Last Sunday I started a series in Luke 10:25-42, which begins with a hat tip to the Great Commandment. We looked specifically at the command to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength" from Deuteronomy 6.
A lot of times we talk about our "priorities" as a checklist: I put my relationship with God first, my wife second, my kids third, my job fourth, and so-on. The problem with that is that (a) it's impossible to measure priorities that way and (b) it assumes that you can't love God by loving your wife, your kids, or item #462 on your checklist.
Deuteronomy 6:1-9 is fairly clear: God doesn't want to be on your priority list. He wants the whole thing.
It ought to be as if when people look in our eyes, (Deuteronomy 6:8) they see a person who loves the lord their God with all their heart, soul, and strength that it is as if the message was tied on our foreheads; as if it was written on the door frames of every door we walk through.
Every day, every time, through every door, every part of us ought to be on a mission to love God.
When you look at it that way, the point of Deuteronomy 6 is that there's not much of a difference between secular and sacred; only a difference between loving God and idolatry (Deuteronomy 6:4-5).
Two Pizzas and a Meeting
I was reading last week about Amazon.com's theory on meetings. They have a two-pizza rule on projects and teams: If a group would consume more than two pizzas in a sitting, the team is too big and destined to get bogged down in bureaucracy.
Aside from the fact that Amazon.com's execs have never watched me consume pizza, the general principle of this "two-pizza" concept makes a whole lot of sense.
Small teams are more agile and able to ensure that every person has an opportunity to fully understand the issues at hand. Questions and concerns can be dealt with quickly and comprehensively without leading to rabbit trails and other discussions which are only tangentially connected to the actual objective of the team.
Yes, smaller teams leave some people out of the conversation. But ultimately, those people were likely to be left out of the discussion of a bigger team too - they would have been present, but not a real part of the discussion. Inevitably, the real decisions will be made outside the meeting by a smaller group of people anyway.
If the team will consume more than two pizzas, you might consider making it smaller. The result will be teams that are more productive, efficient, and because they won't have to meet as frequently, happier.
Aside from the fact that Amazon.com's execs have never watched me consume pizza, the general principle of this "two-pizza" concept makes a whole lot of sense.
Small teams are more agile and able to ensure that every person has an opportunity to fully understand the issues at hand. Questions and concerns can be dealt with quickly and comprehensively without leading to rabbit trails and other discussions which are only tangentially connected to the actual objective of the team.
Yes, smaller teams leave some people out of the conversation. But ultimately, those people were likely to be left out of the discussion of a bigger team too - they would have been present, but not a real part of the discussion. Inevitably, the real decisions will be made outside the meeting by a smaller group of people anyway.
If the team will consume more than two pizzas, you might consider making it smaller. The result will be teams that are more productive, efficient, and because they won't have to meet as frequently, happier.
Pray Specifically
I'm far from the world's leading expert in prayer, but I'm learning.
For most of my life, my prayers have been vague, broad, expansive "Lord, help the world" kinds of prayers. Even when they're more specific than "help the world," I tend to find myself praying "blessings" for people and "provision" for people and for "guidance" in situations. Then I find myself frustrated because I so infrequently see specific answers to my prayers.
Why do we expect God to give specific answers to non-specific prayers? And even more, how would I know if He did give specific answers to the vague, broad prayers I pray so often?
I'm learning to pray more specific prayers. Rather than praying general, broad, vague prayers, I'm asking God for specifically what I hope he will do. It takes more time and a lot more focus, but I'm finding it helps my prayer life quite a bit. When I ask for specific things, I receive specific answers, and prayer gets a whole lot more exciting.
Professional or Amateur
Not long ago I was visiting with Eric Swanson, Leadership Network's Externally Focused guru.
As a part of the conversation, he made a contrast between amateurs and professionals that I thought was brilliant.
He said, "The difference between amateurs and professionals is this: amateurs work until they get it right. Pros work until they can't get it wrong."
Amateurs practice until it's enjoyable. Pros practice until it's worth something.
Whatever you're doing today, know whether you're expected to be an amateur or a professional. It changes things.
As a part of the conversation, he made a contrast between amateurs and professionals that I thought was brilliant.
He said, "The difference between amateurs and professionals is this: amateurs work until they get it right. Pros work until they can't get it wrong."
Amateurs practice until it's enjoyable. Pros practice until it's worth something.
Whatever you're doing today, know whether you're expected to be an amateur or a professional. It changes things.
The Middle East and Psalm 87
As you might expect of someone who has a heart for the Nation of Israel and hasn't been under a rock for the past few weeks, I've followed the situation in the Middle East with quite a bit of interest.
Unrest in Egypt, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Lebanon, Jordan, and much of the rest of the Middle-East world has caused serious concern about the rise of radicalism in most of the countries that surround Israel. Combined with world perception about the settlements on the fringes of Israel, Israel finds itself in quite the predicament.
So what else is new? Israel has been in predicaments since shortly after Moses descended from Sinai.
I am (of course) praying Psalm 122:6-9 for the peace of Jerusalem. But I also find myself praying Psalm 87 for the whole Middle-East.
In Psalm 87:1-3, God declares that He loves Jerusalem more than any other place Israel has lived, calling it "The City of God." But the rest of Psalm 87 records a promise to Israel that provides as much comfort and hope today as it did when God first declared it.
God promises that Rahab (Egypt), Babylon (Iraq), Philistia (Gaza), Tyre (Lebanon) and Cush (Northern Africa) will someday be recorded as those who acknowledge Him - literally as those who "know" the Lord.
In fact, he goes a step further to say that the people from all those nations will someday be recorded as those who belong with God's people because they will believe and know the God of God's people.
To quote Steve Strauss, "God doesn't see them as 'them.' He sees them as potential 'us.'"
When God fulfills Psalm 87, there will be quite the party (Psalm 87:7) between all the nations of the Middle East, including Israel. The countries won't need allies; they'll have common ground in a relationship with the Most High God.
Come quickly, Lord Jesus.
Unrest in Egypt, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Lebanon, Jordan, and much of the rest of the Middle-East world has caused serious concern about the rise of radicalism in most of the countries that surround Israel. Combined with world perception about the settlements on the fringes of Israel, Israel finds itself in quite the predicament.
So what else is new? Israel has been in predicaments since shortly after Moses descended from Sinai.
I am (of course) praying Psalm 122:6-9 for the peace of Jerusalem. But I also find myself praying Psalm 87 for the whole Middle-East.
In Psalm 87:1-3, God declares that He loves Jerusalem more than any other place Israel has lived, calling it "The City of God." But the rest of Psalm 87 records a promise to Israel that provides as much comfort and hope today as it did when God first declared it.
God promises that Rahab (Egypt), Babylon (Iraq), Philistia (Gaza), Tyre (Lebanon) and Cush (Northern Africa) will someday be recorded as those who acknowledge Him - literally as those who "know" the Lord.
In fact, he goes a step further to say that the people from all those nations will someday be recorded as those who belong with God's people because they will believe and know the God of God's people.
To quote Steve Strauss, "God doesn't see them as 'them.' He sees them as potential 'us.'"
When God fulfills Psalm 87, there will be quite the party (Psalm 87:7) between all the nations of the Middle East, including Israel. The countries won't need allies; they'll have common ground in a relationship with the Most High God.
Come quickly, Lord Jesus.
Premortems
Guy Kawasaki's book "Enchantment: The Art of Changing Hearts, Minds, and Actions
" was released last week for Kindle. It's worth reading.
One of the concepts Kawasaki talks about is the importance of doing "premortems" on a new idea or program.
In ministry, much like in other organizations, nobody ever bothers to conduct a "postmortem" on an idea that has died. There isn't enough time, resources, or interest to spend time thinking about a program that didn't make it. Leaders' plates are full enough.
Kawasaki recommends conducting a "premortem" review early in the launch phase. The premortem review is the discipline of asking before an idea, product, or program is launched, "Think toward the future and assume what we are talking about is launched, and fails. What would be the cause of death?"
According to Kawasaki, the premortem review allows you to solve problems before they happen, reduces the likelihood of a false-start, increases the likelihood of creativity on the front-end, brings light to early warning signs, and opens the pool of shared knowledge to more people because the environment is less political. People won't criticize a project mid-stream or after it dies because they don't want to throw stones at other people on the team or be perceived as someone who is not a team player.
We've done a premortem review on some of the ideas our staff has discussed in the past and found it to be fairly helpful. It's not a perfect method - foresight is never as clear as hindsight, even when it's disciplined foresight. Even still, a premortem review can be a really important discipline for a team to engage.
" was released last week for Kindle. It's worth reading.One of the concepts Kawasaki talks about is the importance of doing "premortems" on a new idea or program.
In ministry, much like in other organizations, nobody ever bothers to conduct a "postmortem" on an idea that has died. There isn't enough time, resources, or interest to spend time thinking about a program that didn't make it. Leaders' plates are full enough.
Kawasaki recommends conducting a "premortem" review early in the launch phase. The premortem review is the discipline of asking before an idea, product, or program is launched, "Think toward the future and assume what we are talking about is launched, and fails. What would be the cause of death?"
According to Kawasaki, the premortem review allows you to solve problems before they happen, reduces the likelihood of a false-start, increases the likelihood of creativity on the front-end, brings light to early warning signs, and opens the pool of shared knowledge to more people because the environment is less political. People won't criticize a project mid-stream or after it dies because they don't want to throw stones at other people on the team or be perceived as someone who is not a team player.
We've done a premortem review on some of the ideas our staff has discussed in the past and found it to be fairly helpful. It's not a perfect method - foresight is never as clear as hindsight, even when it's disciplined foresight. Even still, a premortem review can be a really important discipline for a team to engage.
Boring
Young Life used to have a mantra: "It's a sin to bore kids with the Gospel."
I feel the same way about the Scriptures as a whole. Whether you're teaching the Bible or simply reading the Bible out loud, boring, lifeless, uninspired presentation of inspired Scripture ought to be outlawed by Christians.
I don't know when or why Christians started reading the Bible like a technical manual, but it's a syndrome that seems to pervade Christianity, at least in the West. I wish we would figure out a way to put a stop to it.
We read the Bible like it's an Electrical Engineering textbook and then wonder why people in our churches aren't more inspired to give their lives for the God it reveals.
The Scriptures contain the words of life (John 6:56); the inspired words of God (2 Timothy 3:16). Shouldn't we read them and talk about them with life, like they are inspired?
/rant
I feel the same way about the Scriptures as a whole. Whether you're teaching the Bible or simply reading the Bible out loud, boring, lifeless, uninspired presentation of inspired Scripture ought to be outlawed by Christians.
I don't know when or why Christians started reading the Bible like a technical manual, but it's a syndrome that seems to pervade Christianity, at least in the West. I wish we would figure out a way to put a stop to it.
We read the Bible like it's an Electrical Engineering textbook and then wonder why people in our churches aren't more inspired to give their lives for the God it reveals.
The Scriptures contain the words of life (John 6:56); the inspired words of God (2 Timothy 3:16). Shouldn't we read them and talk about them with life, like they are inspired?
/rant
Replace or Re-Vision?
I certainly haven't hired perfectly, but I've got a fairly good track-record so far. One of the things I've learned is that it rarely works to straight-up replace people who transition off your team. Whether the person was a world-beater or someone you couldn't get rid of quickly enough, if you go right back out with the exact same job description, you're probably going to make a mistake.
Organizations change quickly. Circumstances change quickly. If you go out and try to hire someone for the exact same job you hired a person for years ago, you're assuming that your needs are the same as they were years ago. That's rarely a good assumption.
The other challenge with strictly replacing people is that you tend to hire based on the last person in the role when you're strictly replacing. If you're replacing an all-star, you tend to look for people who look exactly like their predecessor. That sets them up to fail when it turns out their predecessor was a unique individual.
The other side of the coin is trying to replace a bad fit. You tend to replace poor fits reactively - "John was an introvert; we need someone more extroverted in this role." Often, reactive hiring causes you to emphasize characteristics and skills that don't necessarily need to be emphasized. The fact that John was a "zero" when it comes to people-skills doesn't mean the answer is to hire Mr. Personality.
I prefer (when possible) to re-vision a role when we get ready to hire, even if we are filling an existing position. We re-examine our needs, write a job description from scratch, and even try to change the job title if something else would be more descriptive. That also helps prevent confusion within the organization from people who have a memory of someone who previously filled a similar role.
Sometimes existing roles have to be filled. People transition on and off the team. But resist the urge to try filling a vacuum created in the form of one person with someone who will ultimately be a different shape. If you're looking for a fit, the only way to find it is to re-vision the role every time.
Journeys and Maps
Yesterday we talked about Joshua 1 together as our church begins to step "Beyond the Known." One of the things that is clear about the first few chapters of Joshua is how many times God charges the people of Israel to "remember" and "obey" His commands.
Any time we travel into unknown territory, we are wise to commit to the perspective of someone for whom that territory is not unknown.
We do it on vacation - we search out maps and travel guides and websites to help make sure we make the most of our trip.
And that's just it - guides, maps and commands aren't just to keep us from getting off the path or getting in trouble. They often help us maximize the journey.
As we're walking through life, the question isn't just "What are the bare minimum things I need to do (or not do) to keep from getting in trouble." The question is is "What are the things I will miss if I don't follow Jesus?"
Any time we travel into unknown territory, we are wise to commit to the perspective of someone for whom that territory is not unknown.
We do it on vacation - we search out maps and travel guides and websites to help make sure we make the most of our trip.
And that's just it - guides, maps and commands aren't just to keep us from getting off the path or getting in trouble. They often help us maximize the journey.
As we're walking through life, the question isn't just "What are the bare minimum things I need to do (or not do) to keep from getting in trouble." The question is is "What are the things I will miss if I don't follow Jesus?"
Title or Responsibility?
Joshua 1 records the transition from Moses' leadership to Joshua's leadership of the people of Israel. The whole passage is fascinating, but I find verse 1 particularly fascinating.
"After the death of Moses, the Servant of the Lord, the Lord said to Joshua son of Nun, Moses' aide:"
Throughout his tenure, Moses gets called "The Servant of the Lord." It's a special title Moses got that nobody else carried during Moses' day.
By Joshua 1, Moses has already commissioned Joshua and announced that Joshua would be the new leader (Deuteronomy 31). Now, Moses is dead and Joshua is Israel's second leader post-captivity. You might expect Joshua to co-opt Moses' title when he assumes Moses' post, but he doesn't. Moses is still "The Servant of the Lord," and Joshua is still "Moses' aide."
Even still, by the end of Chapter 1, the people are one-hundred percent behind Joshua as their leader. He will go on to lead them across the Jordan River into the Promised Land. He will "fit the battle of Jericho," and conquer a host of enemies. He will arguably take Israel further faster than Moses was ever able to take them.
But it isn't until the end of Joshua's career (Joshua 24:29) when Joshua gets to assume the title "Servant of the Lord."
Titles and positions have absolutely zero ability to lead. Leaders lead.
Joshua effectively led the nation of Israel long after they moved beyond Moses' shadow. He didn't wait for a title or position to be bestowed on him - he just led.
If you're waiting on a title, position at the table, or promotion before you start leading, you'll never lead effectively. Just lead; the titles, positions and promotions will come.
Most Important Thing a Leader Does
Not long ago I read a blog that posed the question: "What is the most important thing a leader does?"
I don't remember the blog, but remember the question and several of the comments. Many people said things like "casting vision," "tell the truth," "model behavior," and "making decisions."
Obviously, all of those things are important but I think something else is even more important.
I think the most important thing a leader does is to say "thank you."
Max DePree says "The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The last is to say 'thank you.'"
In my mind, if you don't start by saying "thank you," you'll never earn the right to define reality.
No leader gets to where he is without the help of others. Leaders who think they are "self-made" are normally self-destroyed in short time. Great leaders, I think, recognize the people they lead and remember to say "thanks."
"Thank you" is extraordinarily powerful.
"Thank you" earns credibility you can't earn any other way because it says, "I noticed; it mattered; and I'm grateful." "Thank you" also reinforces vision by celebrating it when you see it. It demonstrates humility by recognizing someone did something you didn't, couldn't, or wouldn't, but which directly impacted you. And, regularly saying "thank you" gives the leader a constant reminder of the vast number of people without whom the leader probably would not be a leader at all.
I spend the first part of every Monday morning hand-writing thank you notes to a few of the people I'm grateful for. I can't write them to everyone who deserves them but I can make a sizable dent over a long period of time. It's one of the only things I use paper for anymore, but is easily one of the most important things I think I do every week.
What about you? Is there another leadership task you think is more important? How do you show gratitude for the people who serve alongside you?
I don't remember the blog, but remember the question and several of the comments. Many people said things like "casting vision," "tell the truth," "model behavior," and "making decisions."
Obviously, all of those things are important but I think something else is even more important.
I think the most important thing a leader does is to say "thank you."
Max DePree says "The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The last is to say 'thank you.'"
In my mind, if you don't start by saying "thank you," you'll never earn the right to define reality.
No leader gets to where he is without the help of others. Leaders who think they are "self-made" are normally self-destroyed in short time. Great leaders, I think, recognize the people they lead and remember to say "thanks."
"Thank you" is extraordinarily powerful.
"Thank you" earns credibility you can't earn any other way because it says, "I noticed; it mattered; and I'm grateful." "Thank you" also reinforces vision by celebrating it when you see it. It demonstrates humility by recognizing someone did something you didn't, couldn't, or wouldn't, but which directly impacted you. And, regularly saying "thank you" gives the leader a constant reminder of the vast number of people without whom the leader probably would not be a leader at all.
I spend the first part of every Monday morning hand-writing thank you notes to a few of the people I'm grateful for. I can't write them to everyone who deserves them but I can make a sizable dent over a long period of time. It's one of the only things I use paper for anymore, but is easily one of the most important things I think I do every week.
What about you? Is there another leadership task you think is more important? How do you show gratitude for the people who serve alongside you?
Not Sure What To Say...
I left the queue open for this morning because I was anticipating having something to say about yesterday.
Yesterday we completed "the handoff" - a three year intentional transition from Ken Horton's 27-year tenure at McKinney Church. We spent the morning just like we should have: worshiping together, spending a good chunk of time remembering God's faithfulness to McKinney in the past, and ending the service with anticipation for the future.
I was hoping to have something profound to say. Mostly I'm just overwhelmed.
Overwhelmed with gratitude for a successful transition. Overwhelmed with the "weight" of the responsibility that now rests on my shoulder. Overwhelmed with affection for a church family who has transitioned to this point so smoothly and embraced Kari and I so generously. Overwhelmed with pride for a staff team who worked so hard to make sure they said goodbye well. Overwhelmed with the finality of the fact that a moment Ken and I have anticipated for three years came and went in three minutes. Overwhelmed with excitement about what God could do through McKinney Church in the future.
Mostly, I'm overwhelmed with unspeakable joy. The Lord has done great things for us.
Yesterday we completed "the handoff" - a three year intentional transition from Ken Horton's 27-year tenure at McKinney Church. We spent the morning just like we should have: worshiping together, spending a good chunk of time remembering God's faithfulness to McKinney in the past, and ending the service with anticipation for the future.
I was hoping to have something profound to say. Mostly I'm just overwhelmed.
Overwhelmed with gratitude for a successful transition. Overwhelmed with the "weight" of the responsibility that now rests on my shoulder. Overwhelmed with affection for a church family who has transitioned to this point so smoothly and embraced Kari and I so generously. Overwhelmed with pride for a staff team who worked so hard to make sure they said goodbye well. Overwhelmed with the finality of the fact that a moment Ken and I have anticipated for three years came and went in three minutes. Overwhelmed with excitement about what God could do through McKinney Church in the future.
Mostly, I'm overwhelmed with unspeakable joy. The Lord has done great things for us.
Oh dear goodness... Rare Friday Post
You were wondering what heaven looks like? Now you know. It looks like the Stockholm Library. HT: Ben Arment
Affluence and Giving
I read this quote (attributed to CS Lewis) the other day and have been pondering it for a while. What do you think?
"If we live at the same level of affluence as others who have our level of income, we are probably giving away too little."
"If we live at the same level of affluence as others who have our level of income, we are probably giving away too little."
Piper on Facebook
I read this post by John Piper yesterday and thought it was phenomenal. He puts his finger on what is a very real danger with technology and has some wise advice. So wise, rather than try to say something similar I'm just going to repost it in its entirety.
Are apps a threat to God-focus? Yes. But it works both ways. Fight fire with fire.
If you are reading your Bible on your computer or your smartphone or your iPad, the presence of the email app and the news apps and the Facebook app threaten every moment to drag your attention away from the word of God.
True. Fight that. If your finger offends you, cut it off. Or use any other virtuous violence (Matthew 11:12) that sets you free to rivet your soul on God.
But don’t take mainly a defensive posture. Fight fire with fire.
Why should we think of the Facebook app threatening the Bible app? Why not the Bible app threatening the Facebook app, and the email app, and the RSS feeder, and the news?
Resolve that today you will press the Bible app three times during the day. No five times. Ten times! Maybe you will lose control and become addicted to Bible! Again and again get a two-minute dose of life-giving Food. Man shall not live by Facebook alone.
I’m serious. Never has God’s voice been so easily accessible. The ESV app is free. TheOliveTree BibleReader app is free. And so are lots of others. Let the Bible threaten your focus. Or better: Let the Bible bring you back to reality over and over during the day.
Workers or Work?
One of the most fun parts of our transition into the lead pastor role at McKinney has been connecting with some of our global mission partners as they come back into town. We support scores of people all over the world who are being used as a part of some incredible things.
This morning I got to visit with one of our partners who is on the way through trying to raise support. After we visited for a while about some of the unbelievable things she is doing, I asked her the question, "What's something you're learning?" I thought her answer was profound.
"I'm learning that in Mathew 9:38 is a more profound prayer than it seems. Jesus told his disciples to pray for workers, not just for more work. I often spend so much time asking God to multiply my time so I can get more work done. God wants me to pray for others to shoulder the load with me so they can experience the joys I experience every day."
Neat perspective, and one that moves us from being doers to disciplers.
This morning I got to visit with one of our partners who is on the way through trying to raise support. After we visited for a while about some of the unbelievable things she is doing, I asked her the question, "What's something you're learning?" I thought her answer was profound.
"I'm learning that in Mathew 9:38 is a more profound prayer than it seems. Jesus told his disciples to pray for workers, not just for more work. I often spend so much time asking God to multiply my time so I can get more work done. God wants me to pray for others to shoulder the load with me so they can experience the joys I experience every day."
Neat perspective, and one that moves us from being doers to disciplers.
Motivation
An insecure, inarticulate shepherd who is God's choice to lead the people of Israel out of Egypt and to the precipice of the Promised Land, Moses is fascinating to study as a leader.
This morning as I was reading in Numbers 16, something jumped out at me. If you remember the story, a man named Korah stages a coup against Aaron and Moses. He gathered 250 people in his rebellion and attempted to overthrow Moses. Moses goes before God and asks God to judge between them. In Numbers 16:20-21, God tells Moses and Aaron to stand back so he can destroy the whole congregation and start over with Moses and Aaron.
Moses' response is pretty amazing. He begs God not to destroy the congregation on behalf of the 250 who rebelled.
This isn't the first time Moses had to bail the people out. Previously, it wasn't just 250 who rebelled - it was the entire nation (Exodus 32:9-10). God promised to destroy them while fulfilling His promise to make a great nation out of Moses.
Moses gets the chance to start over with a new nation. More than once. More than once he gets a mulligan - a chance to start fresh with the promise from God he would be successful. And each time, Moses begs God to spare the people.
I don't know about you, but the chance to start fresh would have been tempting to me. These people disobeyed God around every corner. They disrespected Moses and Aaron, grumbled and complained about everything - they didn't have food and then when they received food they didn't like the menu. These people were worthless.
But Moses loved them. And Moses was jealous for God's character to be continually put on display.
He had to. That's the only explanation for why he constantly went to bat for those people.
Moses loved the people he led, and he did so out of a love for the God he served. The best way for the character of a God who is longsuffering, patient, kind, just, sovereign, and omnipotent to be put on display is through people who are obstinate, impatient, mean, unfair, out-of-control, and ultimately powerless. Moses knew that and "reminded" God of that every time he got the chance.
Truly loving the people you lead may be one of the biggest challenges leaders face. For Moses, it doesn't seem to have been rooted in the fact that the people were particularly love-worthy but that the God Moses served was love-worthy, and could be put on display through these stiff-necked and rebellious people (Deuteronomy 31:27) more than through any other group.
This morning as I was reading in Numbers 16, something jumped out at me. If you remember the story, a man named Korah stages a coup against Aaron and Moses. He gathered 250 people in his rebellion and attempted to overthrow Moses. Moses goes before God and asks God to judge between them. In Numbers 16:20-21, God tells Moses and Aaron to stand back so he can destroy the whole congregation and start over with Moses and Aaron.
Moses' response is pretty amazing. He begs God not to destroy the congregation on behalf of the 250 who rebelled.
This isn't the first time Moses had to bail the people out. Previously, it wasn't just 250 who rebelled - it was the entire nation (Exodus 32:9-10). God promised to destroy them while fulfilling His promise to make a great nation out of Moses.
Moses gets the chance to start over with a new nation. More than once. More than once he gets a mulligan - a chance to start fresh with the promise from God he would be successful. And each time, Moses begs God to spare the people.
I don't know about you, but the chance to start fresh would have been tempting to me. These people disobeyed God around every corner. They disrespected Moses and Aaron, grumbled and complained about everything - they didn't have food and then when they received food they didn't like the menu. These people were worthless.
But Moses loved them. And Moses was jealous for God's character to be continually put on display.
He had to. That's the only explanation for why he constantly went to bat for those people.
Moses loved the people he led, and he did so out of a love for the God he served. The best way for the character of a God who is longsuffering, patient, kind, just, sovereign, and omnipotent to be put on display is through people who are obstinate, impatient, mean, unfair, out-of-control, and ultimately powerless. Moses knew that and "reminded" God of that every time he got the chance.
Truly loving the people you lead may be one of the biggest challenges leaders face. For Moses, it doesn't seem to have been rooted in the fact that the people were particularly love-worthy but that the God Moses served was love-worthy, and could be put on display through these stiff-necked and rebellious people (Deuteronomy 31:27) more than through any other group.
Shadows
Ever notice that monumental things always cast a big shadow?
It seems intuitive when we are talking about trees, buildings, and statues. It is less intuitive when we are talking about gifts, personalities, and strengths; but my experience is that those things function the same way.
People with extraordinary gifts often have an extraordinary shadow side. And (just like with statues, trees, and buildings) the shadow side often resembles the bright side.
An extraordinarily gifted speaker often has the ability to run people into the ground with his words. A person with the ability to make quick, decisive judgments often has the ability to marginalize wise counselors in his path. A good thinker often tends to think everyone else needs a good lesson.
All that is not to say that leaders with huge gifts should be universally looked at with suspicion. It is to say that leaders who seem too good to be true probably are. It's also to warn leaders who have strong gifts to know that they probably have large shadows as well.
The self-aware leader, especially one who lives his life in light of the Cross, will always seek to know the size of his shadow and will invite others to shine the light on that dark side in order to eliminate the shadow his gifts inevitably cast.
It seems intuitive when we are talking about trees, buildings, and statues. It is less intuitive when we are talking about gifts, personalities, and strengths; but my experience is that those things function the same way.
People with extraordinary gifts often have an extraordinary shadow side. And (just like with statues, trees, and buildings) the shadow side often resembles the bright side.
An extraordinarily gifted speaker often has the ability to run people into the ground with his words. A person with the ability to make quick, decisive judgments often has the ability to marginalize wise counselors in his path. A good thinker often tends to think everyone else needs a good lesson.
All that is not to say that leaders with huge gifts should be universally looked at with suspicion. It is to say that leaders who seem too good to be true probably are. It's also to warn leaders who have strong gifts to know that they probably have large shadows as well.
The self-aware leader, especially one who lives his life in light of the Cross, will always seek to know the size of his shadow and will invite others to shine the light on that dark side in order to eliminate the shadow his gifts inevitably cast.
Dead End Roads
From time to time I meet with a group of pastors from all kinds of different backgrounds and church situations. It's a great time of fellowship, learning, and encouragement.
Yesterday, one of the guys made a great point that I want to remember. He said this, "If I've learned one thing in my ministry it's this: when you realize you're walking down a dead-end road, stop walking. The longer you walk down a dead-end road, the more back tracking you're going to have to do before you can get back to the path you were looking for."
Whether it's a program, a personnel decision, or an argument that isn't going anywhere; the further you go down a dead end road, the longer it takes to recover.
There's an art to knowing the difference between a dead end and the scenic route. But, when you know it's a dead end, my friend's advice is wise: get back on through streets as quickly as you can.
Yesterday, one of the guys made a great point that I want to remember. He said this, "If I've learned one thing in my ministry it's this: when you realize you're walking down a dead-end road, stop walking. The longer you walk down a dead-end road, the more back tracking you're going to have to do before you can get back to the path you were looking for."
Whether it's a program, a personnel decision, or an argument that isn't going anywhere; the further you go down a dead end road, the longer it takes to recover.
There's an art to knowing the difference between a dead end and the scenic route. But, when you know it's a dead end, my friend's advice is wise: get back on through streets as quickly as you can.
Great at What You Can
One of my personal values as well as one of the things I expect of a team is greatness. Not greatness in everything, but greatness at the things for which greatness should be attainable.
I remember advice a piano teacher gave me one time. He said, "Chris, you are never going to play Liszt or Chopin like Van Cliburn does, but there is absolutely no reason on earth why you shouldn't be able to play your scales the way Van Cliburn does."
He made a great point.
I can't do everything with greatness. I can't even do everything someone else could do at the same level of greatness they might be able to do it. But there is absolutely no reason I can't do the fundamental things that everyone can do with greatness that rivals the very best.
In my estimation, this is one of the key things that separates great organizations from everyone else. It isn't that they can do eye-popping things with greatness; it's that they do obvious, fundamental things with greatness.
I remember advice a piano teacher gave me one time. He said, "Chris, you are never going to play Liszt or Chopin like Van Cliburn does, but there is absolutely no reason on earth why you shouldn't be able to play your scales the way Van Cliburn does."
He made a great point.
I can't do everything with greatness. I can't even do everything someone else could do at the same level of greatness they might be able to do it. But there is absolutely no reason I can't do the fundamental things that everyone can do with greatness that rivals the very best.
In my estimation, this is one of the key things that separates great organizations from everyone else. It isn't that they can do eye-popping things with greatness; it's that they do obvious, fundamental things with greatness.
Inspire
I spend a lot of time in strategic thought and discussions about how to move people to take another step toward a Christ-centered life. In our slice of "Churchdom," at some point during those conversations someone will say: "People just need to know that ____" or "If we could just teach people that _____" as if the primary reason people are less than Christ-centered is related to content.
You're never going to find me arguing against good content. We need to teach people the right things at the right time from the right source. Otherwise, any step we invite someone to take will be the wrong step.
But my experience is that very few people are motivated to move based strictly on content. Our decisions are much more visceral than that.
More and more I find myself trying to think along a dual track when we are thinking strategically. I do want to make sure we are informing people well but I also want to be sure that we are inspiring people to move.
Inspiring doesn't mean "gimmicky." More often than not I think gimmicks are counterproductive and a distraction. Inspiring people means giving them the picture of a reality they want more than anything else and presenting content through that lens. Tom Landry once told someone that the way to win championships was "to get a bunch of guys to do the hard work they hate more than anything else in the world so that they can achieve the one thing they want more than anything else in the world."
And inspiration has to stretch the gamut of what you're trying to do. It has to accompany any movement you hope people make: You have to inspire people to show up, inspire them to listen up, and inspire them to step up. Otherwise, the chances are, you're wasting your time.
You're never going to find me arguing against good content. We need to teach people the right things at the right time from the right source. Otherwise, any step we invite someone to take will be the wrong step.
But my experience is that very few people are motivated to move based strictly on content. Our decisions are much more visceral than that.
More and more I find myself trying to think along a dual track when we are thinking strategically. I do want to make sure we are informing people well but I also want to be sure that we are inspiring people to move.
Inspiring doesn't mean "gimmicky." More often than not I think gimmicks are counterproductive and a distraction. Inspiring people means giving them the picture of a reality they want more than anything else and presenting content through that lens. Tom Landry once told someone that the way to win championships was "to get a bunch of guys to do the hard work they hate more than anything else in the world so that they can achieve the one thing they want more than anything else in the world."
And inspiration has to stretch the gamut of what you're trying to do. It has to accompany any movement you hope people make: You have to inspire people to show up, inspire them to listen up, and inspire them to step up. Otherwise, the chances are, you're wasting your time.
The Living Church - Review
It strikes me that there are two ways to age. Some things (good wine or antiques) get better with age. Some things (milk, dirty laundry) rot and stink.As a young pastor who is still on the front porch of my ministry career, I find myself drawn to spend time with guys who have aged well; especially guys in ministry. They're full of both wisdom and optimism. What they have forfeited in terms of physical energy is more than made up in the calculated and urgent way they invest their time and their words. Those are the guys I want to be like, so naturally they're the kind of guys I want to be around. They're also the kinds of guys I want to read.
When I saw John Stott's book "The Living Church: Convictions of a Lifelong Pastor
," I couldn't buy it fast enough.
," I couldn't buy it fast enough. I have very little in common with John Stott. He is British, I'm American. He's 90-something, I'm barely 30-something. He's Anglican, I resist boxes... But we're both pastors, both love the Scriptures, and both love the Church.
"The Living Church" is this 90-year-old man's "dream for the body of Christ in the world today." And it's written that way. It's written with the wisdom of a man who has walked with Christ longer than my parents have been alive, but with the passion of a man who has not forgotten how to dream.
With pastoral care and the depth of a wise theologian, Stott unpacks what he believes is "God's vision for His Church," and talks specifically about Worship, Evangelism, Ministry, Fellowship, Preaching, Giving, and Impact."
"The Living Church" is brimming with optimism and sensitivity. It has a good balance of forthrightness and grace, and leaves the reader optimistic about a Church that could be theologically deep and externally invested. It's a book that is easy to read, but shouldn't be read easily.
I loved this book.
Obviously, you won't agree with everything Stott argues. He is a 90-year old British Anglican for goodness sakes. But you'll agree with most of it. And you'll get the glimpse into the heart of a man who remains faithful and passionate about the most important things in the waning years of his ministry.
Insecurity and a Buffer
Many, many pastors I have met struggle with some degree of personal insecurity. I think there are at least two reasons: The first is that Pastoral ministry can attract insecure people because (like it or not) it is the only position where a leader is able to wield the "God's Will Trump Card." Guys who are insecure can be attracted to pastoral ministry because it gives them power with something to hide behind. In my experience, this gets sniffed out pretty early in a pastor's ministry which effectively limits his influence. Most pastors I know are not insecure because of this.
Pastoral ministry affects every realm of a person's life. Church people are everywhere, and they're watching and evaluating. On Sunday, people are evaluating his sermon; on Tuesday they are evaluating whether or not he was friendly enough when he ran into them at a restaurant.
Even the most beloved pastors I know report that they receive hateful mail from anonymous "Long Time Members/Givers" on a regular basis. At larger churches, those letters become almost a weekly occurrence, and that's for pastors who are long-tenured and beloved by the vast majority of the congregation.
It's easy for a pastor to feel as if there is more armchair quarterbacking within the church they lead than takes place during the Super Bowl.
I've found that pastors need a close group of wise (non-staff) men and women whom they trust to give them honest, unvarnished feedback. Those men and women should agree to be his insecurity control. If they give the pastor honest feedback, both positive and negative, they will be a great buffer for the pastor's insecurity. He won't have to worry about being insecure; just serve and listen to them.
Paying too much attention to anecdotal letters will either make a pastor insecure or arrogant. Instead, find a group of wise individuals who will give you the straight truth and trust them.
Love and Respect
Dr. Emerson Eggerichs was at McKinney on Sunday, and is coming back on March 25-26 for a marriage conference based on his book "Love and Respect.
" Of the 50 or so marriage books I've read, "Love and Respect" ranks at the top of the list. If you can swing it, the conference will be worth whatever it would cost you to get here for it. You can register at www.mckinneychurch.com or at www.loveandrespect.com.
One of the (many) brilliant things Eggerichs talked about on Sunday is the way Hollywood has tapped into our God-given desire for Paradise but has perverted both the means and the end in the process.
In essence, all of us have a yearning in our hearts for Paradise. God has put eternity in the heart of every person alive (Ecclesiastes 3:11). However, true paradise can only be found in and through Him.
Hollywood makes millions by painting a desirable world that doesn't exist in reality and then makes us think that it is attainable if only we will...
What we end up with is collapse, either on the front-end or the back-end.
Either we get hurt in pursuit of False Paradise, or we reach False Paradise only to find out it is not Paradise after all. To quote Prof Hendricks, "We spend our whole life climbing the ladder of success [in relationships, career, entertainment, wealth, or anything else] only to reach the top and realize the ladder is leaning against the wrong building."
I was challenged this weekend to re-think my perspective on Paradise. Am I pursuing Paradise as God reveals it through godly means, or Paradise as Hollywood reveals it through religious means?
" Of the 50 or so marriage books I've read, "Love and Respect" ranks at the top of the list. If you can swing it, the conference will be worth whatever it would cost you to get here for it. You can register at www.mckinneychurch.com or at www.loveandrespect.com.One of the (many) brilliant things Eggerichs talked about on Sunday is the way Hollywood has tapped into our God-given desire for Paradise but has perverted both the means and the end in the process.
In essence, all of us have a yearning in our hearts for Paradise. God has put eternity in the heart of every person alive (Ecclesiastes 3:11). However, true paradise can only be found in and through Him.
Hollywood makes millions by painting a desirable world that doesn't exist in reality and then makes us think that it is attainable if only we will...
What we end up with is collapse, either on the front-end or the back-end.
Either we get hurt in pursuit of False Paradise, or we reach False Paradise only to find out it is not Paradise after all. To quote Prof Hendricks, "We spend our whole life climbing the ladder of success [in relationships, career, entertainment, wealth, or anything else] only to reach the top and realize the ladder is leaning against the wrong building."
I was challenged this weekend to re-think my perspective on Paradise. Am I pursuing Paradise as God reveals it through godly means, or Paradise as Hollywood reveals it through religious means?
Radicals and Crazy Lovers
David Platt and Francis Chan have both written books in the past few years intended to drag complacent Christians off the sidelines. I've reviewed both books in the past. There was a lot to like about both of them.
My main concern with Crazy Lovers and Radicals isn't just with those books; it's with a sentiment I hear quite a bit from my generation that those books reflect - the inference that if you want to truly follow Christ, you have to leave everything and live just a step above the poverty line.
There's a place in will of God for Peter who "radically" left his nets by the shores of the Sea of Galilee and followed Jesus. But there is also a place for the cobbler in Macedonia who stayed so he could support the ministry of the apostles. There is a place for Matthew who left the fast-track toward being set for life. There's also a place for Theophilus, who likely bank-rolled the books of Luke and Acts.
Christ-followers need to be radically sold out to following the leading of the Spirit. But you don't need to be ashamed if the Spirit leads you to Christ-centeredness right where you are.
Somewhere we need illustrations of the bank president making $300,000 a year who is taking ground for the cause of Christ right where he is. We need illustrations of the person who leverages the luxury they have been afforded to point others toward something eternal.
When Jesus challenged His followers to leave everything and follow Him, He was talking about heart displacement. For some people that will mean walking away from everything they have. For others, it will mean seeing everything they have through a Christ-centered lens, motivated by a Radical, Crazy Love.
Exodus Idolatry
Blogging may be a bit sporadic this week as I dig out from the pile that accumulated while I was gone. I completely disengaged, which was a good thing, but means I'm chasing cobwebs out.
This morning I was reading in Exodus 32, the familiar passage about the idolatry of the Israelites while Moses was on the mountain receiving the Law from God the first time. Something really obvious struck me that hadn't ever struck me before.
When we think about the idolatry in Exodus 32, we normally think of the golden cow that "jumped" out of the flames before Aaron's eyes (Exodus 32:24). The people of Israel took their gold and gave it to Aaron who melted it down and fashioned a golden calf that the people worshiped, saying "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt" (Exodus 32:4) even though they knew darn well the cow was handmade, just a few minutes old.
I've often wondered about the stupidity of giving Aaron's arts-and-crafts project credit for something the people knew it hadn't done. Maybe people are just more evolved these days after all.
Then this morning, I noticed verse 1.
The idolatry of the Israelites started way before they gave credit to the calf for bringing them out of Egypt. Notice what they say about Moses as they commission Aaron's sculpture: "Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him."
Moses hadn't brought them out of Egypt. God had brought them out of Egypt. By giving Moses the credit for something God had done, the Israelites reveal that their hearts are already idolatrous. The golden calf just takes their idolatry to the next level.
There's a lesson there for us: When you're willing to give man credit for something God does, it's only a small step to worshiping a golden calf.
This morning I was reading in Exodus 32, the familiar passage about the idolatry of the Israelites while Moses was on the mountain receiving the Law from God the first time. Something really obvious struck me that hadn't ever struck me before.
When we think about the idolatry in Exodus 32, we normally think of the golden cow that "jumped" out of the flames before Aaron's eyes (Exodus 32:24). The people of Israel took their gold and gave it to Aaron who melted it down and fashioned a golden calf that the people worshiped, saying "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt" (Exodus 32:4) even though they knew darn well the cow was handmade, just a few minutes old.
I've often wondered about the stupidity of giving Aaron's arts-and-crafts project credit for something the people knew it hadn't done. Maybe people are just more evolved these days after all.
Then this morning, I noticed verse 1.
The idolatry of the Israelites started way before they gave credit to the calf for bringing them out of Egypt. Notice what they say about Moses as they commission Aaron's sculpture: "Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him."
Moses hadn't brought them out of Egypt. God had brought them out of Egypt. By giving Moses the credit for something God had done, the Israelites reveal that their hearts are already idolatrous. The golden calf just takes their idolatry to the next level.
There's a lesson there for us: When you're willing to give man credit for something God does, it's only a small step to worshiping a golden calf.
Excerpt 8
"The object of worship must be infinite, and of necessity incomprehensible."
From "Systematic Theology
" by Charles Hodge
" by Charles HodgeExcerpt 7
"It is a palpable error of some ministers, who make such a disproportion between their preaching and their living; who study hard to preach exactly, and study little or not at all to live exactly. All the week long is little enough, to study how to speak two hours; and yet one hour seems too much to study how to live all the week. They are loath to misplace a word in their sermons, or to be guilty of any notable infirmity, (and I blame them not, for the matter is holy and weighty,) but they make nothing of misplacing affections, words, and actions, in the course of their lives. Oh how curiously have I heard some men preach; and how carelessly have I seen them live!"
From "The Reformed Pastor
" by Richard Baxter
" by Richard BaxterExcerpt 6
"Billy explained that we are all sinners, and that we cannot earn God’s love through good deeds. He made clear that the path to salvation is through the grace of God. And the way to find that grace is to embrace Christ as the risen Lord—the son of a God so powerful and loving that He gave His only son to conquer death and defeat sin."
From "Decision Points
" by George W. Bush
" by George W. BushExcerpt 5
"It is in the here and now that many of us experience a gospel blindness. Our sight is dimmed by the tyranny of the urgent, by the siren call of success, by the seductive beauty of physical things, by our inability to admit our own problems, and by the casual relationships within the body of Christ that we mistakenly call fellowship. This blindness is often encouraged by preaching that fails to take the gospel to the specific challenges people face. People need to see that the gospel belongs in their workplace, their kitchen, their school, their bedroom, their backyard, and their van. They need to see the way the gospel makes a connection between what they are doing and what God is doing."
From "How People Change
" by Timothy Lane and Paul David Tripp
" by Timothy Lane and Paul David TrippExcerpt 4
"Well, to put it simply: maybe we shouldn’t be competing with each other. Quite possibly, God may be growing weary of our deconstructive critiques guised in the covering of “strategy.” Maybe our personal frustrations with our roles and our bad experiences with the church are due, to some extent, to our incessant search for the perfect church instead of honing in on what God cares about most."
From "AND: The Gathered and Scattered Church
" by Hugh Halter and Matt Smay
" by Hugh Halter and Matt SmayExcerpt 3
"Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities ... and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonored, and yet in their very dishonor are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honor; they do good, yet are punished as evil doers.
From "To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity
" by James Davidson Hunter
" by James Davidson HunterExcerpt 2
"For congregations that are not growing, there are two choices: 1) The congregation can redefine the vision to match the performance. This is like the child who shot arrows at the wooden fence then drew a bulls-eye around each one where it landed. Sadly, this dumbing-down response to doldrums and decline is widespread. Empty churches rent their facilities to other groups and call them "ministry partnerships." Pastors count new activities instead of new disciples. But there is a better alternative. 2) The congregation can begin the journey, in truth and love, toward accountable leadership. And a clear understanding of accountable leadership is half the journey.
The other half is implementing an honest yet grace-based plan that sets a pastor up for success, and then waiting to see if success is forthcoming. The grace aspect allows ample time; provides ample support; and, when necessary, offers ample help for transition to another job if the pastor cannot lead the congregation to fulfill its mission. "What?" some might say, If the pastor can't lead, then we need a new pastor? Isn't that a little harsh?" Not if you treat people with dignity (e.g., generosity with time and money). But each congregation has to make its own decision: Is the purpose of our ministry to provide secure jobs for our staff? Or is the purpose to accomplish our share of the Great Commission?
: Excerpt 1
I'm out of the office for a couple of weeks trying to put some gas in my tank before a really busy (and long) season of ministry. Instead of queuing up 2 weeks of actual thinking, I've queued up 2 weeks worth of quotes from books I've read over the past year or so. They're a random collection of quotes in no particular order.
"An encounter with God's covenant-making communicative activity is itself an encounter with God... At root, the rejection of Scripture as divine special revelation is often a side effect of the greater rejection of the particularity of Christ as God's ultimate self-revelation in the world."
From "Words of Life: Scripture as the Living and Active Word of God
" by Timothy Ward
"An encounter with God's covenant-making communicative activity is itself an encounter with God... At root, the rejection of Scripture as divine special revelation is often a side effect of the greater rejection of the particularity of Christ as God's ultimate self-revelation in the world."
From "Words of Life: Scripture as the Living and Active Word of God
" by Timothy Ward
Gasping
Apparently I forgot to queue something up for today. I'm working to get out of town for a couple of weeks, and it seems as if it's more work to get ready to go than it is to stay. But, I'm headed out tomorrow whether I'm ready or not...
My plan is to have some random poignant excerpts from books I've read to tide you over while I'm gone. I should be back around January 31st if not before.
My plan is to have some random poignant excerpts from books I've read to tide you over while I'm gone. I should be back around January 31st if not before.
Defining Priorities
Setting and maintaining priorities is difficult. To paraphrase Charles Hummel
, on any given day we are faced with hundreds of urgent choices and perhaps as many important choices. The urgent choices aren't always important, and the important choices aren't always urgent. I inevitably spend more time answering email than I should because a full inbox is urgent but not always important.
One of the ways I've found extremely helpful in defining priorities is to ask myself a simple question at strategic points in my life (see my post yesterday): For my specific role, what are the things that can not get done if I don't do them?
Notice, the question is not "what are the things that will not get done if I don't do them." The answer to that question can be skewed by someone who can't delegate well.
What are the things that can not get done if I don't do them? Those are my priorities.
As a father, nobody else can father my kids like I can. It isn't anyone else's responsibility,
As a husband, nobody else can love my wife like Christ loved the church the way I can.
As the lead pastor of a church, there are certain responsibilities that nobody but the lead pastor can do.
Those are my priorities.
Plenty of people could speak at conferences. Plenty of people could write blogs. Plenty of people could make certain decisions or have certain conversations that make up an urgent part of my day. But at the end of my day, my goal is to at least have accomplished the things that only I can do. I have to be vigilant about defining priorities. Otherwise, those priorities will be removed from me when I am replaced by someone who does what only someone in that role can do.
, on any given day we are faced with hundreds of urgent choices and perhaps as many important choices. The urgent choices aren't always important, and the important choices aren't always urgent. I inevitably spend more time answering email than I should because a full inbox is urgent but not always important.One of the ways I've found extremely helpful in defining priorities is to ask myself a simple question at strategic points in my life (see my post yesterday): For my specific role, what are the things that can not get done if I don't do them?
Notice, the question is not "what are the things that will not get done if I don't do them." The answer to that question can be skewed by someone who can't delegate well.
What are the things that can not get done if I don't do them? Those are my priorities.
As a father, nobody else can father my kids like I can. It isn't anyone else's responsibility,
As a husband, nobody else can love my wife like Christ loved the church the way I can.
As the lead pastor of a church, there are certain responsibilities that nobody but the lead pastor can do.
Those are my priorities.
Plenty of people could speak at conferences. Plenty of people could write blogs. Plenty of people could make certain decisions or have certain conversations that make up an urgent part of my day. But at the end of my day, my goal is to at least have accomplished the things that only I can do. I have to be vigilant about defining priorities. Otherwise, those priorities will be removed from me when I am replaced by someone who does what only someone in that role can do.
Maximizing Margin
I'm a huge college sports fan who will admit to you in a weak moment that my three favorite holidays are New Years Day (bowl games) and the opening two days of the NCAA basketball tournament.
Last week as I was indulging myself at the college football buffet, I was struck by the stark difference between two halves of several of the games I watched. It's amazing how a team can dominate the first half but end up losing the game, and vice-versa.
The secret is in halftime; or sometimes in a time-out. Great teams maximize the margin they're given. They take it at the right time and use it effectively to either build on momentum, stop negative momentum, or make sure the whole team is on the same page before a critical point in the game.
What if leaders (and teams) planned and utilized margin the same way?
What if leaders took a one-week vacation halfway through their busy season instead of waiting until a more "natural" breaking point?
What if teams took a "time-out" together after the planning but just before the launch of a big initiative to make sure everyone is together?
What if leaders saved a day or two of vacation to take specifically at points when it seems like the enemy is gaining momentum?
What would it look like for you to maximize margin to give you, or your team an advantage?
Last week as I was indulging myself at the college football buffet, I was struck by the stark difference between two halves of several of the games I watched. It's amazing how a team can dominate the first half but end up losing the game, and vice-versa.
The secret is in halftime; or sometimes in a time-out. Great teams maximize the margin they're given. They take it at the right time and use it effectively to either build on momentum, stop negative momentum, or make sure the whole team is on the same page before a critical point in the game.
What if leaders (and teams) planned and utilized margin the same way?
What if leaders took a one-week vacation halfway through their busy season instead of waiting until a more "natural" breaking point?
What if teams took a "time-out" together after the planning but just before the launch of a big initiative to make sure everyone is together?
What if leaders saved a day or two of vacation to take specifically at points when it seems like the enemy is gaining momentum?
What would it look like for you to maximize margin to give you, or your team an advantage?
Hodge - Reason for Mission
Every year in addition to my Bible reading I try to read through a different Systematic Theology book. It's a good way to keep me sharp on theology as well as to challenge my thinking in light of the views of other theologians.
This year I'm reading through Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology
. Early in the work, he has this scathing rebuke of the Church when it comes to the objection that claiming Jesus is the only way to heaven is "unfair."
"In the gift of his Son, the revelation of his Word, the mission of the Spirit, and the institution of the Church, God has made abundant provision for the salvation of the world. That the Church has been so remiss in making known the gospel is her guilt. We must not charge the ignorance and consequent perdition of the heathen upon God. The guilt rests on us. We have kept to ourselves the bread of life, and allowed the nations to perish."
Good words. Unfortunately, it's not just the nations we've neglected; it's our neighborhoods too.
This year I'm reading through Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology
. Early in the work, he has this scathing rebuke of the Church when it comes to the objection that claiming Jesus is the only way to heaven is "unfair.""In the gift of his Son, the revelation of his Word, the mission of the Spirit, and the institution of the Church, God has made abundant provision for the salvation of the world. That the Church has been so remiss in making known the gospel is her guilt. We must not charge the ignorance and consequent perdition of the heathen upon God. The guilt rests on us. We have kept to ourselves the bread of life, and allowed the nations to perish."
Good words. Unfortunately, it's not just the nations we've neglected; it's our neighborhoods too.
Technology I Almost Love
... and books.
I really never thought I would stop buying hard copies of books. I read a bunch of books (somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 per year) and feel like I retain more if I can write all over the things I'm reading. Plus, I like having a record of my thinking when I look back at a book I read several years before.
Then I discovered the Kindle, which would allow me to highlight and make notes to myself which the Kindle saves as a .txt file and allows me to upload to my computer. That means every passage I highlight; every note I make can be saved to my laptop and searched.
As a pastor, the ability to search my highlights and notes gives me a gigantic advantage. In the past, if a book quote was going to help me prepare for a sermon I would have had to remember the quote and the book where I read it. My memory just isn't that good. Now, if I've highlighted a quote I can find it again using a simple desktop search. That's a huge deal.
Today, I almost love the Kindle and am this close to going entirely paperless.
But...
Until Amazon decides to do away with the ridiculous "location number" replacement for page numbers, I'm holding out. I hope you will too.
I know Amazon says it wants the user to be able to change font size and spacing, but that's not a valid excuse. I've had Libronix for years and can change the font size and spacing on those books while knowing which page I'm on. If Libronix could figure it out fifteen years, Amazon should be able to as well.
I do far too many book studies with people who still use paper-bound books. When they refer to something on "page 32," I'm out of the conversation. Not to mention the fact that websites that cite books only cite page numbers; books that cite other books only cite page numbers; and footnotes only cite page numbers.
Be on the lookout as the technology develops. Right now the Kindle's competitors are much more user friendly but lack the same book selection that the Kindle offers. In the near future, one of two things will happen: the competitors will catch up on selection and take the market for the technology, or Amazon will decide to stop being silly and do a couple of small things to put their product over the top.
I'll be patient. Until then, I'm stuck with technology that I only almost love.
Triads
Yesterday I mentioned that I am going to begin experimenting with some new methods for life-on-life discipleship in the coming year.
For most of my ministry, I spent a lot of my time doing life-on-life discipleship in a one-on-one context. One-on-one discipleship has some really strong benefits: focused attention, confidentiality, and a depth of relationship that can't be present in larger groups. Those relationships also allow for an agility that groups can't have; if someone is struggling with a particular issue, it doesn't impact other people to camp-out on something, or move more slowly.
However, one-on-one discipleship also has some fairly strong weaknesses as well. It is almost impossible to avoid a sensei/grasshopper feel to the relationship which is de-valuing to many "mentees," and has a tendency to puff-up many "mentors." It can also lead to codependency or a lack of accountability - it's easy to roll the alarm clock when you're only letting one person down. If one of the two people is busy or out of town, it's impossible to get together, which makes it hard to get in a rhythm. Finally, one-on-one discipleship depends extremely heavily on the individual skill of the mentor which is not always reproducible, even when the material is.
Greg Ogden has written about a philosophy of doing life-on-life discipleship in triads in a book called "Transforming Discipleship
" (I reviewed the book here). This year I'm going to give it a shot. Instead of meeting one-on-one, I'm going to try to grab two guys at a time who are interested in growing together. As a really young pastor, I think it will help the invitation on the front-end by eliminating the sensei/grasshopper mentality. Rather than asking someone several decades my senior to let me "mentor" him, I'll be able to invite a couple of guys into a process through which we'll all grow together. In fact, through the use of triads I'm hopeful that we can eliminate most (if not all) of the weaknesses of one-on-one discipleship while retaining the ability to be transparent, accountable, and agile.
I'll keep you posted...
For most of my ministry, I spent a lot of my time doing life-on-life discipleship in a one-on-one context. One-on-one discipleship has some really strong benefits: focused attention, confidentiality, and a depth of relationship that can't be present in larger groups. Those relationships also allow for an agility that groups can't have; if someone is struggling with a particular issue, it doesn't impact other people to camp-out on something, or move more slowly.
However, one-on-one discipleship also has some fairly strong weaknesses as well. It is almost impossible to avoid a sensei/grasshopper feel to the relationship which is de-valuing to many "mentees," and has a tendency to puff-up many "mentors." It can also lead to codependency or a lack of accountability - it's easy to roll the alarm clock when you're only letting one person down. If one of the two people is busy or out of town, it's impossible to get together, which makes it hard to get in a rhythm. Finally, one-on-one discipleship depends extremely heavily on the individual skill of the mentor which is not always reproducible, even when the material is.
Greg Ogden has written about a philosophy of doing life-on-life discipleship in triads in a book called "Transforming Discipleship
" (I reviewed the book here). This year I'm going to give it a shot. Instead of meeting one-on-one, I'm going to try to grab two guys at a time who are interested in growing together. As a really young pastor, I think it will help the invitation on the front-end by eliminating the sensei/grasshopper mentality. Rather than asking someone several decades my senior to let me "mentor" him, I'll be able to invite a couple of guys into a process through which we'll all grow together. In fact, through the use of triads I'm hopeful that we can eliminate most (if not all) of the weaknesses of one-on-one discipleship while retaining the ability to be transparent, accountable, and agile.I'll keep you posted...
Resolutions Report
If you've followed me long, you know that I really love New Years Resolutions. I love a clean slate, the chance to set goals, and the opportunity to reflect and measure progress from a year gone by.
Last year, I set 4 resolutions:
1. Read through the Bible this year, and through the Old Testament twice.
2. Pour my life into 10 reproducers this year
3. Read at least 15 books that are 100 years old or older.
4. Run a half marathon.
Yesterday, my friend Andy Rodriguez thought to look back at the list and ask me how I did. Chump.
I guess if I'm going to post resolutions, I ought to be willing to take my lumps as well.
Actually, it was an okay year for resolution keeping. I completed the half-marathon last February and beat my goal time by several minutes. I've continued to run some and would love to do a full marathon once my kids are at an age where I have some margin to train.
Also, I'm really excited about some of the reproducers I've been able to connect with this year. I've met with more than 10 guys over the year, doing a life-on-life discipleship curriculum that I developed with a couple of guys at our church. That's something I'll continue, though I think I'm going to tweak my method of investing in guys; more on that in a later blog post.
The reading goals haven't fared so well. I did make it through the Bible this year, but only made it through the Old Testament once. And, I totally bombed on the books by dead guys. I think I only read 5, 33% of my goal.
I've got good excuses for falling short on the reading goals: I'm taking some post-graduate classwork that demanded several thousand pages worth of reading. And, my job situation changed early in the year, which, combined with the birth of another baby cannibalized a lot of my reading time. Even still, I hate falling short of a goal I set for myself.
This year, I've got similar goals to last year. I definitely want to go through the Bible again, want to continue an investment in reproducers, and plan to continue making time for exercise. But my classwork and preaching schedule will dictate my other reading goals.
2010 was a long, hard year, but I've got a great feeling about 2011.
Last year, I set 4 resolutions:
1. Read through the Bible this year, and through the Old Testament twice.
2. Pour my life into 10 reproducers this year
3. Read at least 15 books that are 100 years old or older.
4. Run a half marathon.
Yesterday, my friend Andy Rodriguez thought to look back at the list and ask me how I did. Chump.
I guess if I'm going to post resolutions, I ought to be willing to take my lumps as well.
Actually, it was an okay year for resolution keeping. I completed the half-marathon last February and beat my goal time by several minutes. I've continued to run some and would love to do a full marathon once my kids are at an age where I have some margin to train.
Also, I'm really excited about some of the reproducers I've been able to connect with this year. I've met with more than 10 guys over the year, doing a life-on-life discipleship curriculum that I developed with a couple of guys at our church. That's something I'll continue, though I think I'm going to tweak my method of investing in guys; more on that in a later blog post.
The reading goals haven't fared so well. I did make it through the Bible this year, but only made it through the Old Testament once. And, I totally bombed on the books by dead guys. I think I only read 5, 33% of my goal.
I've got good excuses for falling short on the reading goals: I'm taking some post-graduate classwork that demanded several thousand pages worth of reading. And, my job situation changed early in the year, which, combined with the birth of another baby cannibalized a lot of my reading time. Even still, I hate falling short of a goal I set for myself.
This year, I've got similar goals to last year. I definitely want to go through the Bible again, want to continue an investment in reproducers, and plan to continue making time for exercise. But my classwork and preaching schedule will dictate my other reading goals.
2010 was a long, hard year, but I've got a great feeling about 2011.
Merry Christmas
Kari and I will be enjoying this week with our family. See you after the first of the year.
Why Shepherds? Part 4
This week I've tried to make the case that the shepherds in Luke 2 aren't there by accident. God made the spectacular birth announcements to shepherds (1) because Jesus as the Good Shepherd is the great fulfillment of God's promise in Ezekiel 34 and (2) because the other shepherds who should have been caring for the welfare of the people of Israel were asleep on the job. Every time Jewish leaders were reminded that the shepherds in the field heard first it should have been a stinging rebuke of their negligence.
So what? Here are a few observations from Luke 2 and Ezekiel 34 that apply to us as leaders today.
- Leadership is a stewardship. Shepherds didn't own the sheep; they managed them for someone else and were accountable to him for the welfare of the sheep-owner's assets. Whether we lead a church, an organization, a small group, or a family, God cares about the way we lead.
- God cares more for the welfare of the sheep than He does the position of the shepherd. When leaders refuse to manage well what has been entrusted to them, it is good stewardship on the Owner's part to replace the manager.
- God is looking for shepherds who will watch after the sheep, even when it is inconvenient, scary, exhausting, or bothersome. Nobody wants to stay up all night with a bunch of stupid sheep. But if the sheep are important to their owner, they should be important to us; whatever the cost.
- Faithfulness often gets rewarded in unexpected ways. In Luke 2, several guys watched over their sheep like they had undoubtedly done for many moons. They had likely seen several interesting things during their nights keeping watch over the sheep. On this night, they saw angels singing and received a sneak peak at the Good Shepherd who had come to save the world. God may not peel back heaven for your faithfulness in the minutiae of what He has called you to do, but He might.
So what? Here are a few observations from Luke 2 and Ezekiel 34 that apply to us as leaders today.
- Leadership is a stewardship. Shepherds didn't own the sheep; they managed them for someone else and were accountable to him for the welfare of the sheep-owner's assets. Whether we lead a church, an organization, a small group, or a family, God cares about the way we lead.
- God cares more for the welfare of the sheep than He does the position of the shepherd. When leaders refuse to manage well what has been entrusted to them, it is good stewardship on the Owner's part to replace the manager.
- God is looking for shepherds who will watch after the sheep, even when it is inconvenient, scary, exhausting, or bothersome. Nobody wants to stay up all night with a bunch of stupid sheep. But if the sheep are important to their owner, they should be important to us; whatever the cost.
- Faithfulness often gets rewarded in unexpected ways. In Luke 2, several guys watched over their sheep like they had undoubtedly done for many moons. They had likely seen several interesting things during their nights keeping watch over the sheep. On this night, they saw angels singing and received a sneak peak at the Good Shepherd who had come to save the world. God may not peel back heaven for your faithfulness in the minutiae of what He has called you to do, but He might.
Why Shepherds? Part 3
I started this week's post on Monday by saying that I don't think the shepherds' involvement in the Christmas story was a coincidence. Those guys weren't just in the right place at the right time. God chose to announce the birth of Jesus to specific shepherds for a specific reason.
Yesterday I pointed to Ezekiel 34, in which God rebukes the leaders of Israel for being lousy shepherds. The angels should have sung for King Herod. God expected the king to be good shepherds (2 Samuel 5:2; Isaiah 44:28; Jeremiah 3:15, etc...). They should have sung for the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were also supposed to be good shepherds.
But Herod and the Jewish leaders were shepherds who had fallen asleep on the job.
When the angels appear in Luke 2:8, they appear to shepherds who were doing what shepherds are supposed to do: keeping watch over their flocks. And at night, no less.
Night time is when predators like wolves and hyenas stalk lambs who stray from the flock. Night time is when thieves look for flocks to pilfer. Night time is when sheep - who can only see around 10 yards during the day - are prone to wandering away in the darkness.
Night time is when sheep are the most vulnerable. It's also when shepherds are most vulnerable to taking their eyes off the ball. They're tired and sleep deprived. They're afraid. They're bored. Night time is a hard time to be a shepherd.
But despite the obstacles, the shepherds in Luke 2 are exactly where they should have been doing exactly what they should have been doing: keeping watch over their flocks.
When the Good Shepherd arrived, the angels announced the news to the shepherds who were doing what shepherds were supposed to do. The "shepherds" who were asleep at the switch missed the announcement.
So what? In case it's not obvious, I'll finish out tomorrow talking about the implications for leaders today.
Why Shepherds? Part 2
Yesterday I submitted that the shepherds' appearance in the Christmas story is more than just a coincidence. God picked shepherds, and specific shepherds, to be the recipients of his big announcement. Those guys weren't bit players in the drama - they tell a significant piece of the story.
You don't have to be an Old Testament scholar to know that shepherds play a big part in the Old Testament. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his sons, Moses, and David were all shepherds. In fact, as you read through the Old Testament you get the idea that when God wanted something done, He looked for a shepherd to work through.
In fact, that's precisely the point God makes in Ezekiel 34.
When we think about Christmas prophecies, we usually think about Isaiah 7, Isaiah 9, and Micah 5. But Ezekiel 34, as it turns out, has Christmas written all over it, though it's not all peace, joy and good tidings.
Ezekiel 34 is a stinging rebuke and judgement against Israel's leaders, who God says should have been been serving as shepherds of the people of Israel. Instead, they were selfish (Ezekiel 34:1-2); oppressive (Ezekiel 34:3-4); negligent (Ezekiel 34:5-6) stewards over the people God had trusted them to lead.
They were shepherds who were asleep on duty.
As a result, God promises to remove those leaders as shepherds and to replace them with someone else, Himself (Ezekiel 34:7-16). God announces judgment on these corrupt, oppressive, self-centered "shepherds" by shepherding the people Himself, caring for the people Himself, and restoring the flock Himself.
The judgment is announced in Ezekiel 34. In Bethlehem 2000 years ago, God made good on His promise.
The angels appeared to shepherds because this baby was the Good Shepherd (John 10:11-13) God had promised way back in Ezekiel 34. That's great news for sheep; bad news for the former shepherds. The angels should have appeared to the Jewish leaders. The angels should have appeared to the king. But those leaders were under judgment.
But why these shepherds? I think there's a reason these specific guys made it into the story. Check back tomorrow.
You don't have to be an Old Testament scholar to know that shepherds play a big part in the Old Testament. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his sons, Moses, and David were all shepherds. In fact, as you read through the Old Testament you get the idea that when God wanted something done, He looked for a shepherd to work through.
In fact, that's precisely the point God makes in Ezekiel 34.
When we think about Christmas prophecies, we usually think about Isaiah 7, Isaiah 9, and Micah 5. But Ezekiel 34, as it turns out, has Christmas written all over it, though it's not all peace, joy and good tidings.
Ezekiel 34 is a stinging rebuke and judgement against Israel's leaders, who God says should have been been serving as shepherds of the people of Israel. Instead, they were selfish (Ezekiel 34:1-2); oppressive (Ezekiel 34:3-4); negligent (Ezekiel 34:5-6) stewards over the people God had trusted them to lead.
They were shepherds who were asleep on duty.
As a result, God promises to remove those leaders as shepherds and to replace them with someone else, Himself (Ezekiel 34:7-16). God announces judgment on these corrupt, oppressive, self-centered "shepherds" by shepherding the people Himself, caring for the people Himself, and restoring the flock Himself.
The judgment is announced in Ezekiel 34. In Bethlehem 2000 years ago, God made good on His promise.
The angels appeared to shepherds because this baby was the Good Shepherd (John 10:11-13) God had promised way back in Ezekiel 34. That's great news for sheep; bad news for the former shepherds. The angels should have appeared to the Jewish leaders. The angels should have appeared to the king. But those leaders were under judgment.
But why these shepherds? I think there's a reason these specific guys made it into the story. Check back tomorrow.
Why Shepherds? Part 1
Luke 2:8-20 is a familiar part of the Christmas story. There were shepherds living in the fields, watching over their flocks at night when a host of angels fill up the night sky and announce that a Savior is born who is Christ the Lord. They were "sore" afraid.
Did you ever stop to wonder, why shepherds?
Jesus was born a king, but God didn't pull back the sky to reveal the angelic host for Herod, who found out in a roundabout way through some wise men/astrologers from another land.
Jesus was born the Jewish Messiah, but the Scriptures don't record any angelic visits to Pharisees or Sadducees.
The heavenly choir sang a command performance for a few hired-hands and a bunch of sheep.
Why? Why shepherds?
I think there's a really good reason shepherds (and these shepherds in particular) get such a prominent place in the Christmas story. Their appearance isn't just coincidental, or filler in the story. The shepherds were intentional, and send a really powerful message for leaders every time we think about the Christmas story.
Stay tuned this week.
Alignment
One of the things our staff team has been working through over the past year is the idea of alignment. We want to be a church that is committed to "developing Christ-centered people who make a difference," and want everything to align around that purpose. We don't want sideways energy that steals resources and focus from the reason we exist as an organization.
The problems with seeking alignment around anything are that (1) Almost everything can be justified in light of a common purpose, and (2) Alignment problems or perceived alignment problems are easily misdiagnosed.
Anyone's pet project or sentimental favorite can be rationalized in light of the overall purpose. And almost everyone can give anecdotal evidence concerning why something is working or not.
It is also easy miss the difference between things that are broken and things that are misaligned. Some things point the organization in the right direction, but aren't moving the organization because something else is broken. If your car keeps veering off the side of the road it could be because it is out of alignment. It could be because you have low tire pressure in one or more tires.
There is no such thing as a silver bullet when it comes to alignment and accomplishing your purpose. But you want to make sure your purpose is clearly defined and that you're accurately diagnosing things that are broken.
The problems with seeking alignment around anything are that (1) Almost everything can be justified in light of a common purpose, and (2) Alignment problems or perceived alignment problems are easily misdiagnosed.
Anyone's pet project or sentimental favorite can be rationalized in light of the overall purpose. And almost everyone can give anecdotal evidence concerning why something is working or not.
It is also easy miss the difference between things that are broken and things that are misaligned. Some things point the organization in the right direction, but aren't moving the organization because something else is broken. If your car keeps veering off the side of the road it could be because it is out of alignment. It could be because you have low tire pressure in one or more tires.
There is no such thing as a silver bullet when it comes to alignment and accomplishing your purpose. But you want to make sure your purpose is clearly defined and that you're accurately diagnosing things that are broken.
Comfort Zone
Have you ever noticed that most of Jesus' most poignant teaching moments with the disciples took place around the Sea of Galilee?
The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) took place on the shore. The Feeding of the Five Thousand (Mark 6) took place there too, as did Jesus walking on water (Matthew 14:22-33) and their restoration after He rose from the dead (John 21).
The Sea of Galilee was the place Jesus found and called several of them (Matthew 4:18). It was their turf. They were fishermen who had likely grown up around that lake.
I can't prove this, but I think the location for Jesus' lessons was intentional. He pulled them out of their comfort zone inside their comfort zone.
I think there's a lesson inside all the lessons: disciples desperately need Jesus even in spaces where they're comfortable.
The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) took place on the shore. The Feeding of the Five Thousand (Mark 6) took place there too, as did Jesus walking on water (Matthew 14:22-33) and their restoration after He rose from the dead (John 21).
The Sea of Galilee was the place Jesus found and called several of them (Matthew 4:18). It was their turf. They were fishermen who had likely grown up around that lake.
I can't prove this, but I think the location for Jesus' lessons was intentional. He pulled them out of their comfort zone inside their comfort zone.
I think there's a lesson inside all the lessons: disciples desperately need Jesus even in spaces where they're comfortable.
The Big Problem
If you live in Fort Worth, you have undoubtedly heard about the new advertisements on city buses this Christmas season. There has been quite an uproar about the advertisements by an atheist organization declaring that "millions of Americans are good without God."
Some bus drivers are claiming they will refuse to drive buses with the advertisements on them. Reports of the potential for hundreds or thousands of people boycotting city buses seem to be credible. Some Fort Worth pastors are organizing church-wide boycotts of the bus.
Perhaps obviously, I'm in favor of consumers voting with their pocketbooks. There are stores and services I will never patronize again because of the way they treated me or my wife. And you had better believe I privately tell my friends about my experience in hopes that they'll join with me.
However, I'm not sure I can think of a scenario in which I think a church as an institution needs to be in the boycott business.
I'm more saddened by the sentiment of the advertisements than I am angered by them. That an organization called "Coalition of Reason" could have such a flawed and subjective definition of "goodness" can only be an indication of their blindness. Who gets to decide what defines "good" in order to declare that millions of people are "good?" Who or what is the standard?
I wish the advertisements weren't on the city buses, but I'm not going to waste a bunch of time worrying about them for two reasons:
First, I simply can't picture a person walking down Hulen Street, seeing a bus drive by that says "Millions of Americans are good without God" and saying to himself, "Gee... I had no idea." Honestly, I put less confidence in a city bus advertisement's ability to change a person's worldview than I do the "John 3:16" sign at football games; and that puts the advertisements pretty low on my confidence list.
Secondly, I'm far more worried about people inside the church who teach and live as if they believe they are "good without God" than I am atheists who expresses a spiritually blind opinion. I'm far more worried about functional atheists' ability to discredit the church than I am a city bus advertisement put out there by real atheists.
My uncle Phil had a really great post yesterday that says virtually the same thing, better than I could.
Some bus drivers are claiming they will refuse to drive buses with the advertisements on them. Reports of the potential for hundreds or thousands of people boycotting city buses seem to be credible. Some Fort Worth pastors are organizing church-wide boycotts of the bus.
Perhaps obviously, I'm in favor of consumers voting with their pocketbooks. There are stores and services I will never patronize again because of the way they treated me or my wife. And you had better believe I privately tell my friends about my experience in hopes that they'll join with me.
However, I'm not sure I can think of a scenario in which I think a church as an institution needs to be in the boycott business.
I'm more saddened by the sentiment of the advertisements than I am angered by them. That an organization called "Coalition of Reason" could have such a flawed and subjective definition of "goodness" can only be an indication of their blindness. Who gets to decide what defines "good" in order to declare that millions of people are "good?" Who or what is the standard?
I wish the advertisements weren't on the city buses, but I'm not going to waste a bunch of time worrying about them for two reasons:
First, I simply can't picture a person walking down Hulen Street, seeing a bus drive by that says "Millions of Americans are good without God" and saying to himself, "Gee... I had no idea." Honestly, I put less confidence in a city bus advertisement's ability to change a person's worldview than I do the "John 3:16" sign at football games; and that puts the advertisements pretty low on my confidence list.
Secondly, I'm far more worried about people inside the church who teach and live as if they believe they are "good without God" than I am atheists who expresses a spiritually blind opinion. I'm far more worried about functional atheists' ability to discredit the church than I am a city bus advertisement put out there by real atheists.
My uncle Phil had a really great post yesterday that says virtually the same thing, better than I could.
Security through a Team
From time to time I have worked with people who refuse to build a team around themselves. They thrive on being the Lone Ranger; the person with the plan; the one everyone looks to when a problem needs to be solved or a task needs to be accomplished.
Almost always, this tendency is based in insecurity. People feel like a team makes them irreplaceable. They're afraid if they empower a group of people to lead underneath them they will make themselves expendable. If they are the only person who knows how things work, they can't be replaced.
In reality, I think the opposite is true. Short of an ethical or moral challenge, the failure to build a team is as sure a way as I know to find yourself replaced. Building a solid team of people who can do your job better than you is as sure a way as I know to get promoted.
Teams allow you to focus on a higher level of tasks and to take on more responsibility. If you fail to build a team you create a ceiling for yourself - you are only able to be responsible for the things you are able to do yourself. As the organization continues to grow and change, you won't have the margin to grow with it and you won't make it.
Team-building ensures margin, allows focus, and maximizes effectiveness. As a result, it might be the most important trait of a person who wants to be a high-level leader.
Almost always, this tendency is based in insecurity. People feel like a team makes them irreplaceable. They're afraid if they empower a group of people to lead underneath them they will make themselves expendable. If they are the only person who knows how things work, they can't be replaced.
In reality, I think the opposite is true. Short of an ethical or moral challenge, the failure to build a team is as sure a way as I know to find yourself replaced. Building a solid team of people who can do your job better than you is as sure a way as I know to get promoted.
Teams allow you to focus on a higher level of tasks and to take on more responsibility. If you fail to build a team you create a ceiling for yourself - you are only able to be responsible for the things you are able to do yourself. As the organization continues to grow and change, you won't have the margin to grow with it and you won't make it.
Team-building ensures margin, allows focus, and maximizes effectiveness. As a result, it might be the most important trait of a person who wants to be a high-level leader.
Humble Yourself
Ever notice that 1 Peter 5:5-7 and James 4:6-10 give commentary on the same Proverb, and offer the exact same advice?
Both James and Peter reflect on Proverbs 3:34: "God mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble." And, both James and Peter give the same advice: "Humble yourself so that God may lift you up."
A lot of times we talk about "being humbled" as if humility is something that happens to us passively at the hands of another person or circumstance. That isn't the way James or Peter see it.
If you remember, both James and Peter were writing to people who were struggling under awful circumstances (1 Peter 1:6-7; James 1:2-4). If humility came through circumstances, these people would have had been poster-children already.
But Peter and James talk about humility as something we should do to ourselves. It's active.
Pride can be defined as "an unhealthy interest in ourselves." Humility is the opposite. Humility is what happens when we see ourselves the way God sees us: as empty-handed, broken people who are completely dependent on a Savior through the power of the Spirit. And it isn't something that "just happens" to us.
We need to constantly, consistently remind ourselves that we are nothing more, nothing less than "in Christ." When we actively humble ourselves in the sight of the Lord, the God with a hand strong enough to raise us from death to eternal life will lift us up in this life as well.
Both James and Peter reflect on Proverbs 3:34: "God mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble." And, both James and Peter give the same advice: "Humble yourself so that God may lift you up."
A lot of times we talk about "being humbled" as if humility is something that happens to us passively at the hands of another person or circumstance. That isn't the way James or Peter see it.
If you remember, both James and Peter were writing to people who were struggling under awful circumstances (1 Peter 1:6-7; James 1:2-4). If humility came through circumstances, these people would have had been poster-children already.
But Peter and James talk about humility as something we should do to ourselves. It's active.
Pride can be defined as "an unhealthy interest in ourselves." Humility is the opposite. Humility is what happens when we see ourselves the way God sees us: as empty-handed, broken people who are completely dependent on a Savior through the power of the Spirit. And it isn't something that "just happens" to us.
We need to constantly, consistently remind ourselves that we are nothing more, nothing less than "in Christ." When we actively humble ourselves in the sight of the Lord, the God with a hand strong enough to raise us from death to eternal life will lift us up in this life as well.
Platforms vs. Programs
My love/hate relationship with Apple is well-documented. I have a knack for buying lemons from Apple (on my ninth iPhone) and have even worse luck with their customer service trying to remedy my problems. And yet, I keep going back. I've tried to leave on multiple occasions, but keep going back for one primary reason.
Apple's philosophy is to create platforms that let the customer leverage the technology in a way that makes it useful to them.
Apple doesn't try to hang onto all the power. They don't try to corner every possible market. To do so would cause them to stretch far too thin and create a wide variety of mediocre, highly specialized products. They would be Microsoft.
Rather than trying to meet every imaginable need, Apple has created highly customizable tools that allow people who truly understand the specialized market to leverage Apple technology in a way that is useful to them. They empower the customer to maximize their platform.
I feel like a lot of our churches stretch themselves far too thin. Rather than thinking about platforms, we spend our time thinking about highly specialized programs that cause us to stretch too thin and create a bunch of mediocre stuff.
I wonder what it would look like if we focused more on creating platforms that allowed people the flexibility and adaptability to customize it to their specific needs as they seek to become Christ-centered people.
Apple's philosophy is to create platforms that let the customer leverage the technology in a way that makes it useful to them.
Apple doesn't try to hang onto all the power. They don't try to corner every possible market. To do so would cause them to stretch far too thin and create a wide variety of mediocre, highly specialized products. They would be Microsoft.
Rather than trying to meet every imaginable need, Apple has created highly customizable tools that allow people who truly understand the specialized market to leverage Apple technology in a way that is useful to them. They empower the customer to maximize their platform.
I feel like a lot of our churches stretch themselves far too thin. Rather than thinking about platforms, we spend our time thinking about highly specialized programs that cause us to stretch too thin and create a bunch of mediocre stuff.
I wonder what it would look like if we focused more on creating platforms that allowed people the flexibility and adaptability to customize it to their specific needs as they seek to become Christ-centered people.
Kinds of Authority
I had a conversation last week with my friend Jeff Jones, the pastor at Chase Oaks Church. Jeff Jones and Gene Getz along with some other guys wrote the book
on pastoral transitions. Jeff has been really kind to sit down with me every few months and walk me through the lessons he learned having walked an extremely similar road to the road I am walking.
on pastoral transitions. Jeff has been really kind to sit down with me every few months and walk me through the lessons he learned having walked an extremely similar road to the road I am walking.Last week we had a conversation about their leadership structure moving through transition. One of the most helpful things about their leadership structure is (and was) its clarity when it comes to authority. A primary reason is some work they did with Brad Smith several years ago which helped them define and assign three primary kinds of authority that can be held by various groups. It is available as a part of a field guide produced by The Center for Church Based Training.
Input Authority is the authority to be heard on a specific issue. Decision Authority is the authority to make a final call concerning a specific issue. Veto Authority is the ultimate authority to overrule or overturn a decision.
One of the most helpful things an organization can do is to clarify which roles carry which authorities. When lines get muddy, communication and expectations almost always break down. When people are asked for their opinion without clarity about the type of authority they carry, they normally always expect that they carry decision authority.
People at high levels on organizational charts normally have implicit veto authority. When they express an opinion, it carries a great deal of weight even if they do not mean for it to. When they are clear about the type of authority they carry on a decision they are able to express opinions with care.
In my experience, almost everyone in an organization is okay with not having veto authority on most decisions. They are not okay with confusion about where authority and accountability lie. Great organizations are organizations in which every team is clear on every decision about what kind of authority they hold.
The Land Between - Review
Labels:
Review
I bought "The Land Between: Finding God in Difficult Transitions"
by Jeff Manion on accident. I'm researching "pastoral transitions" for a dissertation and uploaded a bunch of books to my Kindle dealing with that topic. Somehow this one slipped into the bundle - maybe it was the word "transitions" in the title.
Before trying to send it back (I'm not even sure how you do that with a Kindle), I decided to read a couple of pages to make one hundred percent sure it didn't apply to my topic. It didn't apply to my topic, but I read the entire book before I knew what I was doing. I'm weak.
Manion takes a highly pastoral, highly personal look at tough transitions in life: the transitions that involve loss (loss of a loved one, loss of a job, loss of a marriage, loss of a home, etc...). Using the Israelites' wandering in the wilderness as a template, Manion helps to show how times of transition - the wilderness - can be transformational times in our life either for good or bad. To quote Manion, "The wilderness where faith can thrive is the very desert where it can dry up and die if we are not watchful."
I feel like the "wilderness wanderings" deal gets allegorized and over-used in a lot of cases. It is easy to stretch the metaphor so far beyond what the passage actually warrants that authors (and pastors) do more harm than good. In my opinion, Manion absolutely does not do this. His book doesn't feel like a self-help book with Bible verses forced in merely so he can sell the book at Lifeway.
"The Land Between" is really, really good. In fact, I'm ordering several copies to hand out to some of the people I counsel who could use the encouragement.
My only complaint about the book is that the Gospel doesn't make an appearance. I understand that the Israelites wandered a few thousand years before Jesus, but I sure wish there had been at least a mention of the fact that there is no hope for wandering in the wilderness without the Passover Lamb. Even still, this is a very good book that would make a really nice Christmas gift, especially for someone you know who is well-acquainted with the wilderness.
by Jeff Manion on accident. I'm researching "pastoral transitions" for a dissertation and uploaded a bunch of books to my Kindle dealing with that topic. Somehow this one slipped into the bundle - maybe it was the word "transitions" in the title. Before trying to send it back (I'm not even sure how you do that with a Kindle), I decided to read a couple of pages to make one hundred percent sure it didn't apply to my topic. It didn't apply to my topic, but I read the entire book before I knew what I was doing. I'm weak.
Manion takes a highly pastoral, highly personal look at tough transitions in life: the transitions that involve loss (loss of a loved one, loss of a job, loss of a marriage, loss of a home, etc...). Using the Israelites' wandering in the wilderness as a template, Manion helps to show how times of transition - the wilderness - can be transformational times in our life either for good or bad. To quote Manion, "The wilderness where faith can thrive is the very desert where it can dry up and die if we are not watchful."
I feel like the "wilderness wanderings" deal gets allegorized and over-used in a lot of cases. It is easy to stretch the metaphor so far beyond what the passage actually warrants that authors (and pastors) do more harm than good. In my opinion, Manion absolutely does not do this. His book doesn't feel like a self-help book with Bible verses forced in merely so he can sell the book at Lifeway.
"The Land Between" is really, really good. In fact, I'm ordering several copies to hand out to some of the people I counsel who could use the encouragement.
My only complaint about the book is that the Gospel doesn't make an appearance. I understand that the Israelites wandered a few thousand years before Jesus, but I sure wish there had been at least a mention of the fact that there is no hope for wandering in the wilderness without the Passover Lamb. Even still, this is a very good book that would make a really nice Christmas gift, especially for someone you know who is well-acquainted with the wilderness.
Performance Issue or Heart Issue?
Not long ago I was visiting with a guy who is emerging from a prodigal son season in his life. He's made a bunch of really dumb choices and wrecked a bunch of relationships in the process of drifting from the Father. Today he's on the journey back home, but is realizing that pig slop doesn't rinse off as quickly as it goes on.
As a part of our conversation, he lamented the "wasted years" of his life and said, "It just kills me that I let it go that far. If I had only made the decision back then to be in the Word every day, pray more often, and stay involved in church, things would never have gotten this out of hand."
His rationale is logical. Unfortunately, it's not biblical.
My buddy's prodigal journey wasn't the result of a performance issue; it was the result of a heart issue. He didn't wander away because he wasn't reading the Bible enough, praying enough, going to church enough. He wandered away because he has a heart that is prone to wander away.
In fact, it's God's mercy to my buddy that he didn't keep performing well when he went away. If he hadn't quit performing at the same time his heart wandered away, it might have taken him a lot longer to realize his need to return. He would have still been going through the outward charade fooling himself into thinking he was still close to home and causing him to attribute his "rock bottom" experience to a host of different things for some time before he realized what was really missing.
The reasons kids wander away from God at college isn't that they stop going to church. The reason husbands wander away from God and into the arms of another woman is not that they failed to read their Bible enough or pray enough; it is that sin is at work inside our bodies (Romans 7:23) so that we wander away from God.
The problem isn't our performance, so a change in performance won't fix it. The only solution is to be renewed through the Spirit (Romans 8:1-11) from the inside out (Romans 12:1-2).
As a part of our conversation, he lamented the "wasted years" of his life and said, "It just kills me that I let it go that far. If I had only made the decision back then to be in the Word every day, pray more often, and stay involved in church, things would never have gotten this out of hand."
His rationale is logical. Unfortunately, it's not biblical.
My buddy's prodigal journey wasn't the result of a performance issue; it was the result of a heart issue. He didn't wander away because he wasn't reading the Bible enough, praying enough, going to church enough. He wandered away because he has a heart that is prone to wander away.
In fact, it's God's mercy to my buddy that he didn't keep performing well when he went away. If he hadn't quit performing at the same time his heart wandered away, it might have taken him a lot longer to realize his need to return. He would have still been going through the outward charade fooling himself into thinking he was still close to home and causing him to attribute his "rock bottom" experience to a host of different things for some time before he realized what was really missing.
The reasons kids wander away from God at college isn't that they stop going to church. The reason husbands wander away from God and into the arms of another woman is not that they failed to read their Bible enough or pray enough; it is that sin is at work inside our bodies (Romans 7:23) so that we wander away from God.
The problem isn't our performance, so a change in performance won't fix it. The only solution is to be renewed through the Spirit (Romans 8:1-11) from the inside out (Romans 12:1-2).
Development
In their book "The Leadership Pipeline: How to Build the Leadership-Powered Company,"
Ram Charan, Stephen Drotter, and James Noel argue that leadership development should happen at every level of an organization. The very best organizations develop leaders internally for every position. Not only is this attitude great for the company, it's great for team members as well.
"Development is the ultimate perk. It can't be taken back once given, and it leads to other benefits."
Perks like bonuses, vacations, stock options, and merchandise discounts can all be taken away. Give someone a skill or an opportunity that can truly help them develop as an individual, and you can't ever take that back.
Obviously, financial (and other) incentives aren't bad. In fact, if you only offer development as a perk, you will develop your team members right into a great role at a different company who will give them development and financial compensation. But, it shouldn't be overlooked as a really important part of what you offer employees. And I'm not talking about company-wide in-services that aren't truly helpful. Offer your employees an opportunity to get better at the things they love doing, and you'll give them something that will help them (and your organization) long into the future.
Ram Charan, Stephen Drotter, and James Noel argue that leadership development should happen at every level of an organization. The very best organizations develop leaders internally for every position. Not only is this attitude great for the company, it's great for team members as well."Development is the ultimate perk. It can't be taken back once given, and it leads to other benefits."
Perks like bonuses, vacations, stock options, and merchandise discounts can all be taken away. Give someone a skill or an opportunity that can truly help them develop as an individual, and you can't ever take that back.
Obviously, financial (and other) incentives aren't bad. In fact, if you only offer development as a perk, you will develop your team members right into a great role at a different company who will give them development and financial compensation. But, it shouldn't be overlooked as a really important part of what you offer employees. And I'm not talking about company-wide in-services that aren't truly helpful. Offer your employees an opportunity to get better at the things they love doing, and you'll give them something that will help them (and your organization) long into the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
