Monday, June 23, 2014
Update on TJ
Sorry for the delay in Blogging. My wife and I travelled to Montana last Thursday and I ended up in the ICU with pneumonia an Saturday. For prayer updates you can visit reach TJ at www.reachTJ.com
Friday, June 20, 2014
You are not hearing me!
What does that statement mean? Do they think I need hearing aids? Or that I don't understand what they are saying? Or not paying adequate attention. Well I guess on a bad day all three are possibilities! But no, that is not usually what this statement means. In most cases what they are saying is "you must not be hearing me because you won't agree with me." Or to put it another way, "if you truly heard me, you would agree with me."
Not necessarily so!
The truth is that I do hear you but I just don't agree with you on the point you are making. Nor do I or others need to. Self definition is all about the ability to have a personal position that may well be different than someone else's position and be OK with that. Those who use the phrase "You are not hearing me" are saying the opposite: You need to adopt my position, and they are not OK with others holding a contrary position.
This phrase can actually be used to manipulate others by keeping a conversation going on the pretext that we are not hearing or understanding what the other party is saying. Truth is we did hear, we did not agree and that is that! It is not only OK but it is a sign of a self defined person. This of course does not rule out constructive dialogue between differing points of view. What it does rule out is that we are not hearing. We are but simply choose not to agree.
Not necessarily so!
The truth is that I do hear you but I just don't agree with you on the point you are making. Nor do I or others need to. Self definition is all about the ability to have a personal position that may well be different than someone else's position and be OK with that. Those who use the phrase "You are not hearing me" are saying the opposite: You need to adopt my position, and they are not OK with others holding a contrary position.
This phrase can actually be used to manipulate others by keeping a conversation going on the pretext that we are not hearing or understanding what the other party is saying. Truth is we did hear, we did not agree and that is that! It is not only OK but it is a sign of a self defined person. This of course does not rule out constructive dialogue between differing points of view. What it does rule out is that we are not hearing. We are but simply choose not to agree.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
My insincere apology for any offence I might have committed
All too often when we have done something that we need to apologize for we further complicate matters with "half apologies," or "self justifying" apologies - neither of which are true apologies. In fact, the absence of apologies for wrongs committed is ubiquitous in all of society today, including the Christian community. We just don't like to admit we were wrong and need to do something about it.
What is a half apology? It often goes something like this: "If I have offended you in any way please forgive me." Now think about that for a moment. The very reason the individual is apologizing is that they know they have offended the other party - and they know how they offended.
Putting the "if" in the apology along with the "any way" makes it a very general and comfortable apology. In effect it says, I don't know if I offended you or how but should it be the case please forgive me. This kind of apology minimizes the offense by suggesting we don't know what we did and the impact the offense had on others. By making it very general it also conveniently lets us off the hook from needing to specifically admit what it was that we did to cause the offense. It may even put the blame back on the other individual for being so thin skinned that they took offense at such a trivial matter.
The "self justifying apology" goes something like this. "If I have offended you in any way please forgive me" and then proceeds to justify why we did what we did. In other words it is far more about justifying our actions than it is about apologizing for them. The apology is simply the pretext for the self justification.
What makes an apology a sincere apology? First we name the behavior or action that has caused the problem so that it is specific. Second we recognize how that behavior or action impacted another party (whether intentional or not). Third we ask for forgiveness without any self justification.
Where there has been a misunderstanding it is perfectly reasonable to explain what we intended to do which was perhaps either misinterpreted or was just careless on our part. There is a difference between explanation and self justification and the one we are apologizing to will know which one we are presenting.
Neither half apologies or self justifying apologies are sincere apologies. They are often made out of necessity (we have been called on our behavior) rather than out of contrition (we know we were wrong). But the truth is that whoever we apologize to knows whether it is sincere or not. And so do we.
What is a half apology? It often goes something like this: "If I have offended you in any way please forgive me." Now think about that for a moment. The very reason the individual is apologizing is that they know they have offended the other party - and they know how they offended.
Putting the "if" in the apology along with the "any way" makes it a very general and comfortable apology. In effect it says, I don't know if I offended you or how but should it be the case please forgive me. This kind of apology minimizes the offense by suggesting we don't know what we did and the impact the offense had on others. By making it very general it also conveniently lets us off the hook from needing to specifically admit what it was that we did to cause the offense. It may even put the blame back on the other individual for being so thin skinned that they took offense at such a trivial matter.
The "self justifying apology" goes something like this. "If I have offended you in any way please forgive me" and then proceeds to justify why we did what we did. In other words it is far more about justifying our actions than it is about apologizing for them. The apology is simply the pretext for the self justification.
What makes an apology a sincere apology? First we name the behavior or action that has caused the problem so that it is specific. Second we recognize how that behavior or action impacted another party (whether intentional or not). Third we ask for forgiveness without any self justification.
Where there has been a misunderstanding it is perfectly reasonable to explain what we intended to do which was perhaps either misinterpreted or was just careless on our part. There is a difference between explanation and self justification and the one we are apologizing to will know which one we are presenting.
Neither half apologies or self justifying apologies are sincere apologies. They are often made out of necessity (we have been called on our behavior) rather than out of contrition (we know we were wrong). But the truth is that whoever we apologize to knows whether it is sincere or not. And so do we.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Is Evangelical Worship headed for a HUGE crash?
Many congregants will resonate with this insightful article on the contemporary worship scene. Written by Jamie Brown, the Associate Pastor of Worship and Music at the Falls Church Anglican in northern Virginia.
Is Evangelical Worship headed for a HUGE crash?
Is Evangelical Worship headed for a HUGE crash?
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
How to spot a bully in the church
Newsflash: There are often people in a church who are bullies and get away with it because church leadership is too nice to call them out on their destructive behavior. Often we know something is not right but how do we know when behavior has crossed a line and is unacceptable? Here are some behavioral signs that you may be dealing with a bully.
They have to get their own way. If a group decision is not their liking and they insist that things are done their way, beware.
They intimidate in order to get their way. It can be intimidation in attitude, not letting go of an issue, always pushing or threats of one sort or another.
They triangulate others into their orbit in order to put pressure on leaders. Talking around about their "concerns" (which is nothing other than manipulation) they develop a group that they rope into their point of view so now there is a group dynamic to the bullying.
They criticize others, usually leaders in private seeking to undermine the authority of a leader or leaders. Often those they talk to will take up the offense or cause without any reason for doing so.
No matter how much attention they are given or how many conversations one has with them they do not move off their position. It is their way or no way.
They often raise their issues in congregational meetings seeking to force the hand of leadership. Nor are they nice about what they have to say.
They do not respect authority. Especially church authority - unless they are in church leadership in which case they demand others respect their authority.
They cloak their concerns and language in spiritual terms. When behaviors don't match the words, don't be fooled. This is not spiritual it is about power and getting one's way.
When confronted they deny, fight back or lie. They are not willing to be held accountable.
They hurt people who get in their way but they are never wrong and rarely apologize. After all it is about them, not others.
Why do bullies get their way in many churches? Because they can and because fellow Christians are not very smart about what is going on. After all, would a fellow Christian have ulterior motives??? The answer in many situations is "absolutely." Don't be fooled and don't be intimidated, and don't allow these kinds of behaviors in your church. It is divisive, dangerous, ungodly and evil. Call it for what it is.
They have to get their own way. If a group decision is not their liking and they insist that things are done their way, beware.
They intimidate in order to get their way. It can be intimidation in attitude, not letting go of an issue, always pushing or threats of one sort or another.
They triangulate others into their orbit in order to put pressure on leaders. Talking around about their "concerns" (which is nothing other than manipulation) they develop a group that they rope into their point of view so now there is a group dynamic to the bullying.
They criticize others, usually leaders in private seeking to undermine the authority of a leader or leaders. Often those they talk to will take up the offense or cause without any reason for doing so.
No matter how much attention they are given or how many conversations one has with them they do not move off their position. It is their way or no way.
They often raise their issues in congregational meetings seeking to force the hand of leadership. Nor are they nice about what they have to say.
They do not respect authority. Especially church authority - unless they are in church leadership in which case they demand others respect their authority.
They cloak their concerns and language in spiritual terms. When behaviors don't match the words, don't be fooled. This is not spiritual it is about power and getting one's way.
When confronted they deny, fight back or lie. They are not willing to be held accountable.
They hurt people who get in their way but they are never wrong and rarely apologize. After all it is about them, not others.
Why do bullies get their way in many churches? Because they can and because fellow Christians are not very smart about what is going on. After all, would a fellow Christian have ulterior motives??? The answer in many situations is "absolutely." Don't be fooled and don't be intimidated, and don't allow these kinds of behaviors in your church. It is divisive, dangerous, ungodly and evil. Call it for what it is.
Monday, June 16, 2014
Candid discourse among church leaders
It has been my observation after working with hundreds of churches over the years that candid conversation among church leaders is often sorely lacking. Observations that one might make outside the church boardroom are not made inside the boardroom for fear of hurting feelings, being seen as lacking grace or violating the "nice" culture that churches often live in. The practical result is that there are often many elephants that go unaddressed often to the detriment of people on staff or within the congregation.
Often, when I am called to help a congregation, I will do extensive interviews of staff and congregants. I will then have a very candid conversation with the board. What is intriguing to me is that most of what I share with them they already know, in whole or in part. Or, they suspected that I might find certain issues. Yet, those same issues have often never been discussed by the board. Rather, good and competent people have danced around them or chosen to ignore them.
Let me say that there are times when leaders do know something is amiss and bring in a consultant to help identify the issues from a dispassionate perspective and get help in navigating those issues. That is a healthy practice and indicates that leaders are willing to address issues but need the perspective that an outsider can bring.
I suspect there are several reasons for known issues not being addressed. First, there is the "church nice" culture that often mitigates against honest candid conversation. Second, senior pastors can be notoriously defensive and prickly about anything they perceive to be criticism (I can say that as I have been a senior pastor).
Often leaders are timid in bringing up issues for fear of hurting the senior pastor's feelings. Question: What does that say about the EQ of your senior leader and of leaders who are afraid of his reaction? We are all grown ups here! Third, Christian leaders tend to gloss over the realities of what is under the hood and assume that God is at work and all is well. It is often a form of denial that allows them to avoid what they perceive might be an unpleasant conversation.
All this adds up to a complicit silence on issues that really do need to be discussed and which left unaddressed long enough creates a crisis that forces the issues to the surface. Had they been addressed earlier, however, a crisis may well have been diverted.
I am a firm believer in gracious relationships between church leaders and between leaders and staff. But that does not preclude candid, honest and even robust dialogue where any issue should be open for conversation with the exception of hidden agendas and personal attacks. Honest dialogue is a sign of relational health while the inability to be candid is a sign of relational dysfunction. And remember that what is modeled by leadership is what is practiced in the congregation as a whole.
Here are some key questions for church leaders:
Often, when I am called to help a congregation, I will do extensive interviews of staff and congregants. I will then have a very candid conversation with the board. What is intriguing to me is that most of what I share with them they already know, in whole or in part. Or, they suspected that I might find certain issues. Yet, those same issues have often never been discussed by the board. Rather, good and competent people have danced around them or chosen to ignore them.
Let me say that there are times when leaders do know something is amiss and bring in a consultant to help identify the issues from a dispassionate perspective and get help in navigating those issues. That is a healthy practice and indicates that leaders are willing to address issues but need the perspective that an outsider can bring.
I suspect there are several reasons for known issues not being addressed. First, there is the "church nice" culture that often mitigates against honest candid conversation. Second, senior pastors can be notoriously defensive and prickly about anything they perceive to be criticism (I can say that as I have been a senior pastor).
Often leaders are timid in bringing up issues for fear of hurting the senior pastor's feelings. Question: What does that say about the EQ of your senior leader and of leaders who are afraid of his reaction? We are all grown ups here! Third, Christian leaders tend to gloss over the realities of what is under the hood and assume that God is at work and all is well. It is often a form of denial that allows them to avoid what they perceive might be an unpleasant conversation.
All this adds up to a complicit silence on issues that really do need to be discussed and which left unaddressed long enough creates a crisis that forces the issues to the surface. Had they been addressed earlier, however, a crisis may well have been diverted.
I am a firm believer in gracious relationships between church leaders and between leaders and staff. But that does not preclude candid, honest and even robust dialogue where any issue should be open for conversation with the exception of hidden agendas and personal attacks. Honest dialogue is a sign of relational health while the inability to be candid is a sign of relational dysfunction. And remember that what is modeled by leadership is what is practiced in the congregation as a whole.
Here are some key questions for church leaders:
- Are there elephants in the room that we know about and if so lets name them. Once named, they are no longer elephants but issues we can discuss.
- Do we have the freedom and ethos where we can have candid and honest discussion on any issue that concerns our ministry? If not why not?
- When we don't address issues candidly how does that negatively impact our congregation?
- Do we as a board need to have a candid discussion on this issue?
What defines our identity?
The question of what defines our identity is a very real one. For many men it is their work but this is not a good source of identity as it is uncertain and temporary. For those in vocational ministry it is often our ministry but again that is confusing vocation with who we are as a person. Identity is what we are without the external props that we often confuse for significance. This includes titles, incomes and accomplishments.
There are also those whose identity is wrapped up in an event in their lives such as long term illness, a death in the family or their own personal issues which are always on the forefront of their lives. After two serious health scares that should have taken my life there are those who connect me with those illnesses but they are simply events (serious that it was) that I walked through and my health does not form my identity. There is no question that God's grace in my life did help shape my understanding of Him!
Theologically, for the Christ follower, our identity is all about who we are in Christ, stripped of all the external trappings (Ephesians 1 and 2). This is a fact that stands apart from all circumstances, jobs, accolades, disappointments, or the good and bad that life throws our way. In Jesus we stand forgiven, we are made members of His eternal family, we have His Spirit resident in our hearts, and positionally sit with Jesus in heaven (Ephesians 2:6). All of His goodness has been lavished on us and we have the very power of His resurrection within us. We are sons and daughters of the King no matter what our life situation.
That being the fact, we have choices in how we view life and subsequently how others view us. I want to be defined by a transormational life that lives in the hope of God's work, the faith that He acts in our best interests, the significance of joining Him in that work (Ephesians 2:10), living in His grace daily and the joy of His presence. In other words I want my identity to be defined by Him because I was created by Him and for Him and He changes the equation of our lives in every way.
I don't want to be defined by my ministry role, job title, the books I have written or the places I have traveled. Those are all part of my life as are many other things. Ultimately I want to be defined by who I am in Jesus. Because when all else is stripped away, as eventually it is, who we are in Him is not only all that is left but it is the most important thing.
There are also those whose identity is wrapped up in an event in their lives such as long term illness, a death in the family or their own personal issues which are always on the forefront of their lives. After two serious health scares that should have taken my life there are those who connect me with those illnesses but they are simply events (serious that it was) that I walked through and my health does not form my identity. There is no question that God's grace in my life did help shape my understanding of Him!
Theologically, for the Christ follower, our identity is all about who we are in Christ, stripped of all the external trappings (Ephesians 1 and 2). This is a fact that stands apart from all circumstances, jobs, accolades, disappointments, or the good and bad that life throws our way. In Jesus we stand forgiven, we are made members of His eternal family, we have His Spirit resident in our hearts, and positionally sit with Jesus in heaven (Ephesians 2:6). All of His goodness has been lavished on us and we have the very power of His resurrection within us. We are sons and daughters of the King no matter what our life situation.
That being the fact, we have choices in how we view life and subsequently how others view us. I want to be defined by a transormational life that lives in the hope of God's work, the faith that He acts in our best interests, the significance of joining Him in that work (Ephesians 2:10), living in His grace daily and the joy of His presence. In other words I want my identity to be defined by Him because I was created by Him and for Him and He changes the equation of our lives in every way.
I don't want to be defined by my ministry role, job title, the books I have written or the places I have traveled. Those are all part of my life as are many other things. Ultimately I want to be defined by who I am in Jesus. Because when all else is stripped away, as eventually it is, who we are in Him is not only all that is left but it is the most important thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)