That's out of place, and it bugs me

What bugs you when it's out of place? A stack of books that are not aligned? Children who misbehave in the store? That dangle of hair that won't stay where you put it? Someone's sweater buttoned one off? A car that is intentionally parked to take up two spots? I'll wager that most people have at least one kind of thing that when out of place just bugs them without relief. And we are compelled to set it right - straighten the stack of books, shush the kids, clip the hair, mention the sweater button thing, or curse the selfish driver.

You could be bugged by one kind of thing out of place, but not another. For example, you can't stand the toothpaste squeezed from the middle but you find mismatched socks creative. And the thing that bugs you doesn't bug the person next to you, and that bugs you! They should be bugged by that - why aren't they?!? That bugs me.

One of the things that bugs me is when something is not logical. I'm not the all-great determiner of what's logical, and I don't always do what's logical. I am no expert, but I've learned a few things. But even before education, I was bugged when I noticed logic being violated. Not just my logic, but the rules of logic.

When someone makes a logically inconsistent statement, I notice. I can't not notice. And I'm compelled to set it right. Social media is perhaps the most frustrating, because that's where I come across the worst offenses of logic, and I have this burning need to set the logic straight. It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with the point being made - if it violates logic, I wanna say something. I must say something. And sometimes do. And often shouldn't.

The problem with this, no matter what it is that bugs us when it's out of place, is that we can be so fixated on "setting it right" that other things might suffer. We're so bugged that we don't care who we bug until we get ourselves unbugged. For example, my quest to get the logic straight in a discussion has successfully alienated way too many people, interfered with family dynamics, and even kept me up way too late at night.

But there are a bunch of other things that are out of place that should bug me much more:

• Children without a loving home or a chance for a good education
• Human trafficking
• Systems that inhibit someone from finding work
• Discrimination, judgmentalism, and stereotyping
• Failure to stand up for one's neighbor
• Misrepresenting God and His ways

The list could go on. All of these things are out of place, but at a gut level, they usually don't bug me more than when logic is out of place. (My only hope is to realize that this is not logical.)

Are you willing to be bugged about such things at a deeper level than the pet peeve "out of place" things do? Willingness is where it begins. Then maybe we'll be compelled to set it right.

A Critical Look at Criticism

Why do we criticize? We see someone who is rude or espouses a view that we find distasteful, and then we criticize. Perhaps quietly under our breath, perhaps at the top of our lungs, or perhaps from our keyboards. To to their face, or behind their back, or publicly. Someone unethical, and we criticize - or they do something quite neutral, but we already don’t care for that person’s views, and we criticize the neutral thing they did.

We could do a lot of other things. We could ignore them. We could engage in a friendly debate without offering criticisms. We could look for the positives and downplay the negatives. We could even just be bothered, not really ignoring them, but offering no criticisms, either (“I really can’t agree, but you’re welcome to your opinion”).

But sometimes we criticize instead. We tear down, mock, highlight the negative (and ignore the positive), cry out “see?!?!”, and take the least flattering snapshot to turn into a derogatory meme. Why do we choose that response? We can do it out of unconscious habit or by plotting, but why do we choose a path of tearing down?

I can’t speak for you, so I’ll speak for me. Perhaps you have similar reasons.

I criticize rather than self-examine. What a great excuse to ignore my own bad ways for one more day! If I can criticize others enough, then I don’t need all that humility stuff needed to focus on becoming a better person. Besides, even a mediocre person looks pretty good when constantly compared to those who are criticized enough.

I criticize rather than truly help. This is a second way that criticizing is a convenient excuse! In order to truly help someone, I cannot be in a posture of criticizing. I can condescendingly offer “help” to one I criticize, but I can’t truly help in that way. Criticizing, then, becomes a substitute for rolling up my sleeves, getting over myself, and truly helping someone.

I criticize rather than offer grace. Let’s face it - offering grace is costly. Criticizing is a low-cost endeavor (pay no attention to the high cost of the damage done). Offering grace means that some wrongs won’t be righted, some illogical things will never be straightened, people who offend won’t always get retribution, and my thoughts won’t get the attention I think they deserve.

I criticize in order to get someone’s favor. Sometimes, criticizing is just to get a laugh from others, which is one way of granting favor. More sinister is criticizing in order to be favored by those on the “right side.” I want to be accepted by Group A, so I find ways to criticize Group B. Boy, I really like being accepted by Group A, so Group B can just twist in the wind.

That’s my list. Don't criticize. I don’t know what your list is, but I’m sure it’s clever.

Your Agenda

The word agenda is a plural word from Latin that means "things to be done." Let's poke around this word a little.

First, "things to be done" implies that they are things that are presently undone. But more than just undone, they are things that should be done (in the opinion of the agenda maker). Think of the agenda for a meeting - it's a list of things that aren't yet done (otherwise they wouldn't be on the agenda!) but they are things that should be done (otherwise they wouldn't be on the agenda!). The agenda helps those in the meeting "stay on task," rather than rabbit trailing onto something else. Agendas can be good things.

Second, my agenda is my personal plan. It's the list of things that I think should be done. These can be things that I will get done or someone else, but I still want to see them get done. Royals in the playoffs is on my agenda, Chiefs winning a playoff game is on my agenda, bicycling regularly is on my agenda. Again, there's nothing wrong with having an agenda, and in fact, having an agenda is necessary. What would we accomplish if we didn't have some form of agenda?

Some people can be described as "agenda-driven," which usually carries a negative connotation. Sure, it could just mean someone who has a plan and is diligent about accomplishing it, but more often it refers to someone who will bowl over others in pursuit of that agenda and ignore anything not on the agenda.

Then of course there is also the "hidden agenda," where someone has an undisclosed plan, but acts as if his or her plan was something else. For example, a young suitor who opens the door for a woman not because he wants to be polite, but because he wants to be noticed by the woman's daughter.

The downside of agenda is when one's agenda prevents him or her from valuing good things that don't happen to promote the agenda. It happens in every corner of life, such as in theology. A man has a certain set of theological beliefs about secondary matters, but holds those beliefs firmly. Whenever a point is made from Scripture that challenges that agenda, rather than a thoughtful reconsideration of his beliefs, he ignores or attacks that point in order to preserve his theological agenda. Another example is politics. A woman has a particular political agenda, but when someone of a different political stripe raises a valuable point, rather than politely comparing values over coffee, unclever labels are flung at each other and then comes the highly effective "unfriending." Agendas like these often are some form of an -ism. -Isms are not a set of goals, in most cases, but agendas (a specific set of plans to accomplish goals). The political left (-ism) and political right (-ism) could have the same goal of job growth, but vastly different agendas to achieve it.

Relationships are frequently sacrificed to maintain one's agenda. When "staying on task" becomes more important than "staying on what matters," agendas have gone from helpful to combative. They are no longer "things to be done," but rather "things that I've made more important than they ought to be." What's the Latin word for that? (inflatius?)

One night, you decide that you want to go out for a nice Italian dinner (your goal). So, you choose a place you read about called Mezzano's. You check on line, and send the address to your smartphone to map out your path (your agenda). As you are following the nice direction lady living inside your phone, your spouse texts a friend about your plans and the friend says that you really should try Meglioni's because the gnocchi is so much better there. Your goal has not been challenged, but your agenda has. Now you have a choice:

1. Keep to my map and go to Mezzano's ("average") to accomplish my agenda.
2. Map a new route to Meglioni's ("better") to accomplish my goal. Rerouting!

It seems like a pretty easy choice for many of us. Good gnocchi is good gnocchi, and that's my goal. But when it comes to our theology, our politics, and our other -isms, rerouting is all but easy, and often because we've confused our agenda with our goal. Goals are the what: things like justice, freedom, rights, transformed lives, generosity, unconditional love, alleviation of poverty, etc. Agendas are more about the how. When we confuse the how with the what, we've lost sight of the goal.

When your agenda is challenged ("try a different restaurant"), it's easy to react as if your goals are being challenged ("eat Greek food"). When this happens, ask what is really being challenged - my goal or my agenda? If your goals are not being challenged, perhaps your agenda needs to be realigned to better achieve those goals. A challenge like that is a good thing!

But if your goal is what truly is being challenged, you're now faced with one of two possibilities: A) your goals need to improve, or B) you need to stand firm (even if your agenda needs to change).

In order to sort this out, however, we've got to understand the difference between our goals and our agendas. If we get those confused, we'll end up eating mediocre gnocchi for the rest of our lives.

Control vs. Influence

If only I could finally, truly, completely learn the difference between control and influence. I know the difference well enough to describe it. But I'm pretty sure I haven't learned the difference.

Both control and influence are about bringing about desired outcomes, but are different paths to get there ... and for different motives. Control grabs the steering wheel, but soon realizes that real control comes only when you also make the pistons to move and the plugs to spark and the shaft to crank and the smoke to exhaust; influence pulls the reins to convince the horse to turn. Control demands; influence gives a convincing argument. Control seeks compliance; influence seeks concordance. Being controlled is enjoyed by the unstable; being influenced is enjoyed by the informed. Control must; influence ought. Control is about the controller; influence is about the influenced.

Think about your greatest frustrations, your greatest fears, and your greatest anxieties. How many of them are fueled by a sense of not being in control? How many of them are you trying to resolve through forms of control? We like control because we think that if we have it, we can virtually guarantee the outcomes we want. We think influence is too soft, too unpredictable, too likely to end in an outcome other than our preference. And yet, we suffer much less anxiety over a lack of influence than over a lack of control.

We define success by the outcomes (with good reason), and so we control. We less frequently define success by whether or not another person is better off because we influenced them. In fact, we sometimes never get to see the outcome of influence, but control gives direct and immediate feedback, so that's what we pick.

We love sports (playing and watching) because when our team wins, we feel more in control. I was emotionally crestfallen when the Royals lost three 1-run games last week at a critical time of the season - the season is spinning out of control! We have the same reaction with games and contests - we don't raise our hands in victory because of influence, but that we have enough control over the game or the whole season. Losing stinks because it is lack of control over one's destiny.

We often try to control things at work because we think that's how to succeed. Few of us see influence as the measure of success at work. And our performance reviews (and raises) are tied more to how well we controlled things over the last year, not influenced them.

It becomes a true sickness when we try to control people rather than influence them. We manipulate, dictate, yell at, and refuse to listen to when we are trying to control another person. But we do it because we so want particular outcomes (often very good ones). Oh, that I would learn to influence well, and then let go. Oh, that I would count that as a successful encounter with another person.

When we try to control God, we are blatant and blind fools. We refuse to cooperate until He does what we want. We try to use the right phrases in order to make Him respond in just the right way. I want a certain outcome, and He's got the power to make it happen, so how can I make Him come through for me? In other words, how can I be in control even of God?

The amazing thing is that God invites us to influence Him. I don't fully understand how a completely sovereign God can be influenced, but His invitations to do so are plentiful, and the respected faithful ones of history sure seemed to think that the invitations are genuine. Not manipulate in a particularly clever way, but influence - have a voice in the matter, be listened to, contribute to the outcome, or even be a reason for God to do something different than He would have otherwise. He allows that. He invites that.

When I learn the difference between these two, I'm sure I'll be a happier, more influential man.