Category: Leadership

  • Financial Integrity for YWAM Leaders

    Financial Integrity for YWAM Leaders

    **This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**

     

    In the summer of 1973, I found myself in a most uncomfortable position—in more ways than one.  I was lying on my face in the gravel of the garden of a Japanese youth hostel, wondering what passers by were thinking.  I was not alone.  There were about 60 other YWAMers with me who comprised most of the YWAM leaders at the time. Loren Cunningham and Joy Dawson were leading the session in which God had spoken to us about “robbing Him.”  The scripture that had been burned into our hearts was Malachi 3:9:

    “You are under a curse, the whole nation of you, because you are robbing me.”  

    God was specifically dealing with us about misusing designated funds.  He saw it as robbery, and we knew we were in big trouble! 

    Every person there repented of at least one specific financial transgression and we spent several uncomfortable hours in deep conviction.  At the end of the afternoon the heaviness of conviction was replaced with the joy of forgiveness and cleansing.  We had all learned a lesson we would never forget.

    In my case, I had to repent of sloppy accounting that led to wrong decisions.  A few months earlier an anonymous donor gave us a gift designated for buying a mini-bus.  The gift was generous, but not enough to buy the vehicle so we put it in our bank account and prayed that God would provide further so we could make the purchase.  The weeks had rolled by and we ran out of money for food and rent and, because we had not set that money aside, it was spent.  I was vaguely aware that we were in danger of doing that, but our accounts were not up-to-date, and I did not know when we began to spend the money that should have been set aside.  Though I was not the accountant, as the leader I was responsible for our financial decisions.

    That was a long time ago and there have been many other lessons learned since then.  Sometimes I forget that God had to use hard and dramatic circumstances to teach me this and other lessons.  I can begin to assume that every YWAMer who makes financial decisions will somehow understand the important principles of integrity in money matters.  But in recent months, God has sent us a clear word of conviction that we have fallen short of what we perceive to be God’s standard for financial integrity.

    Much could be written on this subject, but I want to concentrate in this article on a few of the most important subjects for YWAM leaders.

    The first one is related to my opening story – keeping good, clear accounts. When Loren and Darlene first sent my wife, Marti, and me out to lead a team they only gave us a few instructions, but one was, “Keep clear, thorough accounts! Marti [who had been Loren’s secretary] can do that, but as soon as possible you should put someone else in charge of accounting. You need to keep yourself from any accusations and if your wife oversees the accounts, you won’t be safe enough.” We were careful to do that.

    GOOD ACCOUNTS

    Keeping a good, up-to-date set of accounts in YWAM is a walk of faith. You have to ask God and believe that He will send you people who can do that. This is the responsibility of the leader and of high priority.

    I know the consequences of not having a bookkeeper. Likewise, I know what happens when the bookkeeper you do have is not competent. Under either of these circumstances you don’t have the information you need to make good decisions and that leads to poor stewardship and even “robbing God” by misusing money.

    Sometimes YWAM bases do not have an accountant and so they hire someone to keep the books for them. In my opinion this is an acceptable course of action and often necessary when the base/campus is large and the accounts are complex. 

    PROTECTION FOR LEADERS

    Many of the best financial practices are designed to provide protection against accusation and temptation. Both are issues worthy of serious thought.

    For example, it is wise for a leader to set in place procedures that prevent him or her from making solo financial decisions. I make it a point to a have a person of good character and strong personality present for any non-routine financial decisions I make. That person has access to all accounts and is familiar with the overall picture, so they are able to be a check and balance for me. It is sometimes frustrating to be convinced that some expenditure is important only to find that you cannot convince the person to approve of it with you. If this situation arises you might even need someone else to act as a third decision maker in this process. Even if it is inconvenient to include others, we still need to avoid making major financial decisions on our own.

    When I first joined YWAM in the late 60s and early 70s if I had to attend a leadership team meeting or had to travel with an outreach team the cost of that came from my own support. After the first few years, as the costs were steadily rising, and the need for travel increased, all of us in a leadership role were struggling financially. We talked and prayed together and decided with much caution that, where possible, “obligatory travel” would be met by the bases we had established, usually through tithes or other giving.

    However, once you start that procedure it becomes very difficult to know where to draw the line. If I, as the senior leader, have those expenses met what happens when there are three or four – or even 15 or 20 – people on the base who have “obligatory travel” expenses. There are no easy answers, and any policy about this will need to be reviewed and changed on occasion. That process of review will need to be open and transparent.

    TRANSPARENCY

    Transparency is an important guiding value when it comes to financial stewardship. I find it useful from time-to-time to ask myself the following question: “Have I made any financial decisions that I would not want staff, students [or supporters where applicable] to know about?” I should always be able to answer that question with a resounding NO. That means I have no “special accounts” that I benefit from or that are used solely at my discretion.

    It is also wise for a leader or team of leaders to have regular meetings where the finances of the base or team are explained to the staff, where questions and discussion are encouraged. If this doesn’t seem like a good idea to you, I suggest you ask yourself why.

    PUBLIC AND LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY

    In most countries YWAM has to be registered as a non-profit or a charitable non-governmental organisation. Those countries that provide for such registration will have regulations that require independent, annual audits for any such organization with substantial income. Even if you are not able to incorporate in that way [because of being in a restrictive country for example] or if your income is below the amount where an audit us required it is still wise to have an independent review done by someone with financial abilities. Every YWAM operating location should be able to point to someone of good reputation and financial skill and reasonable independence to vouch for the truthfulness and accuracy of the accounts.

    RESPONDING TO ACCUSATION

    Finally, if anyone does happen to accuse a YWAM leader of mishandling money, that leader should not have to defend themselves. He or she should be supported by their leader and the person or company that performed the audit or review. Of course, a leader can only appeal to others to defend them if they have been open about the finances and made the accounts available to others’ input. YWAM leaders should never find themselves in a position where they are under accusation over financial matters and have no one to defend them.

    If, after an accusation has been examined, that process confirms that a leader has misused finances, it must be taken very seriously.  The leaders of that leader must immediately act to right that which is wrong, make restitution where necessary and restore that leader to full fellowship with the body of Christ. 

    In a recent prophetic word given to us, lack of financial integrity was listed as one of the main reasons that God has not kept His full anointing on Youth with a Mission. If we are going to come back to a place of authority and powerful anointing then we must realign ourselves to His ways in every part of YWAM, especially among leadership.

    I would urge you to give careful thought to the principles I’ve outlined above, evaluate how your base or team is doing and if you are responsible to other leaders sit down and talk this through with them.  Let us all come back to a place of financial transparency and integrity.

    Thank you for reading.

    In His Peace,

    Lynn Green.

  • Should We be doing Business with China?

    Should We be doing Business with China?

    **This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**

     

    If you have been reading this blog for a while, you will know how much I love and respect the Chinese people.  The Christians of China are great role models for what it means to be a follower of Jesus and I gladly acknowledge that they have a leadership role in the global Body of Christ.

    The Chinese government is another matter.  It seems to me that the Western, developed countries, in their/our pursuit of economic growth, have tried to pretend that this ruthless, inhuman regime is somehow not so bad and will move in the right direction if we are nice to them.

    A VOICE WE SHOULD HEAR AND SUPPORT

    David Alton, (Lord Alton of Liverpool) is one voice that will not yield to the willful blindness of our governments.  He has consistently unmasked the viciousness of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in his speeches to the House of Lords in London and in the many other venues where he has a voice.

    Do pray for him; remember that the CCP does not hesitate to take action against opposition.

    HONG KONG

    He has recently reminded us that the conflict in Hong Kong has not gone away, even though it does not feature as often in our news reports as it did a couple of months ago.  In fact, it has worsened as the weeks have passed and Hong Kong is almost unrecognizable when compared to what it was earlier this year.

    Here is an excellent report of what is happening as the Chinese Government becomes more and more determined to silence those who are giving their all to protect the freedoms they have had until now.

    https://davidalton.net/2019/11/13/hong-kong-universities-turned-into-a-war-zone-can-you-hear-the-people-sing-will-you-come-and-stand-with-me/

     

    21ST CENTURY GENOCIDE

    Lord Alton and another committed Christian Member of Parliament, Fiona Bruce, have also courageously unmasked the inhumane treatment of religious minorities in China.  These include the “Falun Gong sect, Uyghur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists and, possibly, Christian dissidents along with other prisoners of conscience.”

    Over the past few days, I have been in touch with a YWAMer who has provided first-hand documentation to David Alton and Fiona Bruce and he has confirmed that at least 1.5 million people are in “re-education camps” (more accurately known as concentration camps), mostly in Western China.  The list of tortures they use on prisoners is very difficult to comprehend.  An unknown, but large, number of prisoners who are “not cooperative” have been subjected to the removal of all their usable organs for transplants.  Fiona Bruce referred to it as an “almost perfect crime” because “no one survives”.

    Here is the link to that information:

    https://davidalton.net/2019/02/25/questions-on-the-muslim-uighurs-february-25th-ministers-questioned-in-the-house-of-lords-about-tortured-lawyers-demolished-christian-churches-abducted-pastor-organ-harvesting-and-incarceration-of/

    I cannot, with any confidence, suggest a course of action at this point, but I can urge you to pray.  As more of us pray, we might be given a divine action plan.  But we must start with an awareness of these in horrific   acts by the CCP.

  • The Care of Feeding of Critics

    The Care of Feeding of Critics

    **This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**

     

    For years, I have thought about an article that impacted me very deeply; it was probably more than 20 years ago.  Different circumstances would bring it to my mind and I would have another look online or through my files.

    I was recently looking for some other notes on leadership and I came across a photocopy of this marvellous article by Fred Smith who was on the board of Christianity today and often had articles published in their Leadership Magazine.  Fred died 12 years ago, but his outstanding wisdom lives on through what he wrote—not least in this article, The Care and Feeding of Critics.

    Thanks very much for all your help and encouragement!

    Lynn Green

    **********************************************************************************************************************

    The care and feeding of critics

    How to feed the hand that bites you by Fred Smith

    Having been the head of several organizations, I’ve had my share of critics. So, when LEADERSHIP asked me to write about the care and feeding of critics, one word came to mind: arsenic.

    Then I remembered three occasions when friends cared enough to confront me. At the moment, their criticism stung, but it has been a blessing for a lifetime. Criticism properly given and properly received accounts for much of the progress in a person or an organization.

    Every leader has to develop a plan for handling criticism, because criticism will come in any dynamic organization. Capable people bring out friction and difference of opinion. In fact, if an organization is completely placid, I have found it’s generally not very productive.

    Expect criticism whenever one or more of the following is true (unless, of course, the church is made up exclusively of other saints):

    • the change costs money
    • the change causes inconvenience
    • there is a shift in power or recognition.

    You can also count on criticism when you have an “inspirational program”— one that comes suddenly that sends you into an emotional high. Criticism will likely come from those who have not had that thrill.

    Therefore, the leader must expect criticism much as an Olympian would expect and plan for pain. I listened to Bob Richards, the Olympic gold medallist, interview younger Olympic winners of the gold. He asked them. “What did you do when you began to hurt?”

    None of these Olympians was surprised by the question; all had a specific way of handling the pain— some even prayed.

    After the interviews, I asked Bob why he had asked about handling pain, and he said matter-of-factly, “You never win the gold without hurting.”

    A leader must accept the challenge of criticism rather than let it become a threat. When criticism is a threat, a leader becomes defensive, but when it is viewed as a challenge, he or she can handle it constructively.

    Let me share some of the positive approaches I have learned to handle criticism.

    Classify your critics

    Critics come in many shapes and sizes. Some are overt, and some are covert. Some hit you in the nose, and others stab you in the back. I have found classifying my critics helpful; it helps me anticipate what a person may say.

    I’m sure you’ll have no trouble putting people’s names with these types (but be sure to classify according to people’s performance, not your personal feelings for them).

    • People who resent authority per se. These critics have never outgrown their disrespect for any authority but their own. As children they rebelled against their parents, as employees against their bosses, and as adults against leaders in whatever groups they joined. They adhere to the bumpersticker slogan, QUESTION ALL AUTHORITY.

    Such critics can be worked only in a loose harness. They must be given permission to rebel, which is almost an oxymoron . . . but practical.

    • People with natural leadership qualities who are not part of the majority. As a result, they become leaders of the minority, and they feel they have to be in opposition to serve their function. The more capable they are, the more difficult they are for a leader to deal with.

    In the plant, I looked for this type of critic. We even kept a list of the young, unofficial leaders—those whom other people listened to. Unless we utilized their natural leadership qualities constructively, these critics would become destructive. So, I tried to move many of them into management, often with good results.

    • People who criticize to show their superior knowledge. Those who consider themselves good in a particular area will criticize others not so good. For example, a great dresser will criticize others’ clothes.

    Sometimes these critics can be turned into coaches, if they genuinely have an area of expertise. (More on how to do that later.)

    • “Natural howlers.” Most organizations have people who are like the hound dog lying on a cockleburr: he would rather howl than move. Every new idea becomes another cockleburr.
    • People who use criticism to exorcise internal conflicts. As a friend says of these critics, “They are a fight going somewhere to happen.” Generally, their criticism is perpetual and petulant. In fact, most bitter criticism is personal, not organizational; it’s not over doctrine but ego.

    I’ve found I can use such criticism as a way of checking those who are hurting. A person dissatisfied with himself or herself will generally transfer that, and as a pastor, knowing who is hurting goes with the job. Criticism might be an invitation to meet someone at a place of deep need.

    • Genuine, honest, interested critics. Finally, there are some who feel responsible for the welfare of the organization. I must treat these critics with respect, attention, and courtesy. They are not my enemies but, ultimately, my friends. Good critics are like buoys in the river: they keep you in the channel.

    Sorting through your critics is not always easy. Sometimes we have to take the approach Solomon did: recommend cutting the baby to find out who is cause-oriented and who is vindictiveness-oriented.

    Turn critics into coaches

    A good critic and a good coach both see what is wrong. They see for a different reason, however. The critic sees the problem to point it out and establish his authority or expertise, while the coach sees the problem in order to work on it and improve it. I believe that with proper care most critics can be turned into coaches. What we normally think of as liabilities then become assets.

    A few months after I became an executive with Genesco, I grew concerned about all the things that were wrong with the organization. I felt it my undiluted responsibility to talk about these to Maxey Jarman, the president, for fear the company might go out of business (regardless of the fact it had risen from a tiny start to become the fifth largest firm in the industry). Fortified with my list, I went to see the president, even without an appointment.

    Maxey was gracious and asked me to sit down and recite the list, which I started to do. About halfway through, he commented that I was right on target with several of my observations (immediately he became one of the smartest executives I’d ever met). When I finished the list, he asked me what I was doing for the next three weeks. He wanted me to take on, in addition to my regular job, writing a better way of doing everything I had criticized. As I walked toward the door, he gave me a faint smile and asked my permission to continue operating in the way we were, since it was the best he knew. I gave him my permission and headed for my office.

    Three weeks later, I didn’t call Maxey—he called me. He wanted to see my write-up of better ways. I had to face him and say, “I’ve been here only a short time, and I don’t know a better way of doing everything I criticized.”

    With unusual firmness for this Christian gentleman, he said, “Fred, we’re glad to have you with this company. We want your suggestions, even your criticisms. But don’t ever criticize another thing in this outfit until you’ve got a better way of doing it worked out on paper—and you’re willing to risk your reputation as an executive on its workability. “

    In Tennessee we say, “He learnt me that,” and as far as I know, I did not make that mistake again.

    Maxey taught me an invaluable lesson: always to be positive when looking for the negative. I had been a critic; Maxey taught me how much better it is to be a coach.

    The first step in turning a critic into a coach is to define his or her area of responsibility. I don’t believe in saying, “If you see something wrong, tell me about it.” That’s too general. That fails to define his or her area of responsibility.

    I’m careful to use people at their point of strength, so they will be good coaches. For example, if someone has been critical about matters of finance, and I believe he or she genuinely knows about finance, I will invite that person to coach me in that area. Or I might invite someone to coach me in the areas of personal relationships or theology.

    For many years I was alternate teacher of a large Sunday school class. I chose three people to be my coaches.

    My wife, Mary Alice, was responsible to be sure that when we got in the car I had my notes and my glasses and that I had the right attitude. If I was negative or judgmental, my attitude soured the milk of the Word.

    I also recruited an executive and a doctor, both of whom I respect intellectually and spiritually, to be responsible for telling me if the lesson hung together well, if it was practical and clear. I also wanted to know if there was “too much me and not enough He.”

    These three coaches kept me on course.

    When turning a critic into a coach, it’s important not to argue with the person’s honest opinion or to try to make him or her defend it. The only thing coaches are responsible for is to give me their considered opinion in a designated area. I’m not obligated to agree, but I must listen with appreciation.

    Sometimes if a person is naturally critical, you can make him a constructive coach by letting him know, “I expect you to criticize in this particular area, but you are responsible for giving high-quality criticisms as an outgrowth of your talent.” That tells the person to refine their numerous criticisms into the best few and pass along only those.

    When a coach criticizes you, after listening, get the person to repeat it and write down the specific criticisms.

    If it’s a weak criticism, the more the person repeats it, the weaker it will get.

    But if it’s a valid criticism, it will grow stronger, and you-will have a record of it to act on.

    Anticipate specific criticisms

    A naval officer told me that one time the brass in Washington wanted to find a submarine captain who would volunteer for a dangerous experiment under the ice cap. They talked to one particularly capable captain, but he asked for permission to talk to his crew before he volunteered their services. He wanted to take on the mission, but he knew it was dangerous.

    The captain took the offensive. He called the crew together and started listing on a sheet why they should tell the brass the mission was too dangerous. He put up the first criticism, and immediately a crew member spoke up, “That’s true, but not in every case.” Then the crew suggested how that objection could be overcome.

    By the time the captain got through the list of negatives, his crew had convinced each other that the negatives could be overcome. The captain concluded, “I take it, then, that you want to attempt this mission.” They agreed, and they did the mission, successfully. The captain won their support because he anticipated their criticisms and defused them.

    Some leaders bring a program into a group without proper planning, hoping to get an approving vote. They may get the vote, but criticism is liable to follow. People don’t like to be surprised, and surprises give the impression of a manipulated agenda.

    Every capable leader knows the “thought leaders” in a group and often talks to them ahead of time, enlisting their support or listening to their criticisms before a meeting. You can’t go into a meeting without knowing how the voting will go.

    Assume criticism is logical

    It’s always best to assume that a person’s criticism is sincere. Given the base from which the person is working, the criticism is entirely logical. The key is to understand the base from which people work.

    For example, my wife criticizes my sports-car style of driving, because her base of understanding is, “Anybody who drives like that will eventually have a wreck.” With that base, her criticism of my driving is entirely logical. My base is different, but to me just as logical: “The more I drive this, the more experience I get, and the less likely I am to have a wreck.”

    In church votes on money, for example, a business executive may feel that the economy is going down and that church debt is a dangerous thing. Another business leader in the church may have an entirely different base: inflation is on the way, and therefore, church debt is sensible. Another person may hold a theological opinion that churches should never go into debt.

    Thus, to work with people’s criticisms, we must know their deep beliefs, biases, experiences, theological positions, and especially their ego positions. For example, there’s generally a majority and minority group on any board (just as there is in the legislature), and someone in the minority will generally be an obstructionist simply by virtue of his or her position.

    When you understand the person’s internal logic, you can show respect for the criticism without being namby-pamby.

    Limit the criticism you’ll accept

    A leader must know how to limit the criticism he or she accepts. I learned this from a day labourer who wanted to be a success in life. Many years ago, he spent the day with me in Chicago and went over a simple plan he had written out, and he gave me a copy.

    Recently I read in the newspaper that this man had contributed $6 million to higher education. I immediately went back over the points of his program and saw how he had followed them so successfully. One of his points was, “I will accept criticism only from someone who has something to gain from my success.” To him, those people were his family, his superiors, and his friends. By limiting his acceptable criticism, he no doubt missed some that might have been helpful, but he missed a great deal that would have been harmful. As he told me, “People think you ought to keep an open mind, but if you keep it too open, people throw garbage

    Many times, I have let one critical person keep me from recognizing the strength of the hundred who are in agreement. When I’m speaking, for example, if I sense a critical person, he or she can distract me.

    I’ve learned not to overestimate criticism. It’s possible to turn a cold into a cancer. Some criticisms sting more than they damage, and every bee sting is not a snake bite. Remember the old philosophical adage, “This, too, shall pass.”

    Those of us who have known Billy Graham for many years have admired the way he has not answered his critics. Sometimes if a race horse pays too much attention to a horse fly, it makes the fly too important. Some people’s only taste of success is the bite they take out of someone who is doing more than they are.

    It’s helpful to have a friend or two who can help you sort the minor criticisms from the major ones. Then you can treat minor criticisms in a minor way -_such as ignore them. But you can also take seriously major criticisms that will grow and can’t be ignored. Honest people with a fresh perspective can help you recognize what is a deep and powerful current and what is just a surface wave.

    One way I limit the criticism I accept is to refuse any that distracts from the organization’s main purpose.

    Bill Waugh, owner of a restaurant chain, was asked to become chairman of The Salvation Army. He chose as his theme “Keep the main thing the main thing.” By that he meant “Keep the purpose of the organization clearly in mind and do not get diverted from it.”

    Make constructive criticism part of the culture

    Since criticism is going to come, it pays to make constructive criticism a part of the church culture. Every well-led organization needs to have an established, stated, understood, and agreed-upon culture. Why not make it part of the ongoing definition of the organization that criticism, when offered constructively, is welcomed.

    For this to happen, the people must hear you as leader—over and over and in different ways—say you value it.

    The statement can come in the form of a sermon, for example. David’s life would not have turned around if it had not been for Nathan. That’s an excellent passage to point out the value of a loyal opposition. Lift up the responsibility of people to keep leaders from serious mistakes, to make sure we look at alternative solutions, and to keep us conscious of our responsibilities rather than our rights.   

    Often, I’ve heard a capable speaker say on a sensitive point, “Now here’s something that I haven’t always believed—in fact, I used to oppose it vehemently But some people have helped me rethink this position.” Such a speaker is making constructive criticism acceptable.

    List the times that critics have been helpful to you. After all, even the mule was helpful to the prophet. Then, if you preach about criticism, you can illustrate from your list the type of criticism that is appreciated.

    Give strokes for good criticism. In an annual meeting or board meeting, you might say, “You are the lighthouse that will keep us off the rocks.” Or point out that a constructive critic is the tail to the kite: the kite may feel it’s a tremendous drag, but the kite would dart all over without it.

    My mentor, Maxey Jarman, felt that every organization needed a perceptive and persistent cockleburr. Lou was a great one. Once we were developing a golf course for employees. As usual, he saw the other side and said we should be developing fishing facilities because so many more employees fished than played golf. As a side remark, I told him, “1 don’t like to fish, because I never seem to catch any.’

    He replied, “I can understand that, because in order to catch anything you have to be smarter than it.’

    Lou was a valuable member of the team, though at times irritating. He kept us from “slumber in Zion.” Maxey didn’t squelch that quality but instead encouraged Lou to use it responsibly for the common good.

    If we make constructive criticism an accepted part of the culture, we won’t increase the amount of criticism; instead, we will channel the existing criticism so that it accomplishes something valuable.

    Don’t turn criticism into a personal contest

    Some leaders have gotten side-tracked into depending on their popularity for agreement. This can later develop into a contest between those who are for the leader and those who are against the leader. Making your popularity the issue gives the opposition a firm base from which to work. So often we make criticism into a personal contest, when if left alone, it will die of its own lack of meaning.

    My dear late father was constantly in fights; first, because he thought he was right, and then, because he thought that right was always in a fight. Every opposition was an attack of the Devil. Too often, the purification of the faith is much more an ego matter than a spiritual one.

    Recently, I led a leadership retreat with a successful retiring pastor. I asked him about the early days of his ministry, and he told me that as a seminary student he offered $100 to several leading pastors just to let him sit and ask them some questions. (I don’t think a single one refused the interview, though I don’t think they took the money.)

    One of his questions was, “How do you handle critics?”

    Each one had a plan, but it varied greatly according to the individual. One, though, had the spirit of inquisition and said, “Get them out.” That is one way, but I doubt it’s the Christian way. Critics are not heretics, and we can’t take the position that wrong has no rights.

    In one church that was having difficulty, for example, the pastor determined he was not going to take sides on the theological question at hand. He told the people he had been called to be their pastor, not to dictate their policies. The lay people worked out the matter amicably, and the pastor ended up with little criticism.

    One time I was asked to lead the music in a small church. When I arrived, the preacher asked me never to say anything against any person in the church. I knew I would be criticized at times and I thought it was a rather weak-kneed way to respond.

    But by the time I was ready to leave, I found I had more genuine feelings for the people in that church because I could look anyone in the eye, knowing I had not at any time said anything derogatory about him. There was a spiritual benefit in not retaliating with my own criticisms. The pastor’s principle had kept me from turning criticism into a personal contest.

    Learn to lose a battle in order to win a war.

    Admit when you’ve been wrong

    When Charlton Heston was asked how he could have enjoyed such a long marriage, he gave credit to “those three little words”—not the ones we think of, but “I was wrong.”

    I have found I can sometimes make a friend of a critic by adding three more words as a preface: “You are right … I was wrong.”

    I try to look on every reasonable criticism as a chance to review my position. It just might be that I am wrong. While the Scripture might be inerrant, those of us who lead are not infallible. I had a friend who often confessed that he had been wrong in the past, but I could never get him to admit to being wrong in the present.

    It helps me a little bit, when I’m being criticized, just to realize that I, too, have done some criticism in the past that was dead wrong. Through the years I have developed a “humility list” of criticisms I made of situations, programs, investments, and people that turned out to be totally wrong.

    I still blush when I think how cocksure I was that the “Tiger in the Tank” advertising program wouldn’t work. I couldn’t believe people would hang miniature tiger tails out of their gas tanks. Yet that program went down as one of the longest and most successful advertising campaigns ever.

    In the give-and-take of criticism, it’s a warning sign when we fail to see humour in the situation. In the longest study of successful executives done by Harvard, one of the four qualities they identified in these leaders was a sense of humour. There are many times in leadership when we can laugh or develop high blood pressure, and the laughing keeps us human.

    Once I was coming out of the factory during a snowstorm, and several of the employees were standing at the door waiting for their rides. As passed them and started down the steps said, “God put skis on me,” referring to my size-fifteen shoes. After I had gone down a couple of steps, I heard one of the employees say, “And from where I’m standing, he gave you a pillow to fall on, too.”

    All I could do was turn around, smile, and Say, “You’re so right, my friend.”

    Don’t take revenge

    It’s difficult to stav objective about critics. Sometimes we feel they’re a needle in a balloon factory. Still, leaders must take a firm stand without a vindictive spirit.

    If someone criticizes you publicly, you can use your critic to show that you’re a reasonable person. “I know that some people here whom I admire the most will be the first to be against this idea. If I didn’t think they were fair-minded enough to consider the things that I have considered and to realize that I have thought long and hard about this, then I would have been skeptical about proposing the idea myself.

    It’s so important to personify tolerance and avoid all retribution.

    “Vengeance is mine,’ says the Lord.” That means, for example, not using the pulpit to answer your critics; in doing so, you are riding a horse and hitting somebody who’s walking.

    We must also be careful to avoid answering critics in our public prayers. Prayers are directed to God, not to the board.

    Gerry-rigging a meeting to have certain questions asked—to me, that’s unethical. So is promising answers and then not giving any, in hope the issue will die.

    Effectual prayer is one of the appropriate armaments against criticism. A dear friend was being emotionally crucified by his critics. These people had profited from him and owed him gratitude rather than criticism, but still they bitterly fought him.

    When he died, I found a prayer list in his Bible. At the top of his list were these simple yet powerful words: “Pray for those who are lying about me.”

  • Boris and Brexit—An Opinion

    Boris and Brexit—An Opinion

    Photo by Slyzyy from Pexels

     

    **This is a personal website and reflects my thoughts and convictions. It does not represent any official position held by Youth With A Mission.**

     

    Boris and Brexit—An Opinion

    Thirty-six years ago, the United Kingdom joined a free trade zone, the European Economic Community. Prominent Christians were among the founding fathers of that community and it seemed like an obvious good move—and so it proved to be for many years.  The entire area prospered and economic activity between the member nations increased the wealth of their citizens.

    From Free Trade towards a Federal Government

    There is, however, a tendency for people with power to do their best to gain more power. The free trade zone evolved into a supra-national state taking more and more authority over the member nations, creating courts that sat in judgment over the national courts, establishing a parliament that passed volumes of legislation that bound all members states, controlling immigration, admitting nation states that did not meet the membership criteria with subsequent economic chaos and mass people movements within the area, and then creating one super-currency with a European Central Bank. That step was a step too far for the UK.  We kept our currency.  The next planned step is one military for all of Europe.  The EEC had become the EU in its journey from a free trade area to the United States of Europe.

    Unwilling to Acknowledge the role of Christian Faith

    To my mind, the most important issue was the steady momentum away from its Christian foundations towards a self-proclaimed humanism.  Angel Merkel, German Chancellor, publicly stated that she wanted a direct reference to Christianity in the Lisbon Treaty, but her efforts were unsuccessful.  There is no reference whatsoever to God or Christian values in the current documents of the EU.

    Many citizens of the European Union, chafe under the growing bureaucracy, taxation and wealth redistribution from Brussels, but is it possible to leave?  For those who had abandoned their own currency and adopted the Euro, the answer was almost certainly, “No.”  The United Kingdom, though, with the Pound Sterling still in place, might just pull it off.  When the Conservative Government of David Cameron put the question to the general population three years ago, nearly all the media pundits predicted that, despite the ceaseless griping about Brussels, the people would choose to remain in the EU just to avoid the risk of an economic down-turn.  The results shocked both the main-stream media and the political establishment.  The people of the UK voted to leave—though by a small margin.

    A Clear Vote

    The margin, however, wasn’t so small when seen in the context of representative government.

    We have 650 members of the House of Commons.  Each one represents a voting district and they are normally the voice of the majority of their voters.  That was not so when it came to the question of leaving the EU.

    408 Constituencies voted to leave.

    Only 160 MPs have voted to leave.

    There is a clear gulf between the politicians and the people they are meant to represent.  To compound that, our Prime Minister for the past couple of years, Theresa May, wanted us to remain and the government she formed had few members who wanted to leave.  Those facts are at the heart of the last three years of confusion.

    Brexit Without Leaving?

    The PM and her team attempted to negotiate a deal, but their hearts weren’t in it.  Worse than that, though, was the determination of Brussels to make it very hard to leave and to punish the UK if it succeeded in its efforts to leave.  (If they were cooperative, more nations would head for the exit.)  Theresa May returned from her many trips to Brussels with a deal that she presented as leaving the EU, but kept the UK captive to the regulations and judicial system of the EU and prevented the UK from negotiating any trade deals with other countries. The big thing that would have changed under her agreement was that the UK would lose voting rights as one of the 28 member states.

    Finally, after months of no progress in Parliament, Mrs May announced her intention to resign and the conservative party initiated a process of choosing a new leader. The final step, a vote by the 160,000 members of the party, resulted in a two-thirds majority for Boris Johnson. So, who is he?

    A British version of Trump?

    The BBC and more liberal press will continue to caricature him as a “British Donald Trump”.  But he is different in many respects.  That caricature is no doubt because of his firm conservative political beliefs.  He had the privilege of very good schooling followed by university at Oxford where he studied Classics and was President of the Union..  He was a political columnist for the Daily Telegraph, a successful mayor of London and was also the author of a biography of Winston Churchill–and it’s a good read.  There is no doubt that Churchill is his hero and that he would like to be known as a Churchill-like figure.

    What he has in common with Churchill is an optimistic outlook in uncertain times. He has a quick wit, a superb command of language (definitely not Trump-like) and a good sense of humor. He has been characterized as impulsive, and insufficiently detailed, but those who know him well, including one of his professors at Oxford, counter that claim by pointing to his record as a student, as a journalist and as Mayor of London. In that sense, he is more of a Ronald Reagan than a Jimmy Carter. Carter probably had a higher IQ than Reagan, but got lost in the details, while Reagan was a big picture man who surrounded himself with competent people whom he trusted.

    Far from Ideal

    He is not, however, a good role model for aspiring young people.  He left, and is divorcing, his second wife.  He has four children by his two marriages and at least one other child from an affair.  His current girlfriend, 31 years old, will be moving with him into the Prime Minister’s residence, Number 10 Downing Street.  That fact attracts almost as much media attention as his politics.  He is known to be antagonistic to the Church, by that I mean the Church of England. Whether or not he is also an adversary of Christian faith in general is not yet clear.

    Some Signs of Hope

    In these early days of his overall national leadership he has given us some reason to hope.  His cabinet and the wider government he formed have demonstrated that he is serious about delivering Brexit.  He has also put some very strong characters in position to streamline government. Interestingly, their pay will be related to how much wasteful expenditure they eliminate.  His speeches have been very well received by the public.  I have to say that the BBC has been consistently downbeat and negative about him and our national outlook.  I am hoping that he will have the courage to do away with the TV license fee (£150 per household!) and make them stand on their own commercial success.  They have demonstrated a strong left-wing bias for the past couple of decades.

    To my mind, his most significant appointment thus far has been to make Jacob Rees-Mogg the leader of the House of Commons. Marti and I admire him and I often listen to his videos just for entertainment.  There are several short YouTube clips that show his ability to speak clearly and avoid the pitfalls. Here is one of them:

    Of all politicians, he has been the most articulate proponent of Brexit.

    Finally, I am glad this has happened during the Trump presidency. President Obama visited here a few years ago and famously stated that if the UK left the EU, they would be at the “back of the line” for any trade negotiations. Trump has said that the UK is at the front of line and, just yesterday, I read that Boris has plans to visit DC three times in the next few months.

    Many pundits say he cannot succeed, and others focus on the innumerable and very difficult obstacles, but a few think he will deliver Brexit. That is my hope.

    Lynn Green.