"do this, don't do that"

How often do we see managers saying this to employees, parents to children, coaches to players, and so on? What's behind this behavior of those in authority and what are the downstream consequences?

The need to control is a powerful force in many individuals. The problem is that most people learn to exercise control by limiting others from doing things wrong, generally through some forms of punishment. Yet, at the same time most people in authority have a desire for those "under their control" to provide their own expertise and creativity in accomplishing goals and helping the team win. We call this "empowering".

However, the use of control to eliminate mistakes ultimately conditions individuals to limit their efforts to stay "within the lines" because of the fear of being blamed if something goes wrong. The focus of work is to not make a mistake resulting in missed opportunities to solve problems, maximize potential, and create new paths of winning in a changing hostile world.

Another collateral damage to control, which focuses on the "do not's", is the stunting of trust. Trust occurs when one releases their need to control another. There is the belief that the trusted party will not act in their own self interest but in the interest of the whole. Information flows more freely and better solutions can be found. When an individual feels trusted, he/she is more committed to the outcomes and is willing to give more of him/herself beyond what the reward and punishment structures would deliver.

Managers tend to use the "do this, don't do that" approach in order to deliver a predictable status quo absent mistakes. Leaders produce significant outcomes by not focusing on blame, by seeking their followers input and ideas and by trusting that they will provide better outcomes than expected because they can and they want to. Stringent rules and policies and reward systems may limit mistakes but they never unleash the human capital available.

Valuing control over the creative power of human capacity makes us vulnerable to the world around us.

"For if a law had been given that could give life"

I have observed over my years how some parents have placed their children, especially their teens under law. The goal of controlling parents might be to protect their child from harm or to create "perfect" kids so others will see the parents in a positive light. Behind these and most other goals is the need to avoid blame and shame, the parents' own bondage to law. While it is a good thing that children are not harmed and that they grow up to reflect well on their parents, often the result is a child who lacks life. By this I mean that the child's self esteem hits rock bottom, like the gas gauge in the car showing the orange light. Depending on the child's personality they will either develop "learned helplessness" or will openly rebel. Either result is a child who grows into an adult lacking life.

This is what Paul is saying to the Galatians about using the law to guide our path. He goes on to say "then righteousness would indeed be by the law." The "if" suggests that the purpose and power of the law is not to give life.  The point is that a life that has been examined and deemed approved (righteousness) is not determined by following rules. When morality and obedience are used in parental relationships primarily to control children in accomplishing the parents' goal, the child's soul is under judgment and not nourished, and life is sucked out of them.

I am witnessing the destructive consequences of parents who both leave their child to figure life out on their own (leading to a sense of abandonment) and put them in a small box by condemning what they do or dont do. Mainly the parents choose to constantly point out how the child is constantly not measuring up to their standards. Any guidance they give is legalistic. Communication is shut down and alienation results as trust is destroyed. In the name of protection and morality, the parents are producing an adult child who cannot function. More importantly, the adult child is so starved for affection and affirmation that they relate to others in an overly needy way. This drives others away, creating an even greater need for affirmation. Anyone who pays attention to the adult child instantly becomes a "best friend", ultimately driving that person away too.

The effect of legalistic parents on the growth and development of their children is a common example of this Biblical truth. Ironically, this is as, if not more, prevalent in Christian homes.

Every occurrence is sad, but when this happens to those close to us, it becomes "heart break hotel".

But there's always HOPE in the redemptive work of Grace.

Fathers, give your children, especially teens
        favor
        all that is good (that's peace, shalom, btw)
        life

i HOPE i make this putt

Like in golf, people often use the word HOPE to really mean "wish". "i hope it doesn't rain today", "i hope i get this or that for Christmas", and so on. This has been a pet peeve of mine for a long time but I just got home from golf with the guys and I was reminded how much we misuse the word. When a bud said "i hope the opponents are struggling today," I reminded him that we had no assurance that they were messing up so you really have no hope, just a wish.

I then took the opportunity to explain that we make the real notion of hope meaningless because we have chronic misuse of it in our culture.




You may be saying to yourself by now, "what's the big deal?" Well, one reason the Christian faith is irrelevant to the faithless in our world is because the HOPE that is promised doesn't have meaning beyond that of a wish. Its not a very exciting proposition to simply wish God is on our side, or just wish His promises are true or wish He would bless us.

The word HOPE means an assurance or confidence something is. So when we HOPE something is true or going to happen, the probability is 100% that it is or will. The original Webster dictionary says "hope always gives joy whereas wish or desire may produce or be accompanied by pain or anxiety."  Thus when God in His word says your HOPE is in Him, He means you can depend on Him, not just wish He comes through.

I love Abraham's perspective when God said he would be a father of many generations. He was very old and had no heir. Abraham claimed he "in HOPE, without HOPE, believed." In other words Abraham believed the assurance of God's promise even when there was no confidence in what he saw or understood about his ability to father a nation.

When we have 100% assurance we will make the putt, we can say "i HOPE i make that putt." Until then we need to stay with "wish" so that we don't embed in our mind the HOPE we receive from God is only likely. Our joy and freedom depends on how we make sense of HOPE.

Making sense like a Seal

Tonight I heard Thom Shea speak. Thom is a retired Navy Seal and author of the book "Unbreakable: A Navy Seal's Way of Life".

Thom served 23 years with distinguished Valor as a Navy SEAL. During his military career he served in three wars, ultimately leading a team of Navy SEALs into Afghanistan in 2009 where he earned a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Valor, Army Commendation with Valor and his second Combat Action medal. He was hand-selected to serve as Officer In Charge of the famed SEAL Sniper course from 2010 – 2012. During his two year tenure, he transformed the sniper curriculum while successfully increasing both graduation numbers and shooting performance test scores.

Thom currently works with executives and high performance individuals "to achieve the next horizon level results." Instead of just telling interesting stories, Thom shared the mindset of a Navy Seal and how that form of sense-making leads to success as a seal in battle or as an individual in any area of life. Below are just quotes from his sharing with the group that I found self explanatory so I find no need to embellish them, just report them for your hearing.

"Quitting is up to me, nobody else.
When your plan fails, now everything is possible.
I don't have a solution, I'm always in motion til it happens.
Two inches from the point you give up is the solution.
You don;t need permission, just do it - change what's in your way.
I am living the life I created for myself.
Embrace the obstacles.
Quitting almost always makes sense.
Don't decide 9to quit or go on) "here", get to "there" and make the decision.
If you don't give up, it is phenomenal.
No matter how smart you are, if you are not committed to the end game, you cannot win."
It doesn't matter who the boss is, you can always be effective.
It doesn't matter who the enemy is, they are the enemy.
High level performers are always honing their craft.
What if you gave yourself permission not to quit to make yourself better."

Success as a Navy Seal was being transformed by this mindset and living it right in the throws of defeat.

Certainly worth pondering ..... 

"The Theory of Everything"

The recent movie by this title is the story of Steven Hawking, a British physicist noted for his book "The Brief History of Time." The focus of Hawking's development as a physicist was his quest for "the perfect equation." He believed that there existed a single equation that could explain all of life, such as origin of universe and the meaning of time. The word "theory" does not refer to abstraction or "blue sky" as many generally think. A theory is simply explaining the way something is. While some of the fascination with Hawking has been his contribution to secular humanist philosophies, some has been his miraculous initiatives during his dehabilitating illness.

As I sat watching an interesting story, but trying to understand what he really was saying (he has a lot of contradicting positions), it dawned on me that "The Theory of Everything" great minds pursued is not AN EQUATION, but the demand there must be AN EQUATION. What do I mean by this? In my research and studies I have come to the conclusion that the core explanation of the natural world (as evidenced by economics, ecology, physics, religion, and humanity) is the equilibrium imperative. The very fact that everything needs an equation to be properly explained is in itself the basis for everything. The need to have the left side of an equation to be in balance with the right side of the equation is the fundamental explanation of everything. Hawking actually acknowledges this (albeit unknowingly) when he writes, "ever since the dawn of civilization, people have not been content to see events as unconnected and inexplicable. They have craved an understanding of the underlying order in the world."

Without ever questioning it, people immediately seek "cause and effect", every outcome must be connected to a cause -

    
Columbine, Katrina, 9/11, price of oil, 2008 financial crisis, and so on. People are obsessed with what's on the other side of the equation, never questioning their assumption that there must be an equation. What explains everything is the requirement for equation (equilibrium).

Hawking found his work especially problematic in dealing with humanity. In his book he states, "If there really is a complete unified theory that governs everything, it presumably also determines your actions. But it does so in a way that is impossible to calculate for an organism that is as complicated as a human being." I find his lack of application for his "theory of everything" in human behavior interesting because my theory of everything does explain human behavior. In the field of humanity the equilibrium imperative is explained by the companion theories of Social Exchange, Equity, and Attribution (as I have written about many times in various forms). BTW, my theory of everything is not really mine, God gave it to all of us in His word.

An interesting object lesson embedded in Hawking's story is his wife. Falling in love with Steven as a Ph D student before his illness, she decided to marry him when she found out about his illness and "committed her life" to helping him through his challenges, given she thought he would only live two years. After many years of tremendous courage (3 children with Steven) and sacrifice of her own pursuits for a Ph D, she eventually succumbed to the pressure of a seemingly one-way relationship. At some point what was on the left side of her equation denoting benefits of relationship with Steven didn't balance with her sacrifices and lack of self satisfying life experiences. So the marriage ended and she sought to live her life with another man. Disequilibrium seeking equilibrium explains the behavior of his wife. Although she was a member of the Church of England, her Christianity had not transformed her from being subject to the governance of her humanity.

This is where the "Theory of Everything" runs into a problem, even mine. Hawking's and my theory on the equilibrium imperative explains only the natural order of life. Lets call this the kingdom of this world, governed by equations. God tells us that He has a Kingdom and it is different. Grace, not equilibrium, explains how this Kingdom is governed. We are told that His Kingdom is eternal and invisible, while the kingdom of this world is temporal and visible. Jesus would often say, "The Kingdom of heaven is like this...", to emphasize another Kingdom.

Thus we have a problem with a theory for everything, there are two worlds, which are distinctly different. So different that the core theory for each are completely contradictory (incompatible). Maybe this is why Hawking kept finding a need to contradict himself. He was anchored in one kingdom but occasionally receiving glimpses of the other Kingdom.

That's how the movie made me ponder ......

Justice makes u feel equal - Grace makes u feel special

There has been much made of the Ferguson Mo incident as it relates to the current state of race relations in the US. The dominant theme of protest is injustice done to blacks by the law enforcement community, which is seen as collateral damage from a bigoted society. There is a significant perspective in the American church that Christians have failed to do their part in society to enhance the justice afforded the African American community. This criticism generally stems from the assumptions about the connection of social justice and the Gospel.

I have long been critical myself about the view of Christians in the US I call "the social gospel". I must make the distinction between the role of Christians to carry out their faith in a fallen world, to be salt and light, and the idea that the central theme of the Gospel and the main concern of Jesus is justice.

Justice is grounded in man's need for equilibrium - get what u deserve or equal distribution of wealth, etc. Despite the problem that fairness has multiple norms, such as equity, equality, and need, and is therefore impossible to get society to agree on what is fair, justice is man's need, not God's plan of redemption.

For instance, in Matt 20 Jesus explains what the Kingdom is like. He describes workers who labor all day but get the same reward as those who work only a few hours. Social justice advocates ask, doesn't this mean that justice is equality and central to the Kingdom? No, Jesus says that the Kingdom operates at the discretion of the King, that He does what he wants and that His desire is to bless kingdom dwellers as He pleases (Grace, substantiated in much of the New Testament). Those individuals that demand justice (btw, justice is the equity norm of fairness), can't face the Grace of the Master and leave. "The first shall be last and the last first" is not in any form a statement of justice as the prevailing norm of the Kingdom.

Pointing others to justice is NOT pointing others to Christ. Treating others fairly may make them feel equal, but treating others with the Grace that flows through us makes them feel SPECIAL - a more excellent way.
      
certainly worth pondering and is explained in more depth in

"Obedience Applied"

This is the title of a recent sermon on Philippians 2: 12-13 (some of my favorite scripture). Those of you that know me can speculate on how I must have cringed at this title. My issue is not with "obedience" itself (although I do struggle with rules), but with the perspective that "obedience" is not the heart of the Gospel. Being obedient is not the "good news". Grace is. Immediately I wished the title of the sermon was "Grace Applied."

I generally do not take exception to my pastor's theology of "obedience", just the central focus of it. He defines "obedience" as "faith in action", unlike the notion of rule following as many other preachers do. However, the ears of parishioners are tuned into rule following as the meaning of obedience. partially because our flesh demands legalism (equilibrium imperative) and partially because this is what the word actually means. Obedience is the somewhat automatic, demanded response to authority. The seas and the demons "obeyed" Jesus because of His authority over them. Obedience in scripture has a military context, soldiers have to obey their authority or they no longer remain soldiers.

When the basis of the Christian life is tied to this notion of obedience, behavior conforming to the law or God's commandments, then there is no joy, hope, and significance. This is a futile treadmill. This is why so many Christians live this side of eternity with a "grin and bear it" posture, looking for deliverance at our biological death. It is true that we do in some ways moan for our full redemption, but our life here and now should expect the outcome of the good news. Jesus came so that we may have joy, abundant life. Is that only for later? I don't think so.

A song by Aaron Senseman includes these lines,

"There is truth in His body, raised the third day.
There is joy in a stone rolled away.
There is hope pouring out of the tomb where He lay,
pouring out, pouring out over the grave."

The Incarnate Christ, conquering sin and death, on our behalf is our joy, hope and significance - here and now. Christmas is about Jesus' obedience not ours, creating the disequilibrium of Grace, FOR US.

To fully enjoy the reason for the season, we must find the freedom in Grace, not to do anything we wish, but to live in thanksgiving, without the shackles of our STINKIN THINKIN