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?
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The Angry Nation
This is one of those rare occasions when my podcast and my blog are on the same topic. Those of you familiar with the program are already somewhat familiar with my view on the current state of political discourse. I believe that it bears repeating and some further elaboration.
Never in my life have I seen the general public angrier than they are right now. Both sides of the political spectrum have fallen into a pattern of discourse that is anything but civil. Once confined to the fringe ideologues on both sides of the aisle, this anger and hatred have begun to be the main form of debate, if you can call it that.
Granted, there have always been a level of verbal combat in the political arena. However, it has become much worse of the last several years. There was some of it to a degree during the Clinton years. Republicans did it to some degree, but I saw the meaner attacks coming from the President's defenders and supporters. It was the beginning of the age of the paid political attack dog with James Carville in the lead and the new and growing twenty-four hour news media lapped it up. But even in those early days, it was still possible to have a reasonable disagreement between colleagues on substantive issues without a shouting match. It was not as personal as it is now.
The slide accelerated with the election of President Bush. The far left wing of the Democrat party expressed such a visceral and irrational hatred of the president that even when he did things that they should have agreed with, they opposed them just because they came from him. During this time, especially during Bush's second term, the truly angry voices from the right came to prominence as well, not just those who were accused of being angry by those who disagree with them. As the president broke further and further away from the conservative base that helped him get elected, they got angrier and angrier. The election of President Obama pushed even the average citizen of a conservative bent over the edge while the anger of the left did not abate one iota. The few reasonable voices on both sides of the political spectrum are drowned out but the angry and vocal.
The combative nature of politics has leaked into our personal lives and conversations. People are have a tendency to form cliques anyway, but the groups form are separated by a much broader line than they used to be. Ideology now forms the basis for an ever growing number of social groups rather than common interest. Fewer and fewer people have real friendship with those they disagree with. One friend I have who does not agree with me on anything actually felt the need to say something to the effect of, "You know, for a (my political ideology), you're actually really cool." How sad it is that she actually had to say it but even sadder still that it speaks to the objectifying and demonization of people who hold a different worldview than our own.
For me, the saddest part of all is that Christians in the political arena are indistinguishable from their secular counterparts. This should not be the case. In more than one passage, we are admonished by the Word of God to give honor where honor is due. This means a respect for authority and giving them the proper honor due the position regardless of whether or not we agree with them. There is to be NO name calling of any kind. Keep in mind that the New Testament admonitions were given during the reigns of Caesars Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, three of the worst and most corrupt emperors in Roman history. Caligula and Nero were madmen and cruel beyond measure. Yet, the church is told to give them the respect they were due despite the fact that they persecuted the church, especially Nero. No modern government official, elected or otherwise, comes close to any of these men.
If we, the church, are to be engaged in politics, we must do it in a manner that most reflects the character and nature of Jesus. Christians should be the reasonable voice that is able to rise above the din and speak wisdom with humility and clarity. That may mean a fundamental shift in thinking for many because it means we do not hold issue protests. Rather, it is the well reasoned argument backed with strong and genuine emotion spoken by a humble man or woman of God that wins in the arena of ideas. That's what Jesus did. His anger was reserved for those who corrupted the faith of others and even with them, most of His responses were still gentle and wise. Consider this next time you engage in a political debate with someone.
Never in my life have I seen the general public angrier than they are right now. Both sides of the political spectrum have fallen into a pattern of discourse that is anything but civil. Once confined to the fringe ideologues on both sides of the aisle, this anger and hatred have begun to be the main form of debate, if you can call it that.
Granted, there have always been a level of verbal combat in the political arena. However, it has become much worse of the last several years. There was some of it to a degree during the Clinton years. Republicans did it to some degree, but I saw the meaner attacks coming from the President's defenders and supporters. It was the beginning of the age of the paid political attack dog with James Carville in the lead and the new and growing twenty-four hour news media lapped it up. But even in those early days, it was still possible to have a reasonable disagreement between colleagues on substantive issues without a shouting match. It was not as personal as it is now.
The slide accelerated with the election of President Bush. The far left wing of the Democrat party expressed such a visceral and irrational hatred of the president that even when he did things that they should have agreed with, they opposed them just because they came from him. During this time, especially during Bush's second term, the truly angry voices from the right came to prominence as well, not just those who were accused of being angry by those who disagree with them. As the president broke further and further away from the conservative base that helped him get elected, they got angrier and angrier. The election of President Obama pushed even the average citizen of a conservative bent over the edge while the anger of the left did not abate one iota. The few reasonable voices on both sides of the political spectrum are drowned out but the angry and vocal.
The combative nature of politics has leaked into our personal lives and conversations. People are have a tendency to form cliques anyway, but the groups form are separated by a much broader line than they used to be. Ideology now forms the basis for an ever growing number of social groups rather than common interest. Fewer and fewer people have real friendship with those they disagree with. One friend I have who does not agree with me on anything actually felt the need to say something to the effect of, "You know, for a (my political ideology), you're actually really cool." How sad it is that she actually had to say it but even sadder still that it speaks to the objectifying and demonization of people who hold a different worldview than our own.
For me, the saddest part of all is that Christians in the political arena are indistinguishable from their secular counterparts. This should not be the case. In more than one passage, we are admonished by the Word of God to give honor where honor is due. This means a respect for authority and giving them the proper honor due the position regardless of whether or not we agree with them. There is to be NO name calling of any kind. Keep in mind that the New Testament admonitions were given during the reigns of Caesars Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, three of the worst and most corrupt emperors in Roman history. Caligula and Nero were madmen and cruel beyond measure. Yet, the church is told to give them the respect they were due despite the fact that they persecuted the church, especially Nero. No modern government official, elected or otherwise, comes close to any of these men.
If we, the church, are to be engaged in politics, we must do it in a manner that most reflects the character and nature of Jesus. Christians should be the reasonable voice that is able to rise above the din and speak wisdom with humility and clarity. That may mean a fundamental shift in thinking for many because it means we do not hold issue protests. Rather, it is the well reasoned argument backed with strong and genuine emotion spoken by a humble man or woman of God that wins in the arena of ideas. That's what Jesus did. His anger was reserved for those who corrupted the faith of others and even with them, most of His responses were still gentle and wise. Consider this next time you engage in a political debate with someone.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
On The Solution Side
As you know from my last post, I am very concerned about the growing gang violence and crime in my community. I am also disturbed by the lack of coverage by the local news media. Now that the general public is more aware of the situation after an incident that could not be ignored, it's time to take a look at the solutions for the problem.
The first and most obvious place to start is with law enforcement. Although it has not been made public knowledge until recently, the police department in Peoria under the leadership of Chief Steve Settingsgard has stepped up to the plate and has been quietly taking the problem seriously. There has been no official gang task force, several efforts are being made to increase patrols and educate officers on gang activities and signs. There efforts have met with only limited results but not due to any fault on their part. This is where another track must be taken to help ensure these gangs are either removed from our streets by arrest or changing the lives of the members and potential members.
Economics is only a minor issue in gang membership and crime. I know that flies in the face of conventional wisdom, however during even the best of times, crime still increases. For at least the last thirty years, we have had significant periods of tremendous economic and job growth in the middle sections of each decade. During those "fat" times, gang violence, drug sales, and other crimes still increased. Membership does see an upswing in times of recession, but not to the degree that most would think. Gangs are an entirely different breed than the individual criminal.
The deeper solution is to address the social problems underlying the gang issue. Before I go any further, I want to go on record stating that I do not advocate for government action in this arena. More often than not, the best of intentions lead to exacerbation of the problems rather than solutions. There are many reasons for this, but ultimately it is the lack of a personal relationship with the people and neighborhoods that lead to the missteps. There's a reason my late grandmother always said that, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
The primary draw to the gangs is not the money, although that certainly is an issue. In listening to interview after interview with gang members from all over the country as well as my personal experience with local "bangers," the common denominator for most gangs is the sense of family that the members have. These young people and often children who join do so to make up for the lack of acceptance and family at home. The real solution to this is to meet that need in a healthy way rather than the bizarre and warped version found in these criminal groups.
For some, this would be considered a radical thought. Those who try to fix things with education and economic programs will always miss the mark. For younger gang members, the older ones almost take on a fatherly role that no amount of education or a job can ever alter or break. The cataclysm of illegitimate births in the inner city in which fathers are absent often for several generations has created a breeding ground for these dysfunctional "families." Therefor, the solution is to provide these young men and women with the father figures they lack.
As I said, this is a radical solution because it requires much more manpower, if you will, than most programs. These kids need one-on-one relationships with men of integrity who are concerned about their character and lives and are willing to allow them into their own lives. Transparency with these kids is essential to teach them how problems are handled in a healthy manner. Girls needs someone in their lives that are concerned about them and give them a good father figure. Fathers are essential to the moral development of a young woman and set the pattern for all male relationships that follow.
There are some who are trying to work with these kids but enough men to actually have an impact are not stepping up to the plate. Those few who are find their impact limited simply because no matter how passionate and exceptional these men are, there is a point at which they can reach no more kids on their own. As much respect as I have for Carl Cannon, he can't do it alone.
There is a largely untapped resource from which men can come to make the changes. In the Peoria Metro area alone, there are an estimated three hundred fifty churches, all with men of varying ages in them who could share their lives with these kids and offer real hope of a better life. Not all of them can do this, but many could and perhaps should learn to drop their preconceived notions and step into the role of mentor for a young teen or kid and show them a life that is achievable.
I am not asking anyone to consider anything I would not do myself. My wife and I have been quietly impacting the lives of the young people God puts in our path for years. We let them into our home and share what little we have with them. More importantly, we genuinely love these kids and give them a sense of family that they lack. I am grateful that we are not alone. I know of several others who do the same. The impact we have on our own is relatively small, but imagine how it could be if more joined us. Perhaps, even if you did.
The first and most obvious place to start is with law enforcement. Although it has not been made public knowledge until recently, the police department in Peoria under the leadership of Chief Steve Settingsgard has stepped up to the plate and has been quietly taking the problem seriously. There has been no official gang task force, several efforts are being made to increase patrols and educate officers on gang activities and signs. There efforts have met with only limited results but not due to any fault on their part. This is where another track must be taken to help ensure these gangs are either removed from our streets by arrest or changing the lives of the members and potential members.
Economics is only a minor issue in gang membership and crime. I know that flies in the face of conventional wisdom, however during even the best of times, crime still increases. For at least the last thirty years, we have had significant periods of tremendous economic and job growth in the middle sections of each decade. During those "fat" times, gang violence, drug sales, and other crimes still increased. Membership does see an upswing in times of recession, but not to the degree that most would think. Gangs are an entirely different breed than the individual criminal.
The deeper solution is to address the social problems underlying the gang issue. Before I go any further, I want to go on record stating that I do not advocate for government action in this arena. More often than not, the best of intentions lead to exacerbation of the problems rather than solutions. There are many reasons for this, but ultimately it is the lack of a personal relationship with the people and neighborhoods that lead to the missteps. There's a reason my late grandmother always said that, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
The primary draw to the gangs is not the money, although that certainly is an issue. In listening to interview after interview with gang members from all over the country as well as my personal experience with local "bangers," the common denominator for most gangs is the sense of family that the members have. These young people and often children who join do so to make up for the lack of acceptance and family at home. The real solution to this is to meet that need in a healthy way rather than the bizarre and warped version found in these criminal groups.
For some, this would be considered a radical thought. Those who try to fix things with education and economic programs will always miss the mark. For younger gang members, the older ones almost take on a fatherly role that no amount of education or a job can ever alter or break. The cataclysm of illegitimate births in the inner city in which fathers are absent often for several generations has created a breeding ground for these dysfunctional "families." Therefor, the solution is to provide these young men and women with the father figures they lack.
As I said, this is a radical solution because it requires much more manpower, if you will, than most programs. These kids need one-on-one relationships with men of integrity who are concerned about their character and lives and are willing to allow them into their own lives. Transparency with these kids is essential to teach them how problems are handled in a healthy manner. Girls needs someone in their lives that are concerned about them and give them a good father figure. Fathers are essential to the moral development of a young woman and set the pattern for all male relationships that follow.
There are some who are trying to work with these kids but enough men to actually have an impact are not stepping up to the plate. Those few who are find their impact limited simply because no matter how passionate and exceptional these men are, there is a point at which they can reach no more kids on their own. As much respect as I have for Carl Cannon, he can't do it alone.
There is a largely untapped resource from which men can come to make the changes. In the Peoria Metro area alone, there are an estimated three hundred fifty churches, all with men of varying ages in them who could share their lives with these kids and offer real hope of a better life. Not all of them can do this, but many could and perhaps should learn to drop their preconceived notions and step into the role of mentor for a young teen or kid and show them a life that is achievable.
I am not asking anyone to consider anything I would not do myself. My wife and I have been quietly impacting the lives of the young people God puts in our path for years. We let them into our home and share what little we have with them. More importantly, we genuinely love these kids and give them a sense of family that they lack. I am grateful that we are not alone. I know of several others who do the same. The impact we have on our own is relatively small, but imagine how it could be if more joined us. Perhaps, even if you did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)