Critics Will Never Be Happy With You… That’s Why They’re Called ‘CriticsR
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Mon, March 30, 2009
- Viewed 160
- (63) comments so far
Seth continues…
Your fans don’t want you to change, your fans want you to maintain the essence of what you bring them but add a laundry list of features. You fans want lower prices and more contributions, bigger portions and more frequent deliveries.So, who should you listen to?
Your sneezers.
You should listen to the people who tell the most people about you. Listen to the people who thrive on sharing your good works with others. If you delight these people, you grow.
Seems like great advice to me… what do YOU think?
Seth Godin had a great post over the weekend on critics. We've all experienced it. Whether it's a blog comment or a person at church who criticizes us. We could get 98 positive comments and 2 negative comments, and we will still dwell on the 2 negatives. Why do we do that?
Seth says that is a shame: "The critics are never going to be happy with you, that's why they're critics. You might bore them by doing what they say... but that won't turn them into fans, it will merely encourage them to go criticize someone else." How true. When was the last time that you turned one of your 'critics' into a 'fan'? In my experience, that rarely, if ever, happens.
But Seth takes it one more step (and it's a brilliant step!) Godin says that not only should you not listen to your critics, you should also not listen to your 'fans'!...
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
CS on Mon, March 30, 2009
Leonard:
“There is a difference in not listing to a critic and not taking input. A fool does not take input and instruction. The more critical you are as a person the more you dislike this article. That is kind of interesting.”
One man’s, “source of input,” is another man’s, “critic,” when that input may rub the wrong way. And of the three definitions of the word, “critic,” only one is in the negative, which you have intimated to some people posting on this thread:
1. a person who judges, evaluates, or criticizes: a poor critic of men.
2. a person who judges, evaluates, or analyzes literary or artistic works, dramatic or musical performances, or the like, esp. for a newspaper or magazine.
3. a person who tends too readily to make captious, trivial, or harsh judgments; faultfinder.
For what it’s worth, I dislike this article because the logic is flawed. To paraphrase the key idea, “Listen to the people who like you and speak nicely about you.” I could rattle off any number of miscreants and public eyesores who likely also follow this mentality.
Here’s a better solution: listen to a sampling of what everyone has to say, then compare it to the Bible.
—
CS
wendi on Mon, March 30, 2009
I believe by the amount of and the subject of the comments criticism is a sore subject to many.
Peter Hamm on Mon, March 30, 2009
Wendi,
A few of my very favorite people in the world are very openly critical of areas we fall short in my area of responsibility here at the church. But their critiques are helpful, useful, and constructive.
Then again, they aren’t necessarily claiming that thousands of struggling church planting pastors are out golfing and going to fun conferences all the time instead of working…
There’s a difference.
Someone who loves me and tells me of an area that needs improvement is one thing, but here’s another… Every now and then we get a scathing comment on a comment card. It’s almost always anonymous. I shred them immediately. Those that have a name attached… I do not. I talk to the person, and often learn from them, especially if the criticism is, as I said, constructive.
another way on Mon, March 30, 2009
This discussion has turned into a bunch of babbling.
Leonard on Mon, March 30, 2009
When Seth speaks of critics the context does not seem to imply those who give feedback but those who are never happy.
There are people whose opinions are so staunchly ingrained in them that they have a right way (theirs) and no other. Feedback is essential to growth. It is essential to developing maturity and skill as a minister.
Our culture breeds critics but does not foster discernment. People feel entitled to give an opinion to another person, often on the basis that they have one so it must be shared.
When someone sees sin in a pastor, the bible gives instructions on how to deal with that. The instructions do not include an anonymous note or telling someone else.
Every week I get a comment on my hair, my whiskers, the sound, the chairs, someones perfume, the snacks, the coffee, our bulletins… Many of these are not from critics, but the reality is I hear people say them, smile and move on.
I do not believe these are the critics Seth is speaking of They exist in any church and are simply people who have not quite developed the art of seeing the good.
jud on Tue, March 31, 2009
Well, you get back to the little leaven. There were TONS of GREAT things about the church growth model church I was involved in, which I was very encouraged by. But then there were small groups with very young Christians who were studying “Velvet Elvis”. There was a clear and growing sense of “cult of personality” forming. The concept of Repentance (clearly taught from the planting of the church) began being phased out. Expensive marketing tools were utilized (which our leadership) PROMISED would never happen. The “wisdom” of a guy named Marcus Buckingham became central to the leadership of the church. Which was troublesome because the focus became about assembling and concentrating on everyones strengths. This is very clearly counterintuitive to the Gospel where in our weakness his strength is made perfect. I can’t even find where Buckingham gives his testimony on the internet, he may be a Christian, I don’t know? I know Godin has said that he is not.
Anyway, the focus came off of clearly presenting the Gospel to working peoples felt needs.
Bottom line. I labored and served in this church, as did my wife for 5 years, we wrote a letter addressing our concerns (mind you after FIVE years of working along side and many moments of encouraging) and we were told that our concerns would be addressed but that we would probably no longer feel comfortable there because of the differences in “style”. After further conversation we were told that we did not have enough of a relationship to influence the leadership. Not enough of a relationship to influence the leadership?
And Seth Godin, Marcus Buckingham, Andy Stanley and Rick Warren did?
I don’t question the motives of my former pastor and leadership team. I ABSOLUTELY know that their Hearts are in the right place. I’m pretty confident that their HEADS are often not though. Good people, very charismatic personalities that people are naturally drawn to… however, lacking discernment.
I know every church is not the same and it is very much possible that this was an isolated case. However, When I see familiar names like Godin, Buckingham and Gladwell factor so prominently in the discussion of leadership within the church the bells and whistles of alarm go off. Not based on a hunch, but based on personal experience.
Forgive If you do feel I’ve been too broad and general.
Peter Hamm on Tue, March 31, 2009
Jud,
Sorry you didn’t have a great experience in that church. I would differ with you on the danger of allowing the influence of people like Buckingham (who encourages leaders to operate within their gifting… a biblical concept imho) and the others you mention, but I’m sorry that you had the experience nonetheless…
How does your experience translate into the “thousands of church planters” that you lambasted earlier? I’m still waiting for you to even name one or two, let alone a thousand… You haven’t just been broad or general, you’ve exaggerated in much the same way that the kinds of critics that are referenced in the original article do, in my experience.
JOB on Tue, March 31, 2009
Jud,
Don’t fool yourself it wasn’t an isolated case. Interesting. Same here. I labored so did my wife. Her even more. When we noticed the direction of the church changing and I confronted the Pastor it was hard to get any real answers.
Secular firm influencing the direction of the church. YES. Your situation wasn’t an isolated case, trust me.
My father pastored the same church for 35 years. There was a click of “critics” that stayed for most of those years. Now retired and looking back he recently confessed that annoying as they were ,and many times they were petty picky and complaining, a couple times they were right and if he can do it over again he would have listened. Even the “critics” are God’s sheep. Do they need to change, yes. But maybe God has them in a church for a reason.
JOB on Tue, March 31, 2009
Case in point.
It’s common for secular organizations to become influencial in the leadership, vision and direction of a church. The way I understand the mission of the Church the two are in no way compatable. So when this is brought to the attention of a Pastor is there an honest discussion? Are the questions investigated? Can an honest debate, dare I say, be held with an attempt to reach a biblical conclusion? Or is it easier to file under “critic” “methodology difference” and move on?
Peter Hamm on Tue, March 31, 2009
Okay, Jud and Job. Here it is. Let’s just say for a moment that your perspective, your side of the story in each of your cases, is 100% accurate and your churches were on the road to apostasy, or at the very least a weakening of the importance of repentance in the Gospel message.
You are STILL not hearing what I’m saying to you. You have both lumped THOUSANDS of church planters into a category of people more interested in attending conferences and playing golf than in pastoring. You have yet to name these, and you have yet to back off. Those of us who have been involved with church planting don’t know even a SINGLE person like you describe…
The kind of generalities that you throw out when you say that makes you seem to me to be more a part of the category of “critics” that delivers (sorry to say this) useless complaining and avoids constructive criticism. In fact, since you will not back up or back off, it makes me sorely tempted to add you to a list of people who’s words I can safely ignore. Is this truly what you want?
Job writes “It’s common for secular organizations to become influencial in the leadership, vision and direction of a church.” Sorry, I’ve not seen this to the point that you can say it’s “common”. Care to back that up? Or is it another generality and exaggeration designed to shock us rather than inform. Or did you see it happen once and you assume that it must be happening everywhere.
Folks, your words are at best uninformed and perhaps ignorant, and at worst they are deceptive, knowingly or not.
JOB on Tue, March 31, 2009
“Folks, your words are at best uninformed and perhaps ignorant, and at worst they are deceptive, knowingly or not.”
I’m tired of being trashed in this forum, I spoke with Leonard for 1 1/2 yesterday, and I’ll speak with you too. Drop me an email and I will call you.
Peter Hamm on Tue, March 31, 2009
Job,
Then don’t make statements that (as far as I can tell) merely advance your own agenda and can not be backed up with any kind of facts, like “It’s common for secular organizations to become influencial in the leadership, vision and direction of a church.” It’s common? Show that please. Don’t assume that because you experienced it in your church that it is an epidemic.
And when somebody makes a statement like “Every year we have THOUSANDS of young men that set out to church plant in the suburbs of America. They often invite people they want to be their board members, they have elder boards who are usually golfing buddies, and they sometimes travel MONTHS out of the year to enrichment conferences. They ignore the example of Paul who earned his income in the marketplace as a tent maker,” don’t vouch for it. (Jud, I’m still waiting for a list of even five or ten of these…)
No, I will not email or call you, I have been direct and complete in my characterization of what I see as the flaws and misinformation that has been covered here by you and (mostly) jud. I have criticized your statements, not you. (I was very careful about that, any statements that could be construed as comments about your character have been specifically stated as my opinion.)
I am concerned about the public criticisms that you make on this public forum, and the baselessness of some of it. Truth be told, I am more annoyed with jud’s comments, but yours are not innocent either, and have been, imho, very flawed in this regard in the past. I truly believe that you are more interested in pushing your point than engaging in the honest debate you say that you claim (Honest debate would entail statements that directly reflect hard facts, not a generality that is extended to people you have no direct knowledge of). If that is not the case, then hooray, but I don’t think I’m alone in getting that impression from you (not from those who confront you or disagree with you, but from you and your words.)
Pardon me, but it seems that sometimes you are subscribing to the philosophy “Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story”.
JOB on Tue, March 31, 2009
Peter,
Whatever…. you don’t really want the facts but would rather try to win here. Conragulations you win.
Peter Hamm on Tue, March 31, 2009
Job
What facts?
jud on Tue, March 31, 2009
Peter,
I don’t personally know thousands of church planters. It was wrong of me to go overboard on euphamisms. For that I apologize. I was speaking from personal experience and observation. I do know who influenced the leaders i have had and I know how popular and utilized these sources are. The recent PEW survey indicates that Christianity is sliding ever close to Universalism and the New Age with unreasonably high numbers of professing Evangelically Churched Christians denying core doctrine such as the Exclusivity of Christ and the nature of God’s Word (inspired and infallible). Several leading mega churches have found the same conclusion within their walls.
The churches I have had problems with were MODELS duplicated from prominent national church models. As we emulated a Granger or a Willow Creek young church planters were emulating us. It was inbreeding.
Can you not see the viral nature of this?
I don’t personally know any drug dealers but as a school teacher I encounter kids and families that have been heavily damaged by their work. Is one to assume that there are no drug dealers because they don’t know any? I’m not trying to compare Church Planters to Drug dealers, I’m just trying to show how one can reach a conclusion based on not necessarily first hand account but mounting evidence.
Page 3 of 5 pages < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Post a Comment