I am a big believer in consciously developing your worldview in order to (hopefully) reflect God’s view of the world. But I wonder how many times a day the worldview I have embraced serves as an excuse to ignore uncomfortable viewpoints – that is, a set of attitudes that use my worldview as a reason to experience reality through a limited and self-defeating filter.

Ours is an age of sound bites and symbolism. When we hear a particular name or idea we often have an immediate response: either our defenses go up or we open up to the coming ideas based on the mental image we have of the communicator. It is a black-and-white view of the world, as if people of differing ideological or theological viewpoints lack valid ideas. So much of our screening is based on the image of the person that we possess. Wary of wasting time, we protect ourselves from ideas that we assume will clash with our own. Weary of ideological conflict, we openly entertain ideas that coincide with our own and carefully block the rest.

That moment of enlightenment reminded me of the interviews I had conducted with leaders for the Master Leaders book I’d written not long ago. One of the greatest lessons I’d gleaned from the 30 high-performance leaders interviewed for the book related to the importance of listening. I recalled that listening was ranked as the most important skill of a leader. And Ken Blanchard’s comment that you cannot listen effectively unless you’re willing to have your mind changed by what you hear caused me to reconsider how good a listener I am. (Obviously not as good as I need to be, if you’re wondering.)

Upon reflection it became obvious that one of my shortcomings was that I had limited “listening” to the process of hearing the spoken word. I had ignored the written word as communication that we listen to, as well.

After catching myself in that indefensible act of censorship, I returned to the beginning of the article by my liberal colleague and tried to read it as objectively as possible. To my surprise, he had some intriguing things to say – not necessarily views that I chose to embrace, but perspectives that were more reasonable than I would have given him credit for prior to reading the piece. Ah, another humbling moment…

There are certainly limitations as to how far you can take this argument. For instance, the time crunch is a reality: you simply cannot devote time to listen to every nuance of every competing argument on every topic that intersects with you life. You would be deluged with information, mired in continual debates, and never get anything done. (Which, as some wags might point out, qualifies you to be a member of Congress.) But I wonder how much wisdom I miss by screening out too much of the content that I assume will be of no value based solely on cues such as the leanings of the author or the location of an article. Are there helpful insights to absorb by hearing from people who are ideologically distant from you? Does selective listening, efficient though it may seem, produce diminishing returns?

I find such simplicity and directness in Mr. Hill’s response unusual and refreshing. He is a 7-time All-Star himself, a man of great talent and someone seeking to become a champion in his sport before he retires. Imagine such a person admitting that he has been so dominated by his opponent he doesn’t even know how to distinguish good from bad! If only we had more leaders who were willing to be so honest.

How tiresome it is listening to leaders pontificate on things about which they know nothing. During my media training for publicity tours, I’ve been taught that you should never say you don’t know the answer to a question posed by an interviewer. The standard ploy is to provide an answer to something you do know, even if it does not address the question that was asked. I have used that strategy on a number of occasions, but every time I do so I become uncomfortable with the practice: after all, it is meant to portray me in a way that perhaps I do not deserve to be portrayed. It may be clever, but is it honest? Is it better to be seen as knowing something when you don’t, or to admit to ignorance and be seen as – well, ignorant?

This reminds me of a quote from George Orwell: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” Are we living in an era where we need many more leaders who will engage in such “revolutionary” behavior, regardless of the consequences? Do we need to train followers to embrace such revolutionary acts because of the benefits of having leaders who choose integrity over self-preservation?

Including a novel in the line was not the only unusual thing about this book. All of our books include new research that relates to the point of the book. We conducted such research for Matt, which I was originally slate to describe in the Foreword for the book. I wrote an introduction to the book, incorporating the data regarding whether and how people hear God speak, in a way that I thought might be clever enough to fit Matt’s terrific work, but it seemed flat and forced. So Matt offered to take some of the research and weave it into his story. He wound up inserting a brief chapter in which he encounters me in a restaurant and we discuss some of the research and how those findings relate to his needs. As usual, he did a great job of making something that could have been odd or awkward flow smoothly while adding value and wisdom to the unfolding narrative.
I hope you read Imaginary Jesus – and recognize the numerous and inaccurate ways in which we perceive Jesus. Let me know your thoughts about the book, and your experiences with how people think about the nature of Jesus. It’s only when they encounter the real savior that they can become free.

Davis, a Brit who has been on the PGA tour for years without a tournament victory under his belt, was battling Jim Furyk, the world’s sixth-ranked golfer, for the tournament crown and prize money. Finishing in a tie after regulation play, they entered into a sudden death playoff. On the first hole of the playoff, Davis hit a ball that went off the side of the green, down some rocks and settled on the hard sand bordering Calibogue Sound.

As Davis chipped his shot onto the green, his club grazed one of the reeds sticking out of the sand. He didn’t see it clearly because he was concentrating on his shot, but as soon as his ball rolled to a stop, he approached the tournament director and indicated that he wasn’t sure but believed his club may have touched a stray reed on his backswing. (FYI, the course rules stated that moving any object on the course other than the ball and grass receives a penalty.) The director stopped play to view a video playback and, sure enough, a reed swayed slightly as Davis’s club nicked it – so slight a tap that the movement of the reed was detectable only via slow-motion playback! Viewing it, Davis assessed himself a two-stroke penalty and, with that act of honesty, handed Furyk the victory.

It not only prevented Davis from winning his first professional tournament but also cost him $411,000 in prize money.

Think about this. Nobody but Davis saw the infraction. In fact, not even he saw it clearly – he merely suspected it may have happened. Rather than ignore the possibility of an infraction and instead win his first PGA event, he did the right thing. The honest thing. A costly thing. In an age where it seems as if every athlete is challenging authority and rules to get an edge on the competition, Davis’s behavior seems almost unsportsmanlike in its adherence to the letter of the law.

Moved by the video clip I had seen of this event the night it happened, I cruised the headlines of the major sports websites the following morning, looking for the adulation such a choice should have received. Nada. It was not evident anywhere. I had to dig through a series of articles on the ESPN site to find a recap of the moment. That article was very complimentary toward Davis, but the write-up itself was buried. Maybe that was because the tournament didn’t stack up well when compared to the importance of the NBA playoffs or other sports events happening that day. Or maybe it’s because Americans are just so dedicated to winning that we don’t care much about character.

After all the ends justify the means.

I sure hope others saw that act of honesty and courage and share it. I was blessed to be watching the sportscast that showed the clip with one of my daughters. Neither of us cares for golf (I was waiting for the Lakers highlights to be shown – they finally had a few) but I was so thunderstruck by the brief report of Davis’s choice that I replayed it for both of us to see several times. What a wonderful example for us to discuss and to watch unfold. I hope you get to see it somewhere and enjoy the beauty of someone who lives the values we claim to embrace.

I can’t stand it when people use the word “just” as the adjective in their prayers preceding what they want God to do. Why do we minimize God’s activity on our behalf? Why do we attempt to diminish the significance of what we ask Him to do? Should we just eliminate “just”? “Lord, I just want to…” “God, we just need…” “Jesus, if you would just…”

Here’s my beef. When we use that simple qualifier, we are adjusting our attitude about the significance of what we are asking God to do, making His response seem less meaningful or special. It diminishes the miracle of answered prayer and reduces the majesty of God.

People from different denominational backgrounds or theological orientations develop language patterns in their prayers, repeating certain words and phrases that are foreign to people in other religious groups. Yet, the term “just” has been incorporated into the prayers of people across theological and denominational lines. Sadly, it is one of the most consistent behaviors in American Christianity.