WE CAN WORK IT OUT

I would like to take off today on the lyrics to a popular Beatles song of a generation ago. Let’s think this through. . .  

                    We Can Work It Out

                               by John Lennon and Paul McCartney

Try to see it my way
Do I have to keep on talking till I can't go on?
While you see it your way
Run the risk of knowing that our love may soon be gone

We can work it out
We can work it out

Think of what you're saying
You can get it wrong and still you think that it's all right
Think of what I'm saying
We can work it out and get it straight, or say good night

We can work it out
We can work it out

Life is very short, and there's no time
For fussing and fighting, my friend
I have always thought that it's a crime
So, I will ask you once again
Try to see it my way
Only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong
While you see it your way
There's a chance that we might fall apart before too long

We can work it out
We can work it out

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Think of what the lyrics are saying.  The singer is saying, “I’m right and you are wrong.”  But then he is saying “WE can work it out.”  Do you detect some problem here?  I do. There is truth mingled with error in the whole set of lyrics. 

Truth:  We can work it out.

Truth: Life is very short, and there’s no time for fussing and fighting, my friend 

Error:  …see it my way. 

Singer’s interpretation of ‘seeing it your way’:  You are wrong. Result?  Defensiveness.

 

What do each of us (couples, employers / employees, neighbors, teams, nations) want?  To get our way.

A better solution:  Let’s get together and work it out with a ‘win-win’ solution.

 

How to do it:  Agree that neither party will try to get what they want by lying, deceit, flattery, manipulation, bribes, demanding, force, position power, threats or even compromise (I will soon get to this). 

Agree that there could be a third way (not my way, not your way, but a better way).

The way?  Seek first to understand then to be understood. Come to understand the other person’s perspective first.  Listen, and then listen again.  Only then talk.  You have two ears and one mouth.  Use them in that proportion.  If we rely only on our own intelligence or experiences we suffer from a shortage of data.  Tap into their view of things. Add to it your view of things.  Explore other views of things pertaining to your concern.

   

Then, Synergize (not ‘my way’ alone; not ‘your way’ alone but a third way where we both ‘win’). Synergizing is becoming interdependent. We create or come to recognize new alternatives—something that wasn’t there before—creating a new script for us working together. You complement each other—not compete with each other.  We do this by aligning ourselves with universal principles that are outside of ourselves. Some of these principles are Life itself—what sustains it and promotes it; another is Justice or fairness; others are Responsibility; Work; Peace; Respect; Mercy; Purpose; Integrity; Honesty; Cooperation; Faith in something higher than ourselves.

Synergizing is better than compromising.  Compromise is lose-lose: (3-2=1)  Synergizing is Win-Win – a new solution arrived at by working together: (1+1=3 or more!)   

Yes, we can work it out. 

But we first have to get out of ourselves. 

p.s.  I would recommend a careful reading of Stephen R. Covey’s outstanding book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.  This is one of the three or four most important books I have ever read.      

A MORALIST

I’ve described myself as a latter-day moralist—an unpopular profession in an increasingly cynical and secular world. 

A moralist was, in earlier times ‘a voice crying in the wilderness’ . . . ‘the same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light. . . he was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light’ (John1:23, 7, 8 Holy Bible, KJV).  The moralist of old provided a witness and a warning.  He was a counterpoint to common culture. He (or she) chose to stand on higher ground, to resist the pull toward popularity or self-indulgence, to try to lift and lighten, to soothe and strengthen, to benefit and bless.  Such a person was not the ideal but believed in focusing on the ideal—and sought to try to influence others to embrace the values and virtues that led to that ideal—a  productive, acceptable, and happier life. 

Unfortunately not only is it, in our time, unpopular to assert that one is concerned with morals, values, character—even principles, especially ‘eternal principles’—Isn’t he presumptuous!—but it is considered pompous, ‘holier than thou,’ unseemly, and not ‘politically correct’ with many of our supposedly more liberal friends.  Consequently, one who does so may be subtly maligned or at least quickly dismissed.  For who does he think he is?

Ironically, in the name of ‘tolerance,’ which many secularists enthrone as the highest value, they are intolerant to those who are so bold to assert that the hedonistic pursuit of ‘self’ is not in the top three, or maybe even in the top ten, of acceptable life-pursuits of one inclined to respect and value traditional Christian or even traditional ‘Western’ values.

 

The problem is that so many of our young are not even acquainted with classical values.  They are not aware that work, sacrifice for others’ benefit, the values espoused in the Boy Scout oath (don’t they laugh at that!) were what brought this nation to ‘its finest hour.’ Neither are they aware that the dethronement of these values is the cause of many of our most pressing problems—personally and societally.

   

And so, I view myself as a spokesman for what was once a very common set of values and standards of decency that respected life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  But life (Jesus said, “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly”  (John 10:10)) is not valued if it is killed intrauterinely or as a terrorist act of revenge or as an act of lust by deranged men; liberty is not paid for without self-restraint and sacrifice and does not come without responsibility; and happiness does not come with guarantee or entitlement but rather by a clear-conscience and the experience of serving others.

 

Morals are no longer part of the public conversation except from certain pulpits.  Old Schooler seeks, in its very modest way, to change that.

Our moral compass needs reset.  We need to take back our social institutions from the cultural deconstructionists and put the heart back into our demoralized older generation and our younger generation who have had it carved out of them. C. S. Lewis wrote in The Abolition of Man; “We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise.  We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.  We castrate and then bid the geldings be fruitful.”

We need more men and women who are counterpoint spokespersons –more who are not afraid of crying in the wilderness of a culture and social institutions gone terribly astray.