Yesterday when I was walking on to the ICC Campus, I heard a remark from a young student that set my teeth on edge. She was chiding a fellow student telling him that, "We can't all be overachievers and go to every class every day." Had I not been on my way to class, I'm not sure I wouldn't have said something.
My father's voice was echoing in my head as I continued on my way. He taught me that the pursuit of excellence was the best way to life. To quote him, "Good enough is never good enough." When that young student made her comment, I immediately thought, "Since when is the minimum requirement overachieving?"
This is something that has always bothered me. The comment I overheard is not unique. In fact, it is indicative of a much broader attitude that has been growing in our culture. Seeing the number of students that skip class or drop it once it begins to get a little hard disturbs me deeply. I understand that classes get difficult but if they weren't, you wouldn't be learning. Challenge is at the heart of education. Even with my schedule, I still work very hard to maintain the highest possible grade I can get. I was raised to always do the absolute best I could do and have a lot of difficulty understanding the attitude of someone who just gets by.
Nowhere does this bother more than in church. I remember the first time I heard the phrase "good enough for church." It was during a church work day several years ago. I was with a group of men who were doing repairs to the buildings. One of them was fixing a basement window and set back and uttered those words. I looked at the job and would not have been happy with it. I could see a couple of potential leaks in it that could have resulted in water coming into the basement classrooms. At the time, I was not in a position to say anything, being a mere Sunday School teacher, but I really wanted to. My blood was boiling.
Since that day, I have worked to eliminate that attitude from the people I serve with and as a pastor over. The Lord deserves excellence in all of our endeavors. When we tolerate and sometimes even celebrate mediocrity, we perpetuate the culture of "good enough." The Lord has every reason to expect our best no matter what it is. After all, the Scripture says that we are to do everything as a act of worship to God. That means everything.
When we consider all the areas of service in the church, whether on the grounds or not, we need to strive for the absolute best we can do and should expect it from others. We should, for example, expect musicians to practice and that includes outside of the official team practice. As a pastor, it is my responsibility to deliver not only the best sermons I can, but also to give the best leadership and counsel I can as well. Patch jobs and half done work are not acceptable in any capacity.
Good enough is never good enough.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Bow
By now, we've all seen the picture of President Obama bowing low in front of the Japanese Emperor. Some people are outraged while others do not see the big deal. Some justify it by saying that's how the Japanese show respect and it's protocol for him to bow. From a perspective of understanding the culture and the meaning of bowing, the president sent a clear message to the Japanese people and their leaders that Western minds do not comprehend.
If you notice, the emperor bows as well, but only slightly. This is the appropriate bow to a fellow head of state. The president, on the other hand bows low, indicating subservience. It says that I am less than you and therefor am your servant. Doing so for most people meeting the emperor would be appropriate. As the head of state, the president sent the message that not only is he inferior, but so is the entire United States. Essentially, he is saying that the United States is inferior to Japan and is subservient to them. Unfortunately, current fiscal policy puts our nation in that position without the bow.
There is a concept here that perhaps the president does not understand. One can be a servant without being subservient. He could have given the appropriate head of state bow, as the emperor did, and still be a servant leader. For decades, the Japanese people have been not only allies of the United States, but true friends as well. Their attitude of repentance for the warlike expansionism of World War II has long held sway over most of the culture. Already, we help protect their borders and interests with our military as their constitution forbids a standing army more than a small defense force. Economically, we have been both competitors and partners in almost all major industries. Already, we as a nation serve as the largest market for Japanese goods and services. There was no need to bow so low.
The servant leader is a position of strength not weakness. Rather than saying I am less than you, it says that even though we are equals, I choose to honor and serve you. One is a formula for resentment on the part of the "servant", the other is a blessing bestowed out of good will and respect. This should be the position of the president. I hope he will stop apologizing for the country and offering us up to other nations and instead will lead from the position of authority he has been given. He has the burden of leading the most powerful nation on Earth with all the responsibility and privilege that comes with it. I pray he will stand and bear that burden well. He is our servant first and foremost as our elected leader. He serves at our pleasure, not the pleasure of any other nation. One day, I pray he remembers that.
If you notice, the emperor bows as well, but only slightly. This is the appropriate bow to a fellow head of state. The president, on the other hand bows low, indicating subservience. It says that I am less than you and therefor am your servant. Doing so for most people meeting the emperor would be appropriate. As the head of state, the president sent the message that not only is he inferior, but so is the entire United States. Essentially, he is saying that the United States is inferior to Japan and is subservient to them. Unfortunately, current fiscal policy puts our nation in that position without the bow.
There is a concept here that perhaps the president does not understand. One can be a servant without being subservient. He could have given the appropriate head of state bow, as the emperor did, and still be a servant leader. For decades, the Japanese people have been not only allies of the United States, but true friends as well. Their attitude of repentance for the warlike expansionism of World War II has long held sway over most of the culture. Already, we help protect their borders and interests with our military as their constitution forbids a standing army more than a small defense force. Economically, we have been both competitors and partners in almost all major industries. Already, we as a nation serve as the largest market for Japanese goods and services. There was no need to bow so low.
The servant leader is a position of strength not weakness. Rather than saying I am less than you, it says that even though we are equals, I choose to honor and serve you. One is a formula for resentment on the part of the "servant", the other is a blessing bestowed out of good will and respect. This should be the position of the president. I hope he will stop apologizing for the country and offering us up to other nations and instead will lead from the position of authority he has been given. He has the burden of leading the most powerful nation on Earth with all the responsibility and privilege that comes with it. I pray he will stand and bear that burden well. He is our servant first and foremost as our elected leader. He serves at our pleasure, not the pleasure of any other nation. One day, I pray he remembers that.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Timing Is Everything
John Maxwell's exceptional book, The Twenty-One Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, describes the laws that govern good leadership and the principles used to apply them. It's one of my favorite books. I've read it several times over and it never fails to produce a new nugget of wisdom. A great read.
One of the laws of he outlines is the Law of Timing. Essential, the law states that the best way to operate is the right idea at the right time. The converse is that the right idea at the wrong time is the wrong idea. Have you ever wanted to start something or make changes only to be opposed or stymied at every turn even though you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt it was right? Timing was your enemy at that point.
When timing lines up, it's another story. To steal a phrase from my coffee cup, "Nothing is so empowering as an idea whose time has come." That is an absolute truth. When the idea comes about exactly when it is needed and the people are receptive, everything begins to fall into place. Not to say that it's always easy and resistance free, but everything goes much smoother. Conditions will never be perfect, but can be optimal.
The trick is understanding the timing. Sometimes an idea needs to simmer a little while on the back burner to mature. I recommend prayer (shock, shock) when making the decision about when to proceed. Lining up with God's plan for you, your life, and the idea is key to successful implementation. When we get an idea, often times we are excited and ready to go right away. We tell everybody and start to make plans to make it happen. Then we meet the brick walls stopping everything. I've made that mistake more times than I can count. (Recently, I might add.) However, letting the idea sit and asking the Lord when to start has set aside those barriers every time. There have been times I've had to put things on hold for ten years or more for the timing to be right. Operating in His timing is of the essence.
Got an idea? Great. Prayed about it? Hope so. Let God take control of it? When it's His will to make it happen, that works every time. Dream dreams, be passionate, and let the Lord grant you His time and energy to accomplish His work through you.
One of the laws of he outlines is the Law of Timing. Essential, the law states that the best way to operate is the right idea at the right time. The converse is that the right idea at the wrong time is the wrong idea. Have you ever wanted to start something or make changes only to be opposed or stymied at every turn even though you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt it was right? Timing was your enemy at that point.
When timing lines up, it's another story. To steal a phrase from my coffee cup, "Nothing is so empowering as an idea whose time has come." That is an absolute truth. When the idea comes about exactly when it is needed and the people are receptive, everything begins to fall into place. Not to say that it's always easy and resistance free, but everything goes much smoother. Conditions will never be perfect, but can be optimal.
The trick is understanding the timing. Sometimes an idea needs to simmer a little while on the back burner to mature. I recommend prayer (shock, shock) when making the decision about when to proceed. Lining up with God's plan for you, your life, and the idea is key to successful implementation. When we get an idea, often times we are excited and ready to go right away. We tell everybody and start to make plans to make it happen. Then we meet the brick walls stopping everything. I've made that mistake more times than I can count. (Recently, I might add.) However, letting the idea sit and asking the Lord when to start has set aside those barriers every time. There have been times I've had to put things on hold for ten years or more for the timing to be right. Operating in His timing is of the essence.
Got an idea? Great. Prayed about it? Hope so. Let God take control of it? When it's His will to make it happen, that works every time. Dream dreams, be passionate, and let the Lord grant you His time and energy to accomplish His work through you.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Did They Need to Die?
Yesterday's events at Fort Hood are deeply tragic. My heart and prayers are for the families of the now thirteen slain and thirty wounded. These brave men and women died at the hands of one who was to be their healer. Major Nidal Malik Hasan is a board certified psychologist, which means he is also a medical doctor who takes the same oath to first do not harm. He has also taken the oath to defend this nation with his life that every member of the military takes. He has broken all of his oaths and his slain his brothers.
The real tragedy is beyond the shooting but the reality that it could have and should have been prevented. Despite the media spin by outlets such as Newsweek to make it a story about a military on the brink in which any of our soldiers could snap just like the major, the real story is still out there. He did not kill his fellow soldiers because he didn't want to go to Iraq. He does not suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as he has never been into combat. He did not open fire because he was bullied by his fellow officers. Most of the news outlets are ignoring his views and history.
All of the evidence points a far darker picture of Hasan. He has posted on a number websites his radical Islamic views. He has praised suicide bombers and has even suggested that one needs to go off in Times Square. He frequently called for Muslims to rise up against the aggressor, namely us. He stated more than once that the killers of the young men outside the recruiting station in Little Rock didn't go far enough. He was a radical Islamist in our ranks who sided with those whom we are fighting. It was these views and the fact he was vocal about them that were at the root of his problems with his fellow officers not his Muslim faith. In any other time, his postings would have been considered giving aid and comfort to the enemy, also known as treason. The Army knew this and in the name of political correctness chose not to act. I am glad that American Muslims have come out and rightly condemned this act.
The other spin I've begun to hear is from the anti-gun lobby. If there can be a shooting on military base where there's lots of guns, how do guns stop violence? The truth is that 99.9% of the personnel on the base are not armed. Only designated individuals are allowed to carry weapons, such as security personnel. On most domestic bases, the security is handled by a civilian force, like the Sergeant that finally shot Hasan. It is no different from opening fire on college campus or in a shopping mall. Essentially, no one is armed. Having been in the military myself, I know this first hand. Other than during security drills on the sub and at the range, I never carried a firearm on base. I only carried a baton when on security duty at the base club. All the firearms are locked up in armories.
The other part of the story is the fact that one never expects a fellow soldier, much less an officer, to do what the major "allegedly" did. There is an automatic level of trust extended to other members of the armed forces just by virtue of the uniform. Had I come around the corner after hearing gunfire and saw an officer with weapons, I would not have assumed he was the shooter but rather that he was looking for the shooter. His uniform was his shield and how he disarmed his victims.
There are Muslims in the military who serve with distinction. That is not at issue here, but what is at issue is why someone with these views was allowed to continue wearing the uniform of this country? Reports all say he was trying to get out of the Army. I have to ask three questions: One, why did they promote him to major last spring knowing his views? Two, why didn't the Army act and remove him from service when it became obvious that he supported the views of the enemy? Finally, even lacking the political will to act, why didn't they just let him out when he asked? While Hasan takes the brunt of the blame for his actions, the military holds some as well for not acting in a timely fashion. If they had acted in a manner appropriate to the reality of the situation instead of from political correctness, there would be thirteen fewer graves.
The real tragedy is beyond the shooting but the reality that it could have and should have been prevented. Despite the media spin by outlets such as Newsweek to make it a story about a military on the brink in which any of our soldiers could snap just like the major, the real story is still out there. He did not kill his fellow soldiers because he didn't want to go to Iraq. He does not suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as he has never been into combat. He did not open fire because he was bullied by his fellow officers. Most of the news outlets are ignoring his views and history.
All of the evidence points a far darker picture of Hasan. He has posted on a number websites his radical Islamic views. He has praised suicide bombers and has even suggested that one needs to go off in Times Square. He frequently called for Muslims to rise up against the aggressor, namely us. He stated more than once that the killers of the young men outside the recruiting station in Little Rock didn't go far enough. He was a radical Islamist in our ranks who sided with those whom we are fighting. It was these views and the fact he was vocal about them that were at the root of his problems with his fellow officers not his Muslim faith. In any other time, his postings would have been considered giving aid and comfort to the enemy, also known as treason. The Army knew this and in the name of political correctness chose not to act. I am glad that American Muslims have come out and rightly condemned this act.
The other spin I've begun to hear is from the anti-gun lobby. If there can be a shooting on military base where there's lots of guns, how do guns stop violence? The truth is that 99.9% of the personnel on the base are not armed. Only designated individuals are allowed to carry weapons, such as security personnel. On most domestic bases, the security is handled by a civilian force, like the Sergeant that finally shot Hasan. It is no different from opening fire on college campus or in a shopping mall. Essentially, no one is armed. Having been in the military myself, I know this first hand. Other than during security drills on the sub and at the range, I never carried a firearm on base. I only carried a baton when on security duty at the base club. All the firearms are locked up in armories.
The other part of the story is the fact that one never expects a fellow soldier, much less an officer, to do what the major "allegedly" did. There is an automatic level of trust extended to other members of the armed forces just by virtue of the uniform. Had I come around the corner after hearing gunfire and saw an officer with weapons, I would not have assumed he was the shooter but rather that he was looking for the shooter. His uniform was his shield and how he disarmed his victims.
There are Muslims in the military who serve with distinction. That is not at issue here, but what is at issue is why someone with these views was allowed to continue wearing the uniform of this country? Reports all say he was trying to get out of the Army. I have to ask three questions: One, why did they promote him to major last spring knowing his views? Two, why didn't the Army act and remove him from service when it became obvious that he supported the views of the enemy? Finally, even lacking the political will to act, why didn't they just let him out when he asked? While Hasan takes the brunt of the blame for his actions, the military holds some as well for not acting in a timely fashion. If they had acted in a manner appropriate to the reality of the situation instead of from political correctness, there would be thirteen fewer graves.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
A Solution Minded Approach
As I have contemplated the church's engagement in the public arena, I realized something key. We are using the same tactics as the world uses such as pickets and protests for one simple reason: We don't know any other way. We remember the marches of the civil rights era and the antiwar protests, especially against Vietnam, and believe that this is the way to get our message out and solve the problem.
Reinforcing this are the awareness campaigns for a wide variety of causes from breast cancer to the environment. The medical causes are especially effective as the money flows into their coffers from these events and ads. It is easy to fall into the trap the moral and cultural issues can be addressed in the same way. We thinks that as long as people know about the issue they will believe us and accept our views.
The truth is much harder to face. Signs, protests, and marches do not change many minds, if any. The effective campaigns in this pattern address issues that almost anyone can agree upon, such as cancer treatment or autism. More controversial views do not have the same impact through these means.
So, if this approach will not actually solve anything, what do we do? The first thing is to change our mindset. We cannot "save the world" en masse. That type of thinking is what leads us to absurd attempts to use large, national campaigns or even media blitzes on a local level. What if the solution were more personal? I think of the nor former director of a Planned Parenthood office who changed her mind completely after watching the ultrasound of an abortion. Her mind was not changed by all the protests in the world. It was the reality of the procedure and seeing it that changed it for her. However, this is an impractical approach to reaching the young women who are considering abortions.
Continuing with abortion as an example, what would it be like if we took a personal approach instead of political? I hear from a lot of people who complain that this or that pastor or church doesn't stand up for life because they aren't seen in the protests and rallies. I wonder what the complainers would do if suddenly confronted with woman who feels she has no other alternative? Would they sight the same rhetoric used in the rallies or would they do nothing at all?
The radical solution is personal and much more helpful. What would happen if instead of protesting, each strong believer in the Pro-Life cause took the time to love on and help one of the mothers? What if a church or other group got together and bought the needed supplies for the baby that she can't afford? What if they offered to help her as she raised the child and made a commitment to her? This is not about a program, but about actually changing lives.
The objection that I know is on many of your lips is that this won't save all the babies. It won't but neither will your marches and protests. But it will make a difference in not just one life but two every time we take this approach.
Abortion is only one example. All the stuff we protest and rave about can be approached from this direction. Jesus knew the world was full of sin and vice, but He didn't try to change the world as a great political leader or speaker. He did it one person at a time. Do you really doubt that His way actually changed the world?
Reinforcing this are the awareness campaigns for a wide variety of causes from breast cancer to the environment. The medical causes are especially effective as the money flows into their coffers from these events and ads. It is easy to fall into the trap the moral and cultural issues can be addressed in the same way. We thinks that as long as people know about the issue they will believe us and accept our views.
The truth is much harder to face. Signs, protests, and marches do not change many minds, if any. The effective campaigns in this pattern address issues that almost anyone can agree upon, such as cancer treatment or autism. More controversial views do not have the same impact through these means.
So, if this approach will not actually solve anything, what do we do? The first thing is to change our mindset. We cannot "save the world" en masse. That type of thinking is what leads us to absurd attempts to use large, national campaigns or even media blitzes on a local level. What if the solution were more personal? I think of the nor former director of a Planned Parenthood office who changed her mind completely after watching the ultrasound of an abortion. Her mind was not changed by all the protests in the world. It was the reality of the procedure and seeing it that changed it for her. However, this is an impractical approach to reaching the young women who are considering abortions.
Continuing with abortion as an example, what would it be like if we took a personal approach instead of political? I hear from a lot of people who complain that this or that pastor or church doesn't stand up for life because they aren't seen in the protests and rallies. I wonder what the complainers would do if suddenly confronted with woman who feels she has no other alternative? Would they sight the same rhetoric used in the rallies or would they do nothing at all?
The radical solution is personal and much more helpful. What would happen if instead of protesting, each strong believer in the Pro-Life cause took the time to love on and help one of the mothers? What if a church or other group got together and bought the needed supplies for the baby that she can't afford? What if they offered to help her as she raised the child and made a commitment to her? This is not about a program, but about actually changing lives.
The objection that I know is on many of your lips is that this won't save all the babies. It won't but neither will your marches and protests. But it will make a difference in not just one life but two every time we take this approach.
Abortion is only one example. All the stuff we protest and rave about can be approached from this direction. Jesus knew the world was full of sin and vice, but He didn't try to change the world as a great political leader or speaker. He did it one person at a time. Do you really doubt that His way actually changed the world?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)