After a few months of experimenting, I've consolidated ThousandYardStare and my pastoral blog back into one site.

You can reach it two ways:

Joshdixonline.com
ThousandYardStare.org

This post was written for The Journey blog at http://journeyon.net

During the 90s, Seinfeld became a huge success by poking fun at itself as “a show about nothing.”

During the first few verses of the Bible, God made something out of nothing too. God crafted the heavens and earth out of the void and breathed life into it.  He delighted in its goodness (Genesis 1:31).

But in chapter 2, God declared something was not good.  Man was alone.

When God made Eve from Adam’s rib, Adam rejoiced in his completeness, exclaiming, “At last!” His experience was one of delight and Eve’s experience was one of being delighted in.

Of course, this joy was before sin entered the world.  Adam didn’t say, “I hope she works out, God,” or “Hope you measure up to all my expectations, Eve.”  He wasn’t even mad that she took his rib.  He looked at her, just as God had looked upon creation, and said “This is good.”  He was delighted by her presence.  No agenda.  No need for results.  Just relationship.

This part of their story ends with a small but profound statement:  they “were both naked and were not ashamed,” which points toward their vulnerability (Genesis 2:24). They had total security with each other.

That security was later shattered by sin, which cracks the foundation of trust in relationships.  Sometimes we don’t see these cracks, but usually we are just like Adam and Eve.  We feel shame and hide.  They hid in the bushes (Genesis 3:8), but we hide in our hearts as shame causes us to protect ourselves.  The pattern establishes a “creeping separateness,” as one of our pastors calls it.

In God’s design, marriage is the opposite of that creeping separateness. The mandate that we should “become one flesh” is about a relationship that requires all of us—heart, soul, mind and body.  It is a oneness that should be pursued boldly and passionately, and it begins much like Adam began delighting in Eve—without shame.

Shame keeps us from experiencing God’s delight in us, too.  We see ourselves as unacceptable before God, but the gospel exposes our sin and covers our shame with the love of Jesus.  Because of Jesus, we can be naked and unashamed before a God who knows all our faults and loves us anyway.

To say that our relationship with God informs the rest of our relationships is a massive understatement.   Once we know God’s delight in us, we can be vulnerable enough to love and be loved.  So here are some things to reflect on.

The opportunity (and command) for us in marriage is to show Christ to one another.  What would happen if we loved our spouses like that?

How could the undeserving love we receive from Christ influence how we love our spouses, even in the midst of trials and failures?

God’s love for us is based on an unchanging covenant relationship him through Jesus.  It is not based on our performance (thankfully!).   How might we show our spouse a love not based on performance, but on the unwavering covenant relationship we share?

Finally, oneness is about showing Christ to one another, not about similar interests or agreement on all things.  How could we incorporate that as a governing principle in our marriages so that we can cultivate relationships free of shame and protection—relationships where we are naked and unashamed?

jd

I've been studying the different ways we trust others.  One study posited transactional trust vs. relational trust.  Transactional trust is the trust we build through our ability to accomplish meaningful things for one another.  Transactional trust is more about situation than person.  I build transactional trust at work by showing up on time for meetings or by producing. Transactional trust relies on your ability to produce results and meet expectations through action.   

On the other hand relational trust is about the relationship (surprising huh?).  Relational trust builds through meeting emotional needs, understanding one another, and communicating clearly.  Relational trust could be communicated like this:  "I'm for you."  With these two kinds of trust, it's about relationship vs. results.  Both are important. 

In the middle of a week when I was studying all this, Miranda and I were able to get a few moments alone while our daughter slept.  We've learned to take these opportunities to accomplish something.  Clean, read, do some work, talk, etc.  Maybe out of fatigue instead of doing anything this time, we just sat closely together on the couch.  I put on a little music and we literally didn't say a word for 15 minutes. Before you think this story is going to go somewhere it isn't, let me pause to make my point: Nothing happened and it was awesome.  I can't remember the last time we enjoyed mere companionship.  There was no agenda.  No drive for results.  Nothing to accomplish.  Just relationship.  

I think our hurried and results-driven culture often kills the depth and joy of just being.  We devalue relationships without some transaction, living by the rule of "What have you done for me lately?"  We see ourselves that way, too (What have I accomplished?).  We forget the power of presence.  We're in too much of a hurry to enjoy what is instead of thinking about what can be.  

When I relaxed on the couch with Miranda and a little Bon Iver playing on the stereo, I kept thinking, " Is it okay we didn't get anything done or talk much?  Why is this so good?"  Finally, it dawned on me.  I enjoy my wife!  And it's not because of all the great ways she loves me.  It's just her.  I've had this internal driver lately keeping me from experiencing her aside from any agenda or transaction.  The only transaction that night was shared company.  It was the best night I've had in months.  It was about just being.  It was about a shared esthetic, a shared gaze.  For instance, what is so wonderful about seeing the mountains or watching the sun set?  Do the mountains do anything for you?  No.  They just are.  You enjoy them because they exist and they're beautiful.  There are a ton of lessons for me in this.  I look at many of my relationships like this--with family, friends...with God.  In all these relationships, loving and being loved begins with a deeper view of myself and others.  It continues with a willingness to let things be...to see myself as someone who doesn't have to do anything to be delighted in, and delight in the presence of others.  A good end to that delight is then expressing this joy to the one I’m enjoying.  

Some questions:

Have you been like me--too hurried to enjoy what is before you think about what could be? 

Are you viewing your relationships based on what you and other parties do for one another?

This week try to sit still with someone you enjoy and just be.

The following was written by my good friend Saint Fults in preparation for his session at the Together For Adoption National Conference.

On October 1 and October 2, the Together for Adoption national conference will be held in Austin, Texas.  I will be hosting a session titled “The Needs of Foster Children.” In preparing for the conference, I continually asked what I think is a critical question:  What do foster children need?

Too often the heart of the question is ignored when answers to this question are things like books, bikes, clothes, suitcases, scholarships… and on and on and on. All of these answers are most assuredly correct, but they give an easy out that makes people feel better. It's easy to donate money or buy a Christmas gift and say, "I really helped a child." What is much harder is filling a need that has a permanent, lasting impact on the life of a child.

So what can we do? There are several answers, but I'd like to focus on one in particular. This idea involves changing the commonly accepted notion of foster-parenting and incorporating “radical foster parenting.”

Radical foster parenting, by my definition, requires a foster parent to:

• Provide a safe, caring and loving home for a child in foster care. 
•  Serve, mentor, teach and love the biological parents of a foster child.  
•  Serve, mentor, teach and connect to the biological family of a foster child.  
• Nurture the natural relationships that exist for children and their biological families. 
• Let a child go so they can return to their biological parents and work to make this happen.
• Hold on to a child whose biological parents can't make it work and hold on to that child forever (adopt).

Why is this so radical? To begin, the longstanding notion of foster-to-adopt is a great idea. Becoming a foster parent in the hopes of adopting a child is a foundation to the foster care and adoption system. Foster children need to be adopted, at all ages, in every part of the United States. However, this mindset often leads to problems. Foster parents suffer severe heartache and trauma when a child leaves their home.  They have major reservations about biological parents and what those parents "did" to their children.  And sometimes they may sabotage (unknowingly and unintentionally) a biological parent's progress in reunifying with their child.

Some people never consider becoming foster parents in the first place because of the horror stories they’ve heard. Radical foster parenting directly contradicts foster-to-adopt foster parenting. It requires a foster parent to be a caregiver to BOTH the child and the biological parent. It requires a focus on children and parents reuniting. It requires a focus on children and their families remaining connected and as strong as possible.

For Christian families, this is gospel-centered, missional living at its finest. Biological parents often have no support systems, no idea of how to care for their children, and no one to turn to. Foster families are in the unique position to be missionaries to these families, with the unique opportunity to let broken people know that even though they are broken, there is redemption and opportunity for change. Biological parents need to know that someone cares for their child and that someone knows they have the ability to care for their own child. Broken people need to know that the message of the gospel will save their lives.

There are families that do this and live this radical concept out. Those foster parents I have met and worked with who do radical foster parenting really change the world. These foster parents never "lose" that child. In fact, most of them become pseudo-family members and end up as weekend babysitters, invites for holidays and hosts for family dinners. I have met foster parents who are now "grandparents" of former foster children because they never let those ties distinguish. I know of biological parents who have become devoted members of foster parents' churches because a foster parent was the first person to ask them to come to church.

In my view, Christian foster families have the ability to change the world and to save people's lives. Many choose to save the life of children who enter the foster care system. Yet, they have the opportunity to save the lives of an entire family of a child who enters the foster care system. They have the opportunity to become a missionary to not just one, but an entire community. 

Join me on October 1 and 2 in Austin, TX to learn more about adoption and foster at Together For Adoption. http://www.togetherforadoption.org 

Saint

About two-thirds of the way through the Bible, there is a two-page short story. The main character displays his most notable leadership traits: rebelliousness, self-righteousness, irreverence, and whining. He is a glimmering example of what not to be.

His name is Jonah.

Jonah's story has many lessons, but a few aspects of his leadership--or lack thereof--stand out. More than anything, Jonah wanted to control the terms of the situation at hand. We might say he had trouble with submission. But despite his attempts to maintain control, he utterly failed.

Control surfaces itself in many ways. Like Jonah, many of us struggle with following through when someone tells us to do something. We don't like the authority someone has over us. We may not trust in the relationship. Or we don't believe in their expertise. In these ways, we try to limit their influence over us. We don't need to rely on anyone but ourselves. And we certainly don't need to take orders from someone else.

This way of leading rarely works. When you follow that example, you undermine your own influence. Self-righteousness causes you to quit learning, which erodes your expertise. It also leads to abusing your power, because power means more to you than it should. Ultimately, you alienate yourself from others because your lack of trust causes people to not trust you. The closer people get to you, the more they feel controlled. And because you always have to be right, people get tired of always being wrong.

Let's contrast Jonah with Jesus.

Philippians 2, my favorite passage in the Bible, shows us a radically different picture of leadership. In that passage, Paul describes how Jesus surrendered everything to fulfill the Father's will. He had total control (equality with God), but he released it for a greater purpose. He trusted his Father in every way:  in the relationship, in God's authority, and in God's wisdom and eternal plan.

We cannot lead as if we are the final authority, the primary relationship, or the ultimate expert. When we lead ourselves and others like that, we--like Jonah--are destined to end the story under a withering fig tree in the hot sun, wondering why things didn't work out as we planned.

But if we follow the example of Jesus, we'll see the great reversal in leadership thinking; we gain power when we release control, we become big through first becoming small, and our leadership should work for God's glory, rather than our own.

 jd

This post was written for The Journey-St. Louis web site, found here: http://journeyon.net

I was in a good conversation last night with one of our pastors Bob Bickford.  Often I refer to our organization in the same likeness as a family system.  There are generations of leaders, systems of thought, patterns of behavior, etc.  In this frame of looking at our leaders and our organization, I've regularly used the terms "Culture Maintainers" and "Culture Shifters."  As Bob and I spoke about someone we knew who was a culture shifter, Bob expanded the idea, "That dude doesn't just shift culture.  He builds it."  

Ah!  He was right.  I've used the idea of shifting culture synonymously with building culture.  But that's incomplete.  Shifting culture implies that you're already in it.  It's a living organism.  It's like water in a mountain river and when a tree or boulder falls in it, the water shifts around the object yet keeps flowing.  But sometimes to shift culture, the only option is to create an entirely new one.  I call the person who does this the "Cultural Architect."

In the movie Inception, the dream sequences were created by an architect.  What did they do?  They created the rules of the world the dreamers would live in.  They designed the streets, the buildings, the layers, and every detail.  Architects of culture work similarly.  They see the addition of all the small things and how they contribute to a larger context.  Then they find ways to communicate both the small things and the context in a way that's attractive.  

In Daniel Pink's book A Whole New Mind, he explains how right-brainers create meaningful experiences out of mundane practices.  In a nutshell, he said they use story, design, empathy, play, meaning, and symphony as the tools to create a better world.  For the culture-architects I know, these are their implied strategies.  

Let me back up:  Who are the culture-maintainers and the culture-shifters?  How do they relate to the architect?  Let's use the idea from Pink's book about symphony.   We could think of it like this: the musicians, the conductor and the composer.

Cultural maintenance is key.  These are the musicians in the symphony.  You can't do it without them.  Together they can create absolute symphonic harmony or the worst dissonance.  But having the right players, the ones who know the music, know its intent, and know how to take what's on the page and make it translate, is the key to maintaining the vision of the piece.  They actually move the note on the page to the hearer's ear.  

Cultural shifting is important too.  The conductor does this.  When dissonance, pace, or the swells of strengths and weaknesses fall out of line, it's the conductor's hands that put everyone back together.  She's visible.  She understands the composer's heart, intent and content.  She can help the players when they're confused.  She can make sure she has the right players for the right spot.  She shifts things before, during and after performance to create symphonic harmony.  She has an intuitive sense for where things are moving, and a concrete sense of how things should be.  Having the wrong conductor can mean a train wreck.

But none of this is possible without the composer.  He doesn't just write in the notes--hundreds of thousands of notes.  He dreams and listens, and from his mind dictates not just the pitch but the variation, tone, and mood of how each note is played.  This composer knows what to say and how to say it.  He is the architect of an entire experience that evolves all the way from the initial inspiration to the execution of the final note.  Each instrument knows its part.  In here, but not there.  Loud here.  Soft here.  Gently.  All together.  The result is a power that transcends the pencil lead that scribbled the note on the page.  The composer has reached into the minds and hearts of everyone involved--musicians, conductors, and audience--and framed their participation in his world.  

The application for those of us in leadership is to understand the power and importance of each role and position people where they fit.  I didn't mention the Culture-Resistors.  They exist too.  They are the ones who neither support or change the world they're in.  They consistently resist it.  You may need to remove them, or coach them up so they can eventually become the right kind of resistance and help shift culture when needed.  It may be helpful to look at your teams and leaders and think about who fits where.  Do you have the composers in your organization?  What about conductors and players?  Are they in the right spot?  What can you do in your organization to create symphony?

jd  

I thought I'd repackage this whole story and post it again.  Here it is piece by piece.  The latest with us is we are still pursuing adoption.  It is a lot of waiting.  We are excited and hopeful and in a pretty good place these days.  In the meantime, Miranda and I are enjoying the summer together, laughing a lot and trying to keep it light.  Hope you readers are doing well, that those of you in the midst of trials like ours can stay hopeful and near to one another.  As you read, remember that persevering through suffering brings strength, that working through doubt brings assurance, and that wading through grief can bring rest and purpose.  

jd

Adoption Part 1: The Beginning

Adoption Part 2: Handling Obstacles

Adoption Part 3: Life

Adoption Part 4: Light in Darkness

Is Hope Foolish?

Grief

jd

Friends, I have taken it upon myself to contact the state regularly to find out some of the special situations out there in regard to the needs of foster children.  Here's one you could help with immediately.

A beautiful young girl was on her way to finding a foster home, but the family ending up changing their mind.  One thing they were able to do for her was take her to the orthodontist to get braces, which is wonderful.  However, now that this young girl is back in a residential facility, the state does not have funding for orthodontics.  She recently had a few broken brackets and was not able to get them repaired.  Additionally, the likelihood that she will be able to keep her braces on is very slim because of the continual orthodontist appointments needed for adjustments.  

We all say that beauty is on the inside, and that's great.  But this is an adolescent girl who has a chance at straight teeth and a beautiful smile.  If you are able and willing to help, please click here to send an email and find out how you can help a child in need

jd

Okay, so I spent about 45 minutes the other day acquainting myself more deeply with the Myers-Briggs personality test.  The reason:  I am frustrated with it and the way we talk about it.  What I found is that this personality test is so easy to misunderstand, and therefore also misuse.  I am as guilty as anyone.  

For instance, here are some common things that have come out of my own mouth:

• "I'm becoming more of a 'J'."
• "He's not an ENTP, he's an INTP because he's introverted."

In simple statements like that, I have basically proven to anyone who knows about the MB tests that I have no idea what I'm talking about.  I'm thankful for the guy who finally sat me down and said, "You have no idea what you're saying."  Forty-five minutes later, the veil had come off and I had a new appreciation for the MB assessments.

Here's the most common mistake---taking each letter individually on its own.  For instance, saying that an ENFP like me is an people loving, intuitive, high feeling, unorganized person is not how it works.  The four letters are actually a coded system, which points to a specific order and combination of functions that are far more specific, accurate, and more about how you gather and organize the world inside and outside.

As I said, the letters 'ENFP' are code for combinations of your perceiving functions, which are the "N" or "S," or your judging functions, which are the "T" or "F."  Each one of those letters is modified by either Introversion or Extroversion.  That has several implications for the way we commonly refer to MB personalities.

1. The "P" and the "J" are not primarily descriptors of your personality in regard to organization or clutter.  The really are prescriptive of a certain order in your personality functions.
2. No one can be labeled a "thinker" or a "feeler."  We are all thinkers and feelers.  The distinction, rather, is who is an "introverted thinker" vs. an "extroverted thinker," or an "introverted feeler" vs. "extroverted feeler," and finally which is more primary to you.  
3. We cannot use the "E" and "I" to label whether we enjoy people or not.  That merely is a modifier for your "N/S" or your "T/F" and shows which one will come first. 

Okay, that's a lot there.  Stay with me.

If ENFP, for example, is a code or shorthand for a list of functions, then those functions would be:  EN, IF, ET, IS.  

• Note that each of the N/S letters is used, as are the T/F letters.  Notice there are no P/J letters.  That's because the P/J letter tells me how to read the shorthand (which is pretty confusing so we won't worry about that now).

So the most helpful thing you can do with your MB is learn about what your top four functions are.  Let me take you through the example of my own personality, ENFP.

• The J/P refers to your how you gather and order information.  You gather it (P=perceive) or order it (J=Judge).  Everyone does both.  Again, the distinctions are about whether we do so internally or externally.  So the ENFP, whose first function is EN, intuits things externally (E), not internally (I).  The E doesn't mean I'm a people lover.  It means my top perceiving function of Intuition is done externally...which means I'm intuiting patterns and systems in the external world.  I'm not using my five senses (sensing) but rather trying to put together a larger picture or context.  
• It also doesn't mean I don't use my sensing function.  I do.  If you look above at my top list of functions, you'll see it shows "IS."  What that means is that my sensing function, where I look at the linear and concrete, is done internally.  So what would we use when determining the internal concrete?  Memory.  Memories are internal points on a map, and we draw routes in between them.  So am I a "sensor" even though I'm an ENFP?  Absolutely.  I just do it internally (and last), and it's in regard to memories, not things in the external.
• My top judging function of Feeling is done internally (don't ask why just follow me).  Internal feelings are about values.  External feelings are about the connections you have with others and the level of harmony in the external world.  But internal harmony is about what you value.  As an internal feeler, my feelings are tied deeply to what I value and believe.  
• Does this mean I'm not a "thinker?"  Nope.  I am a thinker.  But because my top judging function of "feeling" is done internally, it means my thinking is done externally.  I process out loud.  I whiteboard and take notes.  I talk a lot and learn as I talk.  Introverted thinkers process internally, and follow a very internal logic that can be hard to explain.  Everyone thinks.  In fact, everyone thinks both internally and externally.  The E/I in the beginning of the shorthand clue us in to an order, and which kind of thinking is more important to you.  

I know this is all pretty confusing, but read this over again till it makes sense.  Take your personality profile and find out which functions belong to you, because that's where the meat of this thing is.  Simply saying your extroverted or introverted has nothing to do with the four letters assigned to your personality.  If you are becoming more organized, it doesn't mean your moving from a P to a J.  It just means you're growing up.  Finding your functions can also be very clarifying for you and more clarifying than just taking each letter alone.  I took a recent situation and looked at how it aligned with being an ENFP.  I was astounded at how predictable my behavior had been.  

Grace and Peace.

jd