Mid-Year Review 6.4.2026

    If the year had 13 months we could take a whole month for planning, preparing, previewing, reviewing, game planning, and workshopping our daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly work. That is not the year we were dealt.  We have what we have, and we must work with what we’ve got. Right now, Summer is waking up around us with a different feel and focus. The best time for a Mid-year review is at the beginning of summer before we need become involved in summer ministry activities (camp and VBS) or deeply focused on the busy fall season. 

    I want to take some time this month to discuss not only the point of reviewing our work (what have I accomplished) but also the process of reviewing our work (how have I worked). I think that this second question is of vital importance not only to ensure that we are working on what is most significant but so that we devote our best energy to the basics of preaching and teaching and the vast amount of time in study it takes to execute this teaching office well.  The point of reviewing anything is improvement. If we take a considered look at both process and performance, we can identify what needs to be changed, what needs to be emphasized, what needs to be excised from our work. There are three observations I want to make about reviewing our work as pastor-preachers this month. 

Revisit Wins and Losses

    What worked? What failed? What looked good on paper and fell apart during execution? Assuming you take the time to put together a well-considered sermon calendar this is not so much second guessing as it is after the fact editorial work. 

    Preaching can be tough because many of the messages a preacher would chalk up as “losses” have greater impact than we would imagine when we are preparing or presenting them. A faithfully executed message—even if it fails to impress the preacher often has impact on those who hear it. 

    Our other areas of ministry; leadership, pastoral care, programming, and professional development can be more objectively evaluated. My share of the programming is largely determined by others. This is the question “did I execute the assignment I was given?” Pastoral care is determined by the nature of needs that present themselves. Planning and leadership are shared, so my central concern is administrative and day to day operations. The effectiveness of some professional work (attending a conference) is a matter of determine whether the event was worth the invested time, talent, and treasure. 

    Celebrate what worked. Figure out why failures failed. Use your interrogatories (who, what, where, when, why, how) to clarify what needs to be fixed; Continue with the mission. One further thought. Visit the past. Don’t dwell there. The purpose of this quick trip into past performance is improvement not punishment or perfection. 

Reconsider Choices

    This needs to be more than considering whether one-off decisions were correct. Look at your preaching and teaching calendar and think through the choices you made about content. Are you accurately teaching God’s Word? Are people getting a balanced diet? In your preaching do you make a case for what you are preaching, why you are preaching it, and how you are preaching it? 

Working from a proper Sermon Calendar requires making choices months in advance. The trajectory of your study gives guidance for the content of individual messages. Life is tricky and the world constantly changing around us. Reconsidering our choices is not second-guessing. It is not a chance to abandon the plan and make a different choice. It is just an opportunity to reconsider past choices, grow in wisdom, and correct your future course when that future arrives. 

Reaffirm Priorities

    “What is the most important investment of my time right now?”  A preaching calendar affirms the course of study for your congregation for a full year. A pastoral care plan must be flexible because the needs of people and the realities of your congregation are different from mine. A preaching plan can be more rigid because there are fewer variables. Many of the other items we need to accomplish include variables, opportunities, difficulties, dilemmas, and considerations outside of my control. When a contractor needs some of my time during a busy morning to help him gain access to what needs fixed It is something that must be done—but hardly planned. 

    A key development is to examine our task list and calendar to try and determine whether the shape of most workdays helps you to reaffirm the central priority of ministry—preaching the word. Interruptions and distractions occur but they need not keep us from giving our best time and energy to our highest priority. 

    I don’t think a review—whether it is undertaken at the end of the day or the middle of the year should be occasion for unnecessarily beating yourself up. There are some things we cannot control. Some choices we’ve just got live with. And many circumstances are more complicated than they initially appear to be. That means, particularly with respect to leadership and pastoral functions, that we will make decisions without full comprehension of the circumstances or contexts involved. Once again, this should remind us that we serve God—we don’t substitute for Him. 

Commitment to Biblical Ecclesiology 5.28.2026

    Things have been hectic the last couple of weeks, consequently I am behind on my writing. I did want to bring Mays theme to a close however before engaging in my plan for June. My theme in May has been A commitment to Biblical Authority. A central element of this thesis is that claiming something is “Biblical” means far more than just saying “The Bible says!”, quoting a text, or a vague claim to being Christian. 

    A commitment to Scripture as the Word of God requires a long-term commitment to accurate and clear preaching. A commitment to Scripture also requires submission to Biblical patterns of leadership. Last of all, briefly today I want to discuss how Biblical authority requires a commitment to Biblical Ecclesiology. Simply put we need to understand what the Bible says about the Church; Its founding, nature, place, and purpose. 

I mentioned in the lede that I am trying to play catch up today, suffice it to say the beginning of Biblical Ecclesiology as well as a sufficient summation is found in the second line of Matthew 16.18:

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18 ESV)

 Those words clearly articulate Jesus’ vision. 

1. These words signal intent. The Church was the plan from the beginning.  

2. These words signal possession. It is His Church. 

3. These words signal purpose. 

     It is possible to make this conversation unnecessarily complicated. A commitment to a Biblical understanding d of the Church means that we acknowledge the lordship of Jesus over His Church. His intent becomes ours. We recognize His guidance, provision, and direction over the Church as His body, bride, flock, building, temple. And it means that we align ourselves with His purposes for the Church. 

    This is not rocket science. The single most important element (this is likewise true for the other commitments we have highlighted during this discussion) is humility. The spirit of the age holds humility in contempt and redefines the Church as simply another locus of human drama and power. 

    The Church is His. It belongs to Jesus. It is not subordinate to, embedded within, or reflective of any human, national, cultural, or social structure. Any claim that it is defined by those human relationships simply shows that the claimant is not committed to Biblical authority and betrays enormous ignorance of what the Bible actually teaches. In which case, conversation ends because those who imprison the Church within human structures demonstrate where their loyalty lies.

Commitment to Biblical Leadership 5.21.2026

 

    The Bible serves as the written, organizing document of the Church. We accept its authoritative guidance for both doctrine and practice. Biblical preaching makes that authoritative word accessible and understandable to the Church. Biblical leadership forms human, visible, and responsible framework for our ongoing work of ministry.  

    Much which goes under the contemporary name or description of “ministry” only appears to be in service to the Gospel. The Church has always been embedded in some historic, actual context. Incarnation is an indication that the work of salvation is accomplished in the created order. We are redeemed from sin in this setting, sometimes called “the real world.” Embracing memes or socially derived definitions of Biblical Authority and Biblical Preaching redescribes the expectations for both leading and following. It does not matter how many books are written or courses offered about servant-leadership unless preachers and other Church leaders primarily see themselves as serving both our Lord and the disciples to whom He has assigned us. 

When we discuss New Testament Leadership there are many relevant texts. Let us consider one and make a few abbreviated observations. (your writer is behind).

“Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28 ESV)

Delegated 

    First, our leadership is delegated by God. He has chosen the Eldership the “Pastoral team”, in 21st century parlance to act for Him, in His authority as a chosen body of local leaders. While it is true that we may use specific methods to designate who these men will be, the choice of the congregation must be understood as demonstrating the mutual understanding that these individuals are delegates of God who work according to Scripture and the leadership of God’s Holy Spirit.

Representative

    Likewise, the work is representative. This function is twofold. First, leaders represent God to the people through the preaching and teaching of Scripture, enforcing of Biblical precedents for discipleship and discipline, and ensuring the reliable, routine observation of the Biblical ordinances. 

    Second, we represent the people to God as members of the local flock. We pray for them and with them. We address their needs and concerns in preaching, teaching, and counsel. We walk with them during crisis and celebration. We gather them into a comforting embrace during difficulties and speak patiently when they stray. And we function in this fashion as a representative of Christ, we are taken from within the body, to serve in the body—not over it. 

Collegial

    Not everyone called to these tasks does everything equally well. Some are better at representing Christ to His flock. Others excel at representing the flock to the Shepherd. That is why the work is always collegial. It is His flock and He calls a group of leaders to function together in this capacity. 

    Not only is there a greater capacity as a group there is safety in numbers. Consider this; as I was just fetching a triple-espresso it occurred to me, that the two most familiar incidents in the Gospels where we see Apostles alone, without any of the others, are when Judas betrayed Jesus and Peter denied Him. 

    Biblical ministry in the 21st century should be based upon the same model, the same framework of shared accountability. Spiritual gifts come with great responsibility. One of the ways that God has safeguard the work of the Church is to delegate oversight to a group of gifted and able individuals who both protect the flock and hold one another accountable. Preachers and teachers who chafe under such oversight have either misread texts they proclaim to others or have chosen to ignore the Biblical mandate to be embedded in a collegial group of leaders. 

Commitment to Biblical Preaching 5.14.2026

    No one’s goal is to be non-Biblical, un-Biblical, or anti-Biblical. The problem is not the concept it’s the execution. And execution often comes down to intentional habits that yield reliable results. Virtually everything I say in this space about preaching, what I write in other books and essays, what I teach when given the opportunity to address the issues around preaching and teaching the Scriptures, virtually every address in every context will speak about intention, process, and work ethic. A commitment to Biblical preaching is in a sense, less about theology than it is about ethics. I will not dwell on this unnecessarily as I am currently composing a book-length exploration of this topic but there are a few ideas worth repeating and some which I have not yet produced detailed copy. Let’s call these—in keeping with this month’s theme—basic frameworks for fulfilling our promise to be Biblical preachers. 

Priority of the Study

    I have said more times than I can count; “You can only have number one priority.” If you are a preaching minister and your number one priority is not preaching, you will rarely allocate the necessary time for study of the Scriptures and the attendant materials which help us to proclaim it clearly and accurately. 

    If that seems harsh—I will not apologize. Not everyone is equally smart, but everyone can work hard. Good preaching flows from good study and good study requires time and commitment. If you are not committed to determined and detailed study, if you or I refuse to keep reasonably up-to-date with developments in various Biblical studies disciplines, or if we simply question the commitment to Biblical authority of those we don’t understand, eventually our ability to pronounce “This is the Word of God for us today…” withers. 

    I am not foolish and I understand the complexities of modern ministry particularly for small to medium, rural, small-town churches. I often lament to friends that regardless of how detailed my study plans are I am basically falling a year behind every month, but the issue is not one of progress so much as process. It takes time, talent, and treasure to be adequately prepared. The whole project can be undermined by laziness. Plan to study. Execute the plan. Work hard. 

Priority of Hermeneutics

    Virtually every book I read about theology or the history of doctrine, or even the differences between various theological tribes eventually comes down to hermeneutics. How we interpret scripture, how we interpret our context, how we interpret our culture. These are all interpretive actions. To be a preacher is to be a practitioner of hermeneutics in virtually every life context. 

    Now, we don’t spell it out all the time. We won’t want to explain to people that as we peruse our social-media feeds or the news we are constantly assessing both the local and cultural conversation, but that needs to be what we do. Then, as we interpret Scripture using all the tools at our disposal, we can echo God’s divine voice into the real world we inhabit. 

    Some who declare the most loudly their fidelity to the Bible fail at this. Spectacularly. Sometimes it is a failure to understand Scripture. Other times it manifests itself a failure to understand contemporary culture. Frequently there is evident guilt of both. Preaching which does not bring Scripture to bear on the Post-Modern condition may be flamboyant, interesting, and entertaining. It will not likely be life changing. 

Priority of Composition

    If you know what the Bible says and if you are called to preach that message to our contemporary setting, and you fail to be understood—then you haven’t accomplished much. You must discover your voice, and that means writing clearly and speaking as much as you can. Don’t farm out any more than you must. If you teach Sunday School or a Bible Study, investigate the text or topic in detail and compose your own material. Write sermons you have not been called to preach. Don’t be afraid of your own drafting process. Work on your craft. Someone may be in your Church for the first time this Sunday and they need to hear the life-changing message of Scripture in your authentic voice. 

    Reading the Bible, interpreting the Bible, and writing out our conclusions clearly, concisely, and capably are the building blocks of good preaching and teaching. Without those basic skills any commitment to “Biblical Preaching” is merely an ideological formality without any meaning. 

    Pray incessantly. Work hard. Study thoroughly. Write clearly. Edit mercilessly. Proclaim with confidence. Trust God to bless the results. 

Commitment to Biblical Authority 5.7.2026

    The primary framework for faithful ministry is a commitment to Biblical Authority. All other frameworks derive from this starting point. Though this seems like a basic, even instinctual matter for believers it has become increasingly complicated. 

    Like many other matters I have discussed in these essays over the years let’s put an analytical grid over the top of the issue to help us come to grips with a topic which should be easier than it is. The three categories I commonly apply for this kind of analysis are: What the Bible says. Historical development. Theological extension. 

Bible: The Bible claims to be “inspired” and authoritative. Two cardinal NT texts:

“2Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 2Timothy 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV)

“2Peter 1:20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 2Peter 1:21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”(2 Peter 1:20-21 ESV)

Historical: How has the Church and culture used the Bible throughout history?

     We simply do not have the time to go through a thorough examination of how the authority of scripture has fared throughout history. The Bible’s place as waxed and waned both within and without the Church. Liberals and Conservatives alike have adhered meanings to inspiration and authority which are culturally driven rather than extensions of Biblical meanings. 

    I do think it is interesting that the current understanding of each camp is essentially the same. The history of interpretation has largely arrived at a position where each ideological camp looks to the Bible as a source of facts to either be accepted, rejected, reconfigured, or reimagined. Cultural assumptions of truthfulness, in the interpretation of Scripture have replaced Biblical assumptions based on Biblical words. This is an historical development in that it has taken around 600 years to arrive at this position. 

Theological: The politics of “pop”, “plural”, and polarized thinking.

    Theology in the 21st century is largely driven by popular culture (both in the Church and outside of the Church). For example, “Christian” or not, if you can listen to your favored artists on the radio, view Christian video content, or follow your favorite Christian influencer, your worldview is at that point only barely based upon either the Bible or History. It has become a pop-theology reducible to a “praying hands emoji”. Rather than being a considered, reflective process of integrating Scripture into the whole of life, theology becomes part of the game of psychological self-awareness, creating a contentless “Christian” self-identity.

    In keeping with its pop-culture devolution Post Modern Theology must concern itself with pluralism. And though there are different ways to use this term my point is that pluralism is neither new nor should it be intimidating. Pluralism is both a simple factual reality (racially, religiously, politically, and for Christians, doctrinally), and an ideological framework. The 21st century development is the positive or negative politicizing of, what otherwise, is a simple, accurate description of reality—there really are many different people, perspectives, places, and things. Diversity (also a pointlessly politicized term) is what makes the world interesting and challenging. 

    Popularity and pluralism, have fully coalesced around polarized positions, unhinged from actual Biblical or Historical realities, which “Christian” people use to stake out positions in the culture wars. The nature of the conflict? The true definition of “Christian” and (ironically) an accurate understanding of the content of the faith. Yet the contemporary conversation of pop, plural, and polarized conventions is incapable of answering those basic questions of identity and understanding.

    Ok then. That is a lot of diagnosis. We are aware of the challenges facing a commitment to Biblical Authority, now, what do we do to articulate and practice this disappearing discipline?

1. We must realign personal Exegesis with collective Exposition. And I don’t mean blogs like this or quick-hit social media fixes. I mean reading and study of Scripture in the Church, for the Church. 
2. We (the Church) must hold each other accountable for what we believe, think, and say. It is easy to claim that the problem is theological ignorance. The actual issue may be either irresponsibility or even intransigence. 
3. We must dispense with the nonsense about regenerative faith being separate from or even unrelated to incorporation into the Body of Christ. Yes, Christians follow Jesus. Christians are also answerable to the Church. The beginning of a commitment to Biblical Authority is a commitment to Biblical Accountability. 

    And this is a good place to conclude this week’s discussion. We need to extend this discussion over the next several weeks about how we come to know and understand scripture though the teaching office of the Church, sound leadership, and proper Church organization—things which in the last 150 years have been largely subsumed by insular, individualistic, consumer driven spirituality that has yielded our conflicted circumstances. 

    Biblical authority is essential to the well-being of the Church. A local congregation is part of the larger whole of the Body of Christ. Each congregation gathers in catholic solidarity with the Church throughout history. Current confusion over the direction of the Christian enterprise is largely the result of many who wear the name of Christ, while defining the content of their theology in selfish isolation rather than submission to the Christ who died to make our salvation and the Bible which informs it present realities.

Frameworks 4.30.2026

 There are three primary definitions of the term “framework” in Terminology the computer dictionary I most commonly use. Each is relevant to today’s discussion. To summarize they seem to indicate one of three concepts: 

1. A hypothetical model.

2. Underlying structure. 

3. Containment structure. 

    Another way would be to describe a framework as modeling, forming, or embedding a concept. I like all three aspects of this broad definition. I think it validates the title for this essay. Essentially there are three frameworks for considering the structure of an entity, in this case a sermon, lesson, address, or essay. 

    To illustrate what I mean consider the primary external ordering tool used by a variety of authors—preachers in particular, to frame their work: the humble outline. An outline provides structure. An outline is a model for an entire sermon (or essay). An outline contains all that the essay or sermon envisions. Most of us are taught how to analyze the written word using this kind of framework. In this sense, these frameworks can be understood as a perceptual guide to the underlying grammatical structure of language. Instead of using connectives like adjectives, adverbs, and particles an outline uses coordination, indentation, and subordination to provide a more visual, transparent frame for our thoughts. 

    During the month of May I intend to post several essays in this space regarding what I consider to be minimal frameworks for understand Biblical ministry. Approaching them as frameworks allows us to consider some synthetic commonalities that will help us to understand the work to which we are called as individuals and into which we are tasked with leading our congregations. 

    The strength of a good framework is flexibility. A framework must combine rigidity with pliability. We want to provide order as we work but we also want to be able to easily reconfigure what we write as we go along. A framework is not the completed task. A framework provides order that allows us to combine, rethink, reconfigure, refocus, and yes, reframe our work. 

    Our primary touchstone in the ministry of the Word is, the Word. So, a condition of the frameworks we will discuss is how they help us to remain faithful to the Scriptures. In framing (outlining) these essays I have tried to consider how to rightly order them so that they yield a compounding understanding of the function of Scripture in defining the various tasks of ministry. As frameworks they need to be consistent and related, and they need to build upon one another. 

    One of the things that I find is that the outcome—any time we write—is not always obvious at the beginning. What provides security and tangibility, what makes our work consistent is a commitment to frameworks that provide structured direction to what we are doing. Frameworks function as preliminary and provisional signposts that allow for freedom in exegesis, composition, and execution. Hermeneutics requires a consistent approach to the work and the kind of frameworks we will consider allow enough breadth to give direction without dictating end product.

Throughout the month of May, we will focus on four commitments that serve as frameworks for the ongoing work of ministry. 

• The commitment to Biblical Authority.
• The commitment to Biblical Preaching.
• The commitment to Biblical Leadership.
• The commitment to Biblical Ecclesiology. 

These commitments help us to structure our entire ministry around what is most essential. It begins with a general commitment to scripture as the guiding authority and ends with a discussion concerning the Church as the recipient of that authority. The underlying assumption is that each of these components has an essential role to play in the work to which God has called us. Vague discussions about the truthfulness of the Bible are not nearly so helpful as specific, concrete circumstances of who, how, and where God’s Word speaks truth. The authority of God requires an obedient people of God. Those people must be led and they must be taught. 

These frameworks for ministry are practical, theological, and workable. They have been touchstones over centuries for the organized messaging of the Church. Each preacher is embedded in relationships defined by these frameworks. We come to this work extending a conversation much larger and far older than our few meager years. There is nothing more exciting, more necessary, or more rewarding. 

Complexities 4.23.2026

     Ministry is not easy. Some would say that it is among the hardest of all jobs to do well. There are some sectors that do not even like to discuss the nature of professional ministry because they think such terminology creates a division between “clergy” and “laity”. Whatever terms are used, even when some think terms un-scriptural (which they may be, but that doesn’t wholly invalidate them), people still like well-crafted sermons, ably crafted programs, properly considered leadership, and properly prepared ministers. In other words, terminology aside, virtually everyone prefers a professionally credentialed person to help the local church navigate those complexities. 

    Over the next several weeks we are going to try and chart a course in, around, and through those complexities. The reason I am doing so now is that I am approaching a significant anniversary in my located ministry with the Grayville First Christian Church, and such anniversaries an excellent opportunity to consider how to navigate the complexities we face in ministry. 

    First a person needs to note that the complexities exist, whether we consider them such or not, address them or don’t, accept them, or ignore them. The nature of the located preaching ministry revolves around several areas of accountability. I write about these often and some of those I mentor (I know) get sick of hearing them. Yet repeating them often helps keep the complexity of the work in proper focus. Those areas are Preaching, Pastoral Care, Planning/Leading, Programming, and Professional development. Properly aligning ourselves to these areas of responsibility is what keeps ministry exciting, focused, and engaging. 

    The first three areas are those specifically grounded in scripture. They are Word focused, people focused, and leadership focused. Unfortunately, in the Post-Modern world, programming gets far too much attention—generally to the detriment of the more necessary work of preaching. The professional side of things is an odd duck because as the Church’s work has become more specialized, we have erected deeper and denser circles of staffing to do what the members can and perhaps should do for themselves. A lifetime of ministry does require attention to professional growth, collegial relationships, and long-term planning, which are professional tendencies shared by all knowledge workers. You don’t have to like a term for it to be accurately used. 

    If we do not keep clearly focused on our mandate to preach clearly, “cure souls”, and lead effectively then the complexity is often compounded by spending a disproportionate amount of time doing the wrong things. This increases the frustration of the preacher and creates an erroneous expectation within a congregation. To navigate this complexity requires several preliminary decisions to ensure that everyone is on the same page.

Clarity in Expectation.

    “This is what I do.” It is your responsibility to articulate expectations for your congregation. You need to clearly explain to your leaders as well as the congregation what you do, why you do it, and how you intend to do it. If not, there will be an ongoing disconnect between what the congregation expects and what the preacher intends to do. 

    The only responsible path forward is to be clear about what you intend to do. Tell people repeatedly your own expectations, intentions, procedures, and goals in ministry. Link outcomes to expectations rather than just guessing or hoping. Guessing and hoping can easily become gaslighting when the predicted outcomes do not occur. This is a result less of malice than over-promising. Don’t make promises—explain processes. 

Variety in Experimentation.

    I will be wearing my caterpillar inflatable costume one more time his spring. We will have a Caterpillar Club cookout to end the spring programming. Caterpillar Club is our children’s programming—revived after several years of hiatus. When we started, I wrote a theme song; “The preacher found me outside on a shrub, brought me inside to start the caterpillar club…” I don’t intend to wear “the suit” the rest of my life. It’s not for preaching or any other pastoral activity. Wearing it at all was an experiment. And it worked!!

    But…Not everything works everywhere. The church is a copy-cat institution. The prevalence of Mega-Churches and the materials they provide can delude us into thinking that we can implement and execute the same kinds of programs and promotions. It takes a lot of failure to move forward. It takes experimentation that is locally flavored and anchored to the historic place and nature of an individual congregation to find what works. 

    When you do try something new tell people why you are doing it. Explain the process. Define expectations. Locate it on that grid of Preaching, Pastoral, Planning, Programming, or Professional work. If something works, awesome! If not…kill it and move on. 

Integrity in Execution.

    Many years ago, I worked for a company deeply invested in the international standard known as ISO 9000. The standards were to be set by a company to accomplish their business goals, and the mark of excellence was encapsulated in the phrase “Say what you do, do what you say.” An outside organization cannot establish standards for how a company does business. The certification simply determined how closely the company came to doing what they said they were going to do. When the company went through an ISO audit the reviewers looked at the documentation, compared it with practice and scored accordingly. 

    Execution in the Church should not primarily be about outcomes. Primarily it needs to be determined by integrity. Are we doing what we say we will do? Do we set standards and try to meet them? Do we review both the standards and our current activities to bring them in line? This is the heart of honest execution. Simply being accountable to set standards and try to meet them. 

Finally

    You might be thinking, “Wow, ministry is still complex!” You are correct. It is hard, exacting, and immersive. In one moment, we are doing academic level reading and writing, the next moment we are making sure the HVAC guys have full access to the building to service 5 AC units as well as the internal systems. Then we must intervene in a member’s spiritual crisis. No one can make it less complex. I would never try to do that—I wouldn’t even mention the possibility.

    What we can do is manage the chaos, categorize our activities, prioritize our tasks, and move prayerfully ahead into the work. Complex? Yes. Hard? Routinely. Heartbreaking? Regularly. Rewarding? Beyond your wildest expectations.