Scriptures of Thanks

Here's a short litany I pulled together for Cedar Park's Thanksgiving service. Join us Thanksgiving morning at 10:00.

Enter his gates with thanksgiving
    and his courts with praise;
    give thanks to him and praise his name.
For the Lord is good and his love endures forever;
    his faithfulness continues through all generations. (Psalm 100:4,5)

Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation,
  by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving,
  present your requests to God. (Philippians 4:6)

Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts,
   since as members of one body you were called to peace.
 And be thankful.
Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly
  as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom
    through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit,
  singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.
 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed,
    do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus,
  giving thanks to God the Father through him. (Colossians 3:15-17)

Rejoice always, pray continually, 
    give thanks in all circumstances;
 for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus. (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18)

Through Jesus, therefore,
    let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—
  the fruit of lips that openly profess his name. 
And do not forget to do good and to share with others,
  for with such sacrifices God is pleased.  (Hebrews 13:15,16)

Thanks be to God!
  He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.  (1 Corinthians 15:57)

All the angels were standing around the throne
   and around the elders and the four living creatures.
They fell down on their faces before the throne
    and worshiped God, saying:
 

“Amen!
  Praise and glory
     and wisdom and thanks and honor
   and power and strength
    be to our God for ever and ever.
       Amen!” (Revelation 7:11,12) 

Pay Attention, Show Up, and Vote

In President Obama's post-shellacking news conference Wednesday, he looked into the camera and told the voters that he heard what we were saying. If only he had stopped there. He followed up by saying to the majority of people who didn't vote, he hears them too. The remainder of the 80-minute news conference revealed that our president has no intention to change course. Presumably the resounding voices of the majority who didn't vote were urging him to stay the course.

I heard one pundit cynically snort that he wondered how he could hear the silent voices of those who did not vote. I snorted along with him in the moment, but then realized that President Obama was likely certain that he could hear those voices. He has the results of extensive and reasonably-precise research, he has advocates lobbying on behalf of the masses, and he has experts interpreting it all and feeding it to him daily (even moment by moment). These are the tools of marketing.

The thing is… we don’t ask our leaders to lead via the tools of marketing; we demand that our leaders govern. And we don’t govern via market research, polls, the voices of advocates, or the interpretations of experts. We vote. And voting matters.

We don’t govern by taking random samples of those passively being governed (polls), asking them what they want and who they want in power. We govern according to those who show up and vote.

I fear that our President truly believes that his interpretations of the desires of the non-voters really matter… matter even more than the voice of the voters. I know liberal pundits think so; they have broadcast such things the past few days. They say that low turnout was to blame… that if only people had voted, things would have turned out differently. It is as if they want us to pretend that everyone voted, and also pretend that we know how they would have voted.

(Warning… right-wing rant coming.)

Liberals do this all the time. If they get the vote they want they call it a mandate; if they don’t, they call it some sort of mistake and determine that they know better. Two years ago, I recall conservative pundits observing low turnout in the election that resulted in our President’s reelection. But I don’t recall anyone turning that into a rationale that we should govern pretending we knew what the non-voters wanted. Conservatives put the responsibility of low turnout on themselves and those who stayed home; we didn’t factor the imagined desires of the non-voters into the governance equation.

Voting matters. Paying attention and showing up matters. The system does not, and should not, govern according to the imagined voices of the unengaged, uninterested non-voters. Our government is certainly responsible for their well-being and safety, but their imagined voice is irrelevant and should certainly not be “heard” like the real voice of the voters. 

(Thus endeth the rant.)

These are lessons that extend beyond opportunities like this week’s election.

I am, and have been, part of a number of membership organizations. Most adults are. For me it has included student organizations, academic societies, churches, ecclesiastical bodies, and even my homeowners association. I’ve observed that active participation in such membership organizations is becoming less and less important to folks. We don’t bother paying attention or even showing up, thinking that voting on such things doesn’t matter.

And voting often doesn’t matter… until it really does.

I’m thinking of a few organizations that I’ve been a part of, and a few others that I’ve intently observed, in which the membership displayed (by their inattentiveness) that they didn’t want to bother with governing. So in order to keep the organization moving forward, the governance moved from the membership to the administration. What once required the vote of the body moved to a decision made by a committee. What once required action by a committee moved to a decision by the administration. What once required agreement among officers moved to a decision by the CEO.

All that resulted in greater efficiency, and even prosperity and happiness… until there was a problem. Then, when faced with a problem that only the membership could/should handle, the membership’s governance muscles had atrophied and the organization’s governance model was ineffective. Those who should have been paying attention, showing up, and active all along attempt to reinsert themselves, and there is friction. In some cases the friction only results in a season of discomfort for the organization, in other cases the organization doesn’t survive.

Paying attention, showing up, and voting matters. We can’t expect that our voices will matter if we have not been paying attention and showing up. Voting matters all the time, not just when there is a problem or challenge… maybe especially when there is not a problem or challenge.

Where Coaching Happens

I did a few more coaching classes last week. I learned a lot. But the most important thing I learned (or relearned I suppose) is the fundamental thing. I solidified a better definition of coaching for myself. Here’s what I have now:

Coaching is a purposeful, customized, adult, learning experience.

Each word is important… and one is most important for me.

• Purposeful: Coaching is goal oriented. I have coaching friends who often describe it as helping people get from where they are to where they want to be. 
• Customized: Since it is driven by the agenda, pace and knowledge of the person being coached, each coaching experience is customized.
• Adult: Coaching builds on the knowledge, experience and desires of the person being coached, thus it is mostly suited for adult learners. 
• Experience: Coaching is practical. Not merely an academic exercise… coaching should result in action.
  
  And the word that is most important for me to remember…
    
• Learning: The most prized result of coaching is when the person being coached learns. The aim of coaching is learning… more than merely solving problems or gathering data, coaching is meant to facilitate learning. 

For me… I get it best when I think in terms of this question: Where does coaching happen?

Coaching happens in the brain of the person being coached. That may seem obvious, but there are other possibilities.

Some might think that coaching happens in the coach’s brain. Of course the coach’s brain is important in coaching; we want the coach to bring their brain to every coaching session. But the real, most important work in coaching is not happening in the coach’s brain; that would be something more like analysis or therapy. If at the end of a coaching session we find that much of the thinking and learning happened in the coach’s brain, then it is isn’t coaching.

Others might think that coaching happens in the space between the two brains. Prior to last week, that is how I thought of coaching because I thought of coaching primarily as problem solving. Coaching certainly can be problem solving, but it should not merely be problem solving. Problem solving is often tactical… a one off experience that may only have temporary impact. But coaching should be more than problem solving; it should be a learning experience that is more strategic, resulting in learning that should have a lasting impact.

Coaching not only ends in the client’s brain, but it starts there and stays there too. Coaching is meant to help us learn from what we already know (whether we know that we know, or even don’t know that we know). It starts in the client’s brain both in that the agenda is set by the client and the raw materials are drawn from the client’s knowledge and experience. It stays in the brain of the person being coached too; coaching is meant to build new learning. 

What do you think? Does your experience match this definition? I’d be glad to have your feedback!

And... let me know if you're interested in coaching; I have more info posted at www.greatifiers.com/services/coaching  
  

Disciples Ask

I was reading Matthew 13 today when something jumped out at me from verse 36. The chapter mostly contains a record of Jesus teaching in parables; in verse 36 it says “his disciples came to him and said, ‘Explain…’”.

In our consumer-driven culture, we tend to place most responsibility on the encoder rather than the decoder. If something is not understood we blame the teacher, preacher, or leader rather than the pupil, constituent, or follower. We think of the hearer as a customer, placing fewer and fewer demands on the recipient and more and more responsibility on the speaker. The motives here are good ones; we want to speak clearly and connect… we want people to understand and act, thus we want to do all we can to be understood.

I wonder if by placing most of the responsibility on the speaker we end up settling for shallow understanding in the hearers. Borrowing from the Parable of the Sower in Matthew 13… do we miss an opportunity for seed to take root and flourish by not demanding more of the hearers?

In my experience as a learner/follower/disciple, my understanding goes deepest when I am forced to engage, when I have to go back and ask for an explanation. Whether learning a lesson from a teacher, boss, or even God, the deepest understanding results from seeking explanations. I know that I am truly a disciple when I am asking, “Explain.”

I’ve had the same experience on the other end as a teacher/leader/preacher/mentor. Students, congregants, and employees seem to only really get it when they are challenged. I know that I truly have a disciple when I hear them asking, “Explain.”  

Crowds want simple, bite-sized, easy-to-digest morsels. Disciples crave heaping plates of challenge, and demand explanations to deepen our understanding.

Confessions of a Coaching Skeptic

I started to hear about professional coaching a few years ago; it sounded to me like something silly people do. Passing judgment in blissful ignorance (don’t judge, we all do it from time to time), I just wrote it off.

Then my wife Laurie was invited to take a few coaching classes a few years ago. Some trusted friends encouraged her to take advantage of the opportunity, knowing that she would be good at it. While taking the classes and reflecting on the materials in the days that followed, Laurie said to me, “This coaching stuff is a lot like what you seem to do naturally.” Laurie and I generally have our noses in each other’s business; she likened coaching to the way I preferred to lead people on various teams that I worked with. 

I concluded that if coaching was an effort to teach people how to operate the way I like to do things, teaching people to be like me, then there must be something to it.  

My friend Craig has become a proficient and certified coach over the past few years. An extended conversation over coffee several weeks ago turned into me asking him a lot of questions about coaching… resulting in me becoming even more intrigued. 

And then my friend Beth kept sending me emails urging me to take a few classes. She was sending them to a big list, hundreds if not thousands of people… but they were hitting me with the impact of a personal invitation. I had a certain sense that I ought to give it a try. So I did, completing 32 hours of classroom instruction and practice last week.

My hope was to gain some tools for my toolbox. I had no intention to actually be a coach, run anything like a structured coaching session, or have anyone call me a coach. I just figured I’d gain some handy skills.

I did gain some handy skills… but I also came to understand that, at least for me, while coaching skills may be handy in a variety of contexts, the best way to apply professional coaching skills is in a purposeful, structured coaching context. So…

I think I’m going to be a coach.

That will require more training, a mentor coach, and some practice. I’m already on my way, and intend to qualify for at least an entry-level of certification.

I’m no longer a coaching skeptic. I’m a coach (well… at least a rookie coach).

If you’d like to be among my beta testers (in person, on the phone, or on Skype), allowing me to get some practice, let me know. It is a professional service, but at this stage of this rookie coach’s path I’m sure I can make you a very sweet deal.

I’ve hung out a shingle. Check it out at http://www.greatifiers.com/services/coaching and let me know if I can be of any help; I’d love to work with you.

  

The Appearance of Righteousness

My wife, Laurie, forwarded an article today written by Ty Grigg: How I Learned to Stop Worrying About the Billy Graham Rule and Love Like Jesus.

I knew what he meant by "the Billy Graham rule" right away. I've served in several institutions where the Billy Graham rule was the rule (usually an unwritten rule). I've had respected mentors and professors expound on the virtue of the Billy Graham rule. Essentially the rule is: a man should never be alone with a woman... not in an office, not in a car, not for a meal, not even on an elevator. In the case of Billy Graham there was fear that he would be targeted by someone out to get him by fabricating a scandal (I think this is the plot of the movie being released today: Persecuted). I've never thought of myself as such a big deal that anyone would go to such efforts to "get me."

But that isn't my only reason why I routinely ignored the rule. For me it has never seemed at all practical. My first real boss, other than my dad, was a woman (I don't think most of the boys who strictly follow the Graham rule have ever had a female boss). I've always had female colleagues (up the org chart, down the org chart, and horizontal on the org chart); I can't work with people if there are no one-on-ones, no meetings on the fly in an elevator, or no road trips.

I think I've made good decisions to protect my reputation and others. I've relied on my spidey sense. I've even cut windows into walls and doors when offices seemed too secluded.

I worked through the best reason for ignoring the rule a few years ago when I more clearly saw what various implementations of the Graham rule was doing to my female friends and colleagues. We were reworking the governance documents at the University I served, from the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws all the way through the various employee manuals. Some of the more old-school members of the leadership team wanted to codify the Graham rule in the manuals. I was intent on using my influence to not go there, but I wasn't winning the argument based merely on the practicality of it all. So we started listening more carefully to women to understand their perspectives, starting with the voices around that table, but seeking out the stories of others as well. Laurie had valuable input, as I listened more carefully to my spouse, to what she heard and what she even experienced.

I heard stories about how women were marginalized. Decisions would be made in boys-only meetings, whether in the office, on the road, or on the golf course. There was an important camaraderie enjoyed by men that extended into the office from which women were barred. It might not be that decisions were made in boys-only meetings, but they might as well have been since we spoke in code forged in fellowship and relied on contexts and experiences that were shared in various boys-only spaces.

We determined that our values of gender equity, full-spectrum perspective, and championing women in leadership could not coexist with the Graham rule.

For those who insist on keeping the Graham rule, I sometimes wonder what is really going on. A couple of possibilities come to mind:

1. They have a lust problem. It seems to me that if you think the only way you can remain pure is to avoid being alone with a woman, you should seek professional help. 
2. They have a fear problem. If you think you are that hot or such a big deal that people are out to get you, you likely have an inflated view of yourself. 
3. They have a righteousness problem. If you think that building such a fence is worth it so that you "avoid the appearance of evil" then you likely misunderstand righteousness. 

I appreciate what Grigg had to say about 1 Thessalonians 5:22. The KJV says, "Abstain from all appearance of evil." Most scholars agree that is a crummy translation. The NIV is better, saying, "Reject every kind of evil." This isn't the only Bible verse that has been mangled in order to proof text unfounded Church behavior, but it might be my favorite. 

Jesus didn't have anything to say about avoiding the appearance of evil, but He had a lot to say about avoiding the appearance of righteousness. There is certainly one thing worse than "the appearance of evil": relishing in the appearance of righteousness. 

It seems to me that a lot of those who insist on following the Graham rule are not merely misguidedly avoiding the appearance of evil, but are really pursuing the appearance of righteousness. And in so doing they are causing their sisters in Christ harm (sometimes inadvertently, sometimes knowingly but with a flawed rationale for the collateral damage). 

Father, and sisters, forgive us of our evil... when we have excluded and marginalized and protected our boys' club. And forgive us of our righteousness... when we have built fences around our righteousness with our overly simple and misguided rules that have done such damage.

Pray For Them; Don’t Prey On Them

I was pre-Christian for the first twenty years of my life. I was around a lot of Christians. I had Christian friends and Christian members of my extended family. I was even in and out of a lot of churches (sometimes I even got paid to be in church, playing in various orchestras and such). Among my relationships with Christians, there were those in which I felt like I was prey.

We should definitely pray for our pre-Christian friends… but we should not prey on them.

Kevin was a coworker and friend of mind for a few years, a few years before I came to faith. He was a student at a local Baptist Bible College. I think in those days they had around 1,000 students at an unaccredited ministry-training school associated with First Baptist in Hammond, led by Pastor Jack Hyles.

They took very seriously the command to “Come out from them and be separate” (1 Corinthians 6:17). Actually, since to this day their doctrinal statements proclaim their exclusive allegiance to the King James Version, it should be: “Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing.” They were separate in the way they dressed and talked and associated with people. It was a big church (several thousand) before mega churches were common. They pretty much kept to themselves, unless they were soul winning. They invented the “bus ministry”… at one point they were sending buses into four states to pick up kids and bring them to Sunday school; they were serious… and in some ways it was really impressive.

But here is the thing… I got the feeling from anyone I would come into contact with from that school or church that I was a target. From the most incidental contact with someone from First Baptist, to the close working relationship and friendship I had with Kevin… I felt like prey… a target… a name that might be turned in to fulfill some quota if I would just get saved. I had the feeling that any act of friendship or kindness, any helpful favor or word, was all targeted at getting me saved. I felt like prey.

I don’t think Kevin and his coreligionists did any harm to me… but neither did they do any good.

On the other hand, there were those who cared for me, were genuine friends to me, and prayed for me. There is no doubt in my mind that the way they demonstrated the Gospel made the difference in my life.

Here’s what I am saying… we simply must have pre-Christian friends if we are going to be fulfilling God’s work, if we’re going to be involved in His mission. We ought to be purposeful about building friendships with those who do not yet believe. And they can’t be merely friends for the purpose of getting them saved, merely friends for our purpose. Especially in our day (time and culture) we need to allow people into our hearts and homes so that they can truly see the Gospel in action. We need to be friends and have friends… pre-Christian friends who we pray for, not prey on.


I spoke along these lines last Sunday. To hear more, you can listen online at pleasantbay.cedarpark.org/services