If I Were In Charge...

If you're familiar with our situation at McKinney, I'm currently in a second-chair role in our church transitioning to the first-chair role at some point in the next several months. I haven't completely transitioned into the first-chair role, but am enough into the "straddle," that I'm starting to get some perspective on the second-chair role.

One thing that has become increasingly clear to me during the transition is this: sentences that begin with "If I were in charge..." are most likely to be the most foolish words you'll say all day.

It's impossible to grasp the full-scope of decision-making without the responsibility for making the decision. If you're not the one whose head will role with a bad decision, you can't speak with any accuracy about what it is you would do if you were in charge. I've learned that the hard way.

I have a word file on my computer titled "WIAP." The letters stand for "When I'm A Pastor." I started the file more than a decade ago when it became clear to me that I wanted to be a pastor. That file has been a place where I've collected leadership ideas from books I've read, as far as all the things I said "When I am a senior pastor, I'll..." I wanted a place to capture some of those ideas so I wouldn't forget them when I grew up.

You might think over the decade the folder would get significantly bigger; it hasn't. Instead, the more and more responsibility I've received over time, the more things I deleted from the file. Many of them were not realistic. Others were based on arrogant assumptions I had about how organizations "should" be run.

I've retained some good ideas over the years, but I like to think I've matured to the point that I keep my mouth shut in the few instances that a first chair leader has made a decision I wouldn't have made. I don't want to be a fool talking about things I don't understand.

When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor - Review

I picked up "When Helping Hurts" at the recommendation of a guy who reads the blog from time to time. He was excited about it and thought it might be the kind of book I would be interested in. He was right. Thanks James!

When Helping Hurts is written by Brian Fikkert and Steve Corbett. The title and subtitle are fairly self-explanatory. Essentially, this book is written on the premise that many of our benevolence strategies may be counter-productive. Early in the book they use this illustration: "When a sick person goes to the doctor, the doctor could make two crucial mistakes: (1) Treating symptoms instead of the underlying illness; (2) Misdiagnosing the underlying illness and prescribing the wrong medicine. Either one of these mistakes will result in the patient not getting better and possibly getting worse." "When Helping Hurts" demonstrates that when wealthy, Western Christianity seeks to help the disadvantaged, we can easily make the same two mistakes. 

The authors point out the dangers of a messiah complex combined with a hidden health/wealth gospel that says explicitly or implicitly, "You are poor because you don't know better or aren't honoring God. We can fix you." 

Instead of the messiah complex, Fikkert and Corbett argue Christians who really want to help the poor should concentrate on making an accurate diagnosis: does the situation call for relief, rehabilitation, or development? They point out that relief is the most common diagnosis, though it is rarely the accurate diagnosis. Providing relief from the outside that systems and people on the inside are able to provide is almost always counter-productive. Outside help in non-emergency situations will devalue the people being helped, break systems that were intended to provide relief, and prevent long-term relationships from developing.

This obviously has implications on Short-Term mission trips. Fikkert and Corbett point to a stewardship question that mission committees and churches must answer: When is it appropriate to send a team as opposed to simply funding a team already on the ground. They point out that many short-term trips cost more per person than it would cost to fund an entire indigenous team for a year. That isn't to say Short Term Missions are not important and valuable, only that they must be closely evaluated to ensure good stewardship. 

A mission philosophy of partnership seems to be far more strategic than purposeless Christian tourism because it comes alongside someone with the capacity and skills to truly engage a culture in its own rehabilitation and development for the long-haul. 

"When Helping Hurts" is a really important read for anyone involved interested in alleviating poverty in the world for the purpose of proclaiming the Gospel. It is a quick, well-written, easy read that packs a paradigm-shifting punch for much of the Western Christian world. 

 

The "Almost" Fit

We're in the process of searching for a couple of really critical staff positions. I've found that a healthy organization is almost always looking for good people - unhealthy organizations usually find unhealthy people and hang on to them.

The challenge in hiring for open positions is that you only hire people when you have a need. And, when you have a need but nobody to fill the position, someone else ends up doing extra work. That can lead to overworked people, broken down systems, and under-led initiatives. It's easy to panic or settle on an "almost" fit without being patient for the right fit, especially the longer a search drags on.

I've found an "almost" fit is worse than a poor fit. With a poor fit, everyone knows it's a poor fit. With an "almost fit," only a few people will notice and those people may have a hard time putting their finger on exactly what's wrong. It is always better to wait for the right fit than to talk yourself into someone you don't believe in from the start.

There are no perfect candidates and no perfect hires. But, if your gut tells you someone's not the right fit before you hire them you probably ought to listen to it, even if it means an awkward phone call to part ways with a candidate when you can't really explain why.  Otherwise, you'll spend the first several weeks of their employment trying to figure out what your gut was telling you and it will inevitably be a bigger deal than you initially thought. Inevitably.

Have a specific profile in mind of the person you want, and don't hire someone until you find that person. And even if you can't put your finger on specifically why you aren't jazzed about a candidate, do yourself a favor and stop the train before it runs you over.

Treat Him Like an Unbeliever

We don't talk a lot about church discipline as a church, but it happens all the time. Most "discipline" never goes nuclear - it ends at the first step in Matthew 18 where a person confronts his brother about a sin the brother has committed against him one-on-one, and nobody else ever has to know about it.

Occasionally, two or three people have to go to a person about a sin issue and on a few occasions, ministry leaders have to get involved in trying to restore a person. Often by that point a person has either chosen to repent or chosen to remove him or herself from the church altogether.

On very rare occasions, the process Jesus talks about in Matthew 18:15-20 reaches the point at which a person has to be treated as a "pagan or tax collector," whatever that means!

So what does it mean? How did Jesus intend that we would treat pagans and tax collectors?

When you look through the Scriptures, it doesn't seem as if Jesus had in mind that we would ignore them altogether (Luke 19:1-10). Where else will they be restored if they don't have Christian influence to speak Truth into their lives?

However, it also doesn't seem as if Jesus was passive about their sin (Mark 2:13-17). He associated with them but never passively. He loved them, but never allowed his love for them to be mistaken as implicit agreement with their paganism.

One of the hardest conversations you can ever have with a fellow believer who has chosen to live an unrepentant lifestyle goes something like this: "I love you, and I'm going to continue to pursue you because of that love. But we need to be clear on something: you are living in willful, sinful rebellion against God which is completely unacceptable to me as a follower of Christ and as a person who loves you and wants better for you. So you need to know that in choosing to live this way, our relationship must necessarily change. I still want to love you, and want to be there to celebrate when you choose to honor God with your life. But until that point our relationship needs to change. I'm not going to disappear from your life and hope that you won't either; but until you get to the point that you are willing to live differently, our conversations will revolve around this topic; it's too important to ignore.

In order to truly love a person through a period of self-imposed brokenness it is important to be clear about sin, clear about the issue, and clear about the relationship. All with the purpose of seeing a person restored in his or her faith, and restored in community the way God designed it.

To Change the World - Review

I began reading buzz about James Davidson Hunter's book "To Change the World" several months ago and decided I wanted to read ahead of the mass curve so I picked it up.

I'm not going to pretend as if I understood every nuance of Hunter's argument. This book is academic, tends toward technical, and is written by someone who could obviously loan me enough IQ points to make me a genius while himself remaining the smartest guy in most of the rooms he'll enter. Even still, I think this book was a worthwhile pursuit.

In short, Hunter takes on the traditional approach to world-changing - attempting to change the world by gaining power (mostly political power) and utilizing that power to affect positive change on culture and society - and shows that culture change throughout history has rarely occurred that way. The religious right, religious left and pacifism as political factions have been miserable failures, not only in our lifetime but in the 2000 years of the church's existence.

Hunter argues that cultural change rarely happens as a matter of legislation. Instead, it happens more organically outside the central power locations by ordinary people who innovate and institutionalize new ideas which change the culture.

Hunter proposes that the church, rather than trying to leverage a fallen political system, should embrace a theology of "faithful presence." Rather than politicizing every issue, which allows the political system to be the final arbiter, the Church should faithfully embrace Christ-centered principles which goes the way of the cross. The Church should acknowledge the rule of God in every aspect of their lives as harbingers of the rule of God while contributing to the good of the Christian community and to the flourishing of all people.

"To Change the World" takes the form of three essays. The first two are almost exclusively theory; the third puts the first two together along with the beginning of practical application.

Hunter's book is not an easy read. In fact, it can be a slog in places. My guess is that it is a great start for conversations that will spin out of the book and will be a source book for many more practical books in the future. If you want to know where books on culture change of the future began, look no further.

Succession

Collin Hansen wrote an outstanding blog entry on the Gospel Coalition blog last week called "Gospel Integrity and Pastoral Succession." 

Being right in the middle of this kind of transition, I'm admittedly biased, but I agree wholeheartedly with the heart of what Hansen says.

Very few churches do intentional transitions. Sometimes they resist because the outgoing senior pastor's ego will not allow it. Sometimes they resist because many young leaders prefer to start from scratch through church planting as opposed to inheriting bureaucracy and sacred cows from another generation. Sometimes they resist because it's just plain hard.

Our transition hasn't been easy; it hasn't been clean, cut, and dry. And whether or not we're successful won't be known for a few years after the baton is formally passed. Even still, though intentional transition is not for the faint of heart, I remain absolutely committed to the model as the wisest, most responsible way for a local church to transition to the next generation. And, I've already begun praying for the person who will take the baton from me, hopefully 30 years from now.

What Kind of Swing?

I have lunch with our Elder Chairman every Wednesday. Most of my pastor friends would call that kind of arrangement "Purgatory," but it's been a large part of what has made our transition so smooth. He's a great guy with great leadership instincts, which makes our lunches one of the weekly appointments I look forward to. I've also heard he's a pretty fine golfer. 

This past week he used an analogy in talking about trying to fill various staff roles that I think makes a lot of sense. 

He says there are some golfers who have a "manufactured swing," and some golfers who just "swing." The golfer with a "manufactured swing" had to learn the mechanics of the swing and practice them until they become a part of his muscle memory. Golfers who just "swing" are born with instincts that allow them to swing a golf club naturally. If you're watching very carefully, you can spot the difference when you watch golf. 

Here's the thing: both swings can win a bunch of golf tournaments. In fact, two of golf's best are different: Arnold Palmer has a "manufactured swing," Jack Nicklaus just swings. 

What does it matter? It makes all the difference if you're a coach. If a "manufactured swing" begins to falter, it's usually because the golfer has taken out a mechanic that he needs to add back in. If a "just swing" begins to struggle, it's usually because the golfer has started doing something that isn't natural for him. 

When it comes to coaching individuals in an organization, similar principles apply. You will hire some people who have learned how to do a skill really well. When they start to struggle, it's usually because they've left out a step that they used to include. They may not see it as critical to the mechanics of their job, but it is. Other people will have natural talent for what they do. If we're not careful, we can pile so many other things on their plate that they start to "swing" differently. That's a great way for them to miss the ball altogether.

Stealing?

I had breakfast yesterday with my buddy Drew who is beginning a new chapter in his life next week, transitioning into the Senior Pastor role at a church in San Antonio. Our conversations over the past few years have been a constant source of blog topics for me. Usually he poses a great question, I give a lousy answer, he is gracious, and I post a blog entry later that says what I should have said before. Today is one of those days.

One of the topics yesterday was whether or not it's okay to use ("steal") the ideas of other ministries or pastors and use them in the ministries we lead. Here are some of my random thoughts:

1. Everything I know, I learned from someone else. Even ideas that are "original" with me were stimulated, informed, or inspired by things I learned from others. In a big way, Solomon was right... there isn't anything new under the sun.

2. Blatant Plagiarism is a sin. If you knowingly take credit for ideas that were not yours, you are a liar. Cite your sources or do your own work.

3.It's a waste of time to re-invent the wheel. If someone is doing something well, you need a really good reason to re-invent it. Otherwise, it's poor stewardship of your time.

4. It's lazy to steal something without making it better. Because ministry involves people and people are different, very, very, very few ideas are plug-and-play. You serve a unique organization in a unique context. Look for ways to adapt good ideas and make them better in your context.

5. Sin begins in the heart. If you're using someone else's idea because it gets you out of the hard work, nobody else may ever know. But you will know, and God will know.

6. God has called you to lead your congregation, not Andy Stanley, or Bill Hybels, or Mark Driscoll. It is absolutely unconscionable to preach another guy's sermon. If God wanted Matt Chandler to be your church's pastor, Matt Chandler would be your church's pastor. Man up and do the work.

Job and Value

Wherever you work/serve there are two things you should contribute: (1) The job you're paid to do, and (2) the value you bring to the organization.

Most of the time, the two things overlap but not completely. Especially if you're not at the top of the organizational chart.

Your job description is what you are given. It reflects some of your gifts and talents, but almost never the full spectrum of value you can bring to the organization. People who advance in leadership and responsibility are people who add value to the organization above and beyond their own specific area.

However, the opportunity to bring extra value to the organization is earned, not owed. You have to be invited to add value outside your area.  If you move too quickly to speak into areas that are not expected of you, you are more likely to be seen as a contrarian, idealist, or person who over-steps.

The very best leaders - the people who advance - are those who earn trust by doing their job well, and then pounce on opportunities to add extra value in areas outside of the job description.

Books in my Queue

This is my cop-out post when my brain is fried and I don't have anything ready to write about. Here are some books on my list. I'm currently slogging through James Davidson Hunter's "To Change the World." It's taken me a couple of weeks and my Kindle says I'm only 60% done. I'm fairly sure I only understand an infinitesimal portion of the book, but am extremely interested in it. Here are the books in the lineup:

Transition Plan: 7 Secrets Every Leader Needs to Know - Bob Russel

Leading from the Second Chair - Bonem and Patterson

When Helping Hurts - Fikkert and Corbett

Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary and Theological Commentary - Collins

Leading for a Lifetime - Warren Bennis

Shepherds After My Own Heart - Timothy Laniak

Winning on Purpose - Review

For the last several months our elders have been doing some thinking about how they can bring increased clarity and efficiency to their role as they lead our growing congregation. One of the books they've been reading as they think about leadership is called "Reinventing your Board" by John Carver. Carver has a governance model that isn't specifically designed for churches, but that does an extremely good job helping leaders clearly define and communicate their roles and responsibility. It's a really helpful book worth the investment, but is extraordinarily dry.

Don't tell our elders, but I recently discovered a new book called "Winning on Purpose" by John Kaiser that takes a similar approach in a much, much, much more accessible format.

Kaiser argues that great leadership groups play to win just like any other team. They establish clear roles, clear objectives, clear boundaries, and a clear purpose. Someone has to pick the plays, someone has to execute the plays, and it's really important to know which is which.

Kaiser makes the point that there are three things that make a game worth playing: an object, rules, and a way to keep score. Absent any of these criteria, the game isn't going to be fun for long. The "Accountable Leadership Strategy" in "Winning on Purpose" brings these three things into focus and helps leadership groups find focus and clarity around each one.

"Winning on Purpose" discusses the difference between "wimpy boards" and "controlling boards" and helps governing boards avoid both ditches.

I realize most of you who read my blog are not pastors or elders in your local church. So, this isn't the kind of book I would normally review. However, I think it will be helpful enough to the few of you who are pastors or a part of a governing board somewhere that I decided to review it anyway. You won't adopt everything Kaiser recommends; that's okay. But what he's saying is good, good stuff.

Surrendered to Ministry?

I think I'm going to embark on a self-commissioned mission to eliminate Christianese phrases that don't make any sense. I'll try to be nice about it, but sometimes I hear people say things (or catch myself saying things) that mean absolutely nothing, or worse, they convey the exact opposite of what we hope they will convey.

Yesterday at church, a guy asked me when I "surrendered to the ministry."

Can we stop saying that?

It's like God caught me in a weak moment and pulled a gun on me, forcing me to "surrender" to ministry as if being in ministry is a bad thing, and as if ministry is something that all Christ-centered people are not called to do.

I love what I do. I love the fact that people invest their money in such a way that I get to do it every day. There was a day in which I said "I'll never be a pastor." But I'm not a pastor today because I had to surrender my dreams; God worked in my life and in my heart to where I would have to surrender to do anything else.

Full-time ministry, whether you get paid specifically for that or get to do it while you get paid for something else, is an unspeakable privilege. It's the greatest fun I can imagine and is perfectly consistent with the desires of my heart. It's not something I had to surrender to.

Preventing Group Elephantiasis - Part 4

I spent the week talking about the importance of a strategy that forces groups to think about multiplication rather than simply growing bigger. Ultimately, it asks the group to think outside itself - something groups usually aren't good at.

The natural inclination of groups is to move toward self-preservation and to turn inward. We're afraid if we multiply our group, or our organization for that matter, we'll lose the things that made it great. In reality the opposite is the case. Relationships, accountability, depth, trust, and all the other marks of a strong group only get thinner the bigger a group gets. That's an intuitive statement as long as it's not connected with the possibility that something in your group might change.

Ultimately the question for leaders of groups is this: why does our group exist, really? If the reason is anything other than "to get as many people as possible in one group" you have to think about multiplication. Relationships are developed better in smaller groups. Movement toward a purpose happens quicker in more agile groups. Topics and content can be more relevant to peoples' lives when their lives are actually known. Authenticity and truth-telling happens in smaller groups. And leaders are developed more quickly when they are forced to step up and lead.

So how big is too big? Depends on the purpose of your group. That's for you to discern. But whatever the organization, whatever the group, there is a ceiling. And if you wait until you discover it by accident before you begin thinking about how to get down, you (and your group) will have a sore head and a long fall.

Preventing Group Elephantiasis - Part 3

Healthy groups multiply rather than just getting bigger. However, it isn't always an easy process. We've tried to establish multiplication as an expectation for our groups, but it doesn't always go well. Here are some pitfalls to avoid:

- Don't let the vision leak. Because multiplication isn't always comfortable, it's important that the purpose stay in front of both groups until the multiplication is complete. Some people won't like it; some people won't buy it. Make sure everyone understands it.

- Don't wait until the group has no other options. If you wait until the group is unhealthy and obese, you will carry unhealthy DNA into the new group.

- Don't wait until you feel like all the leaders feel ready. In truth, no leader will be ready to lead until he or she has led. It takes experience, not just training, to make a leader. Often we find that multiplication forces new leaders who would never feel ready to spread their wings and discover something they didn't previously realize.

- Don't talk about "splitting." Ever. Splitting is violent and detrimental. Multiplication is natural and necessary for future maturity. Relationships are not severed in multiplication but they do change. It is tempting to talk about a group "splitting." Don't.

- Don't fold in the face of pushback. Multiplication isn't always fun. There will always be people who won't understand the point; who favor stability over instability. The funny thing about multiplication is that it's the only way to ensure stability in the long-run. The status-quo is a delusion when it comes to groups.

- Don't worry when things don't work out like you planned. Multiplication is a messy process that contains a lot of variables that can't be predicted. Keep the vision clear, keep your leaders encouraged, and roll with the punches.

Multiplication is the only way to ensure that what is great about a group gets passed along. When it's done often and done well, the entire organization gets healthier.

Preventing Group Elephantiasis - Part 2

I mentioned yesterday that Group Elephantiasis - where groups keep getting bigger and bigger - is terminally dangerous. We try to help all of our groups, especially the new ones, set their sights on reproduction rather than elephantiasis. But it isn't always easy. Here are some of the things that have helped us be successful:

- Focus on a leadership development culture. If you've got the right leaders to lead a multiplication, it's a lot easier for the group to buy-in.

- Establish the expectation as early as possible. If the group is aware that the goal is multiplication, they will be less likely (notice, I said "less" likely) to grow settled in instincts that will prove to be unhealthy. We try to have this conversation with groups before they begin if at all possible.

- Initiate multiplication but allow the multiplication to unfold on its own. A group will almost never initiate multiplication - elephentiasis is far too comfortable. However, we try to resist the urge to tell people whether they should be a part of the new group or stay a part of the old group. Contrived relationships never work.

- Establish the leaders before announcing the multiplication. Multiplication takes work and intentionality. Someone needs to be on the hook for ensuring all that happens. Clear leaders will be important to establish in both the existing group and the new group.

- Plan extensively, multiply quickly. If the actual multiplication is drawn out, fear will emerge and the new group will experience a false-start which will crater future opportunities to multiply.

Multiplication is messy and difficult, but is almost always worth it. Tomorrow, I'll talk about some of the mistakes we've made in the process.

Preventing Group Elephantiasis

In the medical world, it's worrisome when an organism won't stop growing bigger. We want young organisms to grow, but at some point it's appropriate (and important) for the growth to stop. Continued growth will inevitably lead to serious and even terminal health concerns. 

The same is true in churches, whether you're talking about small groups, Sunday School classes, Adult Bible Fellowships, or the church as a whole. At some point (and it's different for each group just as it's different for each organism), Group Elephantiasis will be terminal. 

The end result for groups can't be just to get bigger. If that's where the vision stops, it will seal the fate of the group. The end result for which groups should aspire (much like organisms) should be reproduction. Otherwise, the group will get so large that the identifiable traits that once attracted people to it will become grotesque and bloated, only barely resembling the traits people once recognized. To the person who is familiar with the group, they'll hardly notice the change over time. The person seeing the group for the first time will have a different experience. 

We try to build mulitplication/reproduction into the DNA of new groups at McKinney because we recognize that the best way to get more good DNA is not to just grow bigger body parts; it's to pass the good DNA along to young, healthy groups that can make better use of the good DNA and pass it along to others. 

So how does it work? I'll try to tell you in the next two days. First: how to multiply/reproduce a group tomorrow. Wednesday, I'll talk about what not to do.

Self-Help Heresy

The Self-Help Gospel may go down as the most damaging heresy to emerge in the 20th and 21st centuries. 

The idea that you and I are able to fix our brokenness on our own solely through a series of steps, positive thinking, better intentions, or more effort is an anti-orthodox, anti-gospel, anti-Christian idea. 

John 15:5 is awfully clear: "apart from Me you can do nothing." The Gospel is clear that any meaningful improvement has to come as a result of God's work in us because of what Jesus has done (Romans 6:23, Philippians 2:13; Romans 12:1-2, etc...). Our self-help is nothing more than heinous idolatry that is equivalent to disgusting, filthy rags laid at the feet of God (Isaiah 64:6). 

Whatever our brokeness, we have to be completely dependent on God through Jesus' death on the cross to fix it. Anything else makes Jesus at best a "part Savior;" a reprehensible thought.

Why are you still in existence?

I had a conversation yesterday with a friend of mine about Will Mancini's book "Church Unique." (I reviewed this book a year or so ago if you're interested in seeing that).

One of the things Mancini's book has caused me to ponder is the question "Why is your organization still in existence?" It's a question I ask all the time, especially as a pastor.

I pastor a church in Fort Worth, TX, a city where "Buckle of the Bible Belt" is not emphatic enough... There is almost literally a church of some kind on every corner and a really good church every 2 or 3 square miles. In business terms, this is an extremely saturated "market."

The question is: why is it that the church I lead exists? Why have we not chosen to sell our building and disperse the people who attend here to some of the other really great churches in Fort Worth?

There has to be a reason. If your church isn't unique, it might be time to examine other options.

"Unique" doesn't mean "better." "Unique" doesn't mean that nobody else can do what your church is doing in an arrogant sense of the concept. "Unique" means that your church (or organization) has a critical, strategic, intentional reason for existing. If it doesn't, maybe it shouldn't.

Good Enough

I'm a person who tries to pursue excellence in everything I do. It's a personal value, and a value of most of the organizations I've ever been a part of.

On its face, there's nothing wrong with valuing excellence. We usually talk about how we serve a God of excellence and therefore strive to pursue excellence in everything we do out of a response to him. Those are right sentiments, but sentiments that can pretty quickly become perverted in the hands of a perfectionist person who needs a way to justify his obsessiveness.

Sometimes I think we could honor God by valuing "good enough" as much as they value excellence.

When the pursuit of excellence in one area causes other important areas to be neglected, that doesn't honor God.

When the pursuit of excellence causes us to denigrate the gifts of others because they aren't as "good" as ours, excellence doesn't honor God.

When "excellence" is a code word for "control" and leads us to value programs and production above people, excellence isn't necessarily the best thing we can pursue.

Excellence is important, don't get me wrong. But "good enough" might be good enough when it comes to truly honoring God. 

The Serious Sin of Procrastination

I'm one of those guys who tends to work way too close to my nose. I'm a closet procrastinator who usually uses the excuse that "I work best under pressure."

Thanks to Joe Thorn for calling me out.

http://www.joethorn.net/2010/07/22/your-procrastination-is-sin/

Poor People and the Church

Last week I got the chance to visit with the head of an organization that is doing extraordinary ministry with the homeless community in Dallas about how churches can reach out and truly help those who are poor and disenfranchised. It was a long, very helpful conversation. Here are a couple of the things I've been chewing on: 


- If life is a 100 yard dash, you started at 95 yard line due to no fault of your own. If you don't succeed, shame on you. Just remember there are lots of people standing in the parking lot trying to get into the stadium due to no fault of their own.


- Laziness and stupidity is spread across the socio-economic continuum at an almost identical depth.


- If we'll stop treating the poor like a trip to the zoo, people's perception of the poor will change.


- There are very few places on the planet where poor people are treated as partners and peers. 

- How can Christians worship a homeless guy on Sunday and then rush past the first one they see on a sidewalk on Monday?

- The church cant do much for the poor the way they attack it. You can do an awful lot for people when they are your friend and you truly care about them.

 

Radical - Review

David Platt's book "Radical - Taking Back Your Faith From the American Dream" is a book I've heard a lot about in the past few weeks. Several people have recommended it to me, and with good reason. Platt's book is in many places a refreshing, no-holds-barred call for American Christians to start living an active faith rather than a passive one.

Platt calls out the Western tendency to remake Jesus in our own image, a Jesus who doesn't ask anything of us; needs us as much as we need Him; and whose greatest desire is for us to be comfort. In short, as the subtitle implies, David Platt argues that God's greatest concern is not for us to achieve financial independence, security, and material possessions to leave to our kids.

Platt's book is a call for Christians to reconsider the cost of discipleship, and to examine their lives in light of eternity. How many of the words we say on a regular basis have an eternal impact? How many of the dollars we spend will be seen as a good investment in a million years? Are our lives organized around the call of Christ or around the dreams of another god, namely the god of self?

"Radical" is a strong challenge for Christians to live differently; radically; and my life will be different as a result of reading it.

But...

This book is hard for me to recommend for the same reason I have a hard time recommending "Crazy Love," another book in the same vein. These books are both a reaction against the dumbed-down, seeker-sensitive movement that has sissified the Christian life to the point that the Church is indistinguishable from the world, a reality that Platt and Chan are right to rail against. But, they've gone too far. Platt bases his argument for radical discipleship on our response to the Gospel, saying "[The] Gospel evokes unconditional surrender of all that we are and all that we have to all that [Jesus] is." In the next paragraphs, Platt infers that if that kind of unconditional surrender is not a part of your current experience, you need to question whether or not you're headed to heaven when you die. The problem is: who could honestly say that it is?

He takes it a step further in chapter 6 where he admits that caring for the poor had been a "blind spot" in his own life for several years. But later in the chapter he says, "Indeed, caring for the poor (among other things) is evidence of our salvation. The faith in Christ that saves us from our sins involves an internal transformation that has external implications."

Dr. Platt's statement here goes way too far, not to mention the fact that it is inconsistent. If caring for the poor is evidence of salvation but was neglected by Dr. Platt for much of his life, are we to infer that Dr. Platt was not a believer for the first several years of his ministry? Nobody would say that. Certainly Dr. Platt would not say that.

Now, I absolutely believe that salvation should (and will) have external implications. But Dr. Platt's over-reach here is extremely dangerous because of its potential for causing believers to look to their behavior as the source of their security rather than the object of their faith.

Believers should care for the poor. We should be ashamed of ourselves for not caring for the poor. But we do not need to fear that our conversion was false because we haven't cared for the poor in our past.

The Radical life should be lived out of an overwhelming gratitude for the Gospel, not out of fear trying to prove that His grace has been applied to us. That's a critical distinction that unfortunately gets muddied in Dr. Platt's otherwise very good book.

Occupational Hazard of Over-Statement

During my class last week we had a great conversation around the topic of "over-statements" leaders tend to make. You know the over-statements: pastors over-state how effective their programs are, or how many people come to their church. Other organizations over-state how many people they reach or how many products they sold last year. Over-statements are dishonest, but awfully typical. And there aren't many leaders other than Jesus who are innocent of falling to this temptation.

Why is it that even leaders with extraordinary character have a tendency to over-state information, even when it doesn't need to be over-stated in the first place?

One of the guys in our discussion suggested that as organizations grow, leaders develop groupies who reward them for over-statement. Those groupies thrive on their connection to the leader; the more successful he (or she) is, the more a groupie thrives on the connection. So, the leader gets lots of opportunities to practice over-statements to the point that he begins to believe they are true. The more often the tape of a lie plays itself across our lips, the more likely we are to begin to believe the lie, and the more likely we are to tell the lie again. It becomes comfortable, and we begin to believe it.

It's a vicious cycle.

I tend to think my friend's logic is true. If so, it's just another reminder: you lie to yourself long before you lie to anyone else. And sometimes, if you aren't careful, those you'll get good enough that you even fool yourself.

The Good News We Almost Forgot - Review

I recently heard someone predict that in the future, theology will become even more important but will need to be less complex. The theologians of the future will be those who are able to master the art of putting complex truth in a simple, accessible way. Kevin DeYoung is one of those theologians.

The subtitle of DeYoung's Book "The Good News We Almost Forgot" is "Rediscovering the Gospel in a 16th Century Catechism." The subtitle is deceptive to a reader who doesn't give a flip what happened in the 16th century or have the foggiest idea what a "catechism" is, because DeYoung's book is both contemporary and accessible.

DeYoung looks back at the Heidelberg Catechism (catechisms are distilled theological Truth presented in the form of questions and answers) and demonstrates its usefulness to people wanting to think deeply and simply at the same time.

The Catechism was written in 52 sections so that a pastor could preach on each section each year. It is essentially a commentary on the Apostle's Creed, Ten Commandments, and Lord's Prayer. DeYoung writes a contemporary commentary on the commentary.

This book is an easy read that you'll want to read a couple of times. In fact, I'm considering making it a part of my discipline next year: a chapter a week.

I certainly don't agree with everything DeYoung says in this book, particularly with regard to baptism. But that shouldn't be a distraction for the reader. DeYoung writes with an approachable spirit and gracious demeanor that allows the reader to deal with differences the same way.

If you're interested in theology but have a tendency to get lost in the weeds, DeYoung's book will be a helpful resource.

Whew

Well, blog plans for the week came to a screeching halt at 1:45am on Monday morning.

We're doing great, but are juggling a sick 2-year-old, normal 2-day-old, and some classes in Dallas that I can't miss, it would be comical to try to write anything of substance. Then again, why start now?

Lord willing, I'll be back on Monday, August 2.

Sick Singers and Saturday Sermons

Those of you who know me know that a big part of my life has involved music, specifically singing. I did a lot of musical theater in a previous life, and spent some time as a worship leader. When you work primarily with vocal musicians, you notice something really quickly: You will never meet a physically healthy singer.

Try it next time you're around one. Next time you're at church on a Sunday morning and see the person who will be singing special music, tell them you're looking forward to hearing them sing. Ten bucks says they'll say, "Well, thanks... I've been struggling with a cold so be praying for me. I'm not in very good voice today."

Why are singers always sick? So that they have something to blame if they bomb. Singing is such an intensely personal gift that if you stink it up, you feel like it reflects poorly on you as a person.

I heard a fascinating study presented last week that said a staggering number of pastors don't write their sermons until Saturday night. I think it's probably for the same reason. Preaching is a terribly personal art. In order to protect their egos, pastors wait until Saturday to prepare. That way if the sermon bombs, they can justify it to themselves.

My suspicion is that the tendency isn't limited to only pastors and singers. I know businessmen who procrastinate business deals, salesmen who slow-play customers, and teachers who wait to prepare lesson plans.

All of us are insecure. The earlier we recognize it and make the decision to find our sufficiency in Christ, the earlier we're able to actually be used in His hands.

Wednesday Rundown on Thursday

- "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise to the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think and act anew. " - Abraham Lincoln.

- Sometimes improving skills in spiritual communication actually gets in the way of improving the spiritual life because people get more enamored by communication than transformation.

- Hire Staff who create their own momentum.

- Don't just delegate responsibility - delegate authority. There are a lot of people in the senior pastor role that don't need to be senior pastors. They're there because it's the only place on the org chart where someone would finally give them the responsibility and authority to do what God called them to do.

- Leaders who refuse to listen will eventually be surrounded by people with nothing important to say.

- As yourself: Is what you're experiencing on staff worth exporting to your community?

- If there's a proper teaching about the church gathered/scattered, the term "missional church" is redundant.

Tuesday Run-Down on Wednesday

- It's time to stop thinking and strategizing about the Church. It's not about the Church; it's about Jesus.

- If your strategy for fulfilling the Great Commission is limited to pastors and missionaries, the last two hundred years have shown that you're doomed to failure. Are we about sending missionaries or about fulfilling the great commission? The distinction is crucial. If we're just about sending missionaries, all we'll do is build the institution so we can send a select few. There's nothing wrong with sending missionaries; it's just insufficient.

- In the Bill of Rights, the founders set up a system in America where the minority will always have a voice. That, coupled with a society in which financial affluence and education is available, and we have the greatest opportunity in history to have a worldwide impact without ever leaving the country, simply by developing Christ-centered relationships. We shouldn't be scared of the Muslims building a mosque in the heart of our cities; we should be grateful for the opportunity.

- Acts 1:8 was not intended to be sequential; it was intended to be comprehensive.

- This is an amazing time in the history of United States where if you are a man who has held your marriage and family together you have enormous credibility to speak into the lives of others.

- Serve not to convert, but because you've been converted. God's responsibility is to do the converting. Our responsibility is to be an ambassador in every aspect of our life. The end goal of our service as ambassadors is that God would be glorified. It should be our desire that every person we meet would trust Christ; but in the end, we should serve them even if they don't ever trust Christ.

Committees

I'm in classes every day for the next 2 weeks at DTS. I fully intended to have blog entries queued up and ready to go for the week, but didn't get them done. So, I decided that I'd post a couple of gleanings/learnings/questions from my classes every night in random form. (I may interact with them and may just post them as they are to let you interact). We'll see how it goes.

Today, most of the day was an introduction to the class. But one statement caught my attention.

This statement was made today: "If you have more than 10 people on a committee, you ensure that major decisions will always be made outside the committee."

The statement in its context applied to boards, sub-committees, staff teams, and any other place committees are found.

On its face, I'm inclined to agree with the statement. I've been a part of several elder boards and committees in my life. When they get bigger than 10ish, the real decisions usually get made either (1) during the pre-meeting in which the agenda is established, or (2) during the meeting after the meeting that takes place in the parking lot where alliances are formed.

Some pastors opt for really big elder/deacon boards for this very reason: they give the pastor more power. The bigger the team, the more the confusion. The more confusion, the more freedom the pastor has to simply get things done.

There's at least one down side though: when the group is small, every person wields quite a bit of power. One "bad apple" can stall progress, lead the group astray, or distract the group from something that is really important. The smaller the group, the more emphasis has to be placed on selecting and training the right people.

So, what do you think? Do you agree with the original statement? If so, or if not, what's the optimum size of a decision-making group?

Ministry Idolatry and Fruit Bearing

Tim Keel wrote a book called "Intuitive Leadership, Embracing a Paradigm of Narrative, Metaphor, and Chaos." I'm not able to recommend the book for the same reason I'm not able to recommend much from the guys who call themselves "Emergent Village." I feel like they're asking the right questions, but are willing to abandon Truth in search of the answers.

Even still, because they're asking a lot of the right questions, sections of their books are extremely helpful. An example is this quote from "Intuitive Leadership" talking about the tendency for churches to fall into patterns of Ministry Idolatry:

"I believe the most acceptable and common form of idolatry in churches today is ministry. I believe many leaders and many churches worship ministry - that is, what we are trying to do for God... We often do not pursue God but instead pursue the fruitfulness that we are told accompanies God's presence in a person or community's life. Let me rephrase that statement: we rarely pursue God directly but instead pursue external expressions called "ministry" as a sign of God. But when we make ministry our pursuit, we make it impossible to realize the very thing we seek. Ministry is always the by-product of something else. What? The pursuit of God."

Keel goes on to point out John 15:4-5 and remind us that the command in John 15 is to "Abide," not to "bear fruit." Fruit-bearing comes from abiding. It isn't contrived, it isn't commanded, it isn't compelled. It's the natural product of a branch that abides. Rather than trying to talk our people into bearing fruit, we ought to teach them how to abide and let the fruit take care of itself.

Novelty and Sentimentality

Last Sunday I preached from 2 Kings 18-19 talking about the first part of Hezekiah's legacy as a king of Judah. It's a great story about a young king who started extremely well.

Early in his leadership, 2 Kings 18 says Hezekiah removed all the high places, stone altars, and Asherah poles that had been built in the 150 years or so since David. As the generations since David tried to find new ways to worship they drifted into full-fledged idolatry, opting to worship like the rest of the world rather than to stand apart.

But newfangled worship wasn't the only form of idolatry Hezekiah took on. He also broke up the bronze snake left over from Moses' ministry in Numbers 21. In the years since Moses, the snake had gone from being an object that pointed toward God to a sentimental reminder of old times, to an object of worship itself. I can only imagine the ire of the "churchladies" as Hezekiah smashed their tradition.

It strikes me that the idol of novelty and the idol of sentimentality are both ever-present in our own worship and are both equally dangerous. When we allow something designed to point our focus toward God to become the focus, whether for the sake of being cutting edge or hanging on to the past, we are in dangerous territory.

If a style of music, translation of Scripture, children's program, ministry philosophy, or any other thing gets to the point that we are unable to worship without it, it's probably time to learn a lesson from Hezekiah and start chopping down poles or breaking up snakes.

We have to move forward and we have to look backward, but never at the expense of looking upward.

Managing Distractions

One of the really helpful sections to me in "Making Ideas Happen," the book I revealed on Monday, is a section about managing distractions. I tend to be about as easily distracted as my two-year-old when it comes to getting stuff done at work.

Here's what Belsky says:

"When it comes to staying focused, you must be your own personal Madison Avenue advertising agency. The same techniques that draw your attention to billboards on the highway or commercials on television can help you become more (or less) engaged by a project. When you have a project that is tracked by a beautiful chart or an elegant sketchbook, you are more likely to focus on it. Use your workspace to induce attention where you need it most. You ultimately want to make yourself feel compelled to take action on the tasks pending, just as a marketer makes you feel compelled to buy something."

Environment really can be everything when it comes to being focused. I've learned to limit the things that are in the sight-line of my workspace. If I keep Post-it notes or unread books where I see them while I'm trying to work; or if I keep multiple windows open on my desktop, I'm guaranteed to accomplish nothing.

Belsky is right: focus has to be won. If I'm not intentional about my environment, the project is doomed before it begins.

Making Jesus Look Good

As a person with strong convictions and a penchant for sarcasm, it's hard for me to restrain myself sometimes. It's hard for me to avoid a good "discussion" (okay, argument), particularly when it comes to theology or people from other belief systems.

I think it's important to have strong convictions, and important to stand up for truth. But I constantly have to remember that my manner is always heard more loudly than my message.

We don't have to make other people or other ideas look bad to make Jesus look good. Just talk about Jesus; He can look good on His own.

Making Ideas Happen - Review

I've followed Behance for a while now. I experimented with their Action Method, and replaced my moleskine with an "Action Journal" several months ago. When I found out their founder and CEO was putting out a book about helping creative types get things done, I put it at the top of my stack.

If you're the kind of person who struggles because you have lots of great ideas but never seem to accomplish any of them, Making Ideas Happen is a book you need to read. Don't read it if you're expecting a massive paradigm shift; it won't provide that. However, Belsky's book is loaded with practical ideas that help creative people capture and act on good ideas.

The book starts slow. The first few chapters read like a commercial for Behance's "Action Method." Belsky almost assumes you've heard of the "Action Method" and doesn't spend a lot of time unpacking it although the reader will have a firm grasp of it by the time the book ends. That's a good trait of the book. If you haven't heard of "The Action Method," a working knowledge isn't a prerequisite to getting quite a bit out of this book. It's fairly intuitive, and after you read more about it you'll wonder what the big deal is.

Belsky begins his book by helping you see ideas as projects. Some ideas are projects that need attention immediately, and some are projects that will not be tackled for long periods of time. Either way, from the inception of an idea it needs to be put into a pipeline with any other idea. Much of the first section of the book is designated to helping you understand an idea from inception to completion. He has great ideas on staying focused and managing your priorities. If you struggle with Idea ADD, pages 58-104 are must-read pages.

The second section of the book involves working with a team. Since very few genuinely good ideas can be accomplished alone, working with a team is an important dynamic. Unfortunately, it's a dynamic most creatives are awful at. Belsky's advice will help.

The final section of "Making Ideas Happen" speak specifically to the person leading a creative team. He talks about how to handle naysayers, and how to keep creative teams from running with bone-headed ideas. He ends by talking about self-leadership and the self-perception of leaders of creative teams.

Rarely am I as excited about a book when I finish it as I was when I started it. Fifty pages into "Making Ideas Happen" I was worried I was headed for a letdown. But by the end of the book I was wishing for more to read.

If you are a creative "idea" person, or if you (like me) are a wannabe creative person who leads creative people, this book is a good one to put toward the top of your stack.

Seasons and Ruts

I talk a lot about "seasons." We all have seasons of busyness, seasons of rest, seasons of excitement, seasons of exhaustion, seasons of discouragement, and seasons of rejoicing. It's a fairly biblical concept (Ecclesiastes 3). However, if you find yourself in an abnormal stage of life, it's important to distinguish between seasons and ruts.

Seasons come and go. We can endure them and lean into them because we know they're fleeting. Ruts aren't so friendly.

If you "lean-in" to a rut, you'll only go deeper. They aren't self-correcting.

You can't get out of a rut on your own. Someone has to pull you out.

You're never stuck in a season; you're always stuck in a rut.

Is God an Actor?

For the last couple of weeks I've been teaching our women's ministry in a series called "Hope Floats."

One of the things we've been talking about is how so many of us compartmentalize our lives. We do "spiritual things" at "spiritual times;" "regular things" at "regular times" because somewhere along the line we believed a lie that says "religion" shouldn't mix with anything else.

The lie is a lie because it treats our lives as if God is simply an actor in our story rather than the writer, producer, director and starring actor. God's sovereignty demands a de-compartmentalization of our lives. He isn't just a character who plays in different scenes. His fingerprints are all over the whole thing.

Missional Moratorium?

Fad terms have a way of losing their meaning rather quickly. When a term gets to the point that virtually everyone claims it, the term is no longer useful and should be retired.

I think we're about to that point with the word "missional." So many people are throwing around the term that doesn't mean anything anymore.

The original intent of the word was to refer to churches and organizations that were more concerned with taking a message to a world than in attracting the world to the message. It doesn't mean that anymore. These days, it has come to be diluted to mean "our organization has a mission."

I want to be a part of a church whose mission is Jesus Christ and Him crucified: not social action; not intellectual arrogance; not institutionalism. The Gospel.

Anyone got language for that?

Patriotism and Worship

My struggle with Worship and Patriotic Holidays began several years ago when I attended a church service in which I was completely unable to tell the difference between worship and patriotism. The worship team on stage sang "America The Beautiful" and "Shout to the Lord" with the equal gusto and posture: eyes closed, hands raised.

Another year, at a different church, I stood behind an Asian foreign exchange student who struggled awkwardly through the words of "God Bless America" during our Sunday worship service.

The tension with how the church should handle patriotic holidays is extremely difficult for me because I am a deeply patriotic person. I love the country God has allowed me to grow up in. And it seems that the church is virtually the only place where patriotic sentiment and music are preserved.

However, the tendency to sing patriotic songs without a strong distinction from worship music teeters far too close to idolatry for me. In fact, it is precisely the kind of idolatry we herald Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego for avoiding (Daniel 3). Furthermore, shouldn't the Church be the one place where people from every nation feels at home?

At the church where I serve, we try to hold the tension delicately. We try to sing the stanzas of patriotic songs that explicitly worship the God of the Bible with gratitude for the freedom we enjoy to worship Him. We recognize veterans and thank them for their service; recognizing that on any given Sunday morning, millions of people are able to focus completely on worshiping freely and publicly rather than in fear and hiding. We pray for those who are in harm's way, as well as their families and the families of those who have given the ultimate sacrifice.

But, we almost never display enough patriotism to satisfy everyone. The fact that we don't devote an entire worship service to our country/veterans/soldiers is perceived as a slap in their face to some people. After every patriotic holiday, we receive emails and cards - some borderline hateful, which express the disappointment of some people who don't think we've honored our country enough.

Those cards and emails always really bother me, because they make it clear that the person writing them thinks we are not patriotic, not thankful for our veterans, and not grateful for the freedoms we enjoy. That could not be further from the truth. However, if we are forced to err on the side of either dishonoring our country or dishonoring our God, the choice is not difficult. Worship services are for worship, and worship is for God alone.

No Excuses

I have lots of excuses as to why my blogging has been sporadic. But, I won't publish any of them for you. The month of July will probably continue to be sporadic, and then I'll try to get into a rhythm again.

I've finally finished my required reading for my summer class, and can get back to the books I want to read. Here are some of the books in my queue that I am most looking forward to reading.

The Good News We Almost Forgot - Kevin DeYoung

Making Ideas Happen - Scott Belsky

Radical: Taking Back Your Faith From The American Dream - David Pratt

By Grace Alone - How the Grace of God Amazes Me - Sinclair Ferguson

Brothers We Are Not Professionals - John Piper

Leadership is Important

Someone mentioned to me today that my blog entries have been awfully lopsided toward leadership recently. There are two reasons for that: (1) I'm taking a huge leadership step in the next several months and leadership is occupying a lot of my thinking. (2) I'm preparing for a class at Dallas Seminary at the end of July and all my required reading is in the area of organizational leadership.

Book reviews and a more balanced blog will return once I start reading other things and get a chance to catch my breath.

Even so, leadership is important. I would even argue that good leadership principles are more important for churches than corporations. John Gardner agrees (though he applies it to all nonprofits). He describes a poorly managed nonprofit organization as a "bad" organization

"[Bad] in the sense of pious continuance of not competent or creative work, which in a way is damaging. Damaging because it uses up well-meaning dollars, because it breeds discouragement in people who just feel 'We're working so hard and we're just not getting anywhere.' And I think there's a fair amount of that in the nonprofit world. And there's something about lofty ideals that are at odds with clean-cut self-evaluation. You know, "How can you criticize us when our ideals are so great?" That's why I like that cartoon of Peanuts on the pitcher's mound saying "How can we lose when we're so sincere?""

If we are ambassadors of Christ (and we are); cities on a hill (and we are); lights reflecting the Light of the world (and we are); shouldn't our organizations be led at an even higher level than organizations with a less lofty goal?

Followership

Do an Amazon search on books about "leadership" and you'll find hundreds; maybe thousands. Do a search on "followership" and you'll find next to nothing.

We've attached a scarlet letter to the idea of being a good follower, as if "following" is only for sheep and members of cults. As a result, there aren't a lot of kids in the world who grow up wanting to be followers.

That's a shame, because I'm convinced that if you're not a good follower, you won't make a good leader. That's important for leaders to realize, because they'll always be following someone.

The CEO follows the board or else he follows the person ahead of him in the unemployment line.

The board follows the shareholders, or the stock ticker.

The associate pastor follows the senior pastor. The senior pastor follows the elders (or congregation, or nominating committee...). The elders follow the Scriptures.

Everyone is accountable to someone, or something. If you don't pay as much attention to being a good follower as you do to leading those who follow you, the system will self-correct and you'll find yourself doing a lot more following than leading in a relatively short time.

John 5

Our small group has been studying the Gospel of John together. My favorite book of the Bible is generally whichever book I'm studying at the time. Even still, one of my favorite favorites is John's Gospel. It accomplishes what every evangelist hopes to accomplish: simple and profound at the same time.

A couple of weeks ago, we studied John 5. I can't stop thinking about John 5:1-8.

You know the story: Jesus goes to a pool near the Sheep Gate to Jerusalem. The superstition was that an angel would dip down and stir the water of the pool. When the water was stirred, the first person in the water would be healed.

Jesus meets a man who had been a quadriplegic for 38 years, and asks him what seems like a really dumb question: "Do you want to get well?"

Seriously Jesus? This guy has been unable to do anything for himself for 38 years. He reveals he doesn't even have a hope of getting in the pool on his own. He can't do it and has no friends to help him. While he scoots and rolls and struggles to get in the pool, someone else always beats him to it.

You know the rest of the story too: Jesus speaks to the man and the man goes home well.

Here's what I love about this story: The lame man by the pool is every man or woman who has ever lived.

We can depend on superstition; we can depend on others; we can depend on ourselves. We can scoot, roll, flop and strain. We can show up in places where supernatural things are reported to happen, hoping against hope that they'll someday happen to us. But at the end of the day, there will always be someone faster, quicker, better than you, and you'll be left lying on your mat by the side of the pool.

If healing depends on you, you'll never find it. You need a Savior.

Jesus asked what seemed like the ultimate in stupid questions, but when we look at our lives, we realize it's a question that needs asking: Do you want to get well, or do you just want to sit by the pool and take your chances?

Horizontal Fast Track

I read an article the other day by Charles Handy that talked about the Japanese concept of promotion.

They call it the "horizontal fast-track."

Rather than taking a great young leader and shooting him through the ranks of leadership as quickly as possible, the Japanese take a great young leader and try to expose him to as many different areas of the organization as possible. They don't promote young leaders, they move them laterally as fast as they can over the first few years so that they can experience different responsibilities, different groups, and different processes.

They've made a decision: before giving a young leader power, he needs exposure so that he can leverage power sympathetically as he leads.

Makes a whole lot of sense...

Who is the Leader?

We tend to talk about "leadership" as if it is a trait that you either have, or don't have. If you "are a leader," we assume you are a leader in everything. If you aren't a leader in a particular area, we assume you will never be a leader in anything. You either have the gift or you don't.

This kind of logic is why we promote great salesmen to management positions where they don't sell anything. We take great engineers out of engineering and ask the great engineer to oversee a group of mediocre engineers. Then we're puzzled because the guy who was a leader in his field is a lousy leader.

I think this view of leadership is a mistake.

As in a lot of teams, different leaders lead in different scenarios. A person who is a dynamite leader in one arena might be a lousy leader, but dynamite follower in another arena.

With a football team, the quarterback is the undisputed leader when the offense is on the field, but an offensive lineman might be the undisputed team leader off the field. If we promoted the lineman to quarterback, we would waste his gifts and likely lose the game. If we asked the wrong quarterback to lead the team off the field, the results could be equally disastrous.

Great leaders aren't leaders all the time. Sometimes the very best leaders are the ones who willingly defer to the leadership of someone else.

Systems and Statements

Systems are stronger than mission statements.

If your organization has a strong mission statement but dysfunctional systems, you ensure your mission statement is cheap talk; it will never be accomplished.

If you believe that people should be developed and empowered, but set up systems that force them to check-in with headquarters before every decision, you ensure that people will never be developed or empowered.

If your church is trying to connect people into meaningful community where they can grow together but have systems in place that make the connection process muddy, you can talk about community all you want...

If you believe that an organization is about serving people, but your employee policy manual is 5 inches thick, you ensure that you will spend so much time serving the organization that you will never get around to serving people.

Systems are stronger than statements. Systems reflect what you're doing; statements reflect what you talk about doing.

If you really want to help your organization, pay close attention to the systems that are in place. Spend as much time talking about how you are actually doing what you are doing as you do talking about what you hope to accomplish.

What the Bible Says

I'm fairly sure I ran out of good blog topics somewhere around three years ago. So, I'm always really excited when I remember some smart advice I received in the past but had forgotten to blog about. That happened earlier in the week when I talked to my socialist... ahem "Canadian" friend Drew.

He and I were talking about one of the various theological issues people like to get themselves wrapped around and where we landed with respect to that position when I remembered some advice a professor of mine gave me one time: "It's almost never a good idea to define yourself using someone else's categories. It is far more helpful to begin your sentences with "I believe the Bible says..."

That's really great advice. Anyone who leads with "I'm a Calvinist" will have to spend the rest of the conversation trying to distinguish himself from the wackos who don't believe that it is important to talk about Jesus because "God's already predestined people anyway." Anyone who leads with "I'm an Arminian" will have to prove that they're not a part of a Pentecostal snake-handlers movement from the Appalachian mountains. A "dispensationalist" will instantly be lumped in with people who believe that the Left Behind series is an inerrant third testament of the Bible.

When you define yourself in a category, you will be instantaneously lumped-in with everyone who ever held that point of view, and normally caricatured alongside the most bizarre person someone can think of.

Rather than categorizing yourself, it's far more productive to answer a question, "I believe Scripture teaches..." and couch your theology in light of what the Bible teaches rather than which group we like the best.

Uncertainty

As a younger leader, I always had a misconception that things get clearer the higher you go in leadership. The higher I've gone in leadership, the more I've realized how wrong that assumption is.

The further in front you are, the more uncertainty you'll face. If the future was certain, we wouldn't need leaders.

If you want to be a good leader during uncertain times, you don't have to have certainty. You have to manage uncertainty with Truth and clarity.

By "Truth" I mean a theological grid that helps narrow the scope of the decisions you make (even if you're not leading a faith-based organization). In uncertain times I will not make decisions that are short-sighted, immoral, unethical, or a distraction from an eternal perspective because of Who I believe God is. Obviously, in my job a theological grid is even more helpful in thinking through specific decisions, knowing what is at stake. A firm grounding in Truth allows leaders to approach uncertain times knowing with one-hundred-percent certainty what cannot happen.

By "clarity" I mean just that. Many soldiers have followed Generals into battles in which the outcome was uncertain. Few soldiers have followed Generals into battle when orders are unclear. You don't have to be certain to be clear but you do have to be clear if people are going to follow you. That doesn't mean pretending to know something you don't - it means making sure that if you fail to reach your goal it won't be because the people didn't understand where you were leading them.

Gripes Go Up

The movie "Saving Private Ryan" has a great scene in which a squad of troops is engaged in the pursuit of an Private named James Ryan. The squad is tired of the mission, feels like their skills are being wasted, and that the pursuit they're on is a mis-allocation of resources in light of the war at hand. So they gripe.

After a while, they notice Captain Miller (Tom Hanks) isn't griping. One of the Privates, Private Reiben says "What about you Captain? I mean, you don't gripe at all?"

I love Captain Miller's response: "I don't gripe to you, Reiben. I'm a captain. There's a chain of command. Gripes go up, not down. Always up. You gripe to me, I gripe to my superior officer, so on, so on, and so on. I don't gripe to you. I don't gripe in front of you. You should know that as a Ranger."

That's a good lesson for employees, wherever they are on the food chain. Wherever I am in an organization, if I hear people griping to me about someone above them, I instantly lose respect for them and make a silent note to myself that if I ever rise above them in an organization I'll be careful about how much I trust them.

Gripes should go to people who can do something about them, or they shouldn't be voiced at all.

The flip side of this is something Captains and Generals have to remember: if your employees gripe appropriately, their gripes deserve your attention. Don't write off gripes (or Privates) who are handling their issues the right way. Chalk it up as part of the responsibility that comes with your stripes.

Good Illustrations

I saw this video on a friend's blog.

Good illustrations are powerful. They tell the story but don't miss the point for the sake of the story.

Nobody will ever remember this story as "the one about the girl dressed like a fairy." They'll remember the image, but the image will be inseparable from the point.

When the illustration is over, the story is vivid, the intention is clear, and the point is unforgettable.

Myopic Leadership

One of the big stories connected with the BP Oil Spill is the recent comments of one of the victims' brothers to BP CEO Tony Hayward.

Gordon Jones' brother Chris was one of the 11 people killed on the oil rig that exploded, triggering the massive oil spill that is threatening life as we know it on the gulf coast. On Sunday Tony Hayward, CEO of BP stated that he would "like [his] life back." Gordon Jones responded early this week by addressing Mr. Hayward saying, "I'd like my brother's life back."

Now, the easy angle in this story is to vilify Hayward. After all, his comments were insensitive and near-sighted.

It's harder to be a little more introspective. The truth is, all leaders pull against the tendency to define reality through their own experience. We all struggle to identify with the things others are feeling, experiencing, and struggling through. We tend to think everyone processes life like us, and that everyone is experiencing the same things we are experiencing.

As leaders, it's important to consider perspective from several different realities. Otherwise, we'll always lack the perspective we need to move forward. And we'll betray the selfish, myopic, insecure introspective bias that creeps up if it isn't intentionally and ruthlessly mortified.