Longing Revisited

I have been wrestling with longing.  Longing for things to be different.  Longing to be able to do and be more. Longing that I am not even sure what it is I am longing for.  I think many of us are feeling this way.  Longing for peace, longing for an end to the behavior of those who are supposed to be serving us in government, longing for belief in something larger than ourselves, and a longing for a sense of security.

As I was re-reading my previous post on Longing, I realize I am still looking for that sense of embodied spirit.  It does take courage to face longing because it threatens to overwhelm, to consume.  It can bring you to a dead stop with the sheer enormity of the feeling. I long to surrender and trust in Spirit, trust in the words of Julian Norwich that "all will be well, all manner of thing will be well."  Surrender requires courage, it requires we let go of the illusion that we are in control. It requires the courage to surrender, to trust that all will be well even when your ego is screaming no. I struggle to find that courage.  I struggle to trust because I want to be in control, I want to know I can fix it, that I can make it better.  The truth is I don't know that I can and even an deeper truth is that most things I can't fix or even make better.  Yet I always struggle to let go and trust because I am not sure what it would mean to do that.  So I live with the longing, I struggle with it, some days I fight with it, and some days it just seems to take over.  Some days the longing spurs me to do better and other days it is overwhelming.  On the days it is overwhelming I am forced to trust that it will be well, that tomorrow is another day. As long as I am alive I get another day to wrestle and another day to learn to surrender. Another day to figure out what I can change and to accept what I cannot. Another day to surrender to Spirit and to trust that all will be well.

What are you longing for in your life?  What is calling to you?  What gives you the courage to face the longing?  What can you change and what must your learn to accept?

A Delicate Balance: Freedom and Responsibility

I preached this sermon on Sunday July 13, 2014 at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of the Outer Banks.
Story:  "The Ant and the the Grasshopper," an adaptation of an Aesop fable
Reading: An excerpt from “Unitarian Universalism in Societal Perspective” Dr. Robert Bellah, Ware Lecture 1998

A Delicate Balance: Freedom & Responsibility

I have been doing a great deal of reading and reflecting on the topic of Freedom and Responsibility, the individual and the common good. Religion in the public square is a particular passion of mine and a focus along with ethics for my Masters of Theological Studies.  Recent news events such as the Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby, the growing wealth and income inequality, the stalemate in our government and now children from Guatemala and El Salvador arriving at our borders, alone, scared and waiting in detention centers to be sent back home to poverty and violence bring these issues to the forefront.  As I have been reflecting on these issues, I ask what is to be the response of our faith community, of Unitarian Universalism to the delicate balance of freedom and responsibility, the dignity of the individual and the interdependent web.

Our reading this morning comes from the Ware Lecture that Dr. Robert Bellah Sociologist and Author delivered at General Assembly in 1998.  Robert Bellah was a leader in the sociology of religion and his book Habits of the Heart that was required reading for any of us, like me, who studied the intersection of religion and culture.  The Ware Lecture is an endowed lecture that takes place each year at General Assembly, our annual meeting of all the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association. Each speaker is someone from outside of Unitarian Universalism who is asked to give us inspiration, challenge and reflection from outside our community.

Robert Bellah in Habits of the Heart critiques the growing and expanding individualism in America culture at large and particularly in religion.  In one particularly strong critique he describes an interview with a woman and her religious outlook as Sheilaism - the notion that each of us can be a religious authority unto ourselves. This may not be easy to hear in our context which prides itself on its commitment to the individual and the sanctity of individual belief.  Yet our principles affirm that it is a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning." The important words in that principle  are search - not a destination and that it is both free and responsible. Responsible to whom?  Who will hold each of us accountable for our search for truth and meaning?  One of the roles of the faith community is to provide not just a place of freedom for exploration, but accountability as well. How will we here at UUCOB hold each other responsible? What does that even mean?

Bellah in this 1998 address addressed how Unitarian Universalism is part of the dissenting churches which are a majority in the landscape of religion here in America. It is not our history of theological dissension, which Bellah argues is true of the majority of Christian churches, which makes us unique rather it is the unique ways we have been active in social action and justice - our anti-racism, our commitment to LGBTQ equality, gender equality and economic justice.  Bellah however issues us a challenge in this address. He points out that the majority of our principles have to do with the individual - individual rights is one way to say it and only a few of our principles deal with the responsibility to others and the broader world. Bellah argues for a flipping of our 7th principle - the interdependent web and our 1st principle - the inherent worth and dignity of each person.

Unitarian Universalism grew up with America.  While both Unitarianism and Universalism have deep roots going all the way back to the earliest days of Christianity and were certainly part of the Protestant Reformation in Europe, Unitarianism and Universalism have their own particularly American culture. Unitarianism emerged out of the congregational churches of New England which rejected the Puritan notion of the inherent depravity of human kind.  What we took with us from the tradition is our covenantal faith - that we bind ourselves together in covenant within each individual faith community and within our association. We pledge our support and accountability.

Unitarian Universalism grew up as America grew up. Our UU founders were men of the Enlightenment just like our Founding Fathers.  Both embraced the use of reason and science, the importance of conscience and the sanctity of the individual.  Just like America, Unitarian Universalism grew up with this inherent tension between the sanctity of the individual and the common good.

Bellah in Habits of the Heart and his book Broken Covenant argues that the individualism in America carries with it a deep shadow side - which is that in stressing the individual over the common good - including in our religious community - individualism has run amuck creating a situation in which America has the weakest social safety net, we struggle with how much we should invest in our common good - like infrastructure, the environment, and in assuring that the most vulnerable are cared for. In Europe with its tradition of established religion, Bellah argues, has provided some balance to individualism leading to a much stronger social safety net, stronger environmental protections and investments in infrastructure like transportation systems, solar energy in Germany and social programs which assure a minimum standard of living.

Yet here in America we are living in a time that is rapidly individualistic in a society that is growing more diverse by the day and within the context of globalization.  Bellah in our reading today tells us "an economic individualism which, though it makes no distinctions between persons except monetary ones, ultimately knows nothing of the sacredness of the individual."  I think it would sadden and outrage Bellah but not surprise him that this notion of economic individualism has now extended the rights of speech and religion to corporations.  The Supreme Court decisions in Citizens United and now Hobby Lobby have affirmed that corporations can have both free speech and religious liberty.  For today I want to focus on the Hobby Lobby decision. The Hobby Lobby decision to allow the religious beliefs of its owners to trump the religious liberties of the people who work for Hobby Lobby and the law of the United States.  Inherent in our freedom of religion is a tension between how faith communities should be afforded the freedom to organize and govern themselves and how they operate in the public square.  In Hobby Lobby the owners argued that in being required to offer forms of contraception that they believe cause abortions - regardless of the facts - is an affront to their religious liberty and freedom - an undue burden.  The Supreme Court said yes and despite all the claims in the decision that this is limited to contraception it does not take a constitutional law expert to see the next wave of lawsuits seeking exemption from all sorts of things including those related to LGBTQ equality.  Imagine for a moment the impact if all religious organizations had been exempted from the anti-discrimination laws?  What would that have done for the Civil Rights Movement?  What would our world look like if religious organizations could have opted out?  LGBTQ and Civil Rights groups have already withdrawn their support for the current version of the Employment Non-Discrimination act which has numerous exemptions for religious institutions. Our government is basically giving a free ticket to religious institutions to discriminate.  Suddenly religious liberty is not just afforded to individuals to be free to worship or not as they choose - but a right of corporations.

This all comes down to this inherent tension between the individual freedom and collective responsibility.  In each of these examples - our growing gap between the rich and poor, the crisis at our borders with children alone being held in detention centers with people shouting at the buses - go home!  Where is our compassion? Where is our empathy?  Do we ever stop to ask what would it take a parent to send their young child alone across numerous borders?  How bad must it be to do that? Ironically in our individualism we actually diminish the sacredness of the individual through greed and a lack of attention to our common good - our collective responsibility to one another.

In a world that is getting smaller, and a global economy, it is not enough anymore to say we just take care of our own.  For the actions here affect people all around the world.  Our hands are not clean and we have to examine how policies and actions here in the United States are contributing to conditions that have parents sending their children, alone, to this country with the hope of a better life.  We need to look at how our actions that privilege certain individuals diminish the well being of the whole, of us all.

What does our Unitarian Universalist faith have to tell us about this?  How do we respond?  Now first I am not here to propose policies or say that there is only one right answer.  The question for me is how do we as Unitarian Universalists offer a response to the individualism that is tearing the country quite literally apart. We have a culture right now in which Joe the Plumber can get national press and say "I am sorry your kid is dead but that doesn't trump my constitutional right to bear arms."  That right there captures the idea that the individual trumps all notion of the common good - all notion that we have to be in this together.

We UU's have at times seen the ugly side of individualism within our congregations.  We have seen individuals within congregations behave in ways that are destructive to the whole of the community.  I know at times this community of UUCOB has struggled to care for the health of the whole while caring for the individual. Here you have had to learn the importance of covenant. You have learned the importance of setting limits and boundaries - of saying if you are to be here among us then this behavior, this speech cannot take place here.  In this year of search, it is not about the search for the perfect person for an individual or even a group of like-minded individuals rather it is a search for the person who can serve the whole - can serve what is needed for the common good of the community.

A delicate balance must be struck.  Just like in our story of the ant and the grasshopper.  Too often in America the grasshopper is left out in the cold - like the ant many believe well you didn't prepare for winter and now you are experiencing the consequences.  Yet the common good, calls us to welcome in the grasshopper, to feed the grasshopper and it is then we see the unique contribution of the grasshopper - so that even the busy, hardworking ant had to agree that the winter passed more agreeably with the music of the grasshopper.

True freedom must come with responsibility. It is not enough to affirm the individual without acknowledging that we are all connected.  What happens and affects one of us, affects us all.  A balance must be found between my individual religious belief and conscience and the common good - how I embody that in the public square. Now more than ever we need a stronger sense of the common good.  We have to stop talking about our safety net as "entitlement" programs and see them as ways we balance our freedom with responsibility. To put it another way from the preamble of our Constitution - "promote the general welfare and establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility for ourselves and posterity."  As Unitarian Universalists we can model this.  We can bring a message that the individual is important, sacred, filled with worth and dignity and that none of us does this on our own. We can practice accountability.  We can practice engaging in a search for truth and meaning that is both free and responsible - that we hold one another accountable.
In a world in which corporations have been given rights previously held only to individuals, in which children are arriving alone, scared, hungry at our borders fleeing violence, and a growing number of people are simply not able to support themselves economically - we have to find to begin prioritizing the common good. It is not enough to affirm the rights of the individual - we must find a way to care for one another and realize that supporting the common good actually supports the well being of each individual.

As Unitarian Universalists, who have grown up with America, we can help show the way. We can show that we can respect and honor the web, promote the common good and still affirm the dignity and worth of the individual. We can say with conviction "you don't have to do this alone."

Blessed Be.

Reflections on Religious Liberty after Hobby Lobby Decision

Now I know plenty of electronic ink has been spilled and shared on this topic. I may not have a great deal of new insight to offer and I am going to write any way because I can't NOT write.  I can't NOT write because I am still appalled, still angry and still very concerned afraid of what is coming down the line.  I am sure that what is next is that since Hobby Lobby doesn't have to provide forms of contraception that are against their sincerely held religious beliefs than why should they have to hire LGBTQ people or provide the same spousal benefits to same sex couples.  Even religious progressives are wringing our hands a bit, as the letter to President Obama on non-discrimination in federal contracts is concerned about "unity" and respecting a diversity of religious belief - code for please let the religious people discriminate as they see fit.  I heard this once too often in liberal Christian circles ("But we can't split the Church") around LGBTQ people and that is when I left.

Religious liberty and free exercise are complex issues - where does my right to practice my religion, to live according to my conscience intersect with others and how do we balance that in a diverse society. The answers are not always clear cut but in the Hobby Lobby decision a clear line has been crossed.  Now a for-profit corporation that hires people and sells products in the public square is looking to have their religious beliefs imposed on others in the public square.  They want to impose their religious beliefs on their employees by way of denying them certain benefits in a compensation package they earn with their labor. Compensation is not just the check someone brings home it is all the benefits too.  It is the equivalent of saying you can have a vacation but you can't spend it here or there or doing this or that because my deeply held religious beliefs are against that.  In this case, female employees of Hobby Lobby cannot get coverage for those forms of contraception that Hobby Lobby has deemed as against their sincerely held religious beliefs and in a move which would have our Founding Fathers spinning - the Supreme Court said yes that is ok. Oh they may have said this only applies to contraception but you bet your last dollar that the lawsuits are lining up for people to request religious exemption from all sorts of things - particularly things around equality for LGBTQ people.

Yet I want to turn to something that may not be getting quite as much press as Hobby Lobby is at that moment. That is about an article that appear in The Atlantic.  It is a letter to President Obama encouraging a religious exemption to hiring those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.  It is a whole other blog post to write about the "right" of religious organizations to discriminate against whole groups of people.  It reminds me of those Christian ministers who told Martin Luther King Jr that he was moving too quickly on equal rights for African Americans - I am sure some of them would have loved a religious exemption too! Yet it is important to note, that these religious progressives are arguing for the ability of sincerely held religious belief to trump public good and others' religious liberty.

The letter is fascinating in that these faith leaders, many of whom have worked with the President on other issues of faith, praise him for this Executive Order that will ban discrimination in federal contracts.  Since Congress refuses to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the President will do what he can. Now what this order would do is say that organizations that hold federal contracts cannot discriminate against LGBTQ people.  So if Salvation Army has a federal contract for its work, it can't discriminate against LGBTQ persons even though its deeply held religious beliefs may call for that.  Basically these faith leaders want President Obama to allow religious organizations to discriminate as they see fit even when working with federal tax dollars.

We have seen religious organizations face this dilemma before with Catholic Charities withdrawing from the adoption business after courts ruled same-sex couples had to be treated the same as opposite-sex couples. We saw this in San Francisco when the city ordered domestic partnership benefits be offered by anyone doing business with the city. In San Francisco, places like Catholic Charities got very creative by offering a very broad definition of "domestic partner" to whom they would extend benefits and therefore be in compliance with the city regulations and in balance with Catholic teaching. Catholic Charities did not shut down, the world did not end and religious liberty was upheld by a balance between the religious convictions of the Catholic Church and the public square of San Francisco. In places where Catholic Charities withdrew from the adoption business, other organizations stepped in.   Children did not stop being placed for adoption just because Catholic Charities felt its sincerely held religious beliefs trumped placing children in homes with same sex couples.

These faith leaders however are calling for religious organizations to be able to hold their deeply held beliefs, keep their government contracts and leave LGBTQ people out in the cold - in fact worse than that, for them to be able to fire at will any employee who they discover or whom they think is lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. They don't even have to "prove" it, they can just think it and out the person goes.  One does wonder what Jesus would do?  The reality is no one has a "right" to a government contract.  If a religious organizations just can't bring itself to not discriminate against LGBTQ people than don't take the federal contract.  Don't worry some organization will, maybe even a faith based organization that affirms the dignity of LGBTQ people and their lives, will take up the work. Religious liberty does not exist in order to put one person's or organization's religious beliefs above another's especially within the public square or marketplace that is supposed to be separated from religion. That is the heart of religious liberty - the ability to practice by one's own choice, not the choice of others no matter how sincerely held those religious beliefs are.  In the public square we have to make accommodations, it may not be all our way and that is a good thing. That is something in America to celebrate. Yet what these faith leaders seem to be saying is that the government should bend, it should put the common good behind the sincerely held religious beliefs of others - even when there is a wide diversity of opinion among people of faith and people of no faith.  What these faith leaders are asking is that President Obama grant special privilege to certain faith groups over others. That is what the Supreme Court did in the Hobby Lobby decision - it said that the faith stances of the owners trumped that of the common good and most importantly of the consciences of the people who work for Hobby Lobby.  To me, this represents an establishment of religion, an establishment of certain religious beliefs over others - the very thing the first amendment sought to avoid.

Now why would these faith leaders ask for this? After praising the President for upholding the full inclusion and rights of LGBTQ persons, why would they want to give religious organizations a license to treat LGBTQ persons as second class, as less than?  Well it does it in the name of religious liberty and national unity and celebrating our diversity. It says that faith groups should be given a pass to discriminate.  It says those employees own religious liberty must be sacrificed. Their rights to employment without discrimination must be sacrificed.  Those who are gay and lesbian are good but others get to say they aren't and that view gets to win.  Oh, it all sounds very much like religious tolerance and inclusivity but really it is a letter that says while rights for LGBTQ people are important they are not AS important as the discriminatory practices of certain religious groups seeking federal money ... you want public money then you need to abide by the public values which may or may not conform to your religious beliefs/values.  Let me repeat no one and no organization has a right to a federal contract - religious beliefs or not. If an organization can't play by the rules, then it can do its work without federal grants and other faith based or secular groups that are willing to play by the rules can get those federal grants. That is how religious liberty, pluralism, and the public good operate.  Just like Bob Jones University vs the United States decision upholding the IRS's ability to revoke the University's tax exempt status because of their racially discriminatory policies - ie, Bob Jones didn't get to use its sincerely held religious beliefs and keep its tax exempt status. Yet Bob Jones still exists today. In this case religious liberty was not allowed to be used as a tool to discriminate against people in the public square. To read from the decision the Supreme Court said "Racially discriminatory educational institutions cannot be viewed as conferring a public benefit within the above 'charitable' concept or within the congressional intent underlying 501(c)(3)."  Discrimination against LGBTQ persons can also not be seen as a public benefit despite the deeply held religious beliefs of those who somehow believe that giving LGBTQ people their full civil rights is the equivalent of the end of civilization as we know it.  Plenty of people felt that about integration, interracial marriage and civil rights. Now we look back and are appalled that people could believe that, particularly on the basis of faith. Once again we need to place the common good, the public good in balance with sincerely held religious belief. Sometimes that will mean that no matter how much a person or an organization holds a belief, such as Hobby Lobby or Bob Jones University, it will have to accommodate itself to operate in the public square.  Then it will be faced with the choice of following their faith or operating in the public square.  For true religious liberty to ring, then we all need to learn to live together with all our diversity and all the beauty and challenge that comes with it!

I Don't Make a Good Nomad

Over the past few months my family and I have been rather nomadic.  We moved out of Williamsburg in February and then we have lived in three different places here on the Outer Banks before finally landing in our place for this year in Kitty Hawk.  This weekend we were finally able to get our stuff from storage in Williamsburg (we landed here June 1 and have been doing a modified form of camping here in our new place). We have most of our stuff  although it wouldn't quite all fit on the truck (yes this is where you just go UGH!!!). So now I am writing to you from our couch (hooray!) surrounded by boxes and nothing quite where it should be. All three of us are exhausted and sore from lifting and carrying.

I have new found respect for Sarah and Abraham, the Israelites who wandered the dessert for forty years and all the other nomads of the Hebrew Scriptures. That is way too much packing and unpacking. Way too much of not being settled.  I would have been one of the loudest complaining Israelites and probably would have been barred from ever actually entering the Promised Land because of it.  Ok maybe not and I actually think the Divine is much much more benevolent that that but certainly the other Israelites would have been done with me.  Let's just leave it that I would never make it as a permanent nomad.

One reason I am terrible nomad is that I need way too much stuff with me.  I get a tad too frustrated with missing certain items - you know like spatulas and our really good knife!  We love to cook and we were very lucky that in most of the places we stayed the kitchens were well stocked. When we finally landed here we had very limited kitchen supplies (hence the no spatula and no good knife).  Secondly the constantly living out of bags, packing up our belongings every few weeks meant that I never felt settled and once I would get settled we were off again. I have discovered I have a deep need for place - I really need to have a place to spread out and call home.  Finally we are here and so is our stuff (ok most of our stuff) and all that is left is the long hard work of unpacking and finding homes for all our belongings.  We unpack knowing that we are here for this year and then life will shift again. My goal for this year is to put down roots, not hold back, enjoy all the Outer Banks has to offer and then know that I lived fully while I was here and knowing that I only have a certain amount time to enjoy it.  I am going to risk it being hard to say goodbye!  And I am certainly going to enjoy not being a nomad for the next eleven months!

Ah yes now to the unpacking!

So are you a nomad or not so much?  What are your best and worst memories of moving?
What makes a place home for you?

Becoming Fully Oneself - Revisited

I am rather enjoying this exercise of going back and revisiting my early blog posts. So much of what I wrote about then is true for me now.  Parker Palmer continues to inspire me and I have probably read Let Your Life Speak at least two more times since this post.

It seems particularly appropriate right now to re-post this brief reflection on Becoming Fully Oneself.  As you may have noticed I have just done some updates to this site.  I have changed the tag line to reflect more closely the writing and work I see myself doing now.  The more I read, whether it is Parker Palmer or Otto Scharmer, the work of living authentically and living from one's authentic self comes up over and over again. In a culture and world that seeks our conformity, that asks us to put up a false front in order to fit in and get along, the call and longing to live authentically is essential.  I see my vocation is to assist individuals and groups to live more authentically, to be more fully alive.  So please check out my consulting page to learn more!

Right now I am personally in the midst of a situation that is requiring that I claim all the events of my life, particularly events of my life that I feel a great deal of shame about and have run from for many years.  It is not easy, it is not comfortable and a part of me wishes it would all just go away.  Most of me welcomes this opportunity to stop running, face the past and no longer let it control me.  I am still on the journey to become "fierce with reality."  I can only become free of the past if I am willing to stop and face it; only then will it lose its power over me.

Is there anything in your past that you are running from?  Are there events of your life that you  failing to claim?  What does "becoming fierce with reality" mean to you?

PS. I also welcome feedback on the changes I made to the site!
Please let me know what you think or ways it could be even better. Also please share my posts!

Learning to Lead with Yes

So for most of my life I have led with no, no I won't do that, no I don't believe that, no you can't tell me I can't do that.  Now to some degree there has been success in that I have followed my call and my dream despite being told that it was not financially viable; that it could be my advocation but not my vocation. Now at times I did try not working in the world of faith and religion and I do enjoy higher education, yet time and again, like the irresistible call of the Sirens, I come back to my first loves of spirituality and faith. Yet despite that irresistible yearning and call, I have never full let myself believe that I could genuinely succeed at it. It was like unconsciously I had to prove those right who said this was not a viable way to make a living.  So sometimes I made myself small, sometimes I let fear and anxiety get the better of me, sometimes I kept waiting for permission, and always having a certain degree of success but not quite enough.

This week I had an encounter with a group in which I once again led with my no.  I didn't quite realize how much my "NO" came through. I thought I was really trying to be curious about a push the group was making toward certain options for earning money and yet what came through was very much my "No I won't do that!".  Needless to say the group came back at me hard and then I only felt more cornered, more trapped, like a small child being ordered to do something she did not want to do.  It was my partner who pointed out that all they heard was my NO and that was it.

I took the weekend off from the group and stepped back. What did it mean that I led with No and how might that be true in other areas?  I realize first that we live in a culture of No.  We always begin with why something won't work.  We mock ideas like world peace - we all say we want it but don't really believe it is possible.  We have an entire government right now predicated on no.  No we won't vote, no we won't even bring it up for a vote, we will stand here and refuse to even let the matter come to the floor for consideration no matter how much when Americans are polled they want our politicians to find solutions to our common problems.  Almost any time something is proposed it almost always begins with why it won't work.  So it is not surprising that I too have learned to lead with no.  Yet what if I stopped, stepped back and asked what if I could, what if I said yes to myself, yes to my dreams, yes to what I already know instead of going around asking for permission to even get started.  What difference would it make to lead with yes?

Brian Johnson from en*theos recently posted about the Angel Advocate. The Angel Advocate is the opposite of the Devil's Advocate. The Devil's Advocate is the voice that seeks to challenge and disrupt - it is the original Hebrew meaning of "satan" which is to obstruct or oppose.  The voice of satan is the one to offer challenge, to disrupt established patterns of thought. In our culture we love the Devil's Advocate - we love to obstruct and oppose before something even gets off the ground. It can take different guises but some of the more common ones are "it will never work" "there is not enough money" "we tried something like that before it didn't work" "we have always done it this way" and I am sure you can add to the list. What are your favorites?

So anytime a new idea comes along or a thought about something different immediately there are a hundred objections - for me anyway - before I have even opened my mouth to say anything to anyone else.  Johnson talks about the Angel Advocate as the voice that explores what is possible if it went right, to see all the possibilities if we lived fully into this idea or dream.  Johnson argues that maybe before we let the devil come in with all the reasons why it won't work, let the angel do the work of exploring what might be possible and how it could work.  What if we led with the yes first?

If I led with yes first and what might that look like? Maybe instead of just talking about turning Scattered Revelations into my personal brand and consulting business, I would actually do it. I would actually figure out how to market my blog, to increase readership. If I led with yes I would stop talking about creating a website to officiate at weddings here on the Outer Banks, I would actually do it. Instead of talking about offering classes, I would get started designing one and figuring out where to hold it, how much to charge etc. Instead of just saying I wanted to do x y z, I would actually start doing it and when I didn't know how to do it, I would figure out who does know.  Sure it may not work, maybe it won't give me enough income and I will still need some other ways to earn money but stopping myself and letting others stop me before I even start guarantees that it won't work.  I have spent a lifetime leading with no and I don't expect that overnight I will suddenly be an expert at yes, but it is time to start leading with yes. It is time to listen to that angel and a lot less to the devil.  It is time to learn a new way!

Are you leading with yes or with no?  What is the role of the Devil's Advocate in your life?  

What do you think of this idea of an Angel's Advocate?  

What might be possible in your life if you led with yes instead of no?

Embracing Monsters - Revisited

So I have been thinking how I can have two blog posts each week without having to create two original posts each week.  I now have 100 blog posts so for my second post each week I will revisit a previous post, add some additional thoughts and see how I have changed and grown over the years of this blog.  For my first such post I am revisiting a post from my first year of blogging, 2010 and my post Embracing Monsters.

Also I am still looking for feedback on my proposed new logo and tag line.  Please put your thoughts in the comments!

I read this post and I think how much has changed and yet how much remains the same.  I still struggle with the monsters of failure and success.  I wonder now how to dance with these monsters of fear - maybe figuring out that they are not always monsters and may be friends.  Maybe it is time to make friends with my monsters.

I have to say of late I have been struggling with the monster of scarcity.  I am seeking ways to earn more income and that is both exciting on the one hand and very challenging on the other. I wonder how to get started with being more entrepreneurial.  I have done some freelance writing which I enjoy but the jobs I have taken pay too little to be viable.  I wonder about how to market myself and put myself out there.  I think about writing a book.  I dance with this fear of scarcity and although lately it has felt more like a fight with me on the losing end.

Another thing that strikes me is how much in 2010 I wanted to dive deep and put down roots.  In many ways I did that and in others I didn't. Now I am in a place, in a job that I know ends in a year.  What does putting down roots mean in this context?  How am I both fully here and looking ahead to what's next?  Again the paradoxes abound - it is not just one thing or another - it is this and that and another.

I am still struggling to embrace the monsters, to ride them all the way down and to live authentically. So the dance with my monsters friends continues!

What are your monsters?  Are they new ones or old ones?  

How are you learning to embrace them and make them your friends?