Fix it or Not?

One of the key things I've been learning as a leader over the last year or so has to do with problem solving.

A large part of my job as a leader has to do with thinking through challenges or problems. In fact, very few days go by where a problem of some kind doesn't come across my desk.

Early in my role as a leader, I thought it was my primary responsibility to fix every problem someone brought to me. The more I grow as a leader, the more I realize the flaw in that thinking.

If you think you can solve all the problems that come across your path, you're deluding yourself and holding back the people you lead.

What I find is that in almost every case, the people who bring me problems have all the resources and knowledge they need to solve the problem. They just need someone to listen to them, think with them, and release them to do what they know how to do.

I came across an old quote the other day that says this so perfectly I am going to put it on my desk so I see it every day. It's attributed to an old Egyptian Pharaoh who wrote: "Those who must listen to the cries of their people should do so patiently. Because the people want attention to what they say even more than the accomplishing for which they came."

For me, it's easier to solve a problem than to listen to the people who bring me the problem. I need to get better about that, and if you want to lead people, so do you.

Above Average

Did you know that surveys show somewhere around 85 percent of people classify themselves as "above average?"

100 percent say they're in the top half of the population when it comes to getting along with others.

98 percent of people say they are "above average" leaders.

What does this mean?

As a leader, negative feedback costs a lot more leadership capital than you gain from the same amount of praise.

When you praise a person's performance in one area or another, these statistics say you are probably only reinforcing what the person already believes. Unless you do it a whole lot, you probably aren't motivating people like you think.

On the other hand, any criticism or negative feedback probably goes against what a person's self-perception might be.

It doesn't mean you should not use negative feedback. If you want to keep your leadership position, you have to help people realize when they aren't getting the job done. Just remember: those conversations always cost more than you think.

Satan's Enemy

While I was reading the book I reviewed on Monday by David Jeremiah, I got to thinking about Satan.

A lot of times, we wrongly think that Satan is the enemy of good (as the world defines "good"). He isn't. Satan is the enemy of God, not good.

Satan would just assume everyone live under the illusion that their goodness is enough to gain them favor with God and others. In fact, I would guess that if God would give us a glimpse behind the scenes of much of the "good" going on in the world at this very moment we would find that its roots are satanic.

2 Corinthians 11:14 - "Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness.

Of course, Paul goes on to say "Their end will be what their actions deserve."

"Good" apart from God is not good at all (See also Luke 18:19, 1 John 4:10-11). In fact, it's the rankest form of evil. Satan isn't the enemy of that.

Moses or Aaron?

This one's for the pastors who read my blog.

Last week in my One-Year-Bible, I was reading the story of Moses' conversation with God in the burning bush. You know how it goes: God tells Moses to go to Pharaoh, and Moses has every excuse in the book why God should choose someone else.

Finally, exasperated with Moses, God says "Fine... What about your brother Aaron? He speaks well. You talk to him and put the words in his mouth" (Exodus 4:14-15)

God works out a deal. God will speak to Moses and Moses will tell the more accomplished communicator what to say so that he can do the public speaking.

Here's the question: In your heart of hearts, if given the choice would you rather be Moses or Aaron? Would you choose communication from God or captivation of others?

Systematic Theology

Several years ago, my little brother started a blog. My advice to him was, "Don't do it. It's a monster that needs to be fed every day." He was smart and quit after two posts. I'm still feeding the monster after almost 5 years. It's hard to come up with topics to post, so from time to time I co-opt someone's comment question and make my answer into a post.

Yesterday, Deb asked a question that helped me feed the monster. Thanks Deb!

Systematic theology is a form of study that attempts to present a clear, biblical, concise look at core Christian beliefs. "Systematic Theology" books are usually an author's attempt to explain the grid he/she uses to think about the Christian faith and doctrine. As a result, choosing a good systematic theology book can be tough, especially for a beginner. You want to pick one written by someone who has a similar starting point as you on the really important issues. And, you want to begin with something that's readable. Many systematic theologies are technical, precise, thorough, and can be really tough to digest. They're best for curing insomnia.

I've got 6 systematic theology books within close reach of my desk that I refer to a lot. Here they are, in order of my favorites for a beginner with a few comments:

The Moody Handbook of Theology - Paul Enns - I found this book by accident on the closeout shelf at the Christian Bookstore when I was in college. It was a really good find. In addition to systematic theology, Enns includes a section on Biblical Theology, Historical Theology, Dogmatic Theology (different opinions within the Church), and Contemporary Theology. It's accessible, relatively easy reading, and extremely concise. In every theology book, you're going to find something to disagree with. On the whole, however, I find myself agreeing on most points with where Dr. Enns ends up.

Basic Theology - Charles C. Ryrie - This is the first theology book I ever read, and is still one of my favorites. The only reason I recommend the Moody Handbook of Theology to beginners above this one is that the Moody book adds the sections in addition to Systematic Theology, which I think is helpful. Dr. Ryrie's book is relatively simple, concise, and jamb packed full of Scripture references, which I love. Dr. Ryrie also does a good job in most cases of pointing out varying opinions on issues, evaluating those opinions fairly, and defining his own preference. That sort of thing is really important to a beginner.

Understanding Christian Theology - Ed. Charles Swindoll and Roy Zuck - This is by far the easiest read, but probably the least dense. In effect, Drs. Swindoll and Zuck have edited several different books on specific topics within systematic theology and put them together in one resource. This is a helpful resource for theology, but doesn't have the meat (in my opinion) of the two books above it.

Bible Doctrine - Wayne Grudem - Dr. Grudem has written one of the more popular systematic theologies these days. It's written extremely well, and includes study questions and memory verses with each questions which I love. Dr. Grudem writes with a very reformed perspective, and has some different views on end times than I do. So, I don't usually send people to Grudem first.

Christian Theology - Millard Erickson - This was the systematic theology that was required for my introduction to theology class in seminary. It's good, but pretty dense. It looks great on a shelf, but is hard to slog through at times. I think Erickson is a good theologian (with a name like Millard, he had to be a theologian of some kind), but that the book is pretty tough reading in several places.

Systematic Theology - Lewis Sperry Chafer - Chafer was the founder of Dallas Seminary. His systematic theology is 8 volumes printed in 4 books. Chafer had some theological quirks, but not many. He writes like someone who wrote in the 1920s (he did), and can be pretty tough to work through. But, there are some gems in his work that make it worth reading. I've never read this one cover-to-cover - I can't stay awake. But it has been an invaluable resource from time to time.

Angels - Book Review

The first angel I ever remember seeing was Jonathan Smith on "Highway to Heaven." Combined with Clarence on "It's a Wonderful Life" and Tess on "Touched by an Angel," I thought my education on angels was pretty comprehensive. Turns out, I had a few misconceptions.

David Jeremiah's new book "Angels" provides a thorough, biblical look at who angels are, where they come from and what part they play in world events.

The Bible says a lot about angels, but it is almost always indirect. Angels aren't the focus of the Bible; Jesus is the focus of the Bible. As a result, there are some things we can know about angels and some things we cannot.

Unfortunately, this often leads to speculation and confusion about angels. David Jeremiah's book will help you steer clear of speculation, speak confidently where the Bible speaks and remain silent where the Bible is silent.

At points, Jeremiah's book is written like a novel. An angel tour guide takes the reader through Biblical history, to various events where angels showed up on the scene. At other points in the book, Jeremiah's book reads like a comprehensive theology of angels. The latter points can be a little difficult to slog through, but are worth the struggle.

Do we have guardian angels? What do angels look like? What about demons and Satan? Are angels still at work today? David Jeremiah's book will answer all your questions when they are able to be answered, but will not answer questions where the Bible doesn't give information. That's really important; especially with all the speculation and mis-information that exists in an age obsessed with the supernatural.

If you're interested in knowing more about what the Bible says concerning Angels, this is one of the most solid, comprehensive, readable books on angels I've come across.

Deep Church - Review

Deep Church is written by Jim Belcher, pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Newport Beach California. In the attempt to understand the differences between the "Emerging Church" and the "Traditional Church," Belcher has written a book to try to explain each while proposing a "third way."

In many ways, this is a very helpful book. Belcher's research on the Emerging Church and Traditional Church is obvious. Much of his research includes interviews with leaders in both the Emerging and Traditional Churches.

When it comes to the Emerging Church, Belcher quotes Ed Stetzer in laying out three broad categories: relevants, reconstructionists, and revisionists. He describes the relevants as theological conservatives who are mainly concerned with the forms of music and teaching; not their content. Reconstructionists are generally attempting to rethink the entire form of what "church" should mean - trying to make the church look as much like the church in Acts as possible. Revisionists take their rethinking to the point that they are rethinking key evangelical doctrines altogether.

The above distinctions are really helpful, though for the rest of Belcher's book he doesn't always do a great job of specifying which of the three camps he is referring to when he talks about the "emerging church."

Belcher proposes a "third way" that seeks to ask similar questions to what the revisionist and reconstructionists are asking, but through the theological grid of the evangelical church through the ages. He argues that we need to become churches of "deep Truth," "deep evangelism," "deep Gospel," "deep worship," "deep preaching," "deep ecclesiology," and "deep culture."

I'm not uncomfortable at all with where Belcher ends up in most areas, but I am not sure I love the concept of a "third way." Churches and Church Traditions exist on a spectrum, not in bins. You are not either "emerging" or "traditional" in the senses Belcher uses those terms. That's what makes the conversation hard.

This was an interesting book. If you are deeply interested in the discussion about where the church is going in America, it is a good primer on the discussion if just a bit over-simplified.