miami what he had in high school, a family. The leader Wade and the paternal Pat Riley provide the nucleus of that family.
So to the critics of Lebron who see in him a greedy, self-aggrandizing ego, understand that Lebron's childhood poverty and wobbly family has created needs in him that could not be met in Cleveland or Chicago where he would have been asked to serve as the father giving love and leadership. Nor could his needs be met in New York where he would have been in a Cleveland-like role made worse by the glare and pressure of the New York media. Only Miami could offer a complementary role as a part of a loving family. True self-interest prevailed.
Allen Hunt's Blog
Where Real Life and Faith Come Together
Category: Family
| Pages: 1 2 |
I had the best Father's Day ever. No question about it. My two daughters put a great deal of time and thought into celebrating what I affectionately call "the most important day of the year." We had a marvelous time - the gift of an Iphone (cool!), a strawberry cake, Ferris Bueller, and a full day together.
But one thought struck me at the end of the day as I got in bed for the night. My older daughter came in and gave me my Father's Day card. They had forgotten it earlier in the day. On one portion, she listed 9 of her favorite memories with me. Without exception, there were no "big moments," like paying for college or taking a big European vacation. Instead, her most powerful memories were smaller moments at times that were significant to her. When she was home sick for the day. When she lost an election. When we had a father-daughter date night. Little things accumulated day by day over time. Not big planned events or trips.
In reading her card, I got it. The most important gift a father can give his children is just showing up. Being there, day in and day out. In a crazy, frantic world, the consistent presence of a father in a child's life makes all the difference between stability/love and chaos/fear. It really is much simpler than we often make it.
But one thought struck me at the end of the day as I got in bed for the night. My older daughter came in and gave me my Father's Day card. They had forgotten it earlier in the day. On one portion, she listed 9 of her favorite memories with me. Without exception, there were no "big moments," like paying for college or taking a big European vacation. Instead, her most powerful memories were smaller moments at times that were significant to her. When she was home sick for the day. When she lost an election. When we had a father-daughter date night. Little things accumulated day by day over time. Not big planned events or trips.
In reading her card, I got it. The most important gift a father can give his children is just showing up. Being there, day in and day out. In a crazy, frantic world, the consistent presence of a father in a child's life makes all the difference between stability/love and chaos/fear. It really is much simpler than we often make it.
In response to my show defending the Sunderland family regarding their decision to allow Abby, 16, to try to sail around the world by herself, I got a flurry of emails.
Here is my favorite - while reading it, please pray for her safe rescue.
Allen,
I've been doing solo expeditions since I was 14 years old. I've spent over 2 years on Isle Royale National Park, a month and a half in the Teton Backcountry, over 7 months in the bottom of the Grand Canyon and other trips. It has been the best thing I could ever do with my life. It has made me independent and self sufficient. I have found that if you can deal with what nature deals you, with only your own resources, you can handle anything that happens in the "civilized" world.
Abby was very lucky to have parents that would teach her and support her dream. She actually developed and realized a passion to follow that dream. Most kids today can't get off the couch. The subject of her age is a controversy, but people are not popped out of a cookie cutter. Some people are born for adventure and most will never see it or yearn for it. Almost everybody wants to be safe and in familiar territory. A few people want to reach out there into the unknown and learn for themselves.
If I had not started solo expeditions at 14 years, I never would have developed the skills to move on to bigger and more astounding experiences. I support her parents decision. Only they, in conjunction with Abby herself, know if she was ready to take on this adventure. I'm sure that she had many frightening experiences before she reached this stage and learned from them.
Anyway, I feel strongly about Abby. I pray for her and wish her good luck and fortune.
Thanks for bringing this up, Allen,
Bob
Here is my favorite - while reading it, please pray for her safe rescue.
Allen,
I've been doing solo expeditions since I was 14 years old. I've spent over 2 years on Isle Royale National Park, a month and a half in the Teton Backcountry, over 7 months in the bottom of the Grand Canyon and other trips. It has been the best thing I could ever do with my life. It has made me independent and self sufficient. I have found that if you can deal with what nature deals you, with only your own resources, you can handle anything that happens in the "civilized" world.
Abby was very lucky to have parents that would teach her and support her dream. She actually developed and realized a passion to follow that dream. Most kids today can't get off the couch. The subject of her age is a controversy, but people are not popped out of a cookie cutter. Some people are born for adventure and most will never see it or yearn for it. Almost everybody wants to be safe and in familiar territory. A few people want to reach out there into the unknown and learn for themselves.
If I had not started solo expeditions at 14 years, I never would have developed the skills to move on to bigger and more astounding experiences. I support her parents decision. Only they, in conjunction with Abby herself, know if she was ready to take on this adventure. I'm sure that she had many frightening experiences before she reached this stage and learned from them.
Anyway, I feel strongly about Abby. I pray for her and wish her good luck and fortune.
Thanks for bringing this up, Allen,
Bob
Blockbuster closed; friends are encouraging us to check out NetFlix. But I have to say - I still love my DirecTV!
We have enjoyed how wonderfully cheap and easy it is to get a movie off the dish anytime we want. A pleasure!
So this weekend's late-night flicks were:
The Proposal.
Much better than I expected - but then again, I did not expect much. This makes two Sandra Bullock movies I have watched (The Blind Side was the other) in the same month. I need medical help.
The plot is absurd. Bullock plays a high-powered publishing executive who is about to be deported to Canada because she did not maintain her immigration status. She is reviled by her employees but forces her personal assistant to marry her in order to allow her to stay in the USA. Told you it was absurd.
This romantic comedy works well despite the banal plot, but then again that is what romantic comedies usually do. But the light-hearted fun easily outpaces the stupid plot and banality.
I recommend it - AHS Grade: B-
Julie and Julia
This one is an odd story. It parallels the life of Julia Child in France and the life of a young woman in Queens who decides to cook all of the recipes in Mastering the Art of French Cooking in a single year.
I love Amy Adams. She plays the young woman in Queens and does an excellent job of playing a self-conscious literary wanna-be who grows over the course of a year into the world of adulthood.
I am not a big fan of Meryl Streep. I know - call me boorish. She acts well enough but something about her just makes my skin crawl. A little too self-affected and over-praised perhaps. She does a nice job of portraying Julia Child although her story is less compelling and interesting than that of the young woman in Queens who seems more real and authentically revealed.
An average movie. AHS Grade: C
We have enjoyed how wonderfully cheap and easy it is to get a movie off the dish anytime we want. A pleasure!
So this weekend's late-night flicks were:
The Proposal.
Much better than I expected - but then again, I did not expect much. This makes two Sandra Bullock movies I have watched (The Blind Side was the other) in the same month. I need medical help.
The plot is absurd. Bullock plays a high-powered publishing executive who is about to be deported to Canada because she did not maintain her immigration status. She is reviled by her employees but forces her personal assistant to marry her in order to allow her to stay in the USA. Told you it was absurd.
This romantic comedy works well despite the banal plot, but then again that is what romantic comedies usually do. But the light-hearted fun easily outpaces the stupid plot and banality.
I recommend it - AHS Grade: B-
Julie and Julia
This one is an odd story. It parallels the life of Julia Child in France and the life of a young woman in Queens who decides to cook all of the recipes in Mastering the Art of French Cooking in a single year.
I love Amy Adams. She plays the young woman in Queens and does an excellent job of playing a self-conscious literary wanna-be who grows over the course of a year into the world of adulthood.
I am not a big fan of Meryl Streep. I know - call me boorish. She acts well enough but something about her just makes my skin crawl. A little too self-affected and over-praised perhaps. She does a nice job of portraying Julia Child although her story is less compelling and interesting than that of the young woman in Queens who seems more real and authentically revealed.
An average movie. AHS Grade: C
I shared on the show earlier this week that the life of Tiger Woods and his marriage are none of our business. Many folks believe that we should know every detail about anyone in the public eye. Wrong! He owes us nothing. It is his life. And personal struggles are made worse when they have to be lived out in the glare of the media's spotlight. See Jon and Kate for an example of what happens when people face challenges and have the whole world watching over their shoulders. Lives are destroyed, families are ruined, and the public moves on to the next spectacle for their own nosy pleasure.
So, I applaud Tiger Woods. His statement today may be the best piece of honesty and boundary-setting I have ever read. It is superb - heartfelt, direct, but also very clear that the line stops where his private life begins. Good for him. A lesson for us all. We may have a DESIRE to know, but we do not have a NEED to know or a RIGHT to know.
Here's hoping his family can navigate the issues they face and come through on the other side as stronger, better people. His children deserve that.
So, I applaud Tiger Woods. His statement today may be the best piece of honesty and boundary-setting I have ever read. It is superb - heartfelt, direct, but also very clear that the line stops where his private life begins. Good for him. A lesson for us all. We may have a DESIRE to know, but we do not have a NEED to know or a RIGHT to know.
Here's hoping his family can navigate the issues they face and come through on the other side as stronger, better people. His children deserve that.
We took some time off at the show this past weekend, and my wife and I enjoyed lounging around to watch a few movies at home since the rain washed out any hopes of hiking (my hope) or photography (her hope).
3 Movies Consumed all in all
1) Gaslight
1940's classic which was good but not as good as I remembered the play's having been. Ingrid Bergman is the main star. Woman is driven crazy by her husband who ultimately is revealed to be a psychopath. A plot very much like everyday in the Hunt home.
AHS Grade: B
2) Ghosts of Girlfriends Past
Being lazy we paid for a 2 for 1 deal of DirecTV for movies. This one starred Matthew McConnaughey, and by my recollection, he never took off his shirt once in the whole movie. An exercise in remarkable self-control. Actually turned out to be an entertaining romantic comedy that was a cross between A Christmas Carol and typical McConnaughey flicks. Believe it or not, the movie turned out to be a morality tale more than anything else. Pretty good fare.
AHS Grade: B+
3) Easy Virtue
The second part of our deal. In a word, terrible. No plot, lousy sound with lots of mumbling and fake British accents. Qualifies for the Oscar category of "Worst Movie Made in the 2000's"
AHS Grade: F
3 Movies Consumed all in all
1) Gaslight
1940's classic which was good but not as good as I remembered the play's having been. Ingrid Bergman is the main star. Woman is driven crazy by her husband who ultimately is revealed to be a psychopath. A plot very much like everyday in the Hunt home.
AHS Grade: B
2) Ghosts of Girlfriends Past
Being lazy we paid for a 2 for 1 deal of DirecTV for movies. This one starred Matthew McConnaughey, and by my recollection, he never took off his shirt once in the whole movie. An exercise in remarkable self-control. Actually turned out to be an entertaining romantic comedy that was a cross between A Christmas Carol and typical McConnaughey flicks. Believe it or not, the movie turned out to be a morality tale more than anything else. Pretty good fare.
AHS Grade: B+
3) Easy Virtue
The second part of our deal. In a word, terrible. No plot, lousy sound with lots of mumbling and fake British accents. Qualifies for the Oscar category of "Worst Movie Made in the 2000's"
AHS Grade: F
I recently met Helen Denton, the personal secretary who typed up General Eisenhower's orders for D-Day. What a fascinating and intelligent woman she is! Helen's grandfather moved with his 12 year old son (Helen's father, eventually) from New York to North Dakota and built a sod house on the prairie. He left the 12 year old there by himself and returned to New York to retrieve the rest of the family. The boy spent the long lonely nights playing his violin while the local Sioux population listened outside. In the dead of winter, the native Sioux would leave meat and wood for him, and one time, a buffalo robe. After more than five months, the family arrived to join the 12 year old boy. Years later, when Helen asked her father how he had survived 5 months of winter alone as a 12 year old, he replied, “I was a man.”
A 12-year old man? Unheard of these days. Compare the story of Laura Dekker, the 13-year old Dutch girl who wants to become the youngest person ever to sail around the globe solo. Laura has grown up on the water, having already sailed around the world with her parents, and having spent the first four years of her life at sea. Laura is able, accomplished, and courageous. Her parents have nervously, but proudly, approved her venture.
Laura has been sailing solo since the age of six. She has been planning this trip around the globe for over three years. For now, however, the trip has been put on hold.
What's the problem? The government. Dutch officials have stepped in to prohibit Laura from making the journey, citing her age and the potential dangers that might await her on the high seas. Government trumps parents; government trumps accomplished, courageous, risk-taking teen. Government knows all but knows no boundaries.
Caroline Vink, a social worker at the Netherlands Youth Institute in Utrecht, a research organization that advises the government on youth policy, said ultimately, “the state and society had a moral obligation to intervene when the safety of a child was at risk.” Laura Dekker is now under supervision by the state. She will be evaluated by a state-approved child psychologist. A “moral obligation” in spite of the girl's obvious skills? In spite of her parents' approval and blessing? To what end?
Observers like myself have long noted that we live in an age of hovering, helicopter parents. Overweening parents monitor their child's every move, seeking to eliminate all risk (as if that were possible) and endeavoring to manipulate every circumstance for their child's success. Too many parents now believe that each time their child leaves parental eyesight, that child must be accompanied by a security detail.
However, we now are making childhood almost impossible for those who actually want to grow up to be independent, strong, and self-sufficient. Meet Granny Government, the new supra-parent in the West, where government evaluates and critiques parents' skills and decisions. Welcome to a new era where Government is the Supreme Second-Guesser and plays the role of Uber Hall Monitor. What might have happened if the government had supervised Western settlers like Helen Denton's family? We likely would all still be living in the East.
Laura Dekker seeks to outdo Mike Perham, the 17-year old British teen who recently circumnavigated the globe solo and unsupported. Her parents approve. The Dutch government seeks to squelch the idea. Granny Government needs no invitation.
Lenore Skenazy cultivates her “free-range parenting” philosophy in New York City at considerable risk. She encourages her son, Izzy, 10, to ride the subway and train by himself, in order to foster independence and competence. Every so often, Izzy encounters an excitable conductor on the train, or an overzealous police officer on the platform, who deems it necessary to call Lenore to excoriate her for not supervising her son at every turn. Officials like to remind Lenore that Granny Government has an eye on you and can take your children.
Parents in Wisconsin and Oregon choose not to seek medical aid for their children, instead trusting their faith to bring healing from disease. The children die from their parents' decisions and exercise of religious liberty. The government prosecutes the parents for reckless homicide. Granny Government second-guesses parents after the fact, and punishes those whose religious beliefs lie outside the general consensus of accepted beliefs.
A divorced New Hampshire woman home schools her daughter, a young lady who scores well in all academic tests. The ex-husband, and girl's father, pushes for the girl to attend public school, even though he is not the primary custodial parent. The government intervenes to force the girl into the public schools against her own and her mother's wishes. Granny Government knows best. Heed her wisdom or else. And by all means, you will resist her schooling at your own peril.
Good government is not rocket science, nor is it parenting. Good parents are authoritative, not authoritarian nor irresponsibly laissez-faire. Good parents make decisions to grow their children into healthy, independent adults. Government cannot take that role, nor should it try.
Any strong society is dependent on healthy families as the location where healthy citizens are reared. As my grandmother often reminded me, “You raise pigs; you rear children.” Government has no ability to engender love, to cultivate responsibility, to encourage risk and reward, and to foster ambition in children. Government can provide a framework where those parental functions (and rights, I might add) can more easily occur, but government can never replace the family.
Good parenting involves risk. Life involves risk. No amount of Granny Government can alter those facts. However, an overbearing Granny Government can create the new risk of so gutting the role of parent, and so weakening the life of a child, that a new generation will fail to launch. Any such generation then become a directionless, listless amalgam of paranoid, dependent children walking around in adult bodies. For a good example, see Russia.
When that occurs, we need not worry about ever conquering another new frontier. And the likes of Helen Denton will never be met again.
A 12-year old man? Unheard of these days. Compare the story of Laura Dekker, the 13-year old Dutch girl who wants to become the youngest person ever to sail around the globe solo. Laura has grown up on the water, having already sailed around the world with her parents, and having spent the first four years of her life at sea. Laura is able, accomplished, and courageous. Her parents have nervously, but proudly, approved her venture.
Laura has been sailing solo since the age of six. She has been planning this trip around the globe for over three years. For now, however, the trip has been put on hold.
What's the problem? The government. Dutch officials have stepped in to prohibit Laura from making the journey, citing her age and the potential dangers that might await her on the high seas. Government trumps parents; government trumps accomplished, courageous, risk-taking teen. Government knows all but knows no boundaries.
Caroline Vink, a social worker at the Netherlands Youth Institute in Utrecht, a research organization that advises the government on youth policy, said ultimately, “the state and society had a moral obligation to intervene when the safety of a child was at risk.” Laura Dekker is now under supervision by the state. She will be evaluated by a state-approved child psychologist. A “moral obligation” in spite of the girl's obvious skills? In spite of her parents' approval and blessing? To what end?
Observers like myself have long noted that we live in an age of hovering, helicopter parents. Overweening parents monitor their child's every move, seeking to eliminate all risk (as if that were possible) and endeavoring to manipulate every circumstance for their child's success. Too many parents now believe that each time their child leaves parental eyesight, that child must be accompanied by a security detail.
However, we now are making childhood almost impossible for those who actually want to grow up to be independent, strong, and self-sufficient. Meet Granny Government, the new supra-parent in the West, where government evaluates and critiques parents' skills and decisions. Welcome to a new era where Government is the Supreme Second-Guesser and plays the role of Uber Hall Monitor. What might have happened if the government had supervised Western settlers like Helen Denton's family? We likely would all still be living in the East.
Laura Dekker seeks to outdo Mike Perham, the 17-year old British teen who recently circumnavigated the globe solo and unsupported. Her parents approve. The Dutch government seeks to squelch the idea. Granny Government needs no invitation.
Lenore Skenazy cultivates her “free-range parenting” philosophy in New York City at considerable risk. She encourages her son, Izzy, 10, to ride the subway and train by himself, in order to foster independence and competence. Every so often, Izzy encounters an excitable conductor on the train, or an overzealous police officer on the platform, who deems it necessary to call Lenore to excoriate her for not supervising her son at every turn. Officials like to remind Lenore that Granny Government has an eye on you and can take your children.
Parents in Wisconsin and Oregon choose not to seek medical aid for their children, instead trusting their faith to bring healing from disease. The children die from their parents' decisions and exercise of religious liberty. The government prosecutes the parents for reckless homicide. Granny Government second-guesses parents after the fact, and punishes those whose religious beliefs lie outside the general consensus of accepted beliefs.
A divorced New Hampshire woman home schools her daughter, a young lady who scores well in all academic tests. The ex-husband, and girl's father, pushes for the girl to attend public school, even though he is not the primary custodial parent. The government intervenes to force the girl into the public schools against her own and her mother's wishes. Granny Government knows best. Heed her wisdom or else. And by all means, you will resist her schooling at your own peril.
Good government is not rocket science, nor is it parenting. Good parents are authoritative, not authoritarian nor irresponsibly laissez-faire. Good parents make decisions to grow their children into healthy, independent adults. Government cannot take that role, nor should it try.
Any strong society is dependent on healthy families as the location where healthy citizens are reared. As my grandmother often reminded me, “You raise pigs; you rear children.” Government has no ability to engender love, to cultivate responsibility, to encourage risk and reward, and to foster ambition in children. Government can provide a framework where those parental functions (and rights, I might add) can more easily occur, but government can never replace the family.
Good parenting involves risk. Life involves risk. No amount of Granny Government can alter those facts. However, an overbearing Granny Government can create the new risk of so gutting the role of parent, and so weakening the life of a child, that a new generation will fail to launch. Any such generation then become a directionless, listless amalgam of paranoid, dependent children walking around in adult bodies. For a good example, see Russia.
When that occurs, we need not worry about ever conquering another new frontier. And the likes of Helen Denton will never be met again.
To be honest, I could never do it. If my wife cheated on me, I just cannot see myself mustering the spiritual strength to forgive her and keep the relationship together. I would like to think that I could, but I am realistic. Such a deep betrayal of promises would just be too much for my male ego.
My wife and I have even talked about it. She insists that she would be able to forgive my indiscretion, while I admit my own inability to forgive hers. She reminds me that it would hurt and she would likely charge me a large tax were I ever to stray, but that she would be able to find a way to move forward together. Fortunately, we have never had to find out. Elizabeth Edwards has. And where others would have crumbled, she has proven heroic.
Elizabeth Edwards provides a case study in the reasons why only about one-third of marriages survive an affair and why women are more able to forgive than men. In her new book, Resilience, Elizabeth shares the painful experience of John's adultery and deceit. His self-centered timing of confessing his peccadillo just after having publicly announced his Democratic candidacy for the presidency only serves to heighten the very humanness of the marriage of John and Elizabeth Edwards.
However, the power of the book rests in Elizabeth's detailed telling of how she has come to forgive John and hold the marriage together in spite of his failings and their having to learn to trust all over again. Those details are not ancillary to the story; rather, they ARE the story.
First, one wonders just why Elizabeth feels compelled to share these personal intricacies aloud and in public. Some speculate that she seeks fame and money, although she needs neither. Others suggest that this public revelation is intended as a public flailing of John, a way of exacting revenge upon the one who has hurt her. Still others insist that Elizabeth's is an exercise in catharsis, a purging of the story once and for all, to put an end to the never-ending public inquiry into her life and their family.
Actually, what Elizabeth achieves in the book is a monument to what it takes to become a spiritual giant. She has chosen the high road of forgiveness, a road rarely chosen in this culture, and one often dismissed as weak or doormat-ish. Elizabeth's telling of the narrative reveals deep insight into a character that is formed by a faith centered in forgiveness and grace – even when it is difficult, even super-human. After all, to err is human; to forgive, divine. And in America, the public usually insists on details of the error and then crushing punishment for the offender. Elizabeth Edwards has chosen the road less traveled: the road of forgiveness and restoration.
In her re-telling of the details of John's now infamous Rielle Hunter affair, his possible fathering of an illegitimate child, and the excruciating personal pain of his less than honest confession to his wife of 31 years, Elizabeth captures the substance of what it takes to forgive. Where I, and most Americans would be found lacking, Elizabeth stands as a giant of faith and forgiveness. No doormat is she. A redwood, more likely.
Elizabeth's story makes plain these realities of why so few marriages successfully navigate through such a traumatic infidelity.
1.Forgiveness takes time. It does not occur quickly or overnight. Elizabeth is brutally honest that she is still growing in forgiveness toward John after his betrayal. After all, she honestly admits that the one gift she had asked from him at their wedding was his faithfulness. Overcoming the collapse of that promise, which was all-important to her, does not come easily or quickly.
2.Elizabeth clearly states the personal pain and humiliation she has suffered. Her details are not contrived. They are heartfelt and painful to read. She threw up when John made his first, less than whole, confession. The pain only began there; the public humiliation is still subsiding. Here was a woman fighting for her own life with cancer, and struggling to raise children while John led a very high-profile life. And now she is known as the betrayed spouse, left standing with empty promises. Elizabeth does not shy away from admitting the pain of that.
3.Learning to trust an erring spouse after a betrayal is difficult. It often requires coaching from a professional. How does one begin to trust after a betrayal that deep? Again, Elizabeth is honest here: the challenges are great. That is why she answered Oprah's question about whether she still loves John in the way she did: “It is complicated.” She tells the truth when she says she is glad that they have at least moved from “day to day” to “month to month.” One does not merely hit “Reset” and move forward. Trusting again will face some fits and starts.
4.Best of all, Elizabeth's story reveals one reason why women are more able to forgive than men. She thinks of her children and family first. Elizabeth knows full well the challenges children face when a marriage dissolves. Her instinct as a mother is to try to keep the family intact if at all possible, even in the face of the pain of humiliation and public betrayal. The children come first, a maternal instinct, allows the woman to rise above the sting to pride and find a way forward. And Elizabeth Edwards is working to do just that.
Thus, I stand and applaud Elizabeth Edwards. She will surely face more ridicule from friend and foe alike for her stance. For her openness. For her story.
Elizabeth has captured the heart of her faith. A faith that forgives. A faith that offers a second chance. A faith that believes in the hard work of redemption. And a faith that puts the needs of children at or above the same level as the needs of adults. Elizabeth Edwards is a spiritual giant, a redwood of the faith. She is no doormat. And her telling of her story proves it. More importantly, her telling of the story offers a very real way forward for others, an offering not insignificant in a culture of blame and punishment.
My wife and I have even talked about it. She insists that she would be able to forgive my indiscretion, while I admit my own inability to forgive hers. She reminds me that it would hurt and she would likely charge me a large tax were I ever to stray, but that she would be able to find a way to move forward together. Fortunately, we have never had to find out. Elizabeth Edwards has. And where others would have crumbled, she has proven heroic.
Elizabeth Edwards provides a case study in the reasons why only about one-third of marriages survive an affair and why women are more able to forgive than men. In her new book, Resilience, Elizabeth shares the painful experience of John's adultery and deceit. His self-centered timing of confessing his peccadillo just after having publicly announced his Democratic candidacy for the presidency only serves to heighten the very humanness of the marriage of John and Elizabeth Edwards.
However, the power of the book rests in Elizabeth's detailed telling of how she has come to forgive John and hold the marriage together in spite of his failings and their having to learn to trust all over again. Those details are not ancillary to the story; rather, they ARE the story.
First, one wonders just why Elizabeth feels compelled to share these personal intricacies aloud and in public. Some speculate that she seeks fame and money, although she needs neither. Others suggest that this public revelation is intended as a public flailing of John, a way of exacting revenge upon the one who has hurt her. Still others insist that Elizabeth's is an exercise in catharsis, a purging of the story once and for all, to put an end to the never-ending public inquiry into her life and their family.
Actually, what Elizabeth achieves in the book is a monument to what it takes to become a spiritual giant. She has chosen the high road of forgiveness, a road rarely chosen in this culture, and one often dismissed as weak or doormat-ish. Elizabeth's telling of the narrative reveals deep insight into a character that is formed by a faith centered in forgiveness and grace – even when it is difficult, even super-human. After all, to err is human; to forgive, divine. And in America, the public usually insists on details of the error and then crushing punishment for the offender. Elizabeth Edwards has chosen the road less traveled: the road of forgiveness and restoration.
In her re-telling of the details of John's now infamous Rielle Hunter affair, his possible fathering of an illegitimate child, and the excruciating personal pain of his less than honest confession to his wife of 31 years, Elizabeth captures the substance of what it takes to forgive. Where I, and most Americans would be found lacking, Elizabeth stands as a giant of faith and forgiveness. No doormat is she. A redwood, more likely.
Elizabeth's story makes plain these realities of why so few marriages successfully navigate through such a traumatic infidelity.
1.Forgiveness takes time. It does not occur quickly or overnight. Elizabeth is brutally honest that she is still growing in forgiveness toward John after his betrayal. After all, she honestly admits that the one gift she had asked from him at their wedding was his faithfulness. Overcoming the collapse of that promise, which was all-important to her, does not come easily or quickly.
2.Elizabeth clearly states the personal pain and humiliation she has suffered. Her details are not contrived. They are heartfelt and painful to read. She threw up when John made his first, less than whole, confession. The pain only began there; the public humiliation is still subsiding. Here was a woman fighting for her own life with cancer, and struggling to raise children while John led a very high-profile life. And now she is known as the betrayed spouse, left standing with empty promises. Elizabeth does not shy away from admitting the pain of that.
3.Learning to trust an erring spouse after a betrayal is difficult. It often requires coaching from a professional. How does one begin to trust after a betrayal that deep? Again, Elizabeth is honest here: the challenges are great. That is why she answered Oprah's question about whether she still loves John in the way she did: “It is complicated.” She tells the truth when she says she is glad that they have at least moved from “day to day” to “month to month.” One does not merely hit “Reset” and move forward. Trusting again will face some fits and starts.
4.Best of all, Elizabeth's story reveals one reason why women are more able to forgive than men. She thinks of her children and family first. Elizabeth knows full well the challenges children face when a marriage dissolves. Her instinct as a mother is to try to keep the family intact if at all possible, even in the face of the pain of humiliation and public betrayal. The children come first, a maternal instinct, allows the woman to rise above the sting to pride and find a way forward. And Elizabeth Edwards is working to do just that.
Thus, I stand and applaud Elizabeth Edwards. She will surely face more ridicule from friend and foe alike for her stance. For her openness. For her story.
Elizabeth has captured the heart of her faith. A faith that forgives. A faith that offers a second chance. A faith that believes in the hard work of redemption. And a faith that puts the needs of children at or above the same level as the needs of adults. Elizabeth Edwards is a spiritual giant, a redwood of the faith. She is no doormat. And her telling of her story proves it. More importantly, her telling of the story offers a very real way forward for others, an offering not insignificant in a culture of blame and punishment.
Good stuff happening on the web site starting today. Our team is always looking for ways to help you live out your faith. We especially want to help parents.
So, beginning today, 2 new features to the Allen Hunt Show web site.
1) Rich Maring's See No Evil blog. Rich is the founder of See No Evil software, which helps parents monitor and guide their kids online. Great help in protecting your kids from the dangers of online porn and predators. We have entered into an agreement where Rich will blog a few times a week on topics to help parents protect their kids.
2) Rich and I will do a podcast about every 10 days or so to help parents as well. Real life topics facing real parents. And it is all free to you. Check out the first one here.
So, beginning today, 2 new features to the Allen Hunt Show web site.
1) Rich Maring's See No Evil blog. Rich is the founder of See No Evil software, which helps parents monitor and guide their kids online. Great help in protecting your kids from the dangers of online porn and predators. We have entered into an agreement where Rich will blog a few times a week on topics to help parents protect their kids.
2) Rich and I will do a podcast about every 10 days or so to help parents as well. Real life topics facing real parents. And it is all free to you. Check out the first one here.
My elder daughter went to see Prince Caspian. She said it is wonderful. I can't wait to go. But it will have to wait.
In the meantime, our family is going on a short trip to celebrate our 20th wedding anniversary (one of my 6 key goals for 2008). I am taking along a copy of two volumes from the Chronicles of Narnia series, including Prince Caspian. Sadly, the only one I have ever read is “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.” Planning on correcting that while on our trip. Will try to read at least two of the series while on planes, etc.
Have you been to see Prince Caspian? Please share your reviews and impressions.
And have you read any or all of the volumes in the series? Which was your favorite and why?
I am all ears – summer is upon us. Time for some good vacation and reading.
In the meantime, our family is going on a short trip to celebrate our 20th wedding anniversary (one of my 6 key goals for 2008). I am taking along a copy of two volumes from the Chronicles of Narnia series, including Prince Caspian. Sadly, the only one I have ever read is “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.” Planning on correcting that while on our trip. Will try to read at least two of the series while on planes, etc.
Have you been to see Prince Caspian? Please share your reviews and impressions.
And have you read any or all of the volumes in the series? Which was your favorite and why?
I am all ears – summer is upon us. Time for some good vacation and reading.
| Pages: 1 2 |
What's Allen Up To?
Fewer Americans today say that faith is their top priority (12%) than did so in 2006 (16%). Wonder if there is... http://tinyurl.com/273657k
I actually agree with Charlie Rangel. Wow. He introduced a bill that will never pass, requiring all Americans ... http://tinyurl.com/2coyho2
A few soldiers are now inquiring about conscientious objector status if Don't Ask/Don't Tell gets repealed. ... http://tinyurl.com/2vcgaha
A few soldiers are now inquiring about conscientious objector status if Don't Ask/Don't Tell gets repealed. ... http://tinyurl.com/2vcgaha
Mel Gibsonit is time to go home to your wife. Admit the mistake. Ask forgiveness for your temporary bout with ... http://tinyurl.com/2ugwc7v
Book that had the biggest impact on your life. Gotta be To Kill a Mockingbird with Catcher in the Rye a close second.
Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston are engaged. Believe it or not, this is the right thing to do. Glad they final... http://tinyurl.com/3ys3sbo
Now gay bloggers are criticizing the Pentagon for surveyiing soldiers regarding opinions and attitudes before ... http://tinyurl.com/2blxsw4
Irony: Mel Gibson will be banished by the Hollywood-types for his bad words. Roman Polanski has been defended ... http://tinyurl.com/2fkkjxm
Michael Steele says Afghanistan is a war of Obama's choosing and gets a lot of heat for saying it. Actually, ... http://tinyurl.com/2ug4fpx
Description
The Allen Hunt Show is about faith and life, plain and simple. According to a Gallup Poll in May of 2005, 85% of Americans consider their faith important or fairly important to their lives. Yet there is a gap on the talk radio airwaves that examines where faith and life come together. This show fills that gap like nothing currently on the radio. This is not one more political talk show, nor is it another faith-based counseling show because ultimately, life is not about what is right or left, but about what is right and wrong. The Allen Hunt Show takes on real life issues, with real life people, to see how faith can have a real impact. Join us on Saturdays from 9-12 PM and Sundays from 6-9 PM. Blessings!
RSS
Email Subscribe
Powered by FeedBurner
Recent Comments
| Erik on Help for Jennifer Keeton - and others | |
| Erik on Help for Jennifer Keeton - and others | |
| The Last Cainanite on Help for Jennifer Keeton - and others | |
| The Last Cainanite on Help for Jennifer Keeton - and others | |
| The Last Cainanite on Help for Jennifer Keeton - and others | |
| Erik on Help for Jennifer Keeton - and others | |
| Erik on Holy Anger | |
| Gordon Wayne Watts on Holy Anger | |
| Erik on Say Yes to a National Muslim Holiday | |
| SBIGGY on Barack Is To America Like Britney Putting on Panties: The Right PR Move | |
Calendar
Search
Categories
