Messages...

  What are yours like? Mixed message? Terse, to the point of sparing detail so it's impossible to really have a sense of the communication? Detailed, to the point that so much information is given that the thread is lost? Clear and concise with sufficient information that the salient questions can be asked and answered? It isn't always that you have been unclear, it may be that the listener hasn't heard what you thought you said.

  Whenever you hear someone, or yourself, saying: "What I meant was..." or "My intentions were..." you've had an unclear message. If you do this a great deal then you need to revisit your mode of communicating. Do notice the disclaimer - it is always in the past (was, were). Are you attempting to provide yourself with an excuse or did you truly mis-communicate? However - this is not necessarily a 'your fault/my fault' situation. If the goal is an understood message then this is the issue that needs to be addressed.

  The speaker needs to always remember that what may seem logical and clear to them may not be true for the listener. Attempting to discover if the listener has understood should be a goal. And sometimes it isn't that you need to give further information - what you need to know is what the listener has heard. From that basis you can enhance understanding. However, simply asking if they understand is not the best method to know if they heard what you said.

  As a listener, don't assume you heard what was said. Too often this is the case and time, energy, and other resources are wasted. A listener has as much responsibility as a speaker when it comes to understanding messages. Asking for clarity or asking questions or phrasing what was said in your own frame of reference are possible methods to verify understanding. The message is the focus and both parties should be certain that the message spoken is the one that is heard.

 ...but, what do you think?

Sunday morning Christian?

 
  How do you do your Christianity? Are you a Sunday morning Christian only... relegating your time with God to those few hours on a Sunday morning? Or maybe your Christianity is more extensive - involving Sunday night and/or Wednesday night? The point that I'm making is that if you aren't a 24/7 Christian what and who are you the times that you aren't a Christian?

  If you aren't in Christ - what are you in? And equally important - why? What is so much better, so much greater than being a 24/7 Christian? Or is it a fear of the price you'll have to pay to be a 24/7? Maybe you don't know what this will mean, apart from the cost, to your life and lifestyle? Or maybe you don't have a good example of this approach - you've seen too many professing 24/7 but their behavior doesn't mesh with this 'philosophy'? All this may be good rationale, but in the end... it doesn't mean anything, it's not relevant.

  Part of the reason for the lack of relevancy is that God leads each one of us in our own unique way. (You) "With the billions of people in the world, you are telling me that He designs a special way for everyone?!" (me) "Yes, I do, as incredible as it may sound." Granted there are some similarities and some aspects that are applicable to everyone, but I do think that He takes each of us with our own unique mindsets, experiences and creates our special path with our assignments. Yes, they do merge with others and separate and cross other paths but we still are specific, chosen individuals... if we choose.

  Think about the amount of time you spend on your job, involved with it and others to accomplish or maintain a goal. Do you spend even a portion of that time consciously Christian?  If you do - then I applaud you. This is a calling for all those who identify themselves as Christians not just those involved in ministry. None of us has the calling of a Sunday morning Christian - 24/7 is a lifestyle, an ongoing personal relationship. And while it isn't for the faint of heart, it is a full life.

...but, what do you think?

A Simpler Time

  Really? Was it? Or was 'then' when you were much younger and 'now' when you are an adult and must be responsible and make the 'hard' decisions? 'A Simpler Time' can be described in a variety of ways dependent upon the individual, but I think that a universal - substantially less stress - would be one of the top characteristics. And while it wasn't always easier, the problems we had to deal with typically were. And we had parents and extended family who could be asked for help.

  For those who had a great childhood, there's a kind of haunting nostalgia that characterizes the simpler time and we all tend to forget any problems or unhappiness-es. And this selective remembering is the hallmark of your personal 'simpler time'.   For the vast majority, a kind of unfettered joy also characterizes your simpler time. And that should never be defined as problem-less. But the issues faced as a child, though somewhat gargantuan at the time, were easier to identify and answer. Today, life has become so complex and contradictory that many of us have a desire to go running screaming into the night as fast as possible away from reality.

  What we need to remember is that our memory of our simpler time is somewhat rose colored. Our problems were more easily resolved and many of the 'hurts' quickly forgotten. And that's OK as long as we don't try to live in our 'then' - that never works, besides there's a great deal of joy in our now's - when we allow and look for it. The 'grownups' had the larger issues to contend with but I'm not all that convinced that we were particularly aware of the stresses and issues they were having to deal with.  

  I suspect that it is not possible to construct a simpler time in our now - though we can certainly try. It's the gentleness of that time, the way we were treated and the way we treated others that colors 'then' and characterizes, for many of the luckier ones, 'things' that are worth resurrecting. Actually... this can be the hallmark of our behavior regardless of how others react and interact. Maybe we'll start a movement of 'simpler'...

...but, what do you think?

Advice...

   Advice giving or seeking is really a tricky issue. I really hate asking for advice because if I do then I must be open to the possibility of an opinion opposite to what I think. In asking for advice one really isn't asking for approval or acceptance, nor for agreement, though it may be partially the case. I know that many times I'm seeking a different option, a different perspective. It's all the attendant issues that rise when you ask for advice that are bothersome - mostly of an emotional nature.

  The problem is that many (most?) times the person providing the advice thinks that you plan on following whatever their thinking is. Not a suggestion. An 'is'. And if you don't then you have to deal with their feelings. I've searched for a simply way of asking without asking. Because I'm also of the belief that scripture is accurate (Proverbs 11:14) when it talks about wisdom comes from seeking other's opinions. The obvious problem is that people tend to equate asking their opinion as you then need to follow their dictums.

  Quite honestly, I think I've finally gotten to the point that if I'm asked (and I really do try to not provide unsolicited input or feedback) I couch my reply in making certain that the ask-er knows first my frame of reference. I also try and give more than one option and indicate some of the ramifications from acting on the option(s). Besides, there rarely is only one 'good' answer to an issue. If there weren't then everyone would have the same opinion and thus there would be no need to ask another's advice.

  I'm sorry to say but there really is no advice that doesn't come with the adviser's vested interest - even if that vested interest is only their emotion. Perhaps the answer to this quandary is in how you respond to the adviser's comments. Never, as in ever, give them the impression that you intend to follow their 'advice' unless you plan on doing so. Basically what you need to do is to thank them for their opinion, tell them that you are also seeking other people's input without telling them who, and let them know when you tentatively plan on making your decision. That really is all you're obligated to do.

... but, what do you think?

Target

 That may be a bit strong, a 'loaded' word. Probably I should have said, intended audience.  As a child I remember listening to sermons in church but that it always seem that the minister was speaking to those not attending rather than to those present. I think I somewhat resented that but I know I thought that he had the wrong way round. I sometimes wonder if I'm doing the same thing in my blog - am I speaking to those reading or is it really 'aimed' at those who don't?

  We should all consider our focus - who are we 'speaking' to? And what is our purpose? Without both of those being clear to the listener and speaker, there's too great an opportunity for mixed messages and misunderstandings. That's why every speaker should be aware of whether or not the listener appears to have heard what you said. Did you hear what you said? If communication is your goal then this is important. 

  Perhaps the real issue is in 'how' we/I say what is said. The issue may be relevant to all but, am I helping or challenging those who actually are reading or wagging my finger at those who don't? And I have to be honest - I'm an application's speaker/writer. I always feel that whatever the subject that the reader should determine their own approach but that they do need to apply what they believe, not merely intellectualize it. Remember - though you are responsible for what you know, many people don't apply what they know - you must act on your beliefs otherwise your knowledge, your beliefs are useless.

  As a speaker or writer, you need to know what your expectations are. Are you attempting to influence? Are you merely 'telling'? Or are you searching for a reaction? What are your motives? For example, mine are very clear... I want you to think, consider, revise, refine what you believe and equally important - why. I want you to understand your own behavior that promotes or undermines your beliefs. That is my target: understanding and behavior.

...but, what do you think?
 

Kind

  Simple word, but what is 'kind'? Do we 'practice' it automatically? Or, is it an action that we have to consciously 'do'? Because if you are looking at an operational definition of the word, then kind is an action, is visible, and is a behavior that is extended toward others. In my world of definitions, 'kind' is reward-less. You act kind because that's what is motivating you and in the act you discover that that is the reward.

  Some years ago there was a 'random acts of kindness' campaign. But isn't it somewhat sad that we need to specialize kindness? Shouldn't 'kind' be automatically part of our behavior? Yes... but that doesn't always seem to be the typical MO. Being kind is something you choose to be. And I don't mean to imply that it is necessarily easy... at first. But like any muscle or any new behavior - it can become a habit, a way you look at life and others. It becomes a mindset, a lifestyle. At least it can.

  Kind is more than being polite... though kind people are polite, however not all polite people are kind. Kind is a valuing not just a tolerating of others. But kind doesn't equivocate either - it doesn't suborn the truth. Being kind is not for wimps, not for those who have a quid pro quo mindset. And it is strong. Primarily because you have to know why you believe as you do and aren't threatened by an opposing philosophy.

  Returning to my definition of the word, 'gracious' is also associated with kind. Again, a word that is often mis-defined. Webster's defines gracious as: pleasing, merciful, compassionate, urbane. What a good companion for 'kind'. I'm not certain you can be kind without being gracious. Being and acting kind is not done for personal gain - it's done because that's who you are. There is a caveat to being kind... some people will think they can take advantage of this. However - I never said 'kind' was gullible or naive.

...but, what do you think?

But they're wrong!

  What do you do when someone, especially family or close friends, is doing something you feel is totally, utterly wrong? How do you react? Judgmental? Condemning? Or... willing to listen? Besides, how did you and your opinion get to be in charge??? What makes you the authority? OK... a bit harsh, admittedly but you do see the problems, don't you? And the supreme problem is - that it's NOT your decision! 

  We all find ourselves in this conundrum (my 'right' opinion and your 'incorrect' decision) at times and our behavior determines whether or not our point is even heard. You do realize that being right is not necessarily sufficient. You do not walk in another's shoes so when you don't take the time to first listen to what they say is their 'problem' then why would they listen to you? Ask questions - find out what but also why they believe as they do. No one can ever listen to advice until they first have spoken and gotten the emotion out.

  If you truly believe that your decision is the right one and their decision is catastrophic - then the important issue is to be able to present your decision so it's heard. The goal - communication. It's possible that you are right and they are about to make a 'bad' decision, but did you ever think that you could be wrong... too? Rarely is there only one answer to an issue - perhaps there's an even better answer. And that's the mindset you should have when offering your opinion. Try too not use emotion laden words when presented your thinking. Most people only feel like they are being manipulated in making your decision.

A quick aside to the decision-maker: if you are providing your intentions as information - that's one thing. However, if you invite discussion and/or utter the words... 'but what do you think?' you have just given license to the other person to do precisely that. Don't be angry with them if their opinion is not yours - if you really are confident in your decision then their opinion is just that - opinion. It can flavor your subsequent action but regardless of how they offer it - it is only one more piece of input.

...but, what do you think?

Making God happy... relationship

  I am still amazed that God placed such a high priority on our relationship with Him. But He did and still does. I couldn't say it louder - our relationship with Him is important. Part of the understanding about relationships can be seen in how God over and over establishes and re-establishes relationships with us. Being who He is, a just and impartial judge, then our behavior when we break relationship has to be resolved and restored. It never is us who re-establishes the connection - God is the one who provides us a way back. Eventually there had to be an ultimate restoration and the answer: the spotless lamb, Jesus.

  God provided the answer and our part is simply to accept Him as our answer to re-establishing relationship. Accepting Jesus may seem like a little thing but it really is everything. Thankfully, we do not need to pay the debt for our sin, nor could we, Jesus paid it for us. And it was finished. Yes, man still does sin but we still have the way back through that relationship. Our part is to accept who Jesus was/is and what He provided for us. Simple. But it is the most difficult act for a great number of people.

  So... what does 'relationship' look like when we're talking about with God?  Actually I believe it is similar to our relationship with one another. It includes spending time with the other person (God), talking with them, etc. Relationship is more than just prayer - though that is part of it. A significant component, at least for me, is worship. But the biggest component, for me, is simply talking with God - being alert to what He shares in the moment and listening. My contention is that we are always talking at God but rarely do we take the time to be still and listen.

  It can be logically extended that if relationship was important to God then it seems like our relationships with one another would also be critical. No one enjoys it when two people are arguing and fighting, and I think it makes God sad when we treat each other this way. I believe that a good relationship is marked by the desire to want the best for the other person. Thus, how we treat one another marks our beliefs about interrelationships.

  While all I've said sounds frightfully simple. It is. And that's the point. If you really want to be involved with making God happy then you need to have an active relationship with Him.

...but, what do you think?

Making God happy

  Sounds a bit absurd, I know. But for some time I have been wrestling with... what could I do to make God happy. Somehow doing deeds of derring do is not the answer. Depriving myself doesn't seem a positive way to go especially when you consider some of His words like, giving us the desires of our hearts, giving us abundant life now and in the life to come. If self sacrifice or dramatic acts aren't the answer... what is?

  When in doubt, go to the source. And we have His manual to look into to find our answers - the Bible. I suspect that it could be argued that if we did what He wanted, that would make Him happy. Probably. Sometimes the answers to the BIG questions of life are so simple that we dismiss  them. Scripture tells us what He wants: "...do justly, love mercy, walk humbly." (Micah 6:8) And He tells us that He loves mercy more than sacrifice (Hosea 6:6)  But I also believe it's more than that. Or is this a situation where I'm trying to make things more difficult?

  Part of the answer emerged when I attempted to look at this question from His view. What was it He enjoyed? Genesis tells us that God brought the animals to Adam to be given their names. I can only imagine the delight God experienced when He was with Adam as Adam named each of the animals. The experience must be akin to a parent's delight at seeing their child excel. This sense of pleasure at a child's accomplishment/success is one that every parent relishes and I think God does too. Simply put... I think He delights in our delight.

  Another part of the answer came when I read further into Genesis and saw that He always walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the morning. So relationship is a key ingredient in making God happy. This key may be one of the major components since both the Father and the Son were willing to suspend their relationship in order that we could be reconciled to Him. But what does this mean for us, individually? How does this impact on our relationship with God? What can we do to make God happy?

...but, what do you think?

Falling short...

  Recently I read a post by Max Lucado which struck me... "Worry is falling short on faith. Impatience is falling short on kindness. The critical spirit falls short on love." This says quite loudly, faith, kindness, love is hampered by worry, impatience, and a critical spirit. So when you look at your life and behavior where do you fall on these three continuum's? For me it's a sliding scale on all 3 - sometimes I'm far more on one end of the continuum than the others. However, I've also discovered that if 1 in this trio is up (or down) the other 2 typically are as well.

  So... how do we shore up? How do we stay on the positive side of these three continuum's? Is one easier to develop than the others? Doubtful. However... scripture tells us that faith works through love which implies an extremely strong relationship between the two. Another scripture tells us that... the greatest is love. Kindness, in my world of definitions is an observable act. You can't 'think' kindness, you have to act kind. All in all... an impossibility to start from the end: faith, kindness, love. 

  Should we begin by considering worry, impatience, critical spirit? Or do we run into the same problems? All three can be seen as operating in others - we all know when we observe these behaviors in others by their words or actions. And all three are typically self defeating. So, perhaps what we need to consider is... what is 'falling short'? Is that a universal place or individually defined? Personally, I think the latter focus is correct.

  Falling short is not a permanent place - we can all self correct. We can grow. We can improve. We can take a stand against worry - which really accomplishes nothing since it really isn't an fact. And we can take a stand against impatience. This requires that we stop this behavior when it begins to emerge. And we can definitely determine not to be critical. A critical spirit is typically a judgmental person - someone attempting to force their standards on others. As a result - we determine to NOT worry, be impatient, or be critical. As we work on us we will find that falling short begins to abate.

 ...but, what do you think?

Places NOT to visit

  There are some places that no one should visit. However, we all do find ourselves on these paths, occasionally, but when we do we should change direction. Actually if on these paths we should stop ourselves, turn around, and possibly run as fast as we can. These places only lead to other more undesirable places and if we stay on them long enough... will undermine all that is positive in our lives. The path will consume us.

  One of those 'don't visit' paths is Anger. Anger is not a place to be in. Anger is a path that eventually leads to hatred. And Hatred is completely consuming. At one point I thought anger could function as a great motivator. It does, and it can. One problem, however, is that it tends to be self defeating since much of the activity is directed not at the issue but at a person(s). Another problem is that since we all do get angry, we need to harness that energy rather than lashing out. Getting rid of the emotional energy is good as long as it isn't directed at others. (Unfortunately) I've discovered that when I lashed out it was at the person handiest not necessarily the person involved.

  Self sufficiency is another 'don't visit'. It can be lonely. And, it is a bit of a delusion anyway. Besides, why would you want to be in a place where you were the only one? There are books and poems and songs that tell us that we all need one another. We do! It's true. And yes, others can let you down (as you do also) - but that isn't the point. Alone we don't have all the resources or energy or ability to always accomplish all that needs to be done. Together we can. 

  Self aggrandizing is not a place to visit - it leaves a bad taste. If you are attempting to 'climb up whatever ladder you're on' on the backs of others you are also deluding yourself - it will eventually come home to roost. Self promotion is never effective ... except to make you extremely unpopular and others suspicious of you, your words, your actions. Credit should always go to those who have spent their time and effort. If that's you then it will be apparent.

  These are only a couple of the places one should not visit. There are others... some worse, some not as bad. The point about these places is that they all are hurtful - to others and eventually to yourself.

...but, what do you think?

Free Will ... is

  It really is your decision, your choice. So... what are you doing with your free will? You know you would be screaming bloody murder if you thought you were denied your will.  It would probably be a whine about the unfairness of creating you in the first place with no opportunity to act on what you want. But since you do have free will... 'how' are you exercising it? Do you employ your will with only you in mind? Is your approach, 'my way or the highway'? Or do you simply go about doing what you want irrespective of other's and their will?

  The obvious point though is that we all have been created with free will. The question is not - do we have free will. Everyone has free will. And everyone exercises it. These two points are 'givens', they are 'is's'. However, we sometimes are in conflicting or opposing wills: the me v. you confrontation. This is the conundrum. Now what? How do we, hopefully peaceably, reconcile opposite wills?  Typically, we don't. We only engage in battle rather than the, 'come, let us reason together' approach.

  Being a 'reasonable' person, I think that the determination should be the subject of the conflict. If it's a 'I want you to stay' but 'You want you to go' then the subject is you not I, thus the final arbiter. Rarely, though, are the issues that simple and clear. So... is there a final arbiter in these situations? I believe there are - plural. Some of the arbiters are: eventual impacts. Will one decision negatively impact others more?  Another arbiter is your character.

  But I believe that the final arbiter is scripture. Unfortunately not everyone will accept the Word of God as authority. And unfortunately too often scripture is 'interpreted' to prove my point. You should never take scripture out of context or without considering what happened before and after the verses you are using... but we do. The problem isn't scripture, the problem is how we use it. More of us need to look at Paul's behavior (1Corinthians 8:9-12). He said that tho' he had the 'right' that he wouldn't act on it if it made a brother stumble. Free will. It is. How do we use it - attempting to impose ours on others?


...but, what do you think?

Answer(s) to prayer...

  You always get an answer to your prayers. Always. Let me say that again - you ALWAYS get an answer to prayer! However, it may not be the answer you want. Your way, your answer may not be the best answer and it certainly isn't the only answer. Typically though we think our answer is the 'right and true' answer. Unfortunately I think that far too many people pray, "Thy* will be done..." The asterisk after Thy indicating - according to my thinking.

  However, how do you react when the answer comes that isn't your answer? Pout? Attempt to exert your answer? Decide that prayer doesn't work? Perhaps, somewhere on the gracefully scale, accept? If you stand on scripture when you pray (my bias that that's the only way to effectively pray) then you probably return to scripture to prove your point... to God? That would be somewhat silly - He knows what He's said.

  You need to also look at how you're praying His word. But you may not be praying with the correct understanding of the scripture... or the situation... or the participants... or... But remember His Word does accomplish what He set it to and He changes not. And His ways are higher than our ways... I could go on but the point has been made. If your answer to prayer doesn't seem to be the answer then maybe you need to look at how you're praying.

  Answers can sometimes seem like a subjective response. I suspect that it's the reason that I try and pray by stating the situation as I see it and asking that His will prevail. Simplistic. Probably but I really don't have the consummate wisdom to always be right. If I don't predetermine the 'right' answer then I am open to the surprise and delight when resolution occurs. Part of the reality is that God presents us with the best response but He also allows us to choose so your answer may be the best answer but the people involved rejected it.

...but, what do you think?