Time Management is Mostly about Priority Management

For all the points of the compass, there's only one direction, and time is its only measure.
(from the play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead)

The game clock for basketball shows the time remaining in tenths of a second as each quarter comes to an end. The "Tucker Rule" states that no less than 3/10 of a second must come off of the clock for any in-bounds pass. Tenths of second! I can barely tap my desktop 10 times in a second! We are a very time-oriented culture. I remember rewriting software in order to shave off milliseconds of execution time.

Other cultures are more event-oriented than time-oriented, meaning that events start when the people involved arrive, not when the clock says so. One of the adjustments missionaries need to make when they live in these cultures is putting aside our Western view of time, learning to live in an event-oriented culture.

We are also a harried, overbusy culture, for the most part. Our smartphone reminders boss us around, telling us where to go when (even given us directions on getting there). "Time management" is a hot topic - there is no lack of literature, websites, and software tools designed to help you manage time - for a fee. Basketball teams need to learn to "work the clock" as time expires. Football games are won and lost on "clock management."

And we feel as though we have too little time for all the things we "must" do.

To say that "I don't have enough time for all the things I need to do" is very close to saying, "God has not given me enough time." Or worse, "God has not given me enough time to do His will." God has not given us infinite time (here), but neither has He given us too little time. He never gives us too little to do His will.

Rather than being time-oriented (which is my nature) or event-oriented (which drives me batty), I'm trying to become more priority-oriented. It starts with the view that God has given me a limited amount of time on purpose, and that He's given me exactly the right amount of time. So, I always have enough time to do His will. But I never have enough time to do all the things I would put on my list.

Given the knowledge that God has given me enough time, now I address the things before me based on priorities. "Priority" is not only determined by the absolute priority of the task, but how important it is to do it soon (which is slightly different than "urgency," found in some literature). Priority is also determined by the value I believe God puts on it, not me. I try to busy myself with what is priority, until my priority is to stop and rest. That way, I'm always about what's most important at the time. (It also frees me to ignore my phone when I'm talking to someone in person - the person in front of me is my priority, not the phone - which, by the way, is very good at taking messages for me.)

This also means that whatever does not get done is OK. Maybe it will become a higher priority later, and then it will get done. Or, it was never priority enough to get done in the first place. I cannot do more than be busy about priorities, and I try not to feel guilty about the things that were never priority enough to do. There will always be things that don't get done. As long as I don't ignore the priority items because I'm busy doing low-priority items, I feel like I'll generally be doing the things God gave me the time to do.

I'm by no means consistent in this thinking, but the more I adopt it, the better I sleep at night - even though my todo list wasn't completed.

Time management is mostly about priority management.

If you're not willing to be God's steward of it, don't buy it

In last week's message, one of the principles was, If you're not willing to be God's steward of it, don't buy it. Everything we buy, we should understand that we're volunteering to be God's steward of whatever it is. If we're not willing to fulfill the role of being God's steward over something, we have no business buying it. Am I crazy?!? What was I thinking? Am I serious?

I have to admit, this is a tough thought for me. I certainly have not had this attitude for most of my thing-buying career. For those who helped us unpack a year and a half ago, you can verify that we have more things than two people should. We never thought of ourselves as out-of-control shoppers or being caught up in rampant consumerism. And yet, a big truck and a POD were almost not enough to haul our stuff. Ridiculous. And embarrassing. (I take a little solace in the fact that we don't have many nice things, just too many of them. In other words, we've got a lot of junk.)

Asking the stewarding question before buying is an admittedly new thought for me, relatively speaking. But I can't get around it. I can't ignore it, argue against it, or throw it away. It's still there. Kinser, if you're not willing to be God's steward of it, don't buy it. Yeah, I'm crazy. But I'm pretty sure I'm right.

Being God's steward of something does not mean that we need to go to the temple, perform an animal sacrifice, sprinkle it with blood, and dedicate it to the Lord. Neither does not mean that it can only be used for church functions or evangelism.

What does it mean to be God's steward of something, then?

First, it means that I won't use it for sinful purposes. I won't use it for activities that go against God's will or God's mission. But that's pretty obvious (and sadly, not enough to stop us from using things we buy for sinful purposes). Using an object for sinful purposes also includes buying it in a vain effort to draw security, comfort, or meaning out of it, rather than from God alone.

Second, it means that I will use it for things that advance God's purpose. Of course, this can include using something directly for ministry, such as using your car to bring visitors to church. But this also includes "normal" things that God expects us to do - feed and clothe our kids, have guests in our home, give gifts generously, support those in need, educate our kids, keeping informed of what's going on in the world, and a whole host of things.

In short, being a steward of something is to use it as your Master would use it. While on earth, Jesus did a lot of "normal" things with possessions. He wore clothes and sandals that someone had to buy, including during those times when He wasn't actively ministering. He ate food and drank wine. He stayed in homes, both modest and expensive. He ordered take out food once (sort of). He read books, went to weddings, and walked on stone paved roads. Before His ministry began, we assume that he worked in his father's "secular" business. Luke gives us the idea that there was a lot of normalcy during Jesus' upbringing.

But here's the key: all of it contributed somehow to advancing God's Kingdom, directly or indirectly. Everything Jesus did, and therefore everything He did with stuff, He did to advance God's purpose. Even just growing up and being well-fed and healthy allowed Him to minister more effectively. I think it's a fair assumption that Jesus didn't own anything of which He didn't consider Himself to be God's steward.

This is not the same thing as just doing what we want, making sure it's not sinful, and then baptizing it as "consistent with God's purpose." It's a mentality that everything I possess as a steward I use for the purpose of advancing God's will in my life and in the lives of others. Furthermore, if I can't use it to advance God's will, then I have no business buying it. As a citizen of God's Kingdom, why would I want to bother with something that does His Kingdom absolutely no good? Why would God want me to have something that does nothing to advance His purpose?

I want to personally explore this idea more. I know I'll be thinking about it the next time I buy something, big or small. And it may mean I need to ... gasp ... throw out some junk.

Who's to Blame?

I'm still having trouble comprehending that it's been 10 years since the disaster on 9/11. Have we really been living in a post-9/11 for a full decade already? Has over 1/5 of my life been lived with this event in our collective psyche? During the kids' message Sunday when I asked them how many were under the age of 10, it struck me how many people there are who have known nothing other than a post-9/11 world.

Over this weekend of remembrance, no little controversy has been stirred in the blogosphere and 24-hour cable ad newsium over who's to blame, and over who is casting blame at others. We want to blame people, and we want to argue with those who blame the wrong people.

Who is to blame?

Of course, many conspiracy theorists claim the U.S. government was behind it all, citing all kinds of suspicious "inconsistencies," and claiming that it was all an elaborate scheme to solidify political power.

Others blame those who are more lax about national security. They say it was because too many people have gone "soft" on protecting our borders, allowing the plan to hatch in the first place.

Others have blamed the sinfulness and declining morals of Americans - a charge made not only by the unhinged, judgmental fundamentalists, but also by some of the leading religious voices that are normally quite sound. This is God's wrath on sinful America! You and I are to blame, they say, and therefore we should be deeply ashamed of ourselves.

There are those who blame some subsector of the Muslim community. They blame either the "radicals" or those with uncontained political aspirations. They are careful not to blame all Muslims or even Islam itself.

Others blame all of the Muslim community, saying there is no such thing as "non-radical" Islam. Others rush to the other extreme and bark at anyone who would dare include "Islam" of any form when deciding who's at fault.

I think I've heard more people blame all forms of religion more than any other suspect. All such "religious extremists" are equally dangerous, according to this charge. And now, "extremism" is a term that has expanded to include anyone who is "fervent" or even just "serious" about his faith. That means that I am as dangerous as the hijackers.


Perhaps the most talked about blamer this last weekend was a writer who laid the responsibility square on people who were in leadership, like President Bush and Mayor Giuliani - not really blaming them for the event, but for giving us a "decade of shame" of politicizing the whole event. Ironically, the article itself politicized the whole event.

Still others note the demonic nature of that magnitude of evil, and include the fallen spirits among the blameworthy. For a brief time after the event, it was acceptable in a world of tolerance to call something "wrong" or "evil." At minimum, the sinfulness of man is a major factor in what happened.

Would a strong Calvinist even dare to blame God?

Who is to blame?

What I find interesting is how important it is for us to blame someone - anyone at all. The level of heat in these exchanges tells me that there's something in our very core that needs to know who's at fault, so that we can put the blame where it belongs. We've just got to cast blame on someone! What does this drive to place blame tell us about ourselves?

We crave justice. We are appalled and angered by the grave injustice of 9/11, and we need to blame someone so that we can hope and pray for justice to come. It was wrong, we know it was wrong, and we want someone to pay for that wrong. Even many who deny God have an insatiable hunger for justice (a justice that has no definition without God).

Which is why it is so hard for us to comprehend grace. God's grace is that Jesus takes the blame upon himself for all our injustices. And that feels so wrong - Jesus is that last one who should be blamed. But, grace says that Jesus took all the blame, and offers us grace instead. The cross is even bigger than the atrocity of 9/11, and beyond sufficient for everyone who deserves any portion of the blame.

Who is to blame?

Jesus is willing to be. It is the only way that we can survive God's justice. That is the Gospel.

I don't wanna waste your time, Pastor, but ...

Sometimes church folks are too nice. (Of course, sometimes they are too un-nice!) There are times when good-natured, well-intentioned people are a little too considerate. For example, when someone wants to have some time with me to talk about something important to him. Often times, people will say something like, "I don't want to waste your time, Pastor, but..." I hear that phrase a couple of times a month at least, and I really do appreciate the sentiment behind it. People are being considerate of the panoply of responsibilities that I have (which may be different from, but likely does not outnumber, everyone else's set of responsibilities).

The only instance when this is a real issue is when that considerate attitude prevents someone from asking me for the time we need. Out of a generous concern for me, sometimes people just don't even ask. The result is that we never get to talk.

First of all, it's not my time. I don't own the time that I spend for the church. God owns all my time, and the church deserves every hour that we've agreed I would give to the church. The needs of the church are directly or indirectly what I should be spending my time on. And managing programs is less important than talking with real, live people with real world issues.

Second, I'm able to say "no" when I really don't have the time. And I'm pretty good at scheduling which meetings I have when. I am not afraid to tell you that my time is already committed, and I refuse to consistently schedule blocks of meetings back-to-back-to-back. Just because you ask for my time doesn't mean I automatically have it to give in the coming week. Furthermore, the Elders are in the habit of making sure I'm balancing my time for the responsibilities they want me to invest in. In short, it doesn't hurt to ask!

Third, here is a list of some things I do not consider to be time wasters:

• Getting to know more about your life and history
• Discussing theological questions
• Hearing what you'd like prayer for
• Talking out difficulties
• Sharing a meal or a cup of coffee
• Hearing your plans and dreams
• Hearing about your kids
• Attending your kids' events
• And many more...

However, I'm not the Pollyanna who says there are no time wasters. There most certainly are! It's precisely because this time belongs to God and His work that I guard against them. For example:

• Talking only about sports, politics, or the weather, but never getting to more serious topics
• Talking about pop culture for more than 12 milliseconds
• Hearing about the same problems for the umpteenth time when the person is not even trying to make changes (that last phrase is crucial - I don't mind dealing with the same issues if there's some sense of trying to make positive changes)
• Gossip or trash talking or whining or blamecasting

If someone is in the habit of wasting time, then they won't get much of my time. I'm pleased that Grace Fellowship is not a collection of time wasters.

One of the greatest privileges that a pastor has is that we get to share the most real parts of life with people. We don't have all the answers, and we get in trouble when we pretend that we do. But we are often allowed into the realest part of life and are given the opportunity to help. My goal is to simply urge people into that space where God is more at work in their lives. If I can help people get into that space, then I consider myself to be wildly successful.

Don't be too considerate - you won't be "wasting" my time.