Surrendered to Ministry?

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

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

Can we stop saying that?

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

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

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

Preventing Group Elephantiasis - Part 4

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

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

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

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

Preventing Group Elephantiasis - Part 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preventing Group Elephantiasis - Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preventing Group Elephantiasis

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

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

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

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

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

Self-Help Heresy

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

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

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

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

Why are you still in existence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Enough

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Serious Sin of Procrastination

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

Thanks to Joe Thorn for calling me out.

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

Poor People and the Church

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

 

Radical - Review

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

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

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

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

But...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Occupational Hazard of Over-Statement

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

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

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

It's a vicious cycle.

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

The Good News We Almost Forgot - Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whew

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

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

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

Sick Singers and Saturday Sermons

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday Rundown on Thursday

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

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

- Hire Staff who create their own momentum.

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

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

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

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

Tuesday Run-Down on Wednesday

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

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

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

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

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

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

Committees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ministry Idolatry and Fruit Bearing

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

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

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

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

Novelty and Sentimentality

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

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

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

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

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

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

Managing Distractions

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

Here's what Belsky says:

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

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

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

Making Jesus Look Good

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

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

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

Making Ideas Happen - Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seasons and Ruts

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

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

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

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

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

Is God an Actor?

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

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

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

Missional Moratorium?

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

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

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

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

Anyone got language for that?

Patriotism and Worship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Excuses

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

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

The Good News We Almost Forgot - Kevin DeYoung

Making Ideas Happen - Scott Belsky

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

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

Brothers We Are Not Professionals - John Piper

Leadership is Important

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

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

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

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

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

Followership

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

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

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

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

The board follows the shareholders, or the stock ticker.

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

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

John 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Horizontal Fast Track

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

They call it the "horizontal fast-track."

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

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

Makes a whole lot of sense...

Who is the Leader?

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

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

I think this view of leadership is a mistake.

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

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

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

Systems and Statements

Systems are stronger than mission statements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the Bible Says

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

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

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

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

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

Uncertainty

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

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

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

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

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

Gripes Go Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Illustrations

I saw this video on a friend's blog.

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

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

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

Myopic Leadership

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

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

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

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

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

Dealing with Doubt

For the past several weeks we did a series in the book of Daniel about Daniel and his four friends; guys who lived their life in light of a question: "What would someone in my shoes do who was completely convinced that God was in control?"

All four guys were able to walk away from a posh buffet in Daniel 1; Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were able to face a fiery furnace in Daniel 3; Daniel was able to stare down hungry lions in Daniel 6 because they lived their lives with character, convictions, and courage, doing what anyone would do in their shoes who was completely convinced God was in control.

This morning, a mom asked me if I ever thought that at some point in the middle of those circumstances those guys had a moment of crisis and thought "What the heck have I done?"

Obviously, Scripture doesn't tell us. But it doesn't take a lot of imagination to think those guys might have had a moment or two of sweaty palms and dry mouth.

But here's the thing: they moved forward anyway because they were completely convinced God was in control. When that's the starting point, even moments of doubt become opportunities for personal worship.

When there's no chance that God might not show up, there's no opportunity to trust that He will.

Doubt can be a powerful force in the life of the believer, either positively or negatively. When unattended, doubt can be paralyzing. When it's leveraged, it can be a tool God uses to keep us focused on our need for Him.

When You Blow It

As a huge baseball fan, I have been fascinated to watch the fallout from the perfect game that wasn't last Wednesday night. If you missed it, a virtually unknown pitcher for the Detroit Tigers named Armando Gallaraga was robbed of a perfect game (no walks, no hits) by veteran umpire Jim Joyce with two outs in the bottom of the 9th. If Joyce gets the call right, the game is over and Gallaraga goes down in the history books as having done something that only a handful of pitchers have ever done. But, Joyce blew the call by a mile.

After the game, Joyce faced the media. You can listen to his comments here (beware, there is some adult language).

I tell you what: Jim Joyce is a man. He may be a blind man, but he's a man.

No excuses. No justifying. No blame shifting. He says, "I missed it... The biggest call of my career and I blew it."

Jim Joyce got it right. Not the call - the response to the call once he realized he had blown it.

Nobody makes the right call every time. Sometimes we blow it when it matters the most. In those times, it isn't your accuracy rate that makes you a leader; it's the way you respond. Good for Jim Joyce.

Leading and Defining Change

One of the major areas where I'm doing a lot of thinking these days because of some of my continuing education is in the area of leading change. Lots of organizations - secular, sacred, for-profit, non-profit - don't do change well.

I think the number one reason change fails in organizations is that those leading the change fail to define precisely what kind of change they're leading toward. If the goal and the path aren't defined on the front end, the only way they'll be reached is by accident.

When it comes to change, there are at least 4 different kinds of change:

1. Re-packaging - This is when an organization is keeping the exact same thing but giving it a different look. This kind of change rarely works because the only change it provides is cosmetic. Still, on occasion, all that is needed is a facelift and re-packaging is the direction to go.

2. Re-branding - Similar to re-packaging in that neither affect any kind of wholesale change to the actual product or philosophy, although re-branding carries more than just a cosmetic punch. Re-branding usually involves re-packaging something in such a way that an attribute that was present but previously unnoticed is brought to light.

3. Re-modeling - Re-modeling takes an existing structure but refashions it to meet a new purpose. This is often tricky in organizations because just as in remodeling a house, certain load-bearing structures may not be movable. Re-modeling often involves a complete change in the look, purpose, and feel of an organization, program, or philosophy.

4. Renovation - Renovation involves the complete rebuilding of an organization or program that might or might not resemble the previous structure at all.

All of these have benefits and all of these have perils. The biggest peril, however, comes when organizations or leaders miss which type of change they're leading. If you're aiming for re-modeling but only re-package, you'll crash and burn. If you're aiming for re-packaging and communicate renovation, the organization might not ever recover.

Dog Fights

I've been working through some new mentoring material with several guys from our church. Last week one of those guys and I were having breakfast, talking about why Christians still struggle with doing things deep down we don't want to do.

As we talked about Galatians 5:16-17, he came up with this analogy:

"If you'll forgive the association, it's like a dog fight. It's always going to be messy, but there's one way to ensure victory: If you only feed one dog, that dog is bound to win. Starve one dog and he's sure to lose."

He's got a point. Which dog are you feeding?

Efficiency of Discipleship

A lot of models for spiritual growth within churches involve a primary teacher and a group of people who sit around and listen. Obviously, those environments have some significant benefits: they usually use the gifts of a "master teacher" who has invested a significant amount of time planning and can be more easily held accountable for the validity of his message. Also, they ensure the entire group is being led in a similar direction. Those environments are critical for keeping everyone on the same page.

However, if your goal is truly spiritual growth, smaller environments will always yield better results. In fact, rather than a person sitting under a master teacher for their spiritual growth, people will grow more as soon as they can become the master teacher for someone else.

William Glasser did some studies in the area of retention and learning styles and estimates that we remember:

10% of what we read

20% of what we hear

30% of what we see

50% of what we see and hear

70% of what we discuss with others

80% of what we experience personally

95% of what we teach to someone else

If you really want someone to grow, simply hearing the message is horribly inefficient. Instead, put them in an environment where they are responsible for teaching someone else.

That's why the discipleship model works so well.

Watch Your Mouth

I had a great conversation with a guy last week who trusted Christ through the ministry of a televangelist. The guy happened to be talking about the gospel and the guy trusted Christ right there in his living room.

This particular televangelist is a goofball, honestly. His theology is out of control. But in this particular instance, God used the guy to reach my friend who is now growing spiritually like a weed.

Another of my friends, a pastor, made a snide comment about the "Oprahfication" of society during a sermon at one point only to find out that one of Oprah's best friends was a member of his church. (She's now a former member).

I'm all for confronting error. It's vital to ministry (Matthew 7:14; Acts 20:29). But a pastor has to be very careful choosing his words in talking ill of a person from the pulpit. And from time to time the pastor needs to call out specific people for specific errors in a public way.

With that said, it almost never serves a pastor well to talk poorly about a person from the pulpit. Those words are almost always misunderstood or misapplied and should be spoken judiciously even when they're necessary. Always.

Watch your mouth, and your tone. My friend needed to know that the televangelist who led him to Christ was a turkey - but the four or five pastors who reamed the televangelist from the pulpit nearly drove this guy away from the church altogether.

Loyalty

I love this quote by Colin Powell in "Leadership Secrets of Colin Powell" by Oren Harari:

"I want you to know you can count on me; I want to know that I can count on you. We may argue about which action to take, but I'll stick by you as we're arguing as long as you stick by me once a decision is made. No cover-your-butt moves are necessary from you; no knife-in-the-back will come from me."

That's great leadership.

Slow Hires

We're currently looking to fill a couple of big positions at the church where I serve. Particularly because of the season of ministry we're in, both positions are a "felt need" for us, and we would love to hire them quickly. But moving too quickly would be fatal.

Interviewing candidates is a lot like dating. I've never met a married couple who said, "You know, we probably knew each other too well before we got married." I've met a lot of divorced people who say "He wasn't the person I thought I was marrying."

You hope the person you hire will be with you for a long time. You'll see them and communicate with them almost every day. And you'll be careful to communicate those expectations to them before you hire them.

If you hurry to hire someone you'll eat your words, because you'll spend the next two years trying to figure out how to get rid of them. And you'll end up doing their job for them anyway. I'd rather do two jobs for an extra month than two jobs for an extra two years; I don't know about you.

Slow down on your hires. Take your time. You'll still make some hires you regret, but not nearly as many.

Good News of the Kingdom

Several weeks ago I did a series of posts about social justice and the Christian. It's a hot topic in Christianity these days, and of particular interest to me. There are some great things happening all over the world as Christians work to put their hands and feet where there mouths have been. That's a great thing.

However, it's really easy to mistake the fruit of the Message for the Message itself. We can answer the right questions the wrong way and end up worse off than we started.

One of the things that makes me absolutely crazy is when people talk about the "Gospel of the Kingdom" in connection with their social agenda without ever having any intention to talk about the specific message about Jesus Christ's death and resurrection.

The "Good News of the Kingdom" is not that the Kingdom is coming. It is not just that Jesus Christ is King. It is not that God is the Creator and will restore the earth to its original intent.

In fact, if you are not in a right relationship with God through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, those things are the worst news possible.

The Gospel of the Kingdom is that the King of the Universe is good and perfect and died for you so that you could experience life in a Kingdom (and eternity) that you don't deserve.

If the "Good News of the Kingdom" doesn't include the Person and work of Jesus, the message of the Kingdom is no Gospel at all.

Tangible Proof

Several years ago I had a conversation with a man who was having a hard time in his marriage. Like I do in any pastoral counseling conversation, I went straight to the Gospel. He said he had trusted Christ at one point in his life, but had a hard time with doubt. "I'm a scientist; I'm trained to look for tangible proof. So it's hard to trust my whole life to someone I can't see."

Ephesians 5:22-33 provides the answer to both his problems.

What if wives lived with their husbands in a voluntarily selfless way, even when the turkey didn't deserve it?

What if husbands sacrificed everything that was most important to him so he could meet the needs of his wife, even when she was a nagging, self-centered, money-spending, dripping faucet?

Their marriages would be better, and the world would have the tangible proof of the Gospel that they need.

The Right Mistakes

One of the things that will crater leadership more quickly than anything else is the fear of making mistakes.

Mistakes are a normal part of leadership development. If you play defense forever, you'll never win the game. As a leader - especially a young leader, I expect to make mistakes. I just want to make sure the mistakes I'm making are the right mistakes.

The right mistakes are:

1. Mistakes Related to Process, not Character - Picking the wrong direction when the factors are unknown will not disqualify you as a leader. Failing to be a leader people can trust, will.

2. Mistakes Made For the Very First Time - After some time, if you've made the wrong decision over and over and paid the price, it fails to be a "mistake." Blind spot? Maybe. Leadership flaw? Perhaps. Mistake? No.

3. Mistakes You Make With Someone Else - Wise leaders seek counsel. There's no excuse for making a decision - specifically a major decision - without consulting trusted advisers. If collective wisdom leads to a mistake, so be it. Don't let foolishness or arrogance take you down that path.

4. Mistakes That Fail in the Right Direction - There is a way to fail that allows you to continue making progress even if you don't make the kind of progress you had hoped. Think about where you want to end up and make sure failure lands in that direction. It's one thing to overthrow first base; it's another thing to overthrow first base while you're aiming at Left Field.

5. Mistakes that Don't Leverage the Farm - It's one thing to take risks. It's another thing to risk too much. As a leader, the ultimate end of your organization (whatever that organization might be) is usually too important to risk. If you're betting the farm, you had better be going to lose the farm if you don't win the bet anyway.

What am I missing? I only listed five characteristics of the right mistakes. What would you add to my list?

Marriage and Compatability

This is the season of weddings. Weddings are some of my favorite things to do as a pastor, so every year I over-extend myself with premarital counseling and weddings.

Weddings are big business, if you hadn't noticed. There are thousands of new books, conferences, and online resources that promise to help you figure out whether or not you're compatible as a couple and to build a healthy marriage on that. Eharmony touts its success based on 29 "dimensions" of compatibility.

Although I know some great couples who have benefited from some of those resources, I really think the idea of compatibility in marriage is bunk.

I've never met a married or engaged couple who was compatible.

He's a guy, she's a girl = instant incompatibility. Compound that with different backgrounds, different gifts and talents, and a sinful selfish tendency inside every one of us, and you just don't ever have compatible couples. They don't exist.

The good news is, I believe that incompatibility, not compatibility, is what makes a good marriage. Living-out the selfless sacrificial love that's commanded in Ephesians 5 demands (by definition) people who aren't compatible. You can't sacrificially love someone who is "perfect for you." You can't be voluntarily selfless (submit) to someone who "completes you."

The point of the Gospel is that we were incompatible with God because of our sin and His holiness. Because of His love for us He chose to meet our need(s) anyway despite the cost to Himself. Scripture sets that up as the model for a successful marriage, and it demands two people who are not compatible.

Big News

If you're a part of the McKinney Family, this post is old news.

If you're not a part of McKinney, follow the link to see the answer to the question, "What's going on with you guys these days?"

The Lord has done great thinks for Kari and I... and we are filled with joy.

Five Commitments Toward Trust

One of our elders passed these along to me the other day from a Catalyst Message Andy Stanley did several years ago. I can't wait to share them with our staff team.

Five Commitments Toward Trust for Teams:

1. When there's a gap between what I expected and what I experienced, I will choose believe the best about you.

2. When other people assume the worst about you, I'm going to come to your defense.

3. If what I experience begins to erode my trust in you, I will come to you directly about it. You never have to fear the consequences of a conversation I have with someone else about you until I have first talked to you.

4. When I become convinced I will be unable to deliver on a promise, I will inform you ahead of time.

5. When you confront me about the gaps I have created I will tell you the truth.

Legislating Character

A couple of months ago I was visiting with a friend who is on staff of a large church in the Midwest. We were talking about personnel policies since we were in the middle of re-thinking ours. He sent me a copy of his church's personnel manual, which was roughly the size of the unabridged Encyclopedia Britannica.

Policies are important for every organization. They define the boundaries of the playing field and help ensure a relative amount of consistency across the organization to ensure everyone is playing the game with the same expectations. More than anything, they exist for the sake of clarity.

But policy manuals go wrong when we forget that it is impossible to legislate character.

If the sole purpose of your policy manual is to allow you to trust your employees, you've got the cart before the horse.

When an employee does something outside the pale of what is normally acceptable, the first instinct is often to create a new policy. This almost never solves the problem. Instead, it inevitably creates new problems: Malicious employees who need policies to stay in line will always find ways around policies no matter how many you write. Trustworthy employees will be frustrated by the lack of flexibility because of policies you created for someone else.

My experience says that policies ought to address patterns you experience with multiple trustworthy employees. Patterns with individual trustworthy employees need to be addressed in frank conversations. Employees who are not trustworthy, pattern or not, should be dismissed from your team as quickly as possible. Why? You can't legislate character.

What's the Problem? Leadership or Followership?

There are times in the life of every leader in which he turns around to realize the wrong people are following; or worse, that nobody is following at all. It's true on every level of leadership, from leading a small organization to leading a large country.

In those times, the leader has to ask himself (or herself) a pretty important question: Is this a problem with leadership or a problem with followership?

This is a really hard question to ask, because if we're any kind of leader at all we feel like we're leading in the right direction as clearly as we know how. As a result, the easiest reaction is to see the problem as a problem with followership - the people didn't listen, they don't value the direction we're going, they don't know what's good for them, they're stiff-necked and rebellious, etc...

Sometimes, this is a realistic reaction. Jesus faced a problem of followership (Matthew 12:39; Luke 19:28-40). Sometimes people don't follow good leadership for reasons that are entirely their fault.

My experience as a leader, however, is that the explanation most of the time for people not following my lead is not a problem of followership; it's a problem of leadership.

If you plan an event and the people you expected to show up don't show up, it could be a followership problem. More likely it is a leadership problem. They didn't think your event was worth the investment of their time. Either you failed to communicate the benefit of the event or you assumed people would value a "benefit" they didn't value.

If you are going in a certain direction and the people don't follow, it could be that they don't know what's good for them. It could be that they're stupid and didn't understand your directions. More likely, the problem is with you as a leader. You're either leading in the wrong direction and the people know it, or you're focusing on the wrong things.

Discerning whether failure-to-follow is a followership or leadership problem is the first step in moving ahead. If you accurately diagnose the problem, you'll never get back on track.

Three Pieces of Advice

Tom Peters is a prolific writer on organizational leadership and excellence. In one of his writings, he tells the story of his 74-year-old mother-in-law who received some advice from a 90-year-old friend on the secret of a vigorous life. The friend gave this advice:

"She said she had three 'secrets,'" Joan recalled. "First, surround yourself with good books on any and every topic. Second, spend time with people of all ages. And third, push yourself to say 'Yes.'"

Obviously, there are more components to the abundant life (John 10:10), but I really like this lady's list; especially the last piece of advice.

It's easy to say "no." It's easy to be too tired, too distracted, too busy, too lazy, too careful... It's hard to say yes.

We have to say no to certain things, particularly in the moral realm. That isn't the kind of opportunity we're talking about. We're talking about responding to invitations and opportunities with non-moral implications. Opportunities to take risks, engage life, or try something new.

It's easy to be the kind of person whose normal, automatic reflex is to say "no." But what a boring life!

This week, try it out just for the week. When given the opportunity, try everything in your power (outside of sin) to say "yes." See if the week doesn't turn into a pretty exciting adventure, no matter how old you are.

Retreat

Kari and I spent the first half of this week at a pastor/wives retreat with some of the other couples from our staff.

Our elders have always valued opportunities for our pastors and their wives to get away for a time of refreshment and prayer. We used to go to a really nice retreat center in Dallas but chose to go in a different direction a few years ago when the economy started going downhill. A generous family in our church has a ranch south of Fort Worth that allows us to have all the fun at a fraction of the cost.

We don't work on retreats. We have perfectly good conference rooms and offices in Fort Worth for working. Our primary goal on retreats is to connect with each other and pray.

It's time well spent. Every year since the economy tanked, we've asked the elders to cancel the retreat and save the money. Every year they've refused. And every year on the way home I make a few phone calls to tell them "thanks" for making the investment.

It's critical for our staff team to care about each other as people, not just colleagues. The only way to accomplish that is to know each other as people rather than just colleagues. If all we do together is work, our relationships would be awfully shallow. Our elders want better than that, so they make it a priority to invest in that direction. We're not a perfect staff, but I think we're closer than we were at this time last week.

Metrics

Last week I mentioned that the attendance metric hasn't been one of the metrics we have chosen to measure in the history of the church where I serve. Someday we will probably start measuring our numbers, but not for the purpose of gauging success.

Honestly, we haven't been great at measuring anything in the 50-year history of the church. And that's not always a good thing. People are always measuring something, even if not accurately.

Our church doesn't "officially" measure attendance, but it hasn't ever been rare to hear someone say "gosh, attendance was down this week," or "wow, it was a big Sunday." What's funny about that, is that it wasn't at all uncommon to hear both comments on the same Sunday in the same service. That hasn't ever been a huge deal because it isn't a benchmark for our success.

What is a benchmark for our success is movement toward spiritual development and external focus. So, on Sunday we did a church-wide survey during our service. Our hope is to set a benchmark this year and then measure our progress from year to year.

Whatever "success" is for your organization, it's important to measure and track. Otherwise, you'll never know how your organization is doing. You'll be relegated to gauging success at the whim of whomever skews the data to support their agenda.

Micromanaging and Playwriting

Last week I read an essay by Philip Slater, who was a sociology professor and leadership expert (cowriting a book with Warren Bennis) until leaving the corporate world to write plays and be involved in the theater. In his essay, he makes a great point about management:

"Inexperienced playwrights often want to direct their own plays so they can make sure everything conforms to their vision. The result is usually sterile and often disastrous... I tell playwriting students never to write stage directions that tell an actor how to do or say something, since it limits the actor's options and encourages phony gestures. A good actor, I tell them, will have a dozen ways of creating the effect you want - ways you haven't thought of - and will choose the one most natural and the one that most powerfully express that vision.

The head of an organization is in the same position as the playwright. If the leader's vision is clearly articulated it will be most effectively realized by others who share it, and bring their own creativity to it. Any attempt to control and direct their input will reduce its quality."

I think this is brilliant insight.

The most important roles of the manager are (1) finding the right people for the role, and (2) clearly communicating ends.

When those two roles are done well, the manager doesn't have to concern himself much with means at all.

Does God Have a Specific Plan for Your Life?

I wouldn't say I'm a Donald Miller fan. I've read most of his books, and didn't not like any of them. He takes the scenic route everywhere he goes as an author, and that drives me crazy. But, I never had a real beef with anything I read by Miller. I do, however, have a beef with his blog post last week titled "Does God Have a Specific Plan for Your Life? Probably Not."

I think he's trying to ask a question about knowing God's specific plan for your life, but that isn't the question Miller asks. Instead, he says "I don’t believe God has mapped out a plan for your every day, or even for your every year."

Here's the problem with Miller's logic: In order for God to be sovereign over anything, God must be sovereign over everything. You can't completely control one variable without having control over all the variables. If God has a plan, but it doesn't include your life, we can't have any confidence that God will be able to achieve His plan.

Miller argues that "God isn't a control freak." I agree with that because the word "freak" implies that God is malevolent or abusive with what He controls; or that He has to grab for control like a human control freak. He isn't, and doesn't.

In one of Martin Luther's writings to Erasmus, he charged "Your thoughts of God are too human." I'm afraid the same is true of Donald Miller, at least with regard to this topic.

You may not be able to know God's plan for your life. You shouldn't sit back and wait for God to reveal His specific plan outside His moral plan for your life; He rarely reveals those details. Run hard after God, make the wisest choices you can, and rest in a sovereign God who cares for you.