The Pain of Leadership (Part 2)

The last post on leadership generated some good discussion so let me take it a step further with a concrete example.

*** Disclaimer *** I love the people at the Baker Heights Church of Christ dearly, but sometimes I will talk about things that happened there that will, necessarily, make certain people look bad. Sorry. This cannot be helped.

Last year I taught a 6-month series of lessons on Church History. People loved it! I was presenting material most had never heard before. And I tried to make it interesting - exciting stories, great PowerPoint presentations, relevant application. One night I showed a video called "Christianity: The First Thousand Years." It was about how the church filled the power void created when Rome fell, and how that changed both western civilization and the church. The video was narrated, with soft, but typically dramatic documentary music in the background. After class, while people were milling around the auditorium, an older man, who wasn't even in my class, came up to an elder I was talking to. I could tell he was mad. Now keep in mind that this man was usually gentle and kind and soft-spoken. Holly loves his wife too - she's a sweet grandma type. This man ignored me, and said to the elder, "I hear there was a video in here with instrumental music! My brother couldn't take it - he walked out! What are you gonna do?" I'm standing right there, remember. So I said to him, "Let's not talk about this here." We went outside, and I listened to his concerns. As patiently as possible I explained to him that while I also believe worship ought to be non-instrumental, showing a documentary with background music in a Wednesday night class was different. He said, "You opened with a prayer, didn't you? So it's worship." I knew this man's intellect wasn't firing on all cylinders when he said, "You could have still showed the video, you could have just muted the sound." I ended the conversation by saying, "I really understand what you're saying, and I agree. We just apply it a little differently." His response: "My brother has just come out of a Christian Church. I don't want him to lose his soul, and if you feel that way, I don't want you preaching here!"

Later that night I vented to Holly, and let it go. What did he do? He went to some more elders and complained about "the instrument" working it's way into our church. I'm sure he also mentioned something about slippery slopes leading to hell, though I can't confirm that. So, how did the leadership respond? They came up with a new policy - under no circumstances could ANY form of instrumental music be played in any format in the auditorium of the church. Now, on what basis did they make that decision? Theological conviction? Solid principle? The overall good of the church? The strength of our witness in the community? NO. It was a decision based on calming the irrational fears of a small anxiety riddled minority!

So, come next quarter, an elder wanted to show a video in his class that had soft background music. What did he do? He had the class come back on a Sunday night, after everyone else had left, and he showed the documentary. It felt like we were doing something wrong, under the cover of darkness. It was like we were revolutionaries plotting the overthrow of the traditionalists! No, not really! But here's the point. An ELDER was forced to show a documentary outside the regular time slot of his class because one immature man complained a month earlier! Is that leadership?

Here's what I posted in part 1: "Leaders who try to avoid pain will someday be confronted with the worst pain of all, the awareness that the end result of their perpetual pain avoidance is the collapse of the organization they were supposed to be leading. Are you called to lead? If so, and if you’re not ready to experience and tolerate some pain, then please say no to the call. Whatever organization you’re being called to lead will be better off without you in leadership. If you’re ready to deal with some pain, then step up and buckle in, because it’s gonna hurt."

What that elder should have done was go to the man who complained and said to him, "Look, I love you brother, but your immaturity and your attitude towards those who disagree with you in an area where scripture is silent, is divisive, it is damaging our witness in this community, it is sinful, and we are not going to tolerate it!" Now that would have been showing some leadership. Would that man have left? Maybe. Would he have taken others with him? Possibly. Could it have been painful? Yes. And that's exactly my point! Your thoughts.

My Son

William Riley North - "You're SOOOOO Good-Lookin!"

P.S: Ryan - sorry for cutting your kids out of the picture.

The Pain of Leadership

Before sending in Picket's Brigade at Gettysburg, Robert E. Lee is reported to have said to General Longstreet, "The greatest pain is to order the death of what you love the most - but we do our duty, sir. We do our duty." There is great pain in leading effectively. I want to repost something Wade Hodges put up some time ago on tolerating pain. So, let me know what you think.

In order to be an effective leader you have to be able to tolerate pain. Your own pain as well as the pain of others. Sometimes others will inflict pain upon you. You must absorb and carry it forward in order to lead. Sometimes you will be called upon to inflict pain on others for their own good or for the good of the organization you lead. If you don’t think leaders inflict pain, then go make a decision and see if anyone yelps. Sometimes you will inflict pain upon yourself when you inflict pain on others because you care so much about those whom you are leading. Without a doubt, one of the hardest things to do as a leader is to watch people we love squirm with emotional pain because of a position we’ve taken. Most of us end up caving sooner or later and we sheepishly reverse our position or change our direction in order to dull the pain and keep the peace.

The reason most churches within my sphere of awareness are struggling to move forward in any kind of discernible way is because their leadership is spending all their time and energy trying to avoid pain. They think the absence of pain is a sign of good leadership. Making sure no one gets hurt may be a win for a bank robber (put your hands in the air and do what you’re told and no one gets hurt), but it’s a terrible way of judging how well we’re doing as leaders. All pain avoidance does is delay the inevitable, which is . . . pain.

Leaders who try to avoid pain will someday be confronted with the worst pain of all, the awareness that the end result of their perpetual pain avoidance is the collapse of the organization they were supposed to be leading. Are you called to lead? If so, and if you’re not ready to experience and tolerate some pain, then please say no to the call. Whatever organization you’re being called to lead will be better off without you in leadership. If you’re ready to deal with some pain, then step up and buckle in, because it’s gonna hurt.

By Age 33 . . .

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence when he was only 33 years old. That's how old I am right now. What did you accomplish by age 33?

The Tyranny of the Tiny

He who lightly esteems hand washing shall perish from the earth – The Talmud

“Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, ‘Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!’ Jesus replied, ‘and why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?’” (Matthew 15:1-3)

In his book, A Church That Flies, Tim Woodruff tells of a devastating controversy that erupted in the Russian Orthodox Church in the 17th century. The accepted way to make the sign of the cross was to place the thumb against the ring finger and raise the remaining three fingers. Certain outlying churches, however, began a practice of placing the thumb against both the ring finger and the little finger, only raising two fingers. In 1684 these “schismatics” were outlawed. They were arrested, tortured, dissident priests were executed, churches were burned, and entire communities were wiped out!

We could so easily dismiss these people as confused or tragically off-center, but to them, this matter was critical – it was a test of “faithfulness.” We could multiply stories of religious people consumed with tiny things. For centuries, the Catholic Church insisted that services be conducted in Latin – long after that language was dead. Quakers still used “thee” and “thou” long after Elizabethan English had passed from use. The Amish still cling to 19th century modes of transportation. Why? They will all say, “faithfulness.”

I call tiny things tyrannical because of the disproportionate amount of time and energy we spend on small things. Jesus criticized this kind of spiritual microscopia in Matthew 23 when he told the Pharisees they strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel! That’s what the tyranny of the tiny does – it makes one blissfully ignorant of what’s important. It focuses on a tree rather than the forest. The tyranny of the tiny persuades one that small things are important. This is why Jesus despised Pharisaism. That is what he found so pernicious about their faith. They ignored what mattered, they deified details, they valued what was worthless – and in so doing they turned God’s Kingdom on its head. In our efforts to be “faithful” let’s not fall into the same trap as so many others. Let’s see the big picture. Let’s join with Jesus in his mission so seek and save the lost!

Finger Wagging and Trite Morality

I've been thinking a lot lately about how Christians interact with culture. Two of my favorite movies are Love Actually, and Saved - both have been hammered by Christians. Why? Because Saved makes fun of the whole "Jesus is my personal savior" shallow, and, ironically, judgmental evangelical culture, while Love Actually is replete with bad language and some nudity. These same people will watch Facing the Giants and tell all their friends to do the same. That's odd because the message of Facing the Giants is unChristian! One Christian review site site this: "I saw absolutely nothing offensive to mention. There is no violence at all, other than normal football play. I saw nothing of concern in that. One player was hurt in a game and helped off the field. There is no profanity, no sexual situations, and no scantily-clad or half-dressed people in the movie. It was a good, clean family film; and I recommend it for viewers of all ages." So, Christian theology holds that if you pray hard God will let your football team win and you'll make more money and everyone will love and respect you? Where? In what gospel? Meanwhile, Love Actually presents a profoundly Christian message about the primacy of love - and the many expressions of love.

So, in this context I found this quote from ethicist Christian Smith: "When it comes to the relatively important things in life – basic values and behaviors concerning power, prestige, justice, peace, security, work – most Christians are indistinguishable from the world. Still, Christians know that they should be different from the world in some way, and so in an effort to establish some kind of Christian distinctiveness, attention is focused on the trivial, which by it’s very nature does not require us to make difficult changes in our lives. In the end, it’s entirely okay to be captive to the idols of mass consumerism, as long as we don’t watch R-rated movies; it’s perfectly acceptable to spend our lives pursuing a cozy affluence, as long as we don’t mow our lawn on a Sunday; it’s just fine to live a life completely indifferent to systematic starvation around the world, as long as we don’t drink a beer. We, like the Pharisees, strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel." I tend to agree. How about you?

My Life

This is what I feel like right now! Questions? Comments? Encouragement?