On Giving Advice

I had breakfast today with someone who I was hoping might be a potential friend in this area. She is a pastor-colleague, not a parishioner, and I was looking forward to a time of sharing, reflecting and being together. She asked me how I was doing but as soon as I began to talk she interrupted with "well, what you need to do is..." and the rest of the conversation, no matter how many times I tried to change the subject or divert the conversation elsewhere pretty much consisted of her giving me a great deal of unsolicited and unwanted advice. I found this not only unhelpful, but I left the breakfast almost in tears. Not only did the "advice giving" not end up giving me anything that I could use, but I left feeling beaten up. This is not to say that there aren't times for advice giving: or to say it better - there are times when we all need advice. It is helpful to give advice when it is being sought after or when someone has asked for advice. It is also helpful, most of the time, to interfere and give advice when someone is in danger or being threatened. Sometimes we see things that a person entrenched in the situation can't see, and then it can be helpful, at times, to help a person see a situation in a different light. If you are a teacher, your job is to help correct, which is a form of advice giving.

However, that being said, advice should never be the first response to someone's sharing: never. The first response should always be some indication that you've heard what the other person is saying. A next response might be some kind of empathy, some kind of reflecting back what you have heard. These responses help a person feel valued, feel heard, feel supported. They also help you, as a listener, to make sure that you really have heard, accurately, what the other is sharing. Also, before you give advice, I think it is really important to keep the following in mind about advice giving:

1. As I mentioned in another blog, there are countless studies that show that almost always women in particular do not share in order to get advice; they share for many reasons but not usually for advice. They are seeking to build relationships by sharing, they are processing out loud, they are looking for empathy and support. Giving advice is usually very far down in the list of reasons why many people share.

2. Giving advice carries with it several messages, most of which are not empowering and therefore are really problematic, especially for people (such as, again, many women) with self-esteem issues. These messages include:
a. you are not capable of solving your own problems, so I need to step in and tell you what do to.
b. you are not capable of seeing all aspects of this situation, but I am (even though I'm not even in the situation) so I am going to point out to you what you can't see.
c. you are not handling the situation right. Let me tell you what to do to handle this situation right.
d. You are not handling the situation well. Let me tell you what you should be doing differently.
e. You need me to take care of this for you by telling you what to do. You need me in order to function in this situation, in this event, in this....life.
In other words, advice giving, when advice has not been sought, says to the one sharing that they are incapable and incompetent. This makes the advice giver feel pretty good: I can solve your problems: I am capable and competent. But it breaks down the esteem of the one sharing.

3. People really don't learn to solve their own problems or to grow in their ability to handle problems by being told by others what to do. Instead this creates a dependence on others to tell them what to do and how to handle things. In a sense advice is the "giving a fish" in a situation, rather than talking through a situation until the other has a solution which is more the "teaching to fish" solution.

4. Giving advice usually shuts down the conversation. I share, you tell me what to do, end of conversation. It isn't a way to grow in a relationship; it isn't a way of continuing a conversation. (Actually, I think this is sometimes part of why people do give advice, as a way to end/shorten/shut off a conversation).

Pastors are required to receive training in pastoral care. My pastoral care class emphasized again and again the importance of not giving advice but of listening, reflecting, asking questions, listening some more. It therefore always amazes me how many pastors jump into the "let me tell you what to do" mode; both with parishioners and also with others: friends, colleagues, etc. Maybe this is because it puts one in a power position to be in the situation of telling another what they need to do. But as pastors we really need to remember our training, and remember that our job is to empower the other. Our job is, in a sense, to put ourselves out of a job by helping empower people to lead, to begin the programs and carry through the programs that are meaningful to them, to empower our parishioners to care for one another, to grow in their ability to solve problems, work through problems, and develop creative solutions. We just plain don't do this by giving advice. The only way we can do this is by empowering others to develop their own solutions and supporting them in those solutions. Does this take more time and energy? Of course. It is a lot more work to help others come up with their own solutions than to just give advice. It takes a lot more time. It involves a much longer relationship and much longer conversations. It doesn't create a dependency, and maybe too many of us pastors think we need that dependency. But our job is not to create dependency. It is to help people grow and move forward on their journeys.

So my "advice" is to be careful about giving advice. My advice is to be slow on giving advice. My advice is to always see advice-giving as a last solution, not a first. I won't be meeting with this colleague again. A relationship based on advice-giving doesn't work for me. I know I'm not alone in feeling this way. How about you?

Another commentary about taking things literally

My kids and I were listening to the Proclaimer's "I'm Gonna Be" (500 miles) - a really, fun, good dancing, up-beat song today. And Aislynn and Jonah started discussing the song, "Well, he must live really far away from the person he loves," Jonah says. And Aislynn adds, "well, why would he need to walk all that way. Can't he drive a car or ride a bike?" I found myself trying to explain that he is not needing to walk all that way and that he doesn't live that far away, that he is just saying that he loves the other so much that he would be willing to walk all that way for them. "Well, then, he must live far away!" Jonah reiterated. And Aislynn added, "Wow, that must be so sad to have to walk all that way."

I try again, "you know, it's like when someone says they would walk across the desert to be with the person they love. They don't actually need to do that and they don't actually live near a desert, they are just saying they would be willing to do a whole lot for the person they love."

"Well, why would they say that, if they don't live near a desert?"

I found the whole conversation hilarious and I could hardly keep a straight face, but it also caused me to think about all the people who are talking about the Bible in the same way. They discuss the anatomy of the "fish that swallowed Jonah" or they try to figure out when exactly Noah's flood happened. And once again, they miss the depth and complexity - they miss the very message of these stories as they are distracted by the details of the story itself and the historical/scientific validity of the events described.

Sigh. It will be a long journey across the desert of 500 miles for some of these folks to find truth, to find God, to find love. But I have no doubt God will still cross it. ;-).

Discernment

I've been thinking the last few days about the idea of "call". I love the definition "the place where the world's greatest need and your greatest passion intersect". Several people have said this, some give credit to Frederick Buechner, though I'm not sure he is the originator. But I've always loved that definition. However, as I've thought about it, I guess I'm no longer convinced that it is always true. There are too many people about whom we've heard who clearly have a gift for a particular craft or profession, who have served the world with that gift and have answered the world's need with it, but who do not really enjoy the activity. I know of this being the case with many musicians - prodigies about whom we've heard that making music is even painful, for one reason or another. But for whom it is clearly their gift. I remember reading about an amazing musician who talked about how he heard the music that he composed in his head all the time. He never felt that he created it: it always felt like he was more a channel or a conduit for these pieces of music. He felt forced to write down the music he heard in his head; he had to get it out on paper or it wouldn't stop "haunting" him. This haunting was not pleasant, but it was part of his life, part of what he had to do. Isn't that a "call" even if it is not the call he would have chosen?

On the other side of this, we know of people, like many of the singers who audition on American Idol, who have a "passion" but have no gift for it. Or all the millions of "writers" now who cannot get books published, or cannot get them sold, because they do not have the gift at one level or another.

More and more I'm coming to believe that it is a luxury to be in a situation where your passion can find outlet in serving the needs of the world and where your passion actually matches your gifts and your situation. Most of the people in the world can only focus on survival. It doesn't matter what their passion is: they have to put food on the table for their families, and that is their "call" at that moment. For those in the next economic step, they have work, but again, it is a work that provides, not a work that is satisfying or fulfilling of a call. When you look at sheer percentages, it is a small number who find true joy in their work, whose circumstances and whose gifts match their passions, and even fewer whose passions then match the 'needs of the world'.

For those who might have the opportunities to live out their passion in service to the world, I still find myself considering the complexities of the idea of "call". Presbyterians believe that "call" is discerned in community. Yes, that community includes the person who is the center of that call, but they are but one piece of that puzzle. As I said above, there is good reason for this. Two examples immediately come to mind: both surrounding people whose passion was for ministry, but... One was a person who was clearly mentally ill but believed they were called into the ministry. The community discerned that there was no way they were capable of handling the challenges of ministry. This person went on to a different denomination which does not have the same understanding of discernment and has injured countless people as a result. The other was a sexual predator who wanted to use that place of the power of ministry to abuse the women and children under him. These were people, again, whose "passion" did not match their "call." You could stretch the saying above and say, "well, this is an example of when the world's greatest need could not be filled by that person's greatest passion" and there is truth in that (especially with the second individual) but it is also the case that their gifts did not match their passion.

The examples I've given above are negative examples. What about the use of community to help someone discern what their call is instead of what their call is not. I don't think this happens as often, but I think there is great value in it. A personal example of this: I never saw myself going into music ministry or doing music of any kind professionally. I therefore did not study music in college. I hate to practice. I don't like the solitary exercise of playing music alone. I've never enjoyed it, and therefore I didn't and don't do it. I can't make myself practice. None the less, I enjoy playing music with others and so eventually the community discerned for me that this was part of my call. People kept offering me music jobs, or asking me to apply for music jobs. Otherwise, I would not have done it for the last 25 years. I'm not a great musician, in part because I won't practice. But I am a musician who has worked at it professionally for many years because of the discernment of the community around me. Music is a part of my call, though again, it is not something I would have chosen or ever identified as my "passion". On the other hand, I have identified my passion as being for social justice, though I don't seem to be very gifted at the leadership or job aspects of it. I do it as a volunteer, I preach about it, but as a vocation? I won't give the countless examples, just trust me that this is not my gift, though it absolutely is my passion. This, too, the community helped me to understand. This is not a recognition I came to on my own.

But this brings up another part of the complexity of discernment: what if one part of a job is your passion and your call, but other parts aren't? How do you go about finding the "perfect" call that matches your passion, your gifts and the world's need? Or what if you are gifted at the job, but the place doesn't feel right? How do you discern call?

I continue to believe that God is talking for any who would listen. And I continue to believe that God speaks both through individuals and through community. Sometimes God speaks through circumstances as well: pushing us to be more, or do different, or try something new that we may not have sought. But sometimes, we find ourselves in situations that just plain are not "calls". In response, we have to stop fearing speaking the voice that we hear, sharing the discernment with others that we gain; we have to trust the god-voice within us to be part of discernment for our selves and for our community, no matter what the final decisions that are made. We aren't in charge of the outcome, only our part of the process. Let that part of the process be a faithful one!

Another rant about the idea of "God's will"

I received an e-mail yesterday of a kind I am often sent, the "religious" kind that makes huge assumptions about my faith because of my title as "pastor". This one assumed that I must believe that everything that happens is somehow in God's will. But I don't believe that, as I've blogged about before, and this particular e-mail gave a perfect example of why I find that idea problematic.

The e-mail was sharing stories of individuals who had survived 911 because of fluky things that had happened that day: one person's child was starting at a new school that day, another person had to stop for a band-aid, one person was just running late, etc. The e-mail went on to say that this is proof that even when annoying things happen to us or delay us we should actually be grateful because the survival stories of these few individuals prove that we are always exactly where God wants us to be at any moment in time.

As I read this I just could not fathom the limited vision that would dare to say that somehow these few people were saved because God wanted them to be, while....I mean really, you have to take it all the way if you are going to make that claim. All the way means the other side of this is that God somehow also wanted all those people who weren't side-tracked or delayed to be destroyed in 911. Take it further yet: it means that all the children who were orphaned by that event, all the families whose bread-winner died and then became destitute, all the families who lost loved ones and could not emotionally survive the devastation - that somehow God willed all of that as well. Let's take it the step beyond that. If God willed this event, then the hijackers were actually agents of God's will and we should not be going after them, we should be giving them a reward for carrying out this will of God for us. I could go on...

People who claim that "everything happens because of God's will" or "everything happens for a reason" tell themselves and others that "we just don't see the good in this because it is so far beyond us, but God willed this so it is good even though we don't see it." Is this the same God who gave us a sense of right and wrong? Who wrote the covenant of love in our hearts? Then why is it that that God causes us to see things that are "good" as horrible beyond belief?

No, this is not my God. I have no desire and frankly I am just plain incapable of worshiping the monster-god this theology describes who wills for children to be killed, kidnapped, tortured, raped, maimed: who wills for events such as 911 to take place or for that matter any of the far-more devastating events that humans have master-minded. To me this God looks so much like the "devil" (not that I believe in such a creature either) that I can't even tell them apart.

Instead, the God I celebrate, pray to, live with, is one who is crying about such events as well. This is a God who wants us to react with outrage at such injustices and such pain and calls us to step up to the plate and speak out about them, stop them. The God I know is one who is where? With those who are being killed, with those who are suffering, fighting to change the situation, fighting to bring a world to justice: this is the God I meet on the cross suffering injustice, challenging injustice, overcoming injustice. This is not a God who wants us to just lay down and accept atrocities with the phrase "it is God's will" but who instead has given up some power in order to give us free will, and who still engages us and calls us to be part of changing the world for the better. That is the only God I know. And I am grateful for it.

On reincarnation and the "after life".

I don't know what happens after we die. I have no sense of that. The idea of a fairyland heaven with streets paved in gold doesn't really appeal to me, frankly. When people point up at the sky and talk about "going up" to heaven, I wonder if they've ever been in a planetarium..."up" doesn't make sense. Life is anything but simple, so I understand the appeal of a place where everything is simple, but again, it holds no appeal for me. Plus, I just don't find that to be very consistent with what I understand creation to be. If this world, with all it's beautiful complexity, is genuinely reflective of a creator, how could a simple, purely happy, gold-paved heaven also reflect that creator? "Heaven" is supposed to be a place everyone looks forward to living in and wants to be in, but again, the "heaven" that people talk about is not a place I want to go; so doesn't that challenge the very idea of it as a place everyone wants for their future?

Then there are so many people who have talked about experiencing some kind of presence of a loved one who has died. These aren't "hauntings" by a ghost - just an awareness of a presence, an impression of someone's being. Who am I to question this? This, too seems to challenge the idea of a heaven that is completely separate and other-worldly.

Then there are the many people who believe in reincarnation. Actually, from a scientific perspective, in many ways this makes the most sense to me: energy and matter get reconverted, changed, recycled repeatedly. Nothing in energy and matter "disappears". So why wouldn't it be the same with "souls" (whatever they are) - they may be changed, converted, but do they really disappear?

At the same time I have to admit that reincarnation is also not at all appealing to me. I have no desire to "return" here or to go through the struggles of life again and again. And frankly, I don't see humanity as "improving" on the whole. I am still shocked and amazed by how many people believe that killing others is a viable solution for anything. I am still intensely sorrowed by the fact that people are usually about getting the most for themselves and really don't know how or have any real desire to love their enemies as they love themselves. People don't want to pay taxes, don't want to be part of improving this place, but they do want the free resources of good education, at least for their own kids: etc, etc. Those who do well somehow believe they are better than others, that they have "deserved" what birth, privilege and opportunity has given them and that others who have nothing somehow deserve that. So short sighted, or "self" sighted. I don't see the point in repeating this over and over in the form of reincarnation.

There is another real problem that I see with those who talk about their past lives and who believe deeply in reincarnation. I think about the few people I personally know who subscribe to this belief. In the history of humanity, one article guesstimated that by 2002 there had been
106,456, 367, 700 people on this planet. In 2002, the population was estimated at about 6 1/4 billion people. And yet, every single one of the people I've met who believes in reincarnation was somebody famous in a past life. I'm sorry, but that is so much more than unlikely. It points, I believe, at a very basic level to the reason for the belief in reincarnation. These people feel small in their current life, but they deal with it by saying they were someone big and important in a different incarnation. Also, if we are supposed to be reincarnated into a completely new life, why do some "remember" past lives while others don't? None of this makes sense to me. And again, I really don't want any part of it.

I'm not saying that these things are somehow determined by what we like or what we hope will happen. But I think most philosophies/theologies about the afterlife do tend to stem from some kind of hope or need for comfort, or need to understand. And I'm also saying that so far none of the after-life theories that I have encountered serve that need or create that comfort for me. Not that I'm afraid of death. I'm not. I just don't know what happens after we die and I'm okay with that. I think we have to live this life to the best of our ability. I think we need to strive to make this world a place where everyone is given a chance to really live, an opportunity to thrive. I think we are called to love everyone now not because that will improve our chances of going to "heaven" but because "heaven" is something we are called to create - right here and now, and only through the continual, difficult, purposeful act of loving.

One more small difference

They have ants here the size of spiders (not an exaggeration) - and they are invading our house!! Ack!!

How do we measure worth?

I read a blog today that was talking about our snap judgments about people based on first appearances and how erroneous those could be. It was a good blog article and showed a You Tube video in which people were completely challenged in their snap judgments about a woman. I'm going to include the link to the video here because I think it is a video absolutely worth seeing.

However, it got me thinking in a different direction and that is what I want to write about today.
I don't want to spoil the video for those who haven't seen it yet, so just know that I'm about to tell you what I saw watching it. I saw a group of people who were laughing and making fun of a woman because she was unattractive. They made judgments, not only about the woman's appearance, but about her person based on what they saw. More than that, they discounted her, wrote her off because she didn't have what they valued. They felt justified rolling their eyes, whispering to each other, snickering in a way that she could hear and be hurt by their behavior. Then she began to sing, and their behavior towards her changed once they saw that she actually did have some talent, once she was recognized as having something that they valued. Frankly, I found this every bit as disturbing.

What if, instead of the beautiful voice that came out of a woman that many might consider unattractive, what if instead the voice fit the vessel? What if she was an unattractive woman with an unattractive voice? What if it was worse than that? What if she was also a socially awkward, unable to fit in, un-gifted and unlovable person? Would it then be acceptable to laugh at her and "dis" her and judge her? Would it then be okay to be rude and hurtful to her in this public place and in this public way?

I can hear the retorts, "well, she signed up to come to this talent contest." Okay, yes she did. So are we saying that the only people worthy enough to try to reach for their dreams are people who have a chance of succeeding at them? That everyone else deserves or at least should expect torment and ridicule because of their very attempts?

My faith tells me that each of us is valuable and worthy simply because we are loved by the Divine, or by the Universe, or by God or whatever name you want to give the power that brought us into being. That is not dependent on having a talent. That is not dependent on being "likeable" or attractive. But our actions towards others say otherwise.

My challenge for all of us is to try to remember that we are all worthy of love. My challenge for all of us is to try to move away from needing people to prove themselves in order to be let in to our circle of care. My challenge for us is not to just give the unattractive woman with a good voice the standing ovation, but to give the unattractive woman with a lousy voice a standing ovation, too - just for having the courage to reach for a dream, just for being alive, just for being a part of God's good and amazing creation.

Okay, we are clearly not in Kansas (or California as the case may be) anymore!

We should have known that something was up, that something was different. For one thing the children didn't have school on Friday and they won't have school tomorrow. These days, according to the public school, are "Easter holiday." Tomorrow is, specifically "Easter Monday." First time I'd ever heard of it. And a public school mentioning a religious Holiday as the reason for a break from school? Again, I should have known something was different.

Then yesterday we needed to run to a bunch of stores and at every store we went to the cashier said to us "Happy Easter!"
"Isn't it illegal to say that?" Mark whispered to me. Well, in the SF Bay Area it is. Or rather, it isn't exactly "illegal" but it would certainly result in a lynching or at least a good protest and a front page article in a newspaper announcing the lack of sensitivity, cultural awareness, and prejudice against other faiths demonstrated by that phrase.

Then comes today. Normally we would spend Easter at one or other parental unit's houses, watching the kids look for eggs, sharing a big family meal together. Or maybe we would attend some kind of "Easter supper" at our home church for those who don't have family around and want to share a community meal. No-one invited us to dinner this year, though. And we've been so overwhelmed with other church work (remembering that we are both "half time" - ha!) that we just could not manage to organize a "dinner for those without extended family" on our own. So we thought it would be nice to spend the day with just our little family unit, especially since we are all still recovering from strep throat.

However, my image of a nice Easter afternoon does NOT include me cooking. For one thing, as many of you know, I really hate cooking. Second, I was exhausted from the activities of the morning. So, we planned to eat out. After all, while we usually have Easter dinner with family, who can avoid all the ads and restaurants in the Bay Area with big bill-board signs posted all over them that say "Easter dinner - here!" or "Open Sunday!" etc, etc, etc. So we all packed ourselves into the car to head out to our favorite restaurant in the area, and guess what? It was CLOSED for Easter. But not just that restaurant. Every restaurant in town was closed for Easter. What is up with that?!! Don't people like to eat out on Easter? Isn't it a lot like Mother's day where everyone eats out? And then as I thought that I began to wonder about Mother's day, too....

It is clear we are not in Kansas anymore, or rather, that we are not in the Bay Area anymore. The things we take for granted, the attitudes and opportunities that we take for granted are different here.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I mean, it's great that people want to spend Easter with their families and that the community values both that faith time and that family time so much that restaurants (and other businesses) are closed. It causes more than one person, I imagine, to really look at the meaning of the day and to think about what it means that others (a whole community, even) takes the day seriously and sets it aside as not just any other day. Things are different today. The world has been born anew today. It is good that we take the time to really focus on that and take it seriously. It is good that workers, like waitresses/waiters and cooks, are also given this time to be with their faiths and their families, to focus on the day as a day of rest, celebration, and community. It is good, even for those who are not Christian, to have this day of rest, to do something different, to remember that every day is a new day, is a gift, is something to celebrate and relish and is a day to remember what each of us values.

Still, I am really hungry right now...and I'm not going to cook. After all, it's Easter!! ;-)

Treating others as you would wish to be treated? And yet, we are all so different.

I've been thinking about this whole "treat others as you would have them treat you" idea and I've been realizing that while it is an important lesson to teach our children, that it really doesn't make sense if you take this too literally. Once again, the spirit of this idea is essential. But if you take this to the letter of the law, even this one doesn't work.

For one thing, we each have different needs. At a most basic level, we need different amounts of food, different amounts of sleep, different amounts and kinds of activities. Some have medical conditions that require different needs. If you love pie, you can't just therefore give it to the diabetic down the street, "treating them as you would like to be treated." It doesn't make sense.

Women and men need different things, hence all the books out there on gender differences. To give one example, there are many books that talk about the fact that when men share problems they are usually looking for solutions. When women share problems they almost never are looking for advice or for someone to fix them: they really just want to be heard, want support, want commiseration. When, then, we try to just commiserate with a man who is sharing his problems looking for advice, he can become very frustrated. Even more so, perhaps, when a woman shares her thoughts/feelings only to be told how to "fix" them. You can see, then, how if you are treating someone of the opposite gender the way that you would like to be treated, it can become very problematic. Our needs are different.

Other things inform those differences as well. Some of us need to be leaders and want to be treated with the respect of the positions we hold. Some of us need to be followers, and are more comfortable being given an idea or plan to follow. Some of us are romantics who want to be wined and dined. Others are more down to earth and are uncomfortable with too much "sugar." Sometimes those roles should be challenged. Other times, treating people as if they were yourself with the same desires and dreams you have just plain doesn't make sense.

Turning this around, "treat others as you believe they want to be treated" can also be problematic, though. Some people would want to have everything for themselves and giving everything to some is obviously not fair. Really caring for people, which I believe is what God calls us to do, can not mean letting anyone have free reign, either, because that is not really caring for them. I like Scott Peck's definition of love which is "wishing the highest spiritual growth" for someone. If we really care about one another, we are going to want to help each other grow into whole people, whatever that means for each individual (I'm not prescribing one path here - I think it is different for each person). In order to grow into the most whole person you can be, there does need to be some place for correction, or for consequences, or for reality checks.

We have to look at the "treat others as you would wish to be treated" from the bigger perspective, not from a literal place. Even this most basic of rules cannot be taken literally.

Maybe the way that I would want to word this, then, is "treat others as God calls you to." That means showing respect, that means giving love, that means telling the truth (most of the time, at least), that means making sure everyone has their basic needs met. It means looking at the other through the eyes of love, of genuine care. It means working with the other for their highest growth: helping each other become the most whole we can be.

This is a harder goal than just "treating others as you would want to be treated" because it means you actually have to know something about the other. You can't do this just looking at others as people who have the same needs/desires/goals/visions as yourself. It requires actually trying to see the other, and that takes energy, time, and commitment.

"Treating others as you would want to be treated" is a baby step towards this goal. It is a necessary step, but it is just a beginning. In our journey towards wholeness, we also must grow past this most basic "rule" and into the larger law of love.

And still more snow...

It is snowing

Today is April 6th. It has been snowing all day long. I'm attaching pictures.
Jasmyn says, "I'm a little disappointed because I thought it was supposed to be spring."
Aislynn says, "I like that it's snowing."
Jonah says, "It's great that it's snowing. Maybe we can make a snowman!"
Mark says, "I love a good, spring snow."

Personally, while I think the snow is very pretty, I think my sentiments are more in line with Jasmyn.... (sigh)

But there are things we can't control. And next week it will probably be warm again and I will be reflecting on the warmth and cheer of the new life that is emerging because it is spring. It is fitting that we remember this week, of all times, that new life comes after death: that the spring comes after the winter.

The spring is more noticeable and more appreciated the longer the winter that precedes it. People tend to be out more here on those warm, sunny days, because they are rarer. Children and adults alike are on their bikes, walking, talking to their neighbors on those spring days that do exist because they know they have to when they can. They don't take the sun for granted. They don't take the warmth for granted. There is a lot to be gained from that. There can be value in the hard times, in the cold, in the deaths that we experience in life because if we are open to seeing, we then have a greater appreciation, respect and enjoyment of the good, the warmth, the life when it comes around.

Remembering that it is not forever does make the cold more bearable. And I delight in the joy my family is experiencing playing in and watching the snow.