Is thinking enough?

Most of the time when you teach or preach in a church there are those wonderful people who always complement you.  "Good sermon today." "I liked what you had to say." "Great job, I love the energy."  These are common and while more than likely truthful, they are also most of the time benign.

That is to say these comments, while encouraging, are also very safe complements and comments.  There is little risk on behalf of the complementer while the target of the complementer is sometimes left wondering, "what do they really feel/think?"  This is why groups who give feedback are always asked to be specific with feedback so that others can use the feedback to become better.

There is a common, regular and specific bit of feedback that I get when I teach or preach, which you can agree or disagree with but it sounds like this; "You make me think."

While everyone thinks as a result of a speech or a teaching session, I used to wonder what people are thinking about.  Did I say something offensive (sometimes)?  Was I misinformed in my thesis (sometimes)?  Did I cut someone off (sometimes)?  However, now I have moved beyond wondering what people are thinking and I want to know if thinking is enough?

Is it enough to get people to think about things?  Is it enough to invite people to call into question somethings they once thought were sacred?  Is it enough to engage people's brains and intellect?

Or is there more to being a Christian than getting people to think?

I cannot recall many people throughout time who were persuaded to change their life as a result of logical arguments.  Jesus engaged the powers that be with great logic only to see very few of them be persuaded.

Is it enough to get people to think?

Seth Godin has this little line which I think points to something of a response to the question:

"People are moved by stories and drama and hints and clues and discovery.  Logic is a battering ram, one that might work if your case is overwhelming. Wal-Mart won by logic (cheap!), but you probably won't."

It is good to get people to think about their spirituality, but that really is not enough.  It is good to get people to think about what they believe, but it is not enough.  The Church can be a place where we can get people thinking.  


It is good to get people to think, but getting them to act is a whole other skill set.

E-mail Charter to consider

This is not my email charter, it is rather TED curator Chris Anderson's email charter which he is encouraging people to consider signing and sharing.  Below is the charter in it's entirety and here is the link to the charter's site.  


I have signed and tweeted it out, will you?

1. Respect Recipients' Time
This is the fundamental rule. As the message sender, the onus is on YOU to minimize the time your email will take to process. Even if it means taking more time at your end before sending.

2. Short or Slow is not Rude
Let's mutually agree to cut each other some slack. Given the email load we're all facing, it's OK if replies take a while coming and if they don't give detailed responses to all your questions. No one wants to come over as brusque, so please don't take it personally. We just want our lives back!

3. Celebrate Clarity
Start with a subject line that clearly labels the topic, and maybe includes a status category [Info], [Action], [Time Sens] [Low Priority]. Use crisp, muddle-free sentences. If the email has to be longer than five sentences, make sure the first provides the basic reason for writing. Avoid strange fonts and colors.

4. Quash Open-Ended Questions
It is asking a lot to send someone an email with four long paragraphs of turgid text followed by "Thoughts?". Even well-intended-but-open questions like "How can I help?" may not be that helpful. Email generosity requires simplifying, easy-to-answer questions. "Can I help best by a) calling b) visiting or c) staying right out of it?!"

5. Slash Surplus cc's
cc's are like mating bunnies. For every recipient you add, you are dramatically multiplying total response time. Not to be done lightly! When there are multiple recipients, please don't default to 'Reply All'. Maybe you only need to cc a couple of people on the original thread. Or none.

6. Tighten the Thread
Some emails depend for their meaning on context. Which means it's usually right to include the thread being responded to. But it's rare that a thread should extend to more than 3 emails. Before sending, cut what's not relevant. Or consider making a phone call instead.

7. Attack Attachments
Don't use graphics files as logos or signatures that appear as attachments. Time is wasted trying to see if there's something to open. Even worse is sending text as an attachment when it could have been included in the body of the email.

8. Give these Gifts: EOM NNTR
If your email message can be expressed in half a dozen words, just put it in the subject line, followed by EOM (= End of Message). This saves the recipient having to actually open the message. Ending a note with "No need to respond" or NNTR, is a wonderful act of generosity. Many acronyms confuse as much as help, but these two are golden and deserve wide adoption.

9. Cut Contentless Responses
You don't need to reply to every email, especially not those that are themselves clear responses. An email saying "Thanks for your note. I'm in." does not need you to reply "Great." That just cost someone another 30 seconds.

10. Disconnect!
If we all agreed to spend less time doing email, we'd all get less email! Consider calendaring half-days at work where you can't go online. Or a commitment to email-free weekends. Or an 'auto-response' that references this charter. And don't forget to smell the roses.

Back in 2009 I had a post that explored the idea that while Jesus learned the trade of carpentry, he did not use many carpentry metaphors when talking about the kingdom of God.  

After further reflection on this idea more thoughts have been stewing in my brain.  

Not only did Jesus not use much carpentry language he also did not use much fishing language to talk about the kingdom of God.  It is interesting to me that Jesus did not use much insider language with his parables.  

Jesus used a lot of farming metaphors, wedding metaphors and even the occasional sheep metaphor.  These are the images that the followers of Jesus, the crowd that surrounded Jesus, could understand because it was their world - their images.  

I can understand how the disciples never seemed to "get it" even though they were with Jesus all the time.  

He was using language that was rooted in the life experience of the non-believer and the crowd.  He did not spend much time trying to appease or create insider language with just himself and the twelve.  

Is this not a way to consider the mission of the church?  

Too often we gather on Sunday morning expecting the same things that we who attend, understand and "get". We use insider language and even are fearful to change things because we might "upset" the most faithful members.  So we continue to do what we do in order that those who are in the church can be comforted and those who are not in the church can continue to feel like church is, at best, weird.  

What would it look like to take a model that we might find in the way of Jesus?  What if we created a church that was so concerned about connecting with those outside the church that those in the church would even be willing to "not get it" like the twelve disciples.  

Do you get or understand Jesus, or are you like the disciples and continually scratch your head wondering what the heck this Jesus guy is teaching and saying?