How to Use a Cab – for the Ride of Your Life (part 1 of 3)

If I had to give a graduation speech – which I’ve never done – what would I say? Something like this:

Know where you are and be conscious of why you want to leave

You need to know why you want to leave before you decide you should leave. You need to have a compelling reason to leave. If you don’t know where you are and why you want to leave, you’ll end up nowhere. Take stock of your home and what it offers before you leave – you can appreciate where you’re going more if you know what you’re leaving behind.

Know where you want to go (or at least the neighborhood where you want to end up)

Have some goals in mind. They don’t need to be your final goals but establish a general direction. Birds don’t know their exact landing spot; they start moving in the direction they want to go and decide where to land when they near their destination. You can be pretty general about this and always be willing to change as you progress in your life, but you need to have a general direction to start.

Know which direction you need to go first

You’ll probably change careers seven to ten times in your life. You don’t need to know every step of the way, just the immediate next step. Don’t worry about every step, just plan on the next one. Then, start. You’re not going to have everything planned out so don’t get “analysis paralysis” – just get started.

Stand out from the rest so that a cabbie will see you and stop

There’s a lot of competition out there. Learn early on how to stand out from the rest. That usually means becoming the best of who YOU really are. Always be honest with yourself – it makes living with you easier. Be unique. Don’t try to be like everyone or anyone else – be who God made you.

Know if the cab is going in the wrong direction or taking the long way around

You’re going to meet some people in life who just want to take you for a ride. Don’t be taken in by those who con your emotions for their own gain. Always be willing to speak up for yourself – people are impressed by that. Often, those who speak up for themselves and others are called leaders. Be that.

Lead On!

Steve

How do you define loyalty?

“A strong feeling of support or allegiance” is the dictionary definition.

Many people feel that loyalty is when a person adheres unquestioningly to something or someone. In church work I’ve seen this exemplified when staff and members look to their leader(s) and express support for whatever he or she wants to do. And in return, the leaders expect their staff and most members, to follow whatever they say regardless of what it is. That is loyalty to some, but not to me. To me, that can even be a betrayal of trust, the opposite of loyalty.

Loyalty is when a person supports and has allegiance to a person or principle, but is willing to ask hard questions and not be satisfied with simplistic answers. Loyalty is challenging a leader privately on his statements before (and after) he goes public. Loyalty is being willing to speak truth to power knowing it may cost you your job and career. Loyalty is being constructively critical for the benefit of the leader and of the entire organization.

That kind of loyalty helps your leader be a better leader. A leader may not like this kind of feedback but in the long run it will help him or her. After all, it is better for a leader to hear criticism from members of his own team who want the organization to succeed just as much as the leader. I challenge leaders to invite constructive feedback, not just accolades. Constant praise or at least non-criticism does not help a leader grow.

Be loyal by helping the leader be better to help the church be better through appropriate and constructive private criticism and public support.

 

Lead On!

Steve

Who Taught Daniel?

In the Old Testament book of Daniel, there is a story in the first chapter is pretty well-known. After Jerusalem fell to King Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel and his three friends are taken to Babylon because they were the brightest young Jewish men. Babylon was the ruler of the world at that time so it had the best educators and most knowledge. Daniel and his friends were to study at “The University of Babylon” for three years and then take government jobs (verse 5). We presume Daniel and his buds were about 20 years old at the time.

 

Their dorm was interesting: they had all the food and wine they could want. Knowing the times, they probably had access to a nearby harem. It was a college boy’s dream: all the beer, steaks, and women you could ask for!

 

But Daniel and his friends declined. They actually said, “I’ll have the salad, please.” These virile, strong, intelligent young men passed on what every teenage boy dreams of and asked for veggies instead of meat. After a 10-day experiment, their Babylonian supervisor saw that these guys were better off than the others who indulged (verse 15). For the rest of their studies, Daniel and his friends ate according to their wishes and they were ten times better than anyone else (verse 20).

 

We don’t know anything about Daniel’s family. But what I’ve learned about Jewish culture from that time is that children were exceedingly close to their moms growing up. At about age 12, Jewish boys went to synagogue school where they memorized and debated teachings for hours upon end.

 

When Daniel and his friends were faced with a serious test, they relied on their experience – and they didn’t have much of that since they were so young. But they spoke up and said they wouldn’t do what was requested because it went against their beliefs. Who were the persons who taught these four guys to stand up for themselves? Who influenced them so heavily that they would forego every boy’s fantasy? Who inculcated their faith so deeply that they would risk their young lives for salad?

 

We don’t know. We’ll never know. But it does show the value and impact of teachers on young men and women; it demonstrates the lasting effect of a mom on boys and girls. Even when they were a thousand miles from home, with no one around to judge them, and faced with the greatest temptation a young man can have, they instead relied on their upbringing.

 

Here’s to you, teachers of Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah!

 

Lead On!

Steve

Ruts & Routines

What’s the difference? A routine is a pattern of behavior that guides you through the mundane, while a rut is a routine that is completely ingrained. A routine can be as simple as the steps you take to get dressed in the morning or how you get to work. A rut is much deeper, though.

Routines are good – they help you get things done without having to put much thought into what you’re doing, because what you’re doing doesn’t require much thought (such as what to eat for breakfast or where to put your car keys when you come home). They help make life easier and more settled. I encourage routines because they allow you to use your brain power for other activities requiring more thought, such as work or family interaction.

Routines that become ruts are sometimes bad. How do you know if a rut has gone bad? Ask yourself this question: “Am I willing to change what I’m doing?” If you are not open to a new pattern of behavior, then you are in a rut. The main characteristic of a rut is that it is cut so deep that you cannot see over the edges to see anything else that is out there. Ruts force you to stay on the same (often narrow) path. They don’t open your eyes to other opportunities. Ruts are hard to break out of; you have to do this intentionally. And when a rut is work or family-related, the entrenched behavior can lead to stubbornness when those two areas require people to be truly flexible.

Routines are good and necessary; ruts are not. As you go through today, ask yourself if what you are doing is a routine or a rut. Could you change if you wanted to? For the sake of others, would you alter what you’re doing? It’s easy to say yes, so I dare you to try it with something simple and see how you react to that small change. You may have more ruts in your life than you know.

 

Lead On!

Steve

 

 

 

Lead On!

Steve

 

 

 

 

 

 

Protectiveness

One aspect of the life-cycle of churches has to do with their possessions.

  • Early on the church has almost nothing. The church is typically pretty open about sharing its resources (loaning chairs and tables for instance) with others.
  • When the church gets buildings and even more possessions, the church develops policies which guide when and how the building can be rented and items loaned. The ultimate goal is to protect the church from litigation, but these procedures usually evolve to protect the church from outside groups or non-members who might damage the building or items.
  • Finally, a church shrinks so that eventually everything it has is given away in its last act of generosity. Its possessions and buildings are sold or handed to another church.

All churches struggle with providing a balance between being generous with what it has to help its own members, its community, and other churches—being cautious so that what it has accrued over the years is not lost or damaged. That is a fine line to walk, and it requires a lot of active decisions.

I can’t offer an easy answer to this. I can ask churches to share as much as possible with others just as others shared with them when they were a young church. Don’t give everything away, but don’t be stingy either. Develop a balance by asking one question: What is the motive or reason someone wants to borrow or use something your church owns?

If it is meant to help one person have personal profit and it isn’t church related, then the church should walk away from that. But if the goal is to help the community or another church, then the church should seriously consider (but not rubber stamp) that opportunity. Be generous, but don’t give away everything. Don’t be greedy, but seek times when you can genuinely help others and other organizations.

Lead On!

Steve

 

The Most Important Job in the World

Working for God is it. Whether you’re paid or not paid, working for God is a job like no other. And like other jobs, it has its own standards by which the workers are measured: what are your motives (it should be based on love) and what quality of work will you do (the answer is excellence). All too often we let paid workers off the hook and don’t expect high quality work from them, and that is wrong.

The Old and New Testaments have strong words for prophets and priests who are self-serving and who ultimately take their followers down the wrong path. There is a high standard for paid church workers and to fall short is to undermine God. God demands excellence – not perfection.

I’ve seen too many churches who hire people because they need work and they can’t get work anywhere else. The church is compassionate and wants to help. And that is good. But a church should never hire a ministry (to quote Andy Stanley). Always make the distinction between someone who needs help (financial, food, transportation, etc.) versus the needs of the church to get work done.

Church leaders (paid and lay) must always expect the best from every staff person. If someone can’t get a job anywhere, there must be a reason no one else is hiring them. The church can pay for training for him (but not on the job training), give him food and clothes or pay for rent. But do not give the person a church job. That will ultimately hurt the church and the current good employees who will think they can lower their own standards.

Churches as employers must expect great work. To be satisfied with anything less creates an unhealthy work environment and perhaps even a poor worship place. Church staff must do great work for a great God. Church employees must have a standard so high because of their ultimate boss that even corporate America is jealous. Church workers must do such amazing work that there is no question they are pursuing excellence. To do anything less is to short-sell God.

 

Lead On!

Steve

 

Unnecessarily Complicated

Relationships get complicated mostly because people can be complicated. However, work product should be as simple as possible. Over the years I’ve seen things at work made complicated because people (it always boils down to people being involved!) make things complicated so they can be the ultimate problem solvers, since they are the only ones who know how it was all put together.

I’ve seen “unnecessarily complicated” in

  • Accounting – where financial statements and chart of accounts were so complex that even CPAs couldn’t follow the figures.
  • Governance – where the decision-making process was perceived to be democratic but when analyzed, ultimate authority was in the hands of a few people.
  • Technology – where hardware and software where installed to “protect the church” but it was so much that it meant the staff could be spied on and that slowed down the computing power causing inefficiency
  • Banking – where bank accounts were created for individual funds (instead of using the accounting system) which resulted in additional bank fees and nightmares in transfers between accounts
  • Staffing – where a church won’t terminate an unproductive staff person so that person’s work ethic implodes staff morale resulting in even more personnel problems

And there are more, lots more – but you’ve got your own list.

Keep it simple and not complicated. When there is a problem, confront the problem. Gather some people who are good in this field or bring in a consultant/auditor who can cut through the personalities and get to the heart of the matter. Then, deal with the real problem – and that might involve letting some staff go or changing vendors – and then clean up the mess.

Get rid of what is unnecessarily complicated. It does nothing for the church or the Kingdom. It serves only to make some people feel good and/or support their egos. That has nothing to do with the goals and purposes of the church. Keep it simple and keep it aimed at God.

 

Lead On!

Steve

Degradation of Civility

I heard this term recently. It’s a good description of what we’ve all seen on social media: someone gives their opinion on a topic and others attack the person for his/her point of view. When we hide behind a computer screen, we feel we can be impersonal and even uncivil if not outright vicious.

  1. Attack the problem, not the person. Attacking a person is not healthy on your part – in fact, it speaks very loudly about who you are, not the other person. Besides, if you are that passionate about an opposing point of view, then surely you should have sound rebuttals.
  2. For Christians only: you must always value the person more than either your point of view or theirs. God loves people, not opinions. Christians don’t get a pass on this – non-Christians may get a pass (depending on their faith-teachings).

Do all you can to respect people even it means you will just barely tolerate their opinions. People can change their point of view but hearing uncivil words and/or even being attacked is downright wrong.

 

Lead On!

Steve