Your zipper is down!

Posted on February 7, 2013 by doublehockeysticks

I was huge into animal rights growing up. I didn’t eat meat, didn’t use products tested on animals, didn’t wear leather or wool or silk, and I always thought when I was on my own I’d go full vegan. I was a card-carrying member of PETA. For a decade starting at age 10, that was my life.

It wasn’t super normal at the time in the Midwest. I remember going to restaurants, and there was *nothing* on the menu without meat. I remember going into fast food places and ordering a bun with cheese, lettuce, and tomato. They would just look at me, totally perplexed. : )

I became a believer in college and was surrounded by an amazing group of people. They sought to understand why I was so into animal rights, and they started to see some differences between my reasoning and things they saw in Scripture.

(Quick clarification: I think it is totally possible to be a vegetarian and a believer, or love animals and be a believer, or be a member of PETA and be a believer. For me, my personal reasoning for being a vegetarian seemed to have some inconsistencies with some things the Bible teaches. If I chose to continue not to eat meat for other reasons, cool. Their gracious concern was to help me think and reason biblically.)

My friends were so great about their exploration of my views on animals. They were so gentle and thoughtful about it. They shared on occasion something they read or something they saw that they thought might pertain.

And you know what? They were probably right about everything they said.

Did I change?

No.

I listened. And I often sat there a bit confused.

I had just accepted Christ. I was just beginning to understand that there is a heaven and a hell. I was just learning that the New Testament is Jesus and after, and the Gospels are all about him. I had just heard a pastor say, “And of course everyone knows John 3:16!” So I was trying to catch up and learn John 3:16. And I was absorbing that I was a sinner. That God was God. And that Christ did a crazy amazing thing for us.

My friends were *amazing.* I love that they cared so much for me that they wanted to help me understand a biblical world view. And I love that when I wasn’t at all connecting what eating chicken had to do with this whole Bible thing, they were patient and caring with me.

God was working on me.

He just had some bigger fish to fry first.

So what’s up with the picture that goes with this post?

I’m so glad you asked.

Let’s say someone’s fly is down. They are in casual conversation at a party, and you gently, discretely, and politely let them know their fly is down. They say ‘thanks’ and, while perhaps embarrassed, are grateful to know so they can do something about it.

But now let’s say it’s the climber dude in the picture whose fly is down. Let’s say you tell him discretely and intending to be helpful, “Climber dude, your fly is down!” You would normally expect someone to say ‘thanks’ and fix it, right?

Instead, climber dude just looks at you totally perplexed. Ok, so his fly may be down, but he’s got bigger fish to fry at the moment! Like how in the world he’s going to pull himself up off that cliff and get to safety.

And if we think about this super practically, if climber dude were to take a moment to fix his zipper, well, for most people, that takes two hands. So if climber dude uses his two hands to fix his zipper… you get where this is going, right? {splat} That is not the thing to be focusing on right now.

Would you be right if you tried to explain to climber dude that it is indecent to have your fly down and that it isn’t an appropriate way to dress? I mean, yeah. That is technically right.

But he has bigger fish to fry right now. And actually, focusing on the tadpole you’d like him to be frying could be the wrong focus for him at the moment. It could interfere with the focus God has for him, which could lead to unhelpful consequences for him! {splat}

So what’s our takeaway?

I mean, I suppose we should XYZ. And I suppose we could Eat Mor Chikin. But I really think my friends were on to something.

Just because the person you’re talking with isn’t changing doesn’t mean you are wrong or they are sinful or they are unteachable or whatever. God may just have some bigger fish to fry right now.

And you may be paving the way for *His* perfect timing.

For me, that was a little over a year after I became a believer. I was shopping one day and saw a cute pair of shoes. I picked them up to see what they were made out of. The label said ‘genuine leather.’ I normally would have put the shoes down and been sad for the animals who died for those shoes.

But that day was different.

I didn’t feel that sadness.

Instead, I felt a freedom.

I felt this open door to purchase the shoes.

It was weird.

And then a week or so later, I tried chicken.

And you know what? My friends were right. Everything they said was right. And importantly, their patience and care were right.

God had some bigger fish to fry first in my life. When *His* time was right, He used the things they so caringly and lovingly had shared.

So while you may be right, and while what you see may be on God’s agenda somewhere, what matters is the fish *God* desires to fry in that person’s life. Focusing on tadpoles may distract from the life and vitality God desires to share with them.

He’s working. Gently and lovingly share, then trust Him with His perfect timing in their lives.

How sure are you?

Posted on March 8, 2012 by doublehockeysticks

One of the things I just adore about A Tale of Three Kings is the perspective on humility that it offers. It is truly such a gift to keep me humble when I’m frustrated with someone.

Sometimes when we’re frustrated, we tend to ‘go after’ someone. We think we see things so clearly – that they are wrong, and we are right. That they should be corrected or put in their place. And we can go on a bit of a crusade about it.

David had that opportunity. He had been anointed king, though Saul was still reigning as king. Saul was a bit crazy and tried to kill David. Several times. So David – who remember has been anointed king – is hiding out in a cave to protect his life when Saul comes in the cave to relieve himself. David had a whole army of men in the cave with him who were loyal to him. He could have gone after Saul and easily captured, dethroned, and/or killed him. And after all, David did have a rightful claim to the throne.

But he didn’t.

David was very faithful with the royal anointing given him. He was patient for God’s perfect timing years and years and years later when he finally took the throne. Why? Because he believed that Saul was the Lord’s anointed.

“Any young rebel who raises his hand against a Saul, or any old kin who raises his hand against an Absalom, may – in truth – be raising his hand against the will of God.”

God had placed Saul as king. And until the Lord changed it, David was not going to raise his hand against the Lord’s anointed. He could, after all, be raising his hand against the will of God.

But surely David was right! Surely this was the will of God. I mean, he had a whole group of men supporting him! Surely Saul’s coming into the cave was the Lord doing what he spoke of when he said to David, “I will give your enemy into your hands for you to deal with as you wish.” So why did David allow Saul, who was persecuting him, to live? David had already been anointed king! So why didn’t he go after Saul?!

Oh I just love this next quote. I hope you’re sitting down.

Most of us know at least two men in the lineage of David who have been damned and crucified by other men. By men who were absolutely certain the ones they were crucifying were not Davids…

And here’s the kicker:

Men who go after the Sauls among us often crucify the Davids among us.

Yipes. We may need to read that one again.

Most of us know at least two men in the lineage of David who have been damned and crucified by other men. By men who were absolutely certain the ones they were crucifying were not Davids…Men who go after the Sauls among us often crucify the Davids among us.

There were plenty of people who were pretty sure that, when they were crucifying Jesus, that they were crucifying an ungodly imposter.

But they were wrong.

Maybe you’ve been in a situation where you’ve been ‘crucified’ by people who thought they were right about you.

But they were wrong.

So if you are going after someone, are you sure that they are a Saul? Are you absolutely sure that they aren’t a David? And are you sure it is God’s time for you to act?

This was David’s response when challenged that he knew he should be king:

“Do I? No man knows. Only God knows, and he has not spoken.”

Inspiring Love

Posted on February 16, 2012 by doublehockeysticks

So we’ve gotten a look at ‘lovely’ ~ at the Philippians 4:8 thoughts to dwell upon. Sometimes to more fully understand, it’s helpful to look at the opposite – what it doesn’t mean.

One of the descriptions we looked at said that thoughts that are lovely “promote peace.” It goes on to talk about its opposite: “rather than conflict.” Hmmmm… very interesting for our goal here in delighting in conflict done well!

Another description said that lovely thoughts “serve to cultivate and increase love, friendship, and amity among men; and which things also are grateful to God and lovely in his sight.” It goes on to say “in opposition to all contention, strife, wrath, and hatred.”

The description of lovely as ‘that which calls forth love’ sandwiches its opposite:

Winsome is the best translation of all. The Greek is prosphile, and it might be paraphrased as that which calls forth love. There are those whose minds are so set on vengeance and punishment that they call forth bitterness and fear in others. There are those whose minds are so set on criticism and rebuke that they call forth resentment in others. The mind of the Christian is set on the lovely things—kindness, sympathy, forbearance—so he is a winsome person, whom to see is to love.

So setting our minds on thoughts that are lovely is the opposite of setting our minds on criticism. If our minds are in the mode of being critical towards another, then our minds are not dwelling on the lovely.

Now does this mean that we can’t ever think a critical thought? Of course not. And I’ll give you a trick about that next time. Here, the distinction is about those whose minds are set on criticism. You know, when you’re in that rut of critical thought – when you see a person, and all that comes to mind are the things about them that annoy you. When your disposition and countenance change. When that critical nature negatively impacts others.

So lovely thoughts are those not set on criticism. They are not set on rebuke. They are not set on punishment or vengeance. They do not call forth bitterness or resentment in others. They do not promote conflict. They do not cultivate contention or strife. They do not increase hatred.

Instead, lovely thoughts are those which are grateful to God. They are lovely in His sight. They call forth love in others. They inspire love.

What lovely thoughts is your mind dwelling on?

Happy Lovely Day!

Posted on February 14, 2012 by doublehockeysticks

How fun is God?

So we’re in the midst of exploring Philippians 4:8:

Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

We’ve tackled true – thinking things that are actually, factually true. We’ve pondered noble – thinking thoughts that are honorable. We’ve explored right – thinking things that are righteous. We just finished pure – keeping our thoughts free of dregs. And now, here we are getting ready to start lovely… and what day is today? Valentine’s Day! How cute is God to work out this timing!

Now why are we exploring these words? Because before we can even talk about how to do conflict well and how to confront someone well, we’ve got to be sure that the thing we want to confront them about – the thing we’re mad about – is even worthy of confronting! Is it really their actions and attitudes that need adjusting… or is it our thoughts?

Yes, it may be some mixture of both, but we start with what God for sure gave us stewardship of – ourselves. We take intentionally His call in His Word to think things ~ including things about others ~ that are true, noble, right, pure, and lovely. We start by being sure we’re in the right place before we begin to even contemplate approaching another!

So today, we begin exploring ‘lovely.’ Now intriguingly, this is the only place that you find the word ‘lovely’ in Scripture. So our study of the word used in context in Scripture is, well, done. Check : )

Now for the word in Greek. It’s presumed stem, ‘love,’ is φιλέω - transliterated, that’s phileo. This is the word from which Philadelphia gets its name, the City of Brotherly Love.

It’s prefix in Greek is πρός, which is translated ‘to,’ ‘towards,’ or ‘to the advantage of.’

Putting these together, we get ‘towards brotherly love.’ It is also described as

Adapted to excite love, and to endear him who does such things
Such deeds as spring from love and inspired love in others
That which calls forth love
What promotes peace
That which serves to cultivate and increase love, friendship, and amity among men
Which things also are grateful to God and lovely in his sight

So it means having thoughts that inspire love and call forth love in others.

We’ll explore more soon… but for today, how fun is it that we get to dwell on thinking ‘lovely’ thoughts on Valentine’s Day? We can strive today (and every day!) to think things that inspire love and call forth love in others!

For our grammophiles: Granted, not all words mean what their morphemes mean. A ‘strawberry,’ for example, doesn’t mean the combination of its components ‘berry’ with ‘straw,’ as in ‘drinking straw’ or ‘stalk of hay.’ While concluding definitions from morphemes can lead one astray, our conclusions here seem consistent with Scripture, consistent with God, consistent with solid scholars, and not too much of a leap.

Who actually likes the crust?

Posted on November 15, 2011 by doublehockeysticks

When my husband and I first got married, I made him 4 peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for lunch every day. Yes – four! The boy loves his pb&j! Jif Creamy with my mom’s recipe for homemade strawberry jam on wheat bread that doesn’t taste wheat-y. That is seriously his dream meal.

Our friends know how much he loves his pb&j – so much so that one of my bridesmaids got us the cutest card when we got married. We love it and made it into a magnet for our fridge : )

So with his downing 8 slices of bread a day, we went through our bread pretty quickly! And trying to make him the best possible meals (it’s pb&j – there is only so much I can do to make it quality!), I always gave him the inside slices of bread. I would eat the crust pieces (most people call them the ‘heels’ of the bread – I just think that’s kind of gross to call your food by a name that is part of your foot!).

Now the crust pieces aren’t my favorite. In fact, I think they are quite un-tasty (maybe they do deserve to be called the heel!). So I’d turn the crust part towards the inside of my sandwich to try to hide the flavor and texture of it. It only works so well. But we were on a crazy tight budget, and I wanted my husband to thoroughly enjoy his lunch, and, well, I just kept trying to convince myself that those crust pieces weren’t all that un-tasty.

After a couple of months of my making him the ‘best’ pb&j sandwiches : ) and ‘sacrificing’ by eating the crusts, Dave asked me a weird question: “What happens to the end pieces?”

I let him know that I turned them inside out on my sandwiches. Then he ever so politely asked, “Would it be ok if I got the crust pieces on occasion?”

Huh? He wanted them? The thought never occurred to me that some people actually *like* the crust!! “You actually *want* those pieces?”

“Of course! They’re the best part!”

Huh?

Well, to each his own. Yes, I am more than happy to divvy out the crust pieces to him! Works out pretty nicely for me, too. : )

So now that you know all about the fine dining at our house : ), what’s my point?

My point is his approach. Dave stuck with what was true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent, and praiseworthy. He didn’t assume things about me that weren’t true. He didn’t accuse me of motives that weren’t in my heart. That can so easily be done! From his perspective, crusts are yummy, and if he allows his mind to go beyond what’s true, noble, pure, and praiseworthy, he could easily have ended up accusing me of being selfish and self-centered for hogging all the crust pieces. He could have easily fabricated motives that weren’t really in my heart and falsely accused me. And that could have been very hurtful—especially since from my perspective, I’d eaten ucky bread for months so he could have the good stuff. He could have said I should have known and criticized me for not being a mind reader. He could have speculated about sin and conjured up a whole scheme about how I always do this or that. He could have started watching for other places where he also thinks I’m acting out of selfish motives. He could have made a whole mountain out of the issue and put together a laundry-list of other speculated sins. He could have fixed his eyes on sin-spotting and his mind on speculations of sin, and stirred up dissension and discord over heels!

But he didn’t. Nope. He kept this issue as this issue. He identified the facts and stopped there. He stayed at what was true – which was that he noticed the crust pieces were MIA. And he stopped. He took captive his thoughts and stopped there and asked a question. He had no anger or hypotheses about sin because he kept his mind focused on what was noble and admirable. And so he simply asked a curious, fact-finding question.

And so a small, sin-neutral issue was handled as a small, sin-neutral issue… simply by living out this verse. Dave gets his heels, I get inside pieces, and God gets glory!

And they lived happily ever after. : )

The Office gets {dhs}-ed!

Posted on November 3, 2011 by doublehockeysticks

Last spring, when I was praying about starting this blog, I saw the perfect {double hockey sticks} conundrum on The Office.

Yes, I know, it is shocking that The Office is not always the bastion of exemplary biblical interaction!

In “The Inner Circle” episode, Dunder Mifflin Sabre staff is enjoying lunch in the break room. Angela brings up that the new boss, Deangelo, is a huge sexist. She explains that he talks to Kevin, an employee in the accounting department, but not Angela, the head of the accounting department. Also, he hasn’t ever met with Pam or Kelly, two other department heads, nor has he asked them to do anything.

Jim gets nominated to go to talk to Deangelo. Other employees enter Deangelo’s office as well. Jim confronts Deangelo that some people think he is sexist.

Shockingly, this doesn’t go well. It has repercussions for Jim, and Deangelo addresses the whole staff trying to convince them that he is not sexist and that he can’t work there effectively if people think he is something that he is not.

All kinds of insanity. So what could have been done differently? Applying the stop, drop, and roll approach…

Stop at the trigger. Remember, the trigger is the actual, factual action that caused concern.

A trigger seems to be that Deangelo hasn’t met with the department heads.

Drop all other perceptions creeping in.

Maybe he’s sexist and maybe he’s not. Maybe he wasn’t told there were department heads. Maybe former boss Michael Scott told him not to meet with them for some crazy reason that only Michael could dream up. Maybe Michael told them that they do a great job and to let them do their own thing. Maybe Deangelo is planning on meeting with the department heads but hasn’t quite gotten there yet. Maybe he’s a bad boss for not prioritizing meeting with them… but that makes him a bad prioritizer, not necessarily sexist. So many possibilities as to the root reason for the conundrum.

Roll on over and talk to him.

Not to others, and not to Jim, but directly to the person who has caused the trigger. So if Angela is really concerned, she would go directly to Deangelo and inquire is he has plans to meet with the department heads. Without accusations of motives, without spreading false perceptions, and without having others speak on her behalf, she goes as a mature adult to ask a mature adult question. And – in case it’s something like an oversight so he doesn’t look like he’s being called out in front of a group – out of respect and consideration, she approaches him one-on-one.

That’s just a few foibles. Feel free to chime in with other things that could have been handled differently to create a more honoring environment and interaction!

Stop at the Trigger

Posted on October 13, 2011 by doublehockeysticks

In An Untrue Mess, Larry falsely accused Mark of disrespecting his authority, leaving hurt and disrespect in Mark and Larry’s relationship.

How could this have gone better?

What if Larry had chosen to follow God’s command to think things that are true? What would he have thought?

What is true is that Larry thought Mark wanted to be a chef. When Mark answered his question about what he wanted to do before he died, he didn’t give that answer. What if Larry approached Mark and said, “Thanks for sharing the answers that you did. I was intrigued that you didn’t share anything about wanting to be a chef. Is that a desire of yours?”

Or even *more* true : ) … Larry knows that Mark is taking culinary classes, and he has heard Mark say he likes to cook with his girlfriend. He is intrigued that none of Mark’s life goals involve these things. So he asks Mark, “I know you’re taking culinary classes, and I believe you’ve mentioned that you like to cook with your girlfriend. Do you have a desire to do anything further with that in your life?”

Oh how much different the conversation would go! How different their relationship would look right now. And how much more relational growth could take place… if only Larry had stopped at the trigger.

In this instance, the trigger is that Mark didn’t say what Larry thought he would say. Instead of speculating and hypothesizing sins (like Mark is disrespectful and not participatory) and turning it into a big ol’ mess, what if Larry stopped at the trigger: “Hmmm… Mark didn’t say what I thought he would say. I should ask him about that.”

So what exactly is a ‘trigger’? How is this for a definition: The trigger is whatever factual action caused the feeling (like surprise, hurt, concern, or frustration). So we’d back up to the factual action and stop there. That means we drop all the perceptions and speculations we’ve attached to the action, and we focus on what is actually true.

This trigger concept can be so lovely! Backing up to the trigger keeps our minds focused on thinking things that are true. It keeps our hearts filled with things that are pure. It keeps our friendships from being filled with false accusations and inaccurate perceptions of sin and instead fills them with honor. And it keeps Christ’s kingdom reflective of Him!

Case Study – Summary

Posted on October 4, 2011 by doublehockeysticks

Did you like our case study adventure?

There certainly were a variety of approaches on leading potentially-closed Claudia:

Connie confronts
Cindy confronts one-on-one
Allison affirms
Laura goes to lunch
Patricia probes

Which are most likely to result in a strong relationship? Which are most likely to result in hurt feelings and hurt relationships? Which will likely cause Claudia to share out of love, not fear or shame (if she has more to share)? Which approach would you use? Or feel free to recommend another!

Case Study – Patricia’s approach

Posted on September 29, 2011 by doublehockeysticks

We’re continuing our case study adventure! Here’s another small group leader’s approach to the situation that she would like Claudia, one of her small group members, to open up a bit more.

Approach #5
Patricia tried Allison’s approach of offering affirming comments and more intentional follow up. She didn’t feel like it was really making much of a difference in her interactions with Claudia. So she next tried Laura’s approach and asked Claudia to go on a walk with her. She asked similar questions to what Laura asked, but didn’t feel like it was really going anywhere. So she started really probing and asking some very specific questions.

Outcome
It was a nice walk. Claudia is nice, and they had an enjoyable conversation. Claudia felt like Patricia was doing a great job leading the group and that the group dynamics were going fine. She felt badly that many people in the group were having a hard time and was praying faithfully for them. Patricia probed and probed. She asked Claudia as many specific questions as she could about different relationships and things others might find to be struggles. Claudia really seemed at peace about each thing.

Patricia wanted to be careful not to create a problem or a discontent, but she also wanted to be sure that Claudia really was as content as she seemed to be. She remembered Claudia had gone through some pretty challenging times a few years ago, and she knew that often has an effect of making other problems seem less jostling. She wondered that maybe Claudia really wasn’t hiding anything – intentionally or unintentionally. She asked, “So you’re good?” Claudia said, “Yes. God is good.”

So it seems that Claudia isn’t hiding anything. Patricia had invested a lot in making sure, and she was glad that – at least for now – it didn’t seem like there were buried hurts or struggles in Patricia’s life. She was glad that she hadn’t confronted Claudia on something that didn’t really exist, and she was challenged by the peace and ease with which Claudia navigated life.

What is the best possible outcome here? What is the worst? Which seems more likely?

Case Study – Laura’s approach

Posted on September 27, 2011 by doublehockeysticks

We’re continuing our case study adventure! Here’s another small group leader’s approach to the situation that she would like Claudia, one of her small group members, to open up a bit more.

Approach #4
Laura also wondered if Claudia had more to share with the group, and she also wasn’t sure. She thought she’d start by inviting Claudia to lunch to explore this further.

Outcome
Laura decided to start with more general questions, asking Claudia in general about the small group environment and how Claudia thought they could create the best environment for sharing. Laura thought this first step had a number of advantages – it would give her a window into how Claudia thought, it would likely give her a bit of a pulse check on Claudia’s comfort level in sharing with the group, and if Claudia had things she wanted to share, this may open the door.

Laura liked starting by talking about the ideal environment and then steps we could take to get there instead of talking about what was wrong with the group. She hoped it would prove for a helpful, growth-oriented conversation, and not one directed towards complaints and venting.

Claudia found the conversation interesting. She appreciated that Laura cared so much about her leadership and the group that she wanted to explore ways to make it better. It helped Claudia reflect on the heart of the group and the heart of the group’s leader, and it helped her to think more intentionally about her role in the group.

Claudia was intrigued throughout the course of the conversation. In talking about ideal responses, she began to realize something new – she began to realize that some of the responses she’d received to things she had shared in the group had caused her to not share as much with the group. Whether it was lack of interest, a direct comment, or lack of follow up, she began to realize that she had adjusted her role in the group. She felt like she was there more for the people in the group. She was ok with that if the Lord had her in the group more to care for the others.

Claudia appreciated the approach Laura used. She realized that if Laura had asked her directly, “Is there anything in the group that keeps you from sharing?” that she probably would have responded, “No.” She thought that was the case, so her response wouldn’t have been because she wasn’t being honest or forth-right, but because it simply hadn’t occurred to her that she had adjusted herself some as a result of some things said or done in group. Laura’s approach, questions, care, and the environment that she created to explore helped Claudia realize some new realities.

Laura followed up with Claudia later to thank her for some of the perspective she provided. Claudia shared her realization that it currently feels like God had her in the group to care for others and not so much to be cared for. This was helpful and instructive for Laura to best navigate next steps so all group members could feel cared for and invested in.