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?