The Remains of Rummikub

I note this week the extent I've married into a competitive family.

There is no Sunday dinner unaccompanied by a rousing board or card game.

Just as it was playing Invisible Ed years ago in hearts, the trouble is I play the hand in front of me as if there was no past or future.

When you consider the overwhelming options facing you on one turn in Rummikub, it uncomfortably numbs.

How decisions are sorted through fashions the narrative of Fateful Choices, the latest by prolific historian, Ian Kershaw, who possesses the knack (marred by a professorial habit of repeating himself) for delving into the very areas for which you've always longed to obtain extensive clarification.

Such is the case for May 1940, when the French were losing to the Germans, and Britain faced the choice to negotiate or fight on. It came down, as it so often does, to two duelling protagonists, here Churchill and Halifax, persuading three other members in the War Cabinet toward their conviction.

This past week I was embroiled similarly - not that the fate of a nation hung in the balance, but, instead, the outcome of a multi-million dollar project.

In both, mistakes were made by others leading to the crisis point. Winston had warned of the dangers of appeasement for a decade. I faced project leaders who failed to test new machinery adequately so that it failed upon attempting to go live.

Where Churchill was already familiar with the limited composition of a wieldly 5-member War Cabinet, I had to fashion both an ad hoc crisis advisory group of trusted loyal experts reporting only to me, and assess the composition of the body of decision-makers I had to convince. It was also necessary to restrict lines of communications to control events and eliminate the go-arounds which might harm the unified credibility of the arguments I would make.

Like Winston, it was necessary, or at least to be perceived, as keeping alternatives open while events took their course. Much time was spent by the War Cabinet deciding whether to approach Mussolini, at the request of France, as an intermediary to Hitler, and to prevent Italy from entering the war, while France was not yet beaten before it became a moot point -- I likewise bought the time needed for the manufacturer of the peripheral but critical product for which I'm responsible to retool their processes in compensation for the inadequate machine testing.

Terms of any debate must be pre-established. Churchill took time prior to the arguments to consult the wider institutional Cabinet, not only to guage their thoughts in terms of future support for the outcome he desired, but to gain the lift of shoring up his confidence.

Whereas Churchill was the prime decision-maker, even though he needed the unified consent of the War Cabinet for public consumption, I am not, so a crucial component of any strategy in this regard is to pre-brief the highest official involved to assess their perspective and to set terms of a civil debate where logic gains the opportunity to overcome emotions of those adhereing to illogical positions out of pride.

Although sniping continues and guarding the flanks is still the order of the day, I remain in control of the field so that 'fateful choices' may be made to overcome the crisis.

Last week in Sunday School we serendipitously considered whether there is anywhere in the world where such manipulation as described above isn't necessary.

I had once thought it was our parish.

Then, one after the other, we fought: over whether the Priest or featured praise band controlled the contemporary service; along the lines of a generational multi-family squabble which drew boundary lines among old friends; about whether the church should move from a former blue-collar neighborhood now turned Latino; to a congregational divorce after the consecration of Bishop Robinson.

What remains after the rummikub universe of choices was exhausted is a faithful Episcopalian congregation not geared toward inherent manipulation since there are no battlements to defend.

Openness and hospitality are the core values of present parish existence. Suzanne questioned, in Sunday School, whether non-manipulation is possible continually as the newly constituted parish consolidates around people and side issues. Eric says he doesn't think any group can exist for long without some sort of manipulation. I respond, maybe so, but what's left of the original St. Margaret's Episcopal Church remains the least manipulative environment of which I have direct experience.

When core values truly lived-out are positive by nature, participants need not sow seeds of new dystunctional maladies.