Books in my Queue

It's Thursday after a long week and I'm fried without much to say. So, here is a look at some of the books in my stack to read in the near future. I'm reading a lot for classes these days; that's the reason for the trends. In no particular order:

The Good News we Almost Forgot - DeYoung

The Future of Leadership - Bennis, Spreitzer, and Cummings

The Leader of the Future - Hesselbein and Goldsmith

The Leader of the Future 2 - Hesselbein and Goldsmith

Next Generation Leader - Stanley

The Missional Leader - Roxburgh

Joy at Work - Bakke

The World is Flat - Friedman

Brothers We are Not Professionals - Piper

Shift - Haynes

Worship Community and the Triune God of Grace - Torrance

Christ-Centered Preaching - Chapell

reSymbol - Dees

What We Can't Not Know - Budziszewski

Hearing Jesus Speak into Your Sorrow - Guthrie

Any of those I should put at the front of the line?

Walk Slowly

Last year I got some helpful feedback from a friend I trust who told me I was in too big a hurry at important times.

Now... It's no secret that I'm the embodiment of a "Purpose-Driven" pastor. I tend to study with purpose, preach with purpose, rest with purpose, and walk with purpose. I haven't ever been confused about that.

But the dark underbelly of whatever your personality is, is that people can't ever see the heart behind that personality. And we have a bad habit of assigning motives to others based on our own perceptions and biases without ever stopping to think if the stories we're telling ourselves about others are accurate.

I can't take responsibility for every false motive someone might assign to me, but I can take responsibility for making it hard for people to believe anything but the best about me.

My purpose-driven walking through the foyer on Sunday made it easy for people to think I was cocky, arrogant, or uninterested in them. Nothing could be further from the truth - I think I probably just had to go to the bathroom. But, I can do better.

I've been working hard on physically slowing myself down during the most important times. I walk slowly through the foyer on Sunday. I make it a discipline to look as many people in the eye as possible. It's really hard for me - not natural at all. But, I'm committed to doing everything in my power to make it hard for others to believe anything bad about me.

As a leader, I don't want my manner to distract from my message, because if your manner distracts from your message, guess which one people are going to believe.

Fresh Eyes

On my way to the office every day I pass a small church that has been in existence for several decades. I don't know anyone who goes to the church or their pastor. I would love for that to change someday, but for now I only know the church from my commute.

The paint on the exterior of the church is peeling. The parking lot has almost as many weeds as the front lawn and one of the "emergency exit" front doors hasn't ever been painted to match the other.

My guess is, there are several people who love that church. My guess is, there's a pastor who loves the people in that church. My guess is, that church has been used by God to touch many lives in its history. But you wouldn't know it to look at the building.

How does that happen? It certainly didn't happen overnight. It happened gradually; day after day and year after year. And gradual decline is hard to spot.

As a leader, I pray almost every day that God will give me fresh eyes. Not just for the exterior facade of the church where I serve, but for the people I lead. I don't want to miss my chance to take action early. I don't want to miss a chance to stop a mess before it is so overwhelming we don't know where to start. I want to see things with fresh eyes. Do you?

Anxiety

Several months ago a pastor friend of mine turned me onto a set of three books about pastoral leadership by a man named Peter Steinke. They're exceptional books that have really changed the way I think about leadership in some critical ways.

Steinke writes a lot about leading through anxiety. I love his basic operating premise: one of the most fundamental roles of the leader is dealing with anxiety because anxiety always exists.

When the organization changes too quickly, the people become anxious. When the organization isn't changing, the people become anxious. Anxiety always exists.

Wise leaders don't avoid anxiety - they lean into it, find the cause, consider the implications of anxiety, set healthy boundaries, and move forward with a blend of steady caution and conviction.

Logos

I spent Monday and Tuesday at a software training program in Oklahoma City. From time to time people ask me if I use a Bible Study Software to study for my sermons.

Up until about 3 years ago, the answer was "no." I don't know why I was such a late adopter; I wasn't opposed to using them. I just didn't have the money for a good one, and wasn't noticing a huge gap between what I was doing and what I could do if I invested in a Bible Study software.

3 years ago I repented, and purchased Logos.

This isn't a commercial for Logos, but I did my research when I got ready to make the investment, and for a pastor or general Bible student, Logos is far and away the best investment.

At my fingertips, I have hundreds of searchable books. Want to know what John Calvin, or John Piper, or John MacArthur said about Ephesians 1:3? Just type "Ephesians 1:3" in your search box, direct it to your electronic books, and in .41 seconds I can have each of those books open to each place they mention the verse.

Wondering about the meaning of the Greek word for "sick" in James 5:14? You're one click away. Don't know Greek? It doesn't matter - the resource will explain the meaning for you.

Seriously, if I had invested in Logos 10 years ago, I could have graduated from seminary a year earlier. No exaggeration.

The only problem with Logos is that it is not necessarily very intuitive. That is, you can't pull it out of the box and figure out all its functions on your own. Enter Morris Proctor. This guy is a Logos Jedi, and a tremendous communicator. He conducts various levels of training seminars for Logos users and completely opens up the software for you whether you're a seminary professor or a small group leader with no formal Bible training. The first seminar I went to turned out to jump-start a complete paradigm shift in my Bible study.

The basic version of Logos and a MP Seminar will set you back a couple hundred dollars, but if your experience is anything like mine, it will be some of the best money you invest this year.

Great Quote

Found this great quote last night from an otherwise boring book, "Missional Church, A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America."

"Prayer is certainly personal, but it is never individual in the way that [some] comparisons would suggest. The language used in the Lord's Prayer is not "mine" and "me," but "our" and "us." In giving advice on prayer, Martin Luther counseled, "Remember that you are not kneeling or standing there alone... all devout Christians are standing there with you in one unanimous, united prayer which God cannot ignore." Whether we are in the presence of others or physically alone, when we pray we are united with all those who through faith in Jesus Christ have become the adopted children of God."

Monkeys

Last week blew up on me a bit and I didn't get a chance to queue up something for today and tomorrow. That would ordinarily be okay except that I'm out of the office for a software training today and tomorrow and my time is limited. So, today's blog comes from my father-in-law even though he doesn't know he's guest-posting.

We had a conversation on the ride in this morning (the software training is at his church) about monkeys and leadership.

There's an old story about a bunch of monkeys climbing the tree. When the leaders look down, all they see is a bunch of smiling faces. When the followers look up the tree, all they see is a bunch of... well... you know.

The point is: in an organization, perspective is everything.

From the bottom, it's easy to see everyone above you as a "you-know-what." From the top, it's easy to see a bunch of smiling faces. If you want perspective to change without your position changing, you have to bend over backwards.

Worship or Fear?

It's hard to really follow Jesus. Not to trust Jesus for eternal life; that's simple. It's hard to follow Jesus as a disciple.

Discipleship is not the path of least resistance, the path toward riches, or the path of convenience. It isn't usually popular or logical, and can bring times of temporary heartache and doubts. And when it does, we have a response.

In Mark 10, we read about a Rich Young Ruler who went away sorrowful because he was not as good as he thought and was unwilling to trust Jesus. That completely blew the disciples' paradigm - they thought riches were a sign of God's blessing and said "Who can be saved then?" (Mark 10:26). Jesus says, "With man, it is impossible; with God all things are possible" (Mark 10:27) reminding them that if they're going to have eternal life, God is going to have to do something. Mankind can't make things right on their own.

That reminder freaks Peter out. Unlike the Rich Young Ruler, the disciples had left everything behind to follow Jesus (Mark 10:28). Jesus lays out the paradigm for discipleship saying that's exactly the kind of commitment he's looking for: the people who are last in the world's eyes will be first in God's economy.

I love verse 32. "The disciples were now on the way up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them. The disciples were filled with awe, and the people following behind were overwhelmed with fear."

It's hard to be a sold-out follower of Jesus, but you see two groups of people here. The people who were closest to Jesus were filled with awe; the people who were haphazardly going along were overwhelmed with fear.

The closer you get to Jesus, the more fear turns into worship.

Following Jesus is hard. When it gets difficult, will you be awestruck at the power of the One through whom "all things are possible" or will you start lagging behind, overwhelmed with fear?

Responding and Reacting

The most important job of the leader is to anticipate, because the second most important job of the leader is to deal with situations and circumstances that threaten the overall direction the leader (or organization, or family) is trying to lead the organization.

When dealing with these threats, large or small, the leader has two choices: he/she can choose to respond or react.

Both options are situational - that is, they are a potential way to deal with the given situation.

A response is measured and controlled. It reflects anticipation. Obviously, the leader can't anticipate every situation that might complicate his day. He has to anticipate that.

Reactions are reflexes. You can't possibly predict the outcome of a reaction before it happens; it just happens.

Think of a tennis game. Great leaders are like great tennis players. Great tennis players respond to the ball. You see them begin to move even before their opponent hits the ball. They're anticipating where the opponent will place the ball, or simply getting to a place where they could respond adequately to several different actions.

Great tennis players don't react. Great tennis balls react. They spend all their energy going wherever the most recent situation (racket) sends them. They're never in control, never able to make any progress. All they do is react.

Which kind of leader are you?

Consistency and Flexibility

I had a good conversation with a guy yesterday around the concept of leading people.

The very best leaders of people find a way to lead with both consistency and flexibility.

Consistency establishes the normal pattern. If you don't have consistency, the people you lead will never know what to expect from you. This will either cause them to hold back out of fear of you or take advantage of you until you finally draw a line in the sand. You need consistency of philosophy and vision so people know your expectations of them and are free to make decisions within that. They also need to know the boundaries on them and their peers so there is a mutual understanding and accountability for decisions they make.

Flexibility provides for exceptions to the normal pattern. If you are too rigid a leader on the consistency spectrum you'll be a horrible person to work with, much less for. You need the ability to see special situations and circumstances and to treat them as such. Organizations, just like interpersonal relationships, don't exist in black and white. Flexible leaders can see the grey as grey, but only when it's appropriate.

The guy I talked to yesterday said his preference in hiring senior level staff would always be to err toward consistency and try to train a consistent person to be flexible. I certainly see wisdom in that, but I'm not so sure it's that easy for me. What do you think?

Everyone Communicates, Few Connect - Book Review

John Maxwell is a nationally known leader of leaders. A former pastor, his books, seminars, teaching and other media have served as resources for scores of leaders throughout the past many years. I'm certainly an example of a leader who has benefited from Maxwell's ministry.

Maxwell's newest book, "Everyone Communicates, Few Connect" is an attempt to help others master the art of going to the heart of effective communication. The point of the book, as should be obvious from the title, is that all of us communicate hundreds of messages to different people throughout our day. But few people have truly mastered the art of connecting with other people. As a result, the message is misunderstood, misapplied, or even worse, un-applied.

As is true with most of Maxwell's books, "Everyone Communicates, Few Connect" is easy to read. Maxwell is a voracious collector of quotes and anecdotes. With a story, quote, joke, or illustration on every page, this book is simple to work through; hard to apply.

You will find little to dispute in this book. Maxwell lays out several principles and several practices of effective connectors that are irrefutable (I don't know why the publisher didn't go back to the "irrefutable" well that provided the title for Maxwell's other books; this one is a natural fit in that mold). Maxwell's advice for communicators will be helpful, no matter what you are trying to communicate or with whom you want to connect. This is really good material.

In the interest of full-disclosure, the one thing that irks me about this book is the same thing that bothers me about several of Maxwell's books: Maxwell is not lacking in confidence. I know, I know, "it ain't bragging if you done it," and John Maxwell has done it. But, I find that Maxwell is the hero of most of his personal anecdotes and the model for most of his ideas. Whenever another great leader is quoted or referenced, Mr. Maxwell makes sure the reader knows that the leader is "his friend," or that the quote took place in a private conversation at Maxwell's home. I hesitate to even mention that challenge because I don't know Mr. Maxwell and am sure he is a fine man, but the truth is: it provided a barrier that made it hard for me to "connect" with this book on connecting.

As a person currently serving in a leadership position, I have a high value on books that will strengthen my skills without wasting my time. If you're interested in reading a good book about connecting with a spouse or an audience, "Everyone Communicates, Few Connect" contains principles that will make you much more effective without wasting your time. It's worth picking up.

(FYI - I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers in exchange for my review. In compliance with the regulations of the ever-present Federal Trade Commission (16 CFR, Part 255), it is important for you to know that I was not required to write anything other than an honest review)

Thoughts on Social Justice - Part 3

• I'm interested in the fact that many of the most outspoken proponents of social justice are focused almost exclusively overseas. How many books are written about the Church doing justice in its own backyard?
• I'm impressed with how easy it is to talk about social justice, kingdom theory, and the "bifurcation of the Gospel," and how difficult it seems to actually do something about it. Many of the most recognized social justice promoters are not actually involved in social justice aside from simply throwing money at the problem. We've been throwing money at these problems for decades; it is time to start doing something different.
• I'm excited about the Church in America thinking through how to put feet on our faith. I'm terrified that the feet are going to get ahead of the faith, or leave the faith behind altogether.
• Spurgeon once said "A man's nose is a prominent feature on his face, but it is possible to make it so large that eyes and mouth and everything else are thrown into insignificance and the drawing is a caricature and not a portrait: so certain important doctrines of the gospel can be proclaimed in excess as to throw th rest of the truth into the shade and the preaching is no longer the gospel in its natural beauty but a caricature of the truth." When we de-emphasize the death and resurrection in order to emphasize the Christian's temporal responsibility, I am afraid we create a caricature of the gospel at best.
• Many of the accusations about the "blindness" of the American Church when it comes to social issues may be true, but such sweeping claims are probably highly exaggerated. American Christianity in the 20th century deserves much of the credit for the social justice we see in America. Chances are you can't name an organization currently dedicated to helping the homeless and destitute that doesn't have its roots in evangelical Christianity.
• It is easy to see the Church through exclusively Western eyes. I'm thankful to be a part of a church that partners with people who are doing effective ministry in other parts of the world rather than simply believing our Western solutions are the answer to third-world problems.
• The right thing done for the wrong reasons is the wrong thing. Loving your neighbor is the right thing. Loving your neighbor to help the church's image is doing the right thing for the wrong reason.
• The Church's perception problem in the world is primarily God's issue. My perception problem in my world is primarily my issue. If enough Christians were serious about being ambassadors for Christ in their unique sphere of influence, we wouldn't have a personal or global perception problem.

Thoughts on Social Justice - Part 2

• Even if we were grant that the modern church in America has been too focused on converting sinners to Christianity's message and not focused enough on living out Christianity's message, does it follow that there is no error in the opposite direction?
• Matthew 26:11 makes it abundantly clear that if it comes down to a decision between justice and the person of Jesus, Jesus wins.
• If social justice is a necessary part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as many contemporary authors suggest, why is there not a stronger emphasis in the New Testament commanding the church to take on Roman inequity, slavery, totalitarianism and injustice?
• I have a hard time believing that the church is the presence of the Millenial Kingdom in the world, and the Millenial Kingdom is a place where the leopard will lie down with the goat (Isaiah 11:6), when a large part of most pastors' week is spent dealing with conflict between church members.
• An entirely future kingdom is perfectly compatible with a heart for justice in the world today. The fact that things cannot be what they will be does not mean that they should not be what they should be.
• In most of the OT passages in which God judges the Jews for injustice, their active acts of doing injustice against the poor were in God's sights (defrauding and exploiting the poor) , not just the fact that the poor existed in their society (see Leviticus 19, Isaiah 1, Jeremiah 22, Amos 5:7-15; Micah 6:8-12) . God's problem wasn't that the poor existed in the same society as the Jews. His problem was when the Jewish people took advantage of the poor to make themselves rich.
• I have no problem affirming that the Church consists of "aliens and strangers" (1 Peter 2:11) in the world who are called to be "ambassadors" of a coming King and kingdom (2 Corinthians 5:20). The result is the same: we should reflect God's agenda and priorities to a watching world, including God's heart for true justice. But we don't have to monkey with hermeneutics about the Kingdom or the gospel to get to the same place.
• Whatever Jesus meant by being salt and light (Matthew 5:13); whatever Peter meant by "Be holy" (1 Peter 1:16); whatever Paul meant by "conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ" (Philippians 1:27), it had to be more than just actions or behavior. Well-behaving people killed Jesus, Peter, and Paul.
  

Thoughts on Social Justice - Part 1

• The term "social justice" is a bit like the term "fundamentalist." It can mean a lot of different things in a lot of different contexts. So, before you can use the word you have to define your use of the word, which ultimately makes the word unhelpful.
• As a Christian, you can't use the word "justice" in the context of what we need to believe or do without understanding God's purpose for demanding and commanding justice in the first place. If what the Church is doing is disconnected from what God is ultimately up to in human history, the Church has a problem - even if the rest of the world responds positively to what the Church is doing.
• When it comes to "social justice," we have to define our expectations. If we expect Christians to show love to their neighbor, that's one thing. If we expect pagan nations and their unregenerate leaders to show justice to the people they have trampled to get their power apart from the Holy Spirit working in their lives, we are insane.
• The consistent purpose for Israel throughout the Old Testament (Leviticus 11:44) and the Church throughout the New Testament (1 Peter 1:15) is to different from the rest of the world because the God we serve is different from the gods of the rest of the world. Therefore, if what we do is not distinguishably, tangibly different from what the rest of the world does, we miss the point.
• The book of Romans is clear that ultimate, eternal justice is found only in the cross of Jesus Christ. If we engage in any "social justice" that does not have the cross in the near view, we have missed both the true definition of justice and the purpose for which we exist.

Thoughts on Social Justice

If you're at all up on current trends within American Christianity these days, you know there is a huge push in the area of "social justice." (If you're not up on current trends, but listen to Glenn Beck you might have some idea of the issues, though Beck himself seems to be a little fuzzy on exactly what "social justice" is). Some of the current trend toward "social justice" stems from theologies that see the church responsible for ushering in or manifesting the Kingdom of God on the earth. Some of it comes for more visceral reasons, one being an embarrassment that the church has been a latecomer to the scene on many contemporary issues of justice (I think a lot of this healthy discussion started with Bill Hybels and Rick Warren's conviction about the church's lack of response to the AIDS issue).

The other more visceral reason is connected - many trend-trackers show an increasing dissatisfaction with the relevance of the Church. Church leaders feel like the church needs to prove relevance in issues of social justice in order to fix a perception issue with the church.

I'm still thinking my way through all the issues. Certainly I believe the church should be involved in what's going on in the world. But, I've got some serious concerns about both "how" and "why" many contemporary leaders say that needs to happen.

For the rest of the week, I'm going to record some of my current disjointed, stream-of-consciousness thoughts on this - more because I need to get them down than because I think you care to read them. Even still, feel free to interact if you've got an opinion. Like I said, I'm still very much in process.

Whoops

Looks like I forgot to queue up a blog post for today. Oops.

If you're too disappointed, you could head over to my wife's blog for a big announcement.

See you Monday.

When to Risk

People who know me well laugh at my approach to risk-taking. I'm probably the riskiest risk-adverse guy I know. On some things, I'm ready to charge the hill with a butter-knife. On others (which seem to be really similar situations), I tend to be way behind the curve. That makes me a frustrating team member for someone who tends toward one edge of the spectrum: I can be pretty unpredictable.

In reality, I'm pretty calculating when it comes to risk. Everyone runs a quick risk/reward assessment when deciding whether or not to move forward. The difference between a good risk and a bad risk isn't a risk/reward calculation; it's a risk/reward calculation about the right things.

Here is my grid (as far as I can understand it right now).

1. What am I really trying to accomplish? (Purposeless risk is cavalier foolishness)
2. Are there moral issues involved? (If staying "above reproach" is the risk, no reward is worth it)
   
3. Is there a safer way that will achieve the same result? (Risk just for kicks is not in my play book. I played slot machines once and they took all my money. Lesson learned.)
4. Who will bear the consequences? (I am much more likely to favor risk-taking where the risk is only to me or my reputation as opposed to a risk that could affect, say, my entire church's reputation)
5. Can I/we execute this? (A poorly executed risk is a good way to look stupid and waste a great opportunity)
6. Does this fit "us?" (Organ transplants are always risky, but if the organ is not a "match" they are always deadly. If a risk doesn't "match" the DNA of the organization or person shouldering the risk, it will kill you or the organization)

I may be missing a thing or two. Anything you could add?

Firefighting

A large part of the job-description for any leader, whether or not it actually shows up in a written job description, involves the task of putting out fires. In any organization, small fires spring up all the time: unsatisfied customers, disgruntled employees, non-compliance issues, under-performing reports, miscommunication, and a host of other issues can dominate the leader's time if he/she isn't careful.

Most of the fires the leader is called to put out are inconsequential. Then again, so are most cigarettes, but just one left unattended can destroy an entire forest. So, firefighting is a necessary part of the leader's job.

What isn't a necessary part of the leader's job is fighting the same fire over and over. If you find yourself dealing with the issue over and over, you either (1) haven't really ever extinguished the fire or (2) missed the source of the fire altogether.

You'll save yourself a lot of time if you do some work on the front-end and back-end of firefighting making sure the presenting issue is really the issue that needs to be dealt with, and that the fire has been extinguished rather than simply minimized at the end.

Crucial Confrontations - Book Review

"Crucial Confrontations" is the partner book to a book I reviewed last year called "Crucial Conversations." As the subtitle suggests, the book is an attempt to offer "tools for talking about broken promises, violated expectations, and bad behavior."

I'll just cut to the chase: if you deal with people on a regular basis, are not omnipotent or omniscient, and choose not to read this book, you're making a huge mistake if not being altogether irresponsible.

There are only a few people on the planet who enjoy confrontation. Those people do not need to be doing it.

The rest of us normally hate confrontation because we are lousy at it. Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler have provided us with a resource to help all of us prepare for confronting virtually anyone, and develop a game plan for engaging in and managing high-stakes confrontations about any topic.

This book will be helpful for the parent who needs a healthy way to confront a child about her lack of piano practicing as well as for the Senior Vice President of a corporation who needs to confront his CEO about a serious character issue. The authors lay out a no-nonsense, simple road map for navigating difficult confrontations of any shape or size.

Crucial Confrontations will give you a strategy for your anger (mastering stories), the other person's emotions (protecting safety), articulating the problem (describing the gap), detours in the confrontation (focus and flexibility), and developing an action plan to end the conversation and move forward (move to action).

On every page of this book, I saw specific ways that confrontations in my past could have gone differently. I wish I had read this book ten years ago.

Although I'm still not excited about engaging in confrontation and cannot guarantee that all my confrontations in the future will go well, I can guarantee that after reading this book I'll go into those hard conversations exponentially more equipped and confident of a good outcome than I have been able to be in the past.

Ridiculous

This is unbelievable: The precision, creativity, out-of-the-boxness.

When I waste time, I want to waste time like this.

Open-Handed Part 4 - Personal Ministry

This is my last post on this particular soap box. I don't know if it has been at all helpful to anyone besides me to think through these things, but that's the beauty of this being my blog!

The final major distinctive (there are many other minor features) of "open-handed" churches is an emphasis on personal ministry.

Open-handed churches are not anti-institutional, but they certainly de-emphasize the institution in favor of more organic forms of ministry. To put it more simply, and I've already said this, individuals don't feel the need to check-in with headquarters before they do great ministry.

To take it even further, an open-handed ministry can't by definition be a church with an attractional model of ministry. The emphasis of an open-handed church is getting the people in here out there to do the ministry, not getting all the people out there in here so that ministry can be done to them.

Here's what a commitment to personal ministry means:

1. You cannot have your people at church 4 nights a week and expect them to do personal ministry outside the walls of your church. Don't try.
2. There will often be highly effective servants of Christ who should not serve as a part of your "official" ministry. Teaching a Sunday School class or putting them on your board would be a distraction from their involvement somewhere else. You can't make a guy feel guilty for doing great ministry somewhere else and simply attending your church.
3. You have to be selective in the programs you institute. If the primary function of a program is to bring people in and minister to them, you'll waste time and energy. If the program is designed to develop people to do great personal ministry, you'll get a huge bang for your buck.
4. You have to be a champion for personal ministry. Most people grew up in churches that had a "you catch-em, we'll clean-em" mentality. You've got to help people see that ministry is their responsibility, not the institution's.

Celebrating personal ministry can be tough, and messy. But the dividend it pays over trying to micro-manage everything and hang onto ministry with a closed fist is well worth it.

Open-Handed Part 3 - Valuing Partnerships

A huge part of being "open-handed" means valuing partnerships. I already touched on this idea a little in my two previous posts this week, but it is important enough to deserve its own post.

When you think primarily in terms of Church as opposed to church, and are excited about giving ministry away, you don't care as much about which ministry gets the credit for what God is doing. The result of that is that you begin focusing on how you can partner with people doing great ministry rather than simply trying to co-opt good ministry ideas.

In Dallas, there are two crisis pregnancy centers less than a block from each other. One of them is a para-church ministry that has existed for more than twenty years. The other is the ministry of a mainline denomination who saw what the existing center was doing and wanted to replicate it so they could do it "their way." The result? Neither crisis pregnancy center is doing great ministry. The original ministry doesn't see as many clients since they're split between the two. Meanwhile, the denominational ministry doesn't have the knowledge, skill, or infrastructure to effectively operate a non-profit agency as well as the original center. But because they wanted the credit and focused on the church (with a small c), both ministries suffer.

When someone comes to our church leadership with an idea for a new ministry, our first question is "Who is already doing this effectively in our area?" If there is an answer, our second question is, "Is it possible for us to partner with them without compromising their ministry?"

Sometimes that means a public partnership, but sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes we end up helping behind the scenes. When a big church comes in and publicly "partners with" another ministry, it can often have an adverse effect because other churches feel like a need no longer exists.

This isn't just with para-church ministries. Open-handed churches are quick to point people with specific needs to other churches who are better equipped to handle it. For example, our church never got on the Celebrate Recovery bandwagon, but not because we were uninterested in that ministry. We think it's vital. But another solid church just a few miles away got in on the front-end and is doing CR really well. When someone in our church needs that kind of community, we send them to the other church.

Sometimes they come back; sometimes they don't. That's okay; we're not keeping score. We want to encourage the best possible ministry wherever it is happening, and don't see the need to re-invent an already existing ministry just so it has our name on it.

We'd rather partner with someone who is doing great ministry and be an encouragement for them than wade into an area that is not our area of expertise and try to make a go of it. There are plenty of people to go around. We want to focus on what we're good at and partner with people who are better at other things.

Open-Handed Part 2 - Giving Ministry Away

Yesterday I started talking about what it looks like to be an "open-handed church" by saying that open-handed churches think in terms of Church (with a big "C") before they think about their own individual church (with a small "c"). The local church is not the hope of the world; Jesus is.

One of the primary ways this kind of thinking shows up is in giving ministry away.

In a lot of churches you get the distinct feeling that the people in the pew exist to help the pastor (or staff) have a really great ministry. Open-handed churches feel like that's a backward philosophy. The pastor and staff (according to Ephesians 4:11-13) exist to help the people have great ministry wherever they are.

When a person trusts Christ or begins to grow spiritually, the question is "how could that person serve Christ?" before it is "how could that person serve our local church?". The difference is subtle, but extraordinarily profound.

Close-handed churches expect their people to check-in with the church staff before they begin a Bible study with their neighbors. Kids aren't encouraged to be a part of Young Life, or FCA, or something else at their school because it might take them away from a youth event. Pastors lead everything; volunteers set up and clean up. Close-handed churches see materials they have developed as an opportunity to promote their brand; not as a way to further ministry.

The open-handed church looks for ways to give ministry away. Their staffs exist to develop and empower others so that they are fully equipped to have great ministry whether that ministry contributes to the the little "c" church's nickels and noses or not.

Open-Handed Part 1 - Big or Small "C?"

One of the unique things I love about the church where I serve is its "open-handedness." It's one of our core values that we talk the most about, and also one of the things that makes McKinney a unique church.

This week, I want to unpack just a little of what it means to be an open-handed church. Hopefully it will be a reminder for those of you who attend McKinney, and a thought-provoker for those of you who found this blog somewhere else.

Perhaps the foundational thing that makes a church "open-handed" is a commitment to Church (with a big "C") above a commitment to church (with a little "c").

In a lot of churches, you get the feeling that if a particular ministry doesn't happen as a function of that church, it is as if it didn't happen at all. If college students don't choose to attend a particular church's college ministry over and above another campus ministry, they aren't seen as serious about their faith. If another church does a specific program, some churches either try to re-create it and re-brand it, or take pot-shots at it.

Open-handed churches want to be the first to recognize that they don't have the corner on the God market in their particular town. Rather than evangelize people to their church they evangelize people to their Savior. They are more serious about expanding the Church than their church.

I'm not talking about ecumenism, where we celebrate ministries that have abandoned essential doctrines of the faith. I am talking about looking for ways to value ministries that are preaching the same salvation in the name of the same Jesus from the same Bible whether or not those ministries were your idea or share your same budget.

Throughout the New Testament, the primary focus is on Christ building His Church, not us building our churches. I'll talk more about what open-handedness looks like throughout the week which may clarify this distinction even more, but I'm interested in your feedback today: Would you say your church is "open-handed" based on this part of the definition? Why or why not?

Decision Making - the Stories we Tell

I'm finishing up "Crucial Confrontations" by Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan and Al Switzler. I read and reviewed its counterpart, "Crucial Conversations" last year and plan to review this one as well in the future; it's a really great book.

One of the things the authors talk about is that we often shy away from confrontation because of the stories we tell ourselves. Those stories can take lots of shapes and sizes, but one of the most common is that we make the decision to fight or flight based only on the worst case scenario.

To say it another way, when we are deciding whether or not to have a hard conversation we imagine the worst possible outcome of that conversation and then weigh it against the potential for reward. This leads us to almost always shy away from hard conversations except in the most extreme circumstances because there is no end to our ability to imagine worst case scenarios:

If I confront her about leaving the coffee machine on in the workroom, there's a possibility that will have received her concealed carry license yesterday and is hiding an oozy under her jacket. Who knows but what our conversation will be the thing that sends her over the psychological edge causing her to pull out the oozy and begin shooting. Then my kid won't have a father and his kids will spend their lives in therapy because I didn't get to come to Grandparents Day at their school. Better not have the conversation.

Unfortunately, this tendency isn't just limited to hard conversations. Many people live their lives making decisions like this.

It's an awfully foolish way to make decisions. The worst-case scenario is rarely the actual scenario that plays out.

We have to think about the worst-case scenario, but it's far more wise to consider risk/reward in light of the most likely scenario rather than the worst-case scenario. What is most likely to happen if I move forward from here?

Making decisions based on false narratives is a great way to miss out on good opportunities.

Broken Leaders

A lot has been written about being a "broken" leader. It's true: in Scripture and in life, you rarely find a leader worth his salt who has not been broken.

However, when people talk about "brokeness," they usually mean "woundedness." I think that definition is incomplete.

Being broken doesn't always hurt. It's rarely comfortable, but isn't always painful.

A horse that is broken doesn't necessarily spend a lot of time in pain. Pain comes when it resists the process by which it's brought under the control of another. When it allows itself to be placed under the control of a master, the process is uncomfortable but not painful.

I think God takes good leaders through a similar process as He teaches us to yield to His control.

The good news is, a broken horse is no less strong, no less useful, no less valuable to its owner. In fact, its strength remains the same while its usefulness and value increases. The more broken the horse, the higher the speeds its owner feels comfortable allowing it to run.

Before God will use a leader, that leader has to be brought under God's control. But that doesn't necessarily mean extraordinary pain; especially the more willing we are to yield.

Reproducing

I'm working really hard right now with a team of guys to develop some mentoring materials that will be useful tools for Christians who are interested in beginning to be intentional about developing other Christ-centered people. I'm increasingly convinced of the power of intentional relationships when it comes to maturing as a Christian.

However, as hard as we're working on finishing this tool, I'm also increasingly convinced that the tool is one of the least important components of mentoring. We want to write something that is transferable - to give young believers some tracks to run on in developing other Christ-centered people - but we're not looking for a silver bullet; those don't exist.

I once heard Zig Ziglar say "You can teach people what you know, but you reproduce who you are."

He's right. A good tool, book, resource, whatever, is important - but only insofar as it gives a person a vehicle through which they can reproduce who they are. The very best resource will fall flat if a person is not serious about being a Christ-centered person. Similarly, the most tedious, boring, unclear resource will often yield good results provided it is being used by someone who is a Christ-centered person himself.

Who you are is more important than the book you're using. The book simply helps teach information. You reproduce who you are.

The Servant - Book Review

"The Servant" was recommended to me several years ago during a class I took on Organizational Leadership. I didn't read it then, but got it for Christmas this year and decided it was time to read it.

"The Servant" is a fable about a man named John Daily, a man who seemed to have achieved the American Dream by all outward appearances: high-powered job, beautiful wife, good kids, nice home, expensive cars, and a pleasure boat for his spare time. In reality, John's life was falling apart.

On his pastor's recommendation, and somewhat begrudgingly, John goes to a retreat at a monastery where the focus is on helping leaders lead better. The program is led by a man who was an extremely successful leader prior to choosing the monastic life. "The Servant" chronicles the lessons of that week.

The actual storyline of the book is pretty cheesy, honestly, but the leadership lessons are worth the cheese.

Several years ago I began talking about servant leadership as an inverted pyramid, where leadership happens from the bottom up rather than the top down. I don't know who I stole that concept from, but I think they stole it from this book. No harm, no foul, because the book admits it stole the concept from Jesus.

This isn't a religious book, though it unashamedly points to Jesus as the quintessential leader.

This book is a quick read worth any leader's time. If you can push through some of the cheesy dialogue included just for the sake of the story, you'll uncover some profound leadership insight that every leader needs to uncover.

Vacation

I'll be away on a much-needed vacation for the rest of this week. I had high hopes of queuing enough blog entries this week but got sick last week which really killed my productivity. So, you'll have to spend the week in suspense.

Here are the books I'm taking with me:

The Story of the Story

I'm in the middle of teaching a 6-week Old Testament Survey study on Wednesday nights at our church. It's been a great time watching the Old Testament come alive in the eyes of some of the people in that class who have been believers for several decades.

When we're young we tend to do a pretty good job telling our kids Bible stories. We learn about Jonah, we learn about Joseph, and Moses, and David, and Adam, and Samson, and others.

The problem is, we inadvertently teach our kids that the Bible is just a collection of stories with little or no relationship to one another. We tell the stories without connecting them to the Story the Bible is telling of a perfect God's passionate pursuit of prodigal people through His Son Jesus Christ.

The stories of Scripture are all accountable to the Story of Scripture. If we just talk about Jonah but don't mention what it has to do with Jesus, we stop the story before it truly resolves and therefore miss the point.

As you're reading through your Bible, especially in the Old Testament, discipline yourself to think about how the Old Testament stories connect to the overall story of redemption. You will peel back a layer to the Old Testament you might not have ever seen, and you won't be sorry.

Fasting

So, Lent starts a week from today.

In the past, Lent was primarily celebrated by Catholics and a few Protestant "high church" denominations. More recently, it has become faddish for the rest of the Church to fast something for Lent.

Honestly, I think fasting is a fairly healthy practice, not just for Lent, but as a part of Christian worship throughout the year. But only insofar as it's done within the context of biblical guidelines for any other fast. My estimation is that a lot of Lent fasting is the exact opposite of what Jesus and Paul indicated should be true of people who decide to fast.

1. Fasting is to be private - Jesus is fairly explicit in Matthew 5:16-18 that the fact you are fasting should be a secret kept between you and God. I considered writing a post today chronicling any Lent plans I might have. I've done that in the past. But I think that was a mistake. Lent isn't about seeing who can come up with the most creative, most disciplined, most exotic fast; it's a private act of worship between a person and God. If you do a lot of talking about what you're fasting, you defeat the purpose.

2. Fasting is less about what you don't do, more about what you do in its place - In 1 Corinthians 7:5, Paul wrote to the carnal Corinthians about their practice of fasting sexual activity. He makes it clear that the purpose for a fast was that the Corinthians should devote their extra time to prayer. Lots of people give up something for Lent, but that's only half the discipline. If you decide to fast something during this season, make sure you're as committed to filling the space with something that extends your worship.

3. Fasting is an opportunity, not an obligation - The New Testament never commands believers to fast. It certainly allows for that form of worship, providing even the example of Jesus (Matthew 4:2). But the New Testament never makes fasting an obligation for the believer, nor does it specify exactly what should be fasted or for how long. As a result, it provides us with quite a bit of freedom to choose to fast (or not fast) in a way that brings honor to God. It's wrong to imply that someone who does fast is more spiritual than someone who doesn't when the Scriptures simply don't make that connection.

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. The church must find a way to consistently hold passionate external focus and deep theology at the same time. But, I am not sure I love Belcher's 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 so 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.

Trust and Clarity

Our elders met last night and had a great conversation about expectations and trust.

When it comes to organizations, a lack of trust is almost always an indicator of unclear expectations.

Boards don't hire untrustworthy pastors or CEOs. If they do, they fire them immediately.

Pastors and CEOs don't go to work for untrustworthy boards. If they do, it's temporary until they can find another job.

When the problem is not character, it is almost always communication. The board is unclear about what it expects the pastor to do, so they don't trust him. Because the pastor does not have clear expectations of the board's response or expectations of him, he won't trust the board.

Expectations assume accountability and accountability breeds trust. Clarify expectations, and trust problems go away.

I'm thankful to work for a board who is serious about clarifying expectations. We're a work in progress, but they're committed to progressing in the right direction.

Remembering without Bitterness

Last week I was reading the story of Joseph in my One-Year-Bible and saw something I hadn't noticed before.

In Genesis 45, Joseph's brothers have come to Egypt to find food. These are the same brothers who threw him in a pit intending to kill him. They decided instead to make some money off Joseph and sold him as a slave, telling their dad that a wild beast had eaten him.

You know the story: Following that day, Joseph's life was a real-life illustration of Murphy's law, until finally he ends up the Prime Minister of Egypt with control over the food supply. Joseph could have had his revenge over his brothers, but chooses not to. It's a great story.

But here's the verse I found fascinating this weekend: Genesis 45:16 says "The news soon reached Pharaoh's palace: "Joseph's brothers have arrived!" Pharaoh and his officials were all delighted to hear this."

Delighted? Seriously?

Don't you figure Joseph has told Pharaoh and his officials the story? How could he have not?

If I had been Joseph, people would have heard my rags-to-riches story a billion times, and those twisted brothers would have been painted in the cruelest light possible. My tell-all autobiography as Prime Minister would have made sure everyone saw those twerps as the villains they were.

People sure wouldn't have been "delighted" to see them after I got done telling the story.

When (if) Joseph re-told his story, he had done it without a hint of bitterness towards his brothers. Joseph didn't have to be the hero of his life story, and as a result, God got to be.

Are there people in your story you tend to vilify? Parts of your story you can't tell without bitterness?

When you practice telling your story as if God were in control, you prepare yourself to act the right way when God closes the loop.

Role of Preacher

Quick blog this morning, with a quick question.

Do you feel as though the primary role of the preacher is to inform or persuade?

Don't cop out on me and say "both." Which one is more important?

Bible Literacy and the Tyranny of the Urgent

One of the things that keeps me up at night is the shockingly low biblical literacy of most Americans - even people who grew up in church. Why is it that the majority of us own more than one Bible, have access to the Bible on video, DVD, iPhone, computer, and Kindle, and say we believe the Bible is God's Word, but couldn't tell you if Moses came before Abraham or if Hezekiah is a real book in the Bible?

I think there are a lot of reasons - maybe I'll blog about them someday. But Phillips Brooks (19th century pastor) had an answer that rings true a hundred years later: they tyranny of the urgent.

"Even the man who knows that the Bible is the best of books will read the new treatise on religion instead of the Bible, because he knows the Bible belongs to all ages, and can never pass out of date, while with this "latest publication" it is today or never."

To put it another way, we spend a lot of our time reading the newest, hottest book about the Bible, but skip the Bible because we know the Bible will always be there. The newest, hottest book about the Bible will only be hot for another year or so.

Completely illogical, obviously; and yet I'm guilty as charged.

Imitation

Several years ago I took a preaching class at Dallas Seminary with a guy who had grown up under the teaching ministry of John MacArthur Jr. This guy admired Dr. MacArthur so much that he had studied virtually every dimension of MacArthur's style. He moved his arms like MacArthur, inflected his voice like MacArthur, and intentionally tried to capture MacArthur's distinct preaching style and rhythm.

I don't think Dr. MacArthur would have been at all flattered. In fact, I think he would have been deeply offended by this kind of imitation because it implied that the power of Dr. MacArthur's preaching was in his mannerisms.

It's tempting for young Christians to find a person they admire spiritually to imitate. And certainly, there's a biblical example of that (1 Corinthians 4:16). But we have to be sure we're imitating the right thing.

When I first started growing as a Christian, my hero got up at 4:30am to study his Bible. So I started setting my alarm early, as if the key to spiritual growth was tied to the hour I woke up.

Rather than imitating MacArthur's gestures and inflections, my friend should have imitated his love for preaching the Scriptures. Instead of trying to shop at the same stores, watch the same shows, and follow the same schedule as other Christians we admire, we should follow how they follow Christ.

Otherwise, our imitation is not the sincerest form of flattery at all. Instead, it's an insult to the person we admire.

Different Gods?

For the past couple of weekends, I got to preach over what is probably my favorite topic to teach: The Bible...

The whole thing.

Two weeks ago I preached on the Story of the Old Testament, and this past week I talked about the Story of the New Testament. I had a blast (If you're interested in the sermons, you can check them out online).

One of the things I got to say this week in the first service but didn't mention in the second service was about something a lot of people struggle with: the misconception that the God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New Testament.

Have you ever wondered about that?

At first glance, the God of the Old Testament seems to be a God of anger, punishment, and judgment while the God of the New Testament seems to be a God of grace, love, and mercy. What gives?

Christ gives.

In the Old Testament, God was speaking most often to a group of stiff-necked people who continually rejected His provision. They were prodigal people who thumbed their nose at God every chance they got. As a perfect God, God must always judge sin. Sin is serious business.

The good news of the New Testament is that God sent His Son to take the judgment we prodigal people deserved. At the cross, He took the judgment of God on sin upon Himself.

Most of the New Testament is written to the Church - people who have trusted Christ as their satisfactory payment before God. For those who have trusted Christ, we don't have to live in anticipation of God's judgment; Christ took it on the cross.

When you get to Revelation, God begins dealing with those who have rejected Him again, and begins dealing with them in the same way He dealt with people in the Old Testament: treating sin with the seriousness it deserves.

The God of the New Testament is the same as the God of the Old Testament. The difference is where we stand in relationship to the cross.

Whistling Boats

I just finished a book by a 19th Century preacher named Phillips Brooks called "The Joy of Preaching." The book has some great insight, but it was a slog to get through most of it.

One particular passage caught my attention though - especially as it relates to much of the blogosphere. Brooks was writing to caution preachers about sitting in judgement on other preachers - either for their zeal or a perceived weakened hold on truth, and says:

"We are like steamers lying in the fog and whistling, that we may not run into others nor they into us. It is safe, but commerce makes no great progress thereby, and it shows no great skill in navigation."

It seems like much of the Christian blog world exists to lob potshots back and forth at other Christians. Certainly there is a time and place to decry heresy. There is also a time and place to debate minutiae. But a lot of what I read on the blogosphere and hear in a lot of Christian circles gives life to Brooks' analogy of two ships.

It's easy to blow our horn at people we don't agree with. It's easy to make sure we don't bump into them, and they don't bump into us. But if our only goal is horn-blowing, we might as well stay home. That kind of activity makes zero progress and takes zero skill.

Great navigational skill is required to make progress in foggy areas. Timeless words.

How can I pray for you?

Looking for an easy way to begin a profound conversation with someone far from God? Ask them how you can pray for them.

I've done this at a restaurant with waiters from time to time. "Hey, we're getting ready to pray for our meal in a few minutes and we're really thankful for you helping us out. When we pray, how can we pray for you?"

Virtually nobody will be offended by the question, and most of the time they will invite you in for a sneak peak at what God is doing in their life.

It works with neighbors, coworkers, friends, kids, and spouses. Our senior pastor's daughter calls him almost every morning on the way to work to ask how she can pray for him, because his wife modeled that when the kids were young.

If you want to knock someones socks off and see what God is up to, it's pretty easy: ask them how you can pray for them.

Door Opener?

Throughout my life God has placed several people who were door-openers - people who believed in me, or believed better for me, and opened doors to new opportunities. They didn't have to spend a lot of time with me, or go out of their way for me. They were simply present at moments in my life when I needed someone to help me break through.

Sometimes I had my hands full; sometimes I couldn't find the door. Sometimes I didn't even realize there was something else beyond where I was. But they opened the door for me.

Of course, everyone hasn't been so generous. I've experienced my fair share of bouncers: the people who say "no" before the know the question; the people who seem bent on making everything more difficult; the people who never see your potential, never see any maturity, always look for ways they can instruct you but never the ways they can empower you.

I don't know about you, but I hope I'm always the kind of person who opens doors for others.

Hard Stuff

This past weekend, our staff and non-staff church leaders went on a retreat together. One of my heroes, the pastor of Fellowship Bible Church Dallas led our time by talking about "Improving Your Influence Quotient" and did a really great job.

One of the things Gary talked about was the fact that the higher you go, the harder leadership gets. High-level leadership almost always deals in shades of gray, because the black and white problems were solved on the way up the ladder.

High-level leaders have to have great instincts, great character, and great moral clarity, because every single decision will be a test.

That's good stuff to remember, whether you're a high-level leader in a church, a business, or a family. The direction has to be set ahead of time, and the moral/directional compasses have to be checked on every decision. Otherwise, your decisions can easily and inadvertently veer off course.

Clear Minded Praying

Something jumped out at me this weekend as I was reading through 1 Peter. In 1 Peter 4:7, Peter writes "Be clear minded and self controlled so you can pray."

Anyone else find that their approach to prayer is generally the opposite?

When my mind is not clear, I pray for wisdom. When I'm out of control or needing self-control, I pray. When I feel clear-minded or self-controlled, I generally skip prayer. I believe the lie that says if I have mental clarity and control of myself, I don't need God's help.

We should pray when we need wisdom or self-control. But according to Peter's instructions, those prayers should be the exceptions in our prayer lives not the rule.

New Year, New Look

If you normally read my blog in an RSS reader, you should click through today.

My Canadian friend Drew sent me an email several months ago telling me that my blog design was embarrassing him. So, I told him to do better.

He did.

He's still working out some kinks, but I think you'll agree that he did a pretty fantastic job.

I'm going to have to start writing better to live up to the blog design.

Goal #2 - Process

So, what does it look like to pour your life into someone else?

Actually, you're going to be disappointed with my answer: intentionality, relationship, and time.

There isn't a specific "10-steps to pouring" plan. There isn't a silver bullet set of books or resources that guarantee success when it comes to this kind of thing. Just do something.

In the past, I've benefited from regular appointments with men where I was able to ask them any question I wanted. I've benefited from going through one-on-one discipleship material. I've benefited from reading a book with another person and discussing its content and how it applies to my life. I've benefited from going through a one-year-Bible with another person, and meeting weekly to discuss what we're learning.

When it comes down to it, it really doesn't matter what you do as long as an intentional relationship exists over time.

Pouring your life into someone is different from just "doing lunch," because it's intentional; there's a purpose. It's different from just a business meeting or completing a checklist together; we grow in relationship, not by checking boxes. And, there is no quick method to pouring your life into another person; it takes time.

Goal #2 - Identification

I got an email last week asking for clarification about one of my New Year Resolutions. It brings up something I've been wanting to blog about, so here you go.

The two questions were with regard to goal #2 - to pour my life into 10 reproducers this year. He asked: "So how do you plan to go about identifying the 10? What does "pour my life into" look like practically?" I'll deal with the first question today, and the second question tomorrow.

When I was in college, a couple of guys took me under their wing and helped me develop as a follower of Christ. They weren't necessarily smarter than me, superior to me, or more successful than me. Neither of us was confused about that. They were just guys who were a little further down the road in the journey of following Christ, and offered to help me navigate the path. God used their investment to completely change the course of my life, and I'm committed to maximizing their investment by passing it along to others in a similar way.

Here are the things I look for as I try to identify someone to invest in:

1. Chemistry - I look for guys that I genuinely like. That sounds shallow but the relationship is the primary conduit for the process. If the relationship is difficult, everything else will be as well.

2. Trajectory - I look for a guy who is headed in the right direction. I'm not into chasing guys, babysitting Christians, or begging people to grow; that's why God created mommies and daddies.

3. Teachability - There are some guys who I like who are headed in a right direction, but who have everything figured out. They're the smartest guy in the room. Actually, I lied. I usually don't like those guys at all. Investing in them is like dumping change into a wishing well: you're wasting your cash and probably aren't going to get what you hoped for. I look for people who are eager to learn.

4. Faithfulness - Lots of people are great starters; few people are good finishers. If I'm going to maximize my investment, I need people who are going to keep carrying the torch after the new wears off. Part of the process is continuing the investment. If a guy won't do that, I'm pouring my life into a stagnant pool.

5. Availability - Some people are in a season of life where they just don't have the margin for an intentional process of spiritual growth. I look for people who have (or are willing to find) the margin to get together on a regular basis.

Panacea

The human condition is constantly looking for an easier way to do everything. All of us, as a general rule, look for the path of least resistance and take it every chance we get. It's why only 12 percent of the people who make resolutions actually keep them. It's why there really is an app for everything. We buy technology to simplify our lives and then buy technology to simplify our technology. We want to get rich quick, and then get richer quicker.

That's the way it works. The more we try to make life easier, the more complex it gets.

But when it comes to doing great things, there is no easier way. There is no Panacea.

If something is easy, everyone will do it and it will cease to be great.

You don't have to be lazy to be average; you simply have to take the easy road every time it is available.

It takes hard work to be exceptional. It takes diligence to be great. If you really want to do something great, you have to be willing to do what others weren't willing to do.