Two Books. Common Themes.

I'm reading two books right now. They are both excellent. One of these is a an innovative business/self-help book by Seth Godin called "Linchpin". The other is the book "A Purpose Driven Life" by Rick Warren offering Spiritual guidance. The interesting thing is that two books from such vastly different genres can come to many of the same conclusions.
Linchpin
"Linchpin" is a powerful book that I guarantee will inspire you. We all have the opportunity to deliver remarkable work. One of the things that distinguishes a linchpin is that he/she embraces the opportunity to deliver exceptional work.
The average cog delivers average work, while the linchpin delivers remarkable work. Have you ever seen a janitor, waiter, stewardess that did his/her job with such skill and enthusiasm that it inspired you? It becomes a gift from that person - to the world.
Godin points out that this "gift" characteristic of a Linchpin's work, is key. Godin uses the term "art" to describe whatever talent it is you are good at, hold dear, and are sharing with others. (I've witnessed a lot of this in those attending our Friday morning group.) For example - singing, writing, building, humor. Being good with people or with numbers could be your art. Godin encourages us to exercise that talent, nurture it, dump ourselves into it, then find a way to give it away (for free.)
Godin would says that We cheat ourselves, other people, and ultimately are not as effective if we insist on charging for our art. While some do get rich off their art, its usually not what true artists are in it for.
The Purpose Driven Life
The other book i'm reading is "A Purpose Driven Life". It reached the height of its popularity about 5 years ago. Warren also talks about our gifts - our spiritual gifts - and how we all have a unique "shape" for service.
While Godin calls it our "Art", and encourages the reader to execute on his/her art at all cost, as this is the only way to truly become indispensable. Not only indispensable to your employer - but to the rest of the world as well.
Warren refers to it as our "Shape" - the qualities and talents each of us have that make our contribution unique.
Live true to your Art? Maybe.
What does it mean to be true to one's art? Linchpins like Tiger Woods and Nora Roberts have proven success based on constant practice and execution to their "shape".
Warren points out that our primary ministry should be in the area of our "shape", but our secondary service is wherever we are needed at the moment. We must give up our schedule, as well as any tendency to avoid service that doesn't fit our talents. Hey, wouldn't this interrupt our quest to become a Linchpin? I feel this may be one area where the books diverge. Warren's "seize the moment" kind of service neither fits our schedule, no any special talent or gift we might have. Warren asks "Can God mess up your plans without you becoming resentful?"
Good Enough
Warren is also a firm believer in the "good enough" principal: It doesn't have to be perfect for God to use and bless it." This "good enough" principal does not sit as comfortably with the Linchpin, who constantly strives to deliver remarkable work.
Serve through Gifts
One area where both authors meet is regarding the Gift culture. Warren: "We serve God by serving others", giving gifts. Warren says that Jesus is our ultimate model of a servant, a gift giver, with no expectation of return. Godin doesn't mention God or Jesus anywhere yet believes firmly that our "art" should find its way to others as gifts. Both authors admit that this is not a popular concept in our self-serving capitalistic culture.
How does this apply to my life?
Do you have an area that you feel fits your shape? A talent you could provide as gifts freely given to others. Are you lucky enough that your job allows you to do this work? There is a lot of pressure that comes with living up to our true potential and delivering remarkable work (our "Art" at Godin calls it.) Maybe this has something to do with why the lives of so many outstanding musicians/writers/actors/athletes can (behind the scenes) seem so out of control.
I find myself applying the good enough principal quite often when it comes to delivery at work, at home, and to my church.
Our natural talents and gifts must take a back seat sometimes when we make choices on what needs to get done from day to day. Its in our best interest not to be stubborn here. Strive to be remarkable with your "art", but not at the expense of overlooking serving other, even if you'll never be better than "good enough." Don't let an unrelenting focus on "remarkable" cause you to miss an opportunity to deliver where "good enough" is fine.
Whatever your take away from these books - i encourage you to check them out and I'd love to hear what you think.

Why Jonah 2?

by James Tate

I struggle with prayer. Too many are not answered. I know folks who journal, and track their prayers and can detail the responses. I’m not one of those people. And to be honest, I’ve often questioned those “journaling” folks and their reasoning.

I also struggle with knowing when to pray. I know were told to be in constant prayer. In my experience anyway, I usually result to prayer in desperation. I can relate to Jonah here.

Prayer, to me, is primarily for thanksgiving, or a communication of my desires/ struggles or for seeking HIS guidance, and unfortunately usually in that order. For some reason, I’ve continued to pray. Why? I like the fact that the communication lines are always open, with maybe with practice and persistence, I’ll understand that it’s supposed to be a mystery how and when they’re answered.

Everyday Miracles

Thank you Forrest for a thought provoking session last Friday morning. The video at the end was unusual, and continues to haunt me afterwords.

http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2009/aug/14/16-moments/

The video focuses on everyday moments and ordinary people. In doing so, it manages to convey how extraordinary and beautiful these moments (and people involved) are. It relentlessly flashes scene after scene of common episodes of life and demands our full attention be given to each one. It is there I see things for the first time. The undeniable beauty, wonder, and mystery of the moments. The characters - a cast of the most ordinary folks you can imagine - yet when the spotlight is on them we can make out the nobility, strength, potential (and amazingly intelligent design) behind each one.

We are rarely aware of these moments. We aren't wired to pay attention. The world becomes a blur around us. Sometimes that is good, it allows us to focus on our driving or that email that needs to go out. The video made me linger, indulge in the moment, and appreciate and marvel at the things we take for granted everyday.

There are certain people who do a better job at recognizing the miracles of moments and appreciating them. Poets certainly are more atune to these things. But there are also members of our group who appreciate the little moments. I've heard them say so. Perhaps as a result from brushes with death, loss of loved ones, or just general life experience - they have managed to escape the tunnel vision and are able to recognize, experience, and feel the moments.

Keith Jennings writes about many of the same themes we talk about during our Friday morning meetings. He recently wrote a a piece that I feel complements the video nicely.

http://keithjennings.typepad.com/keitharsis/2010/09/taking-invisible-pictures.html

Check out Keith's other stuff as well. I highly recommend his writings.

Relationships are good for you

I’ve recently been contemplating what makes people happy in life. I’ve gone through phases where I was certain that work was the source of happiness.

In light of the recent downturn I’ve come to the realization that my job is much too fragile and vulnerable to economic whims to allow it such status in my life. I enjoy my work and it does bring happiness on occasion – but its volatile and will turn on you from time to time. Where can I invest some energy and expect a better return on investment in terms of happiness?

I started reading a book called “The Happiness Hypothesis” by Jonathan Haidt and was intrigued to hear about studies done by Emile Durkheim. He studied the factors that affect the suicide rate. He found that the number of “social commitments” one has plays a big part in the equation. Turns out that people who have fewer social constraints, bonds, and obligations are more likely to kill themselves. Durkheim’s study goes on to say:

“The more weakened the groups to which [a man] belongs, the less he depends on them, the more he consequently depends only on himself and recognizes no other rules of conduct than what are founded on his private interests.” (as cited in Haidt, 2006, p. 133)

Further studies since have confirmed Durkheim’s diagnosis. "Having strong social relationships strengthens the immune system, extends life (more than does quitting smoking), speeds recovery from surgery, and reduces the risks of depression and anxiety disorders.” (Haidt, 2006, p. 133).

I’m somewhat of an introvert. Always have been. According to these (pretty convincing) studies, sounds like this could be bad for my health. In fact this book has convinced me that we should go out of our way to intertwine with others, make obligations, and commit ourselves. All these things have been shown in studies to be beneficial to our health. We need the commitments and constraints that naturally arise from ongoing participation in a community.
From the book:

“people … leave homes, jobs, cities, and marriages in search of personal and professional fulfillment, thereby breaking the relationships athat were probably their best hope for such fulfillment.” (Haidt, 2006, p. 133)

The next time you consider whether to plant yourself into a tightly knit community and risk exposing yourself to deep relationships – DO IT! It may save your life!

Reference List:
Haidt, J. (2006). The Happiness Hypothesis (p. 133). New York, NY. Basic Books.

Something to shoot for

That's actually not a UGA fan's urinal.

Yes, that is a yellow jacket on it (see insert, upper corner of photo).

But it's not real.

And it's not graffiti.

It's there by design. It has purpose.

It gives the guys something to aim for.

It gives them something to shoot for and to achieve.

Studies indicate that when you put a little image on the urinal, "spillage" is reduced by 80%.

Which begs the question of course, Who's measuring that?

But it's not hard to believe.

So, if we like to have something to shoot for and to achieve in the stall, you can believe we like to have something to shoot for and to achieve at work, at home, with friends, at church, and along the faith journey.

So who and how is that determined: what to shoot for?

What are some of the things you are shooting for in life right now? Where do you go for help?

How much spillage you got?

Metcalfe's Law and the Church

posted by Gary Lee

100 Men and 4,950 Potential Connections 

 

 

As we discussed the network diagrams last Friday morning, I could not help but 

think of the value of these connections and how the concept of networking is so 

important to the ministry of this church. 

 

First, as self-confession, I am somewhat of a geek at heart.  Around 1980 I 

discovered my first personal computer and was hooked forever.  I started out 

writing software professionally, stumbled into telecommunications and have had 

a very interesting career exploring new technologies, and how technologies 

change how we work, play and become part of the global world where today 

virtually every major part of the planet is interconnected somehow. 

 

So with my geek-factor in mind, I could not help but think about the network 

diagrams Forrest presented with my geek hat on.    While these were intended to 

show the interconnectivity between people and groups within the church, they 

could easily be diagrams of any physical computer or telecommunications 

network, and I’ve probably reviewed hundreds of these over the years.   

 

Several communications principles, and the design rules and maxims borrowed 

from telecommunications can be applied to the church networks as diagrammed 

for our church and its ministry: 

 

The Hub Network Model: 

 

Where we have a limited set of 

connections and a centralized hub, 

several problems exist: 

 

1) the “networks” (ie: the 

various ministries) are limited 

in their ability to share 

information by the 

connection back to the hub.  

This hub might be a single 

person, group or even the concept of the church as a building and the 

center of our church.  In this model, if all networks wished to 

communicate, or share information or projects, the value of the network is 

limited by the few links made available for the solution and the potential for 

these links or the hub to be bottlenecks for information to easily flow back 

and forth.  Think of the hub-and-spoke model for airlines, which works 

great when O’Hare and Hartsfield have good weather, and rather poorly 

when both (and the NY corridor) are fogged in at the same time. 

 

2) The hub network also has single points of failure which can 

potentially isolate groups and / or individuals from the rest of the 

network.  In communications networks, one rarely designs a single 

connection linking networks together.  If the single connection fails, the 

network becomes an isolated island.   As I mentioned in our meeting last 

Friday, let’s take the example where one of the end points connecting 

through the hub is an individual, whose sole connection into the network 

via the hub (aka the church in this example) is the Youth Group.  If 

something happens to that person at a Youth Group meeting to upset 

them, hurt them or otherwise make them uncomfortable, the connection 

between that person and everyone else around the church (hub) is 

broken. There is just one, tenuous path connecting that person, group, 

mission team, etc to everyone else.    

 

The Church Web: 

 

Where we have many interconnections between people, groups, teams, 

FUMC, the community around FUMC, local missions, etc, etc (aka: the church web), 

several valuable concepts arise: 

 

1) The networks have 

greater value as more 

interconnections are 

made, and more people 

can connect together to 

share information, answer questions, be a resource of gifts and 

talents to others, be a prayer partner, etc.  Church becomes less of a 

“Sunday morning thing” happening at a “the hub” (aka the church 

building), and more of a network of like-minded people and resources that 

is impactful daily and weekly at work, school, life, etc.   

 

In the telecommunications industry there is a “law” called Metcalfe’s Law*, 

attributed to Robert Metcalfe – the guy who invented a core technology**

that allows all of our computers to interconnect / network today.   

 

Metcalfe theorized that the value of any telecommunications network is 

proportional to the square of the number of users on the network 

(Memorize that and quote in your next staff meeting – impressive eh?).    

 

In layman’s terms, Metcalfe’s Law states that a network is more valuable 

as more and more people use it and become interconnected via unique 

connections where they can share information.   

                                                 

 *Not to be confused with Moore’s Law, attributed to Gordon Moore, one of the very bright co-founders of 

Intel.  In 1965, Moore forecasted electronics would double in speed, memory capacity etc. every two years.  

So far, it’s held fairly true for every year since 1965. 

 

 **Ethernet 

 

 

As an example, if we have a simple network of two cans and a string, a 

single network connection is built between the users of the cans thus 

providing value via the one communications path between the two users.  

If we can somehow string up a tin-can-network for five people, and each 

could share information independently with each other, then 10 

independent and simultaneous connections exist between the users.  For 

twenty users, 190 unique connections could be made allowing for each 

user to have an independent communications path for the exchange of 

information simultaneously with the other nineteen users***. 

 

To really demonstrate Metcalfe’s law, imagine the value of the mobile / 

cellular network.  As of the end of June, 2009, over 4Billion 4 connections 

were in place around the world connecting people, machines and 

networks.  And with more and more of these able to exchange messages, 

email or access the Internet, soon almost anyone in the world could in 

theory exchange an idea, or sell a widget to almost anyone else.  The 

value of the mobile network is not based on the capitalized assets that 

make up the physical network, but the value of the sheer mass of 

humanity interconnected via a single web of connections. 

  

In our church, 100 men all interconnected via a church web represents the 

POTENTIAL for 4,950 different and simultaneous connections, 

conversations, threads of help, encouragement, etc. WOW!! 

 

2) The greater the connections, the less impact if a single link or 

connection is severed.     As mentioned previously in the hub model, if 

an individual’s only connection to the church is worship on Sunday 

morning, or youth group, or choir or local missions, and something occurs 

to damage that connection, the individual may separate from the church 

forever.  As the person, ministry, family, and / or network has more and 

more links to others within the church community, it is able to sustain 

these blows more easily, as “church” is defined by the sum of all 

connections for these entities. 

 

I don’t think Mr. Metcalfe had this in mind when he pontificated his “Law” for 

communications networks, but it certainly has merit when we look at how our 

network of ministries and people can and should be interconnected in the life of 

the church.   The greater the number of connections which exist between the 

men in the church and the church community at large, the tighter the meaning of 

“church community” as a concept.   

 

 ***for you math wizzes who are already trying to deduce the calculation, it’s ((n*(n-1))/2) where n = the 

number of people in the network that require connections).  For those who are math-challenged like me, just nod appreciably and move on 

 

 ****Source:  WCIS, July 13, 2009 

Is our church network two cans and a string?  An “Information cul-de-sac”?  A 

web of connections?  What we need and want it to be?  Is this something for this 

Allies group to tackle?  How do we get there?    

the art of community development

Do you think these lines from (he Art of War by Sun Tzu apply to our community like they did to his army?
"We cannot enter into alliances until we are acquainted with the designs of our neighbors."
If it's true of us are you excited about the possibility or does it discourage you?