Being number 1 is a real problem.  To be number 1, you have to be prepared to be belittled by numbers 2 through number 52.  You have to give up trying to be number 1 at everything, which will really make you number 43 at everything.  If you are number 1, and anything even looks like it’s wrong, here come those following numbers again, and this time, they’re out for blood, telling you about all the ways you were wrong.

What makes it worse, is that eventually number 1 will fall, because the thing that made number 1, number 1 will eventually be copied by numbers 2 through 102, and something more innovative will arrive, allowing number 1 to be susceptible to that one that started at number 103, but was willing to pay the price to go against the grain of numbers 1 through 102, and then they will jump to number 1.

And the former number 1 (now number 2) will be the first to belittle this new number 1.

Most people aren’t willing to risk everything to gain everything, only to lose it all again.

Tweet This Post

If you want to make your mark (in any area), you can do in two ways:

You can do it like Matchbox twenty did it.  Put out a first  album where every song hits the charts, and you become the talk of the town – the “it” person – for a while.  The risk you run, however, is that you will never be able to make an album like that again.  So expectations fall quickly, and you constantly are trying to get back to the point you were at once.

Or you can do it like the Foo Fighters.  I never actively buy their cd’s,(mp3′s) or listen to their music.  But this last week I heard at least a half dozen of their songs on the radio, including this morning driving to the gym, and when I heard it, I whispered to myself…

When did the Foo Fighters become my favorite band?

Tweet This Post

Last week I was interviewed by the Holden Landmark for an article they did on our Good Friday online service.  Here’s the link.

Whadaya think?

Tweet This Post

I’d like to share with you why joining a group on Facebook called “I want the old Facebook” is worthless and probably not really what you want.

When I joined Facebook about a year and a half ago, I loved learning the new social media world, and all the features that Facebook had.  It was great!  Then a few months into it, just as more people were connecting on Facebook and leaving My Space, they changed the entire format.  They moved this here and that there, and I was all confused, but over time I was able to learn the new format.  Many people who have joined Facebook in the last year don’t know the present “Old facebook” as the one time “New Facebook” about 9 months ago.

So this month Facebook unravels a new format, and let’s be honest, it’s very twitter like.  And now we have to do things like:

Get to know new formats.
Search around for the new way of doing things.
Learn new tricks to make communication easier for all of us.

But even though ultimately, the new facebook will make things easier (trust me, this is not up for debate), we fight it because we have to learn new ways to communicate and new ways of networking that we didn’t have to before.  And we’ll make groups called, “I freakin want the old Facebook back, because it was my best friend”, and a few people will join those groups, but ultimately those groups will fail and the new Facebook will remain, and probably be changed in about 9 months or sooner.

Facebook doesn’t make these changes because they hate you.  They make these changes because they believe that in the long run, the changes will make it easier for everyone to connect.  And that’s the point of Facebook.  If they didn’t change, they would become My Space someday, and everyone would be leaving by the masses to the new social media thing, all because they didn’t change for the better.

If you don’t believe me, please go to your nearest “almost dead” church.  I don’t mean to be offensive, but somewhere near you is an “almost dead” church that at one point was alive and thriving.  The people there will tell you abou the good old days when people were coming and lives were being changed.  Then something happened.  Times were changing, and decisions were being made.  Should we change or not?

And the people that don’t like change will say something like this:

I don’t know anyone anymore.  (Why don’t you meet someone now?)
I don’t understand this new way.  What was wrong with the way we used to do things?  (Ummm, nothing…30 years ago)
I’m gonna do things the way I’ve always done them. (then you’ll continue to get what you’ve most recently gotten, ha!)

And if the church is alive and well or “almost dead”, tells me whether the “old side” or the “new side” won out.

Please understand, I’m not just talking about music and coolness here.  I’m simply talking about relevance.  If someone  stands on stage and drones on and on about whatever, without connecting with the people he’s talking to, and the people are just there because it’s church, and the “right thing to do is be in church”, it’s over.

And if a church has a service on Sunday because “that’s the way we’ve always done it and the way it should be done” without having a valid point for that service, it’s over.

Sometimes new is really hard to do, but who said hard to do was wrong?  If you like Facebook, it gives you a chance to learn it better.  If you like the church, and they do something new, you’ll get a chance to meet new people and pour into their lives.

Go New Facebook!  I’m cheering for you to win!

Tweet This Post

A symbol of masculinity.  A symbol of hope.
No fakes.  No costumes.  Just hair over the lip.

Who’s with me?!

Tweet This Post

In the 2006 Massachusetts gubernatorial elections, these 4 candidates went head-to-head-to-head-to-head against one another.  The bottom two really didn’t have a snowballs chance in Massachusetts today (89 degrees with high humidity) of winning.  The top 2 were the candidates that were in it to win it.
Kerry Healey (top right) initially had the advantage, but she was looked at as mean and known for what she was against than for what she was for.  (“I’m against crime”  “I’m against higher taxes”, etc…)  Of course these are not bad things.  In my humble opinion they’re good things.  But Deval Patrick (top left) was only known for what he was for (The fact that “Together we can!”).

These two characters do the same thing (or at least thats what they were called to do) – Preach.  However, Pat Robertson is known, most of the time anyway, for what he is against, while Joel Osteen is known for what he is for.

Even blogging is not exempt from this polarity.  Some of the blogs I read I know as ones who are for things like life and hope and love and happiness and other similar things.  Others I know he or she will write something that is going to make somebody mad, and most of the time this is on purpose.

Like it or hate it, this is the way today’s world works – if you are a leader, you are known for what you are for or what you are against.  It’s not a republican or a democrat thing, it’s a likeability thing.  Do I like you or not?  Do I agree with what you say or do I hate you for what you say?

The interesting thing about this is that probably 90% of the time the side each person lands on who is a leader is on purpose.  Yes I think Joel Osteen does what he does on purpose and has the audience he has as a result. And yes, I think Pat Robertson says some of the things he says on purpose and as a result, has the audience he has.

So if you were crafting an image of yourself, based on your personality and strengths,
Would you be for something or against something?

Tweet This Post