I've been overweight most of my adult life. I played football (high school) and tennis (high school and college) and was generally a fairly athletic teenager. In fact, I had the opportunity to play tennis professionally. Once I stopped playing and moved on to other things, I gained some weight that I've never taken off. Then I went through a particularly stressful period of time and gained a lot of weight. I tend to be a stress eater.
The last few years, though, I've been convicted about getting healthier, not so much for the sake of appearance (that too), but to be healthier...for all of the typical reasons and, particularly, so that I have the energy I need to keep up with ministry and to set an example for the people in my sphere of influence. I've always kept a fairly rigorous schedule, but I've found myself tiring much more easily.
So I joined the gym and ate better, and dropped over forty pounds from when we moved to Ohio in 2010, most of which during this past August, September and October. In November and December, I had a stretch of 6-8 weeks where I was working 60 to 70 hours a week in front of a computer. I knew I would be forced to be mostly sedentary during that time, so I expected to gain back about fifteen of the pounds I had lost. I gained back nine; less than I expected but still not what I want in the long run.
In the time since, I haven't gained a ton of weight back, but I've definitely hit a plateau. I've gotten out of the gym habit, and while I haven't been eating lots of junk food, I haven't been watching what I eat, paying attention to portions, etc, as much as I was.
That ends now. Starting tomorrow, I am starting a 3 • 30 Challenge (something I just made up): I am committing to lose 30 lbs in the next 3 months. My birthday is July 2, so by then, I will lose 30 lbs. This is not just about losing weight...though I definitely need to do so...but a lifestyle change. When I'm hitting the gym regularly and eating healthier, I feel better. It's that simple. When I'm not, I'm tired more often and more significantly, my long-term back injury acts up, and I'm generally cranky. And, most importantly for me, I need energy to leverage my time for God's kingdom most effectively.
I'm not really worried about motivation. I have a strong will and I finish what I start. But I'm posting it here so it's on "public record" and I have accountability to it. I can honestly say that my greatest desire in life is to honor God. For me, nothing else matters (or, rather, everything else that matters flows from that). I've spent too much of my life not honoring God (and, in fact, dishonoring God) with my physical health. So I'm getting back on track to rectify that. If anyone wants to join me, I'll be glad to have you along. 3 • 30: 3 months, 30 lbs. Book it.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Playing it Safe
The other day I was watching a hockey game with my son, who is six. I asked him, "Do you want to play hockey some day?" He said, "No...that doesn't look very safe."
Aside from being pretty funny, I told him that he's a kid - he's not supposed to be worried about what's safe. He's supposed to be worried about what's fun. But it got me thinking about how we adults often act this way in life. Especially those of us who are Jesus followers...how often do we avoid taking risks in ministry because "it doesn't look safe". I don't mean safe just like in avoiding bodily harm (though that too), but more in terms of not moving out of our comfort zone, not making the extra effort, not going beyond what we are used to. Just...playing it safe.
Here's the reality: over the course of history, very few things have been accomplished by playing it safe. How much life do you miss by playing it safe? How many of the opportunities God gives you do you neglect because you're playing it safe?
I hope my son plays hockey some day (or football, or guitar, or...whatever). But more than that, I hope he doesn't avoid taking risks for the sake of God's kingdom. For that matter, I hope I (and you) don't either.
Aside from being pretty funny, I told him that he's a kid - he's not supposed to be worried about what's safe. He's supposed to be worried about what's fun. But it got me thinking about how we adults often act this way in life. Especially those of us who are Jesus followers...how often do we avoid taking risks in ministry because "it doesn't look safe". I don't mean safe just like in avoiding bodily harm (though that too), but more in terms of not moving out of our comfort zone, not making the extra effort, not going beyond what we are used to. Just...playing it safe.
Here's the reality: over the course of history, very few things have been accomplished by playing it safe. How much life do you miss by playing it safe? How many of the opportunities God gives you do you neglect because you're playing it safe?
I hope my son plays hockey some day (or football, or guitar, or...whatever). But more than that, I hope he doesn't avoid taking risks for the sake of God's kingdom. For that matter, I hope I (and you) don't either.
Saturday, March 22, 2014
Organizing the Bus
I am a big fan of Jim Collins, particularly Good to Great. This book came up in conversation with someone today, and it got me thinking about the impact it has had on me. One of the many things about it that has stuck with me is the two-part illustration of an organization being a bus. And, as Collins points out through the interpretation of his research, the first step in organizational development is to get the right people on the bus. Many organizations are good at this (many are not). But the second step is to get the right people in the right seats on the bus. Most organizations (even those good at the first step) are not nearly as good at this second step.
Many leaders understand this, in theory. They get the notion. They quote the notion. But they still don't put it into practice (at least, not well) in the organizations they lead. Because here's the thing I've discovered: many leaders have tunnel vision when it comes to defining what "the right seat" means. They think in terms of roles. That is, "What does the organization need...that's the role we need to fill." The problem with that approach is that very few people fit into that narrow of a definition of a seat. Most people have more than one area of expertise or skill or passion. And many people, in the "employment" process (both from those looking to hire and from those seeking a job), end up sitting in a seat that is either the wrong seat, or may only be the partially right seat (i.e., something at which they can do a decent job, but which may not be the best use of their gifts).
So the "right seat", as I understand it, is not necessarily matching the right person with a particular role (or, rather, not ONLY that), but, more holistically, it is matching up the person with the right opportunities to exercise their particular range of gifts and passions.
Because if we are truly pursuing step one, and getting the right people, then we want to use those people in the best ways possible, to allow them to thrive and to succeed. And when we're focused too much on roles, we miss a lot of potential for our people to flourish.
Obviously there are things at which certain people excel. But getting the right people means then finding opportunities for them to do what they are naturally gifted to do, and at which they will thrive.
I've read a lot about leadership, and one of the things that I see over and over again is the theory of strengths-based leadership...the idea that leaders need to play to their strengths and manage around their weaknesses. It doesn't make sense to spend a ton of time trying to turn a weakness into a strength. Most weaknesses will always be weaknesses. And most strengths are already the things people are good at. So those are the things we need to focus on. Yet many people end up in some nebulous middle ground; something at which they aren't terrible (or which they may even be good at)...but that is not necessarily the best match for their particular strengths or passions.
Strengths-based leadership and "getting the right people into the right seats on the bus" are really the same thing. They're focused on getting the right people regardless of the role, and then finding the areas in which they most excel (which most exercises their strengths and passions).
Where the problem comes is a natural consequence to getting this right: when you match people up with their strengths (and away from just filling a role), it leaves some things to fall through the cracks. The roles that they filled suddenly aren't being filled. I would say two things about this: one, this trade-off is always worth it. Letting a few things fall through the cracks, or finding temporary patches for some things, will always be worth the benefit gained from getting people into the right seats on the bus.
And two, maybe the things that fall through the cracks are not actually what the organization needs. Especially in Christian contexts, we often convince ourselves what is needed, when maybe what we really need are the things which God has already gifted the right people we've already identified. This speaks to something Collins says, which is that great organizations get the right people on the bus before they even know where the bus is going. That is, instead of identifying where the bus needs to go and then finding the people to make it happen (what good organizations do), great organizations get the right people on the bus and then let those right people and their gifts help define where the bus is going by getting them in the right seats. That's a scary thing, especially for organizations that have particularly strong or charismatic individual leaders. But I think Collins hits the nail on the head.
As Collins has identified, great leaders/organizations really get both of these steps, both in theory AND in practice...and getting this right is what separates great organizations from simply good ones.
Many leaders understand this, in theory. They get the notion. They quote the notion. But they still don't put it into practice (at least, not well) in the organizations they lead. Because here's the thing I've discovered: many leaders have tunnel vision when it comes to defining what "the right seat" means. They think in terms of roles. That is, "What does the organization need...that's the role we need to fill." The problem with that approach is that very few people fit into that narrow of a definition of a seat. Most people have more than one area of expertise or skill or passion. And many people, in the "employment" process (both from those looking to hire and from those seeking a job), end up sitting in a seat that is either the wrong seat, or may only be the partially right seat (i.e., something at which they can do a decent job, but which may not be the best use of their gifts).
So the "right seat", as I understand it, is not necessarily matching the right person with a particular role (or, rather, not ONLY that), but, more holistically, it is matching up the person with the right opportunities to exercise their particular range of gifts and passions.
Because if we are truly pursuing step one, and getting the right people, then we want to use those people in the best ways possible, to allow them to thrive and to succeed. And when we're focused too much on roles, we miss a lot of potential for our people to flourish.
Obviously there are things at which certain people excel. But getting the right people means then finding opportunities for them to do what they are naturally gifted to do, and at which they will thrive.
I've read a lot about leadership, and one of the things that I see over and over again is the theory of strengths-based leadership...the idea that leaders need to play to their strengths and manage around their weaknesses. It doesn't make sense to spend a ton of time trying to turn a weakness into a strength. Most weaknesses will always be weaknesses. And most strengths are already the things people are good at. So those are the things we need to focus on. Yet many people end up in some nebulous middle ground; something at which they aren't terrible (or which they may even be good at)...but that is not necessarily the best match for their particular strengths or passions.
Strengths-based leadership and "getting the right people into the right seats on the bus" are really the same thing. They're focused on getting the right people regardless of the role, and then finding the areas in which they most excel (which most exercises their strengths and passions).
Where the problem comes is a natural consequence to getting this right: when you match people up with their strengths (and away from just filling a role), it leaves some things to fall through the cracks. The roles that they filled suddenly aren't being filled. I would say two things about this: one, this trade-off is always worth it. Letting a few things fall through the cracks, or finding temporary patches for some things, will always be worth the benefit gained from getting people into the right seats on the bus.
And two, maybe the things that fall through the cracks are not actually what the organization needs. Especially in Christian contexts, we often convince ourselves what is needed, when maybe what we really need are the things which God has already gifted the right people we've already identified. This speaks to something Collins says, which is that great organizations get the right people on the bus before they even know where the bus is going. That is, instead of identifying where the bus needs to go and then finding the people to make it happen (what good organizations do), great organizations get the right people on the bus and then let those right people and their gifts help define where the bus is going by getting them in the right seats. That's a scary thing, especially for organizations that have particularly strong or charismatic individual leaders. But I think Collins hits the nail on the head.
As Collins has identified, great leaders/organizations really get both of these steps, both in theory AND in practice...and getting this right is what separates great organizations from simply good ones.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Parenting Wisdom
Our small group has been talking about Christian marriage/relationships, and all that comes with that. In my years of marital counseling, I have often discussed some of the most commonly cited reasons for relational conflict and separation/divorce. These are the most frequently given answers:
1. Money
2. Child-rearing (and all that goes with it)
3. Sex and sexual issues
4. Roles and Expectations
5. Addictions
6. Conflict (the ways we handle conflict)
7. Communication
Each of these (but especially the last couple/few) can affect all of the others, but are often given as their own sources of conflict. Note that number one is WAY higher than any of the others. Money is easily the number one source of conflict. The others aren't even close. That said, the others are significant enough on their own, and can be just as common.
Each can be the subject of years of study and discussion, but this week our group is particularly talking about number 2: child rearing. One of the things that I often find is that we assume that parents of godly children must be great parents, and that parents of children who are far from God must be bad parents. This is folly. Children make their own choices. Obviously there can be correlations. But often we dismiss (or flat out ignore) insight from parents whose children may be far from God...and, in turn, they may be more reluctant to speak up and offer the often significant advice and insight they can have for other parents. On the contrary, we often give extra credence to insight from parents whose children are following God even when they aren't necessarily the best parents themselves.
I'll illustrate my point (and then explain it) with an example from hockey, the best sport on the planet. Often, the referees are guilty of what is commonly called "calling the result". What this means is that, if an official sees one player suddenly fall down, they will automatically call tripping on a nearby opposing player, even if that player had no contact with the one who fell. Or the official will see a player's head snap back and will call a high sticking penalty on an opposing player even if his stick never left the ice. On the contrary, one player can clearly and obviously be interfered with, but no penalty is called because the other player stayed on his feet. In other words, the referee makes the call based on the result...what the other player does or does not do...rather than on the actual action of the source (the guilty or innocent player).
Here's my point with this: we often do the same thing with parents/children. We judge based on the results, rather than on the source. We miss much sound advice from parents that have a lot of wisdom specifically because their kids are far from God, and listen to foolish insight from parents just because their kids may be following God (even though their kids may be wiser than they are!).
This is, of course, far more broad-reaching than just parenting. We do this in all kinds of ways. We judge the result, or judge based on our perceptions, on our preconceived notions of people rather than the reality. We foolishly allow our own issues to dictate our opinions of others, and thus what we can learn from them. We need to judge wisdom on its own merits...not on our perceptions of its source.
1. Money
2. Child-rearing (and all that goes with it)
3. Sex and sexual issues
4. Roles and Expectations
5. Addictions
6. Conflict (the ways we handle conflict)
7. Communication
Each of these (but especially the last couple/few) can affect all of the others, but are often given as their own sources of conflict. Note that number one is WAY higher than any of the others. Money is easily the number one source of conflict. The others aren't even close. That said, the others are significant enough on their own, and can be just as common.
Each can be the subject of years of study and discussion, but this week our group is particularly talking about number 2: child rearing. One of the things that I often find is that we assume that parents of godly children must be great parents, and that parents of children who are far from God must be bad parents. This is folly. Children make their own choices. Obviously there can be correlations. But often we dismiss (or flat out ignore) insight from parents whose children may be far from God...and, in turn, they may be more reluctant to speak up and offer the often significant advice and insight they can have for other parents. On the contrary, we often give extra credence to insight from parents whose children are following God even when they aren't necessarily the best parents themselves.
I'll illustrate my point (and then explain it) with an example from hockey, the best sport on the planet. Often, the referees are guilty of what is commonly called "calling the result". What this means is that, if an official sees one player suddenly fall down, they will automatically call tripping on a nearby opposing player, even if that player had no contact with the one who fell. Or the official will see a player's head snap back and will call a high sticking penalty on an opposing player even if his stick never left the ice. On the contrary, one player can clearly and obviously be interfered with, but no penalty is called because the other player stayed on his feet. In other words, the referee makes the call based on the result...what the other player does or does not do...rather than on the actual action of the source (the guilty or innocent player).
Here's my point with this: we often do the same thing with parents/children. We judge based on the results, rather than on the source. We miss much sound advice from parents that have a lot of wisdom specifically because their kids are far from God, and listen to foolish insight from parents just because their kids may be following God (even though their kids may be wiser than they are!).
This is, of course, far more broad-reaching than just parenting. We do this in all kinds of ways. We judge the result, or judge based on our perceptions, on our preconceived notions of people rather than the reality. We foolishly allow our own issues to dictate our opinions of others, and thus what we can learn from them. We need to judge wisdom on its own merits...not on our perceptions of its source.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)