Don McMinn

German artist Manfred Laber came up with a futuristic way to honor the 793 AD founding of the town of Wemding in the southern German state of Bavaria, which celebrated its 1,200th birthday in 1993. Laber designed a “Time Pyramid” made from concrete blocks, but neither he nor anyone living today will ever see it completed.

That’s because a new block is only added to the structure every 10 years—the fourth is expected to be placed in 2023—making the completion date around the year 3183. [From WiseGeek.com]

Granted, this is an extreme and inapplicable example of long-range planning, so let’s discuss the benefits of a more reasonable approach.

We often neglect long-term planning. Near-term problems, opportunities, and temptations monopolize our attention and we become nearsighted. We often get distracted by urgent tasks, but what is urgent is seldom important and what is important is seldom urgent. And we often focus on unimportant issues and neglect important ones—we’ll spend more time planning our upcoming weekend than our retirement.

On a regular basis, think about where you’d like to be in life 5, 10, or 20 years from now. Take a holistic approach to planning—develop goals and plans in many areas: financial, professional, family, intellectual, academic, spiritual, and social. Then make a plan to reach each goal and work your plan. It’s as simple as that. 

As you consider various plans, connect them to execution. A plan defines what you want to do; execution involves how you will do it). When execution is missing, plans decay into wishful thinking. 

Here are some simple but potent adages that apply to this conversation.  

• If you aim at nothing, you will always hit it. Always have goals you’re pursuing. Without them you’ll squander your time and energy.  
• He who aims for the stars shoots higher than he who aims for the trees. Even if you make stretch goals and don’t accomplish them, you’ll probably end up in a better place than if you aim too low. 
• We never drift anywhere that’s desirable. Without a pre-planned destination, we usually end up in a suboptimal place. Ten years from now you are going to be doing something, but if you don’t aggressively plan, you’ll drift to a mediocre place.

Goal setting works. Twenty-five years ago Mary and I developed a 12-year plan to get out of debt. We did it in 10 years. Twenty years ago we set a goal to visit 60 countries before we die. Several months ago we added #48 — Qatar.

Getting started is easy: spend 60 minutes thinking about the rest of your life. Then do it again and often. When you have some potential options, share them with some friends and get their input. Then choose ones you want to pursue. Once you’re armed with a viable goal and plan, work your plan.

[Note to leaders: Ironically, organizational long-range planning has become difficult. In the marketplace, major changes come so rapidly that long-term plans can quickly become obsolete. Some leaders even question the value of organizations planning 20-30 years ahead because if you forge a 20-year plan, commit major resources to it, and aren’t able to adopt and change quickly, the plan can lead you astray. That’s why many leaders now consider “long-term” to be 4-6 years, with plans updated every six months.]  

Ecclesiastes chapter three is a good commentary on time. The first sentence is: There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens. Then it lists 14 situations in which we often must choose between two legitimate but opposite actions. For example, there’s a time to plant and a time to uproot, mourn and dance, pursue peace or make war. There is a proper time for each action.  

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about the following phrase (which is one of the 14 mentioned) and trying to incorporate it into my life: There’s a time to be silent and a time to speak.

It’s an important life lesson and necessary people skill. When obeyed it brings peace; when ignored it creates problems.

There are at least two ways to disregard this advice.

Sometimes we speak when we should remain silent.

Do you filter your thoughts before they become speech? Some people don’t. They assume that just having a thought is reason enough to verbalize it. When left unchecked, they feel free to say everything they think. This is not good. 

Before you speak, ask yourself:

• Is this the right time to speak?
• Is this the right place to speak?
• Have I considered my audience?
• Is what I’m about to say true? Necessary? Beneficial?
• Will my words contribute to the conversation?
• Will my words be redundant?
• Are my words necessary?
• When I speak, am I succinct or verbose?

Incorporating these eight filters would greatly reduce and refine our speech. 

Sometimes we don’t speak when we should.

Remaining mute when we should speak is also problematic. Often, it takes both discretion and courage to speak up.

• When you see injustice or unfairness, speak.
• When an important decision is being made, contribute your thoughts.
• Don’t be mute when your silence could be construed as agreement and you don’t concur with what is being said. 
• If someone is dominating the conversation, start talking and pursue equal time. (I dislike unbalanced conversations.)
• When someone is being dogmatic about his opinions (politics, religion, current events), express your own. 
• When someone says something that is verifiably wrong, correct him or her.

If it’s not obvious whether you should speak or be silent, it’s probably best to remain mute.

To speak or not to speak… When you’re unsure, it’s better to err on the side of silence. It’s hard to retract words spoken, and you can always speak later.  

Personal assessment — Do you struggle more with speaking too much or not speaking enough?

When I was young I was out of balance in that I was too quiet. In the past ten years I’ve tried to speak out more often. But lately, I’ve had to remind myself to hold my tongue and be silent. 

This is a never-ending challenge that we will calibrate and fine-tune for the rest of our lives.

Sometimes, a single incident is wrongly used to support a large claim. Or a small number is used to substantiate a major conclusion. The media and politicians are particularly guilty of this. 

For instance:

• There are 600,000 pastors and priests in America. Don’t discount all clergy because a few are dishonorable. 
• There are 800,000 law enforcement officers in America. A few may be “bad cops” but that should not influence your opinion of all officers or inordinately affect public policy.
• During the 2021 racial protests, some radicalized criminals (don’t call them protestors) vandalized property and injured others. Don’t confuse those individuals with those who engaged in peaceful protests and marches.
• The AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine was sidelined because it caused blood clots in a few people. But as of May 2021, 25 million people have received that vaccine and only 18 of those have died of blood clots. The vaccine has been proven to be 79% effective at preventing symptomatic COVID and was 100% effective in stopping severe disease and hospitalization. (The rate for getting blood clots from taking birth control pills is much higher: about 0.3% to 1%)

Let’s do some math.

• .01% of a million is 100
• .001% of a million is 10
• .0001% of a million is 1

So if .001% of police officers in America are corrupt, there are 79 corrupt officers and 799,921 honorable ones. Given those odds, I’m going to respect, trust, and support police officers (but let’s continue to prosecute those who abuse their power and position).  

As I’ve said before, be cautious and dubious about media sources that use a single incident to suggest a systemic problem or trend. Don’t trust conclusions based on small sample sizes.

“Although people want a doctor to fix their broken bones, when it comes to problems in their heads, they often want sympathy rather than solutions.” Adam Grant

Hurt and pain come in many forms. Physical pain is the most obvious. Mental and emotional pain is harder to diagnose but can be just as debilitating. Feelings such as sorrow, embarrassment, frustration, shame, aloneness, sadness, anxiety, depression (the list is lengthy) are painful.

When someone is hurting — for any reason or in any way (physical, emotional, mental) — our first response should be to empathize. Identify with their pain and speak comforting words. [Here’s a post I wrote on Don’t Say This to Someone Who Is Hurting.]

But sometimes empathy is not enough. It’s certainly necessary but it may not be sufficient. Sometimes our compassion should cause us to go beyond empathy. We see this demonstrated throughout the life of Jesus.

One of the mainstays in Jesus’ life was his profound compassion. The travails and anguish of others touched him deeply. For instance, In Mark 6:34 we read, “When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he began teaching them many things.” In Matthew 14:14 his compassion prompted him to heal. In Matthew 15:32 compassion led Jesus to feed the multitudes.

Notice the connection between compassion and other actions.  His empathy led to instruction, or kind deeds, or the meeting of practical needs.

There are times when hurting people just need empathy. But sometimes, in addition to empathy, they need something else. Often a person who is hurting would benefit from being taught, coached, instructed, or even admonished.

Sometimes the hurt someone feels is the product of his own doing. Perhaps he’s unaware that he is the cause of his pain, or though he’s been told, he refuses to change. Consider these scenarios.

• A friend continually mourns and complains because his acquaintances avoid him (which they do). But the reason is, he’s difficult to be around. He doesn’t need more empathy as much as he needs honest feedback. His pain will not go away until he changes.
• A family member continually complains and expresses frustration about her dead-end job. But she dropped out of high school, hasn’t developed any new job skills, and spends most of her free time watching TV. Does she need more empathy?
• A colleague often expresses sadness because he feels alone and disconnected from others. But he takes no initiative to reach out to other people; he lives like a hermit.

In these cases, I’m not suggesting that the feelings expressed aren’t real. (Feelings are usually real, though they’re not always true or reliable.) The problem is, the feelings will persist until the cause of the pain is addressed and remedied.

Sometimes, people don’t need just a shoulder to cry on, they also need an honest assessment of why they’re locked into a never-ending predicament. Honesty can be a gift, just like empathy. And often they need us to become involved in providing a solution.

Twenty-one million people have seen the following video. I understand the video is a spoof on a common communication challenge; it’s an exaggeration trying to offer some comic relief. The first time I saw it I laughed. But the more I think about it, I’m frustrated at the lady with the nail in her head. Her thinking and behavior are illogical and she places her partner in a no-win, difficult position.

My recommendation is: when responding to someone who is hurting, always start with genuine empathy. But when necessary, take the next step and help them understand the situation and how it could be ameliorated and offer to be a part of the solution. If we never take these extra steps we’re not being as helpful as we could and should be.