by Eddie Pipkin

Image by Paul C Lee from Pixabay

At the pickleball complex last week, my partner and I were deep into a close match, when a foursome arrived and set up two courts down. This included hanging up a portable speaker and triggering their Tom Petty playlist.  Now, I’m as big a fan of “I Won’t Back Down” as the next guy, but I’m not a fan of music on the courts, and the posted rules at this facility happen to reflect my personal preference –  “no amplified music allowed” – so I politely pointed this out.  Will you be shocked to hear that my request was met with resistance?  We all have a great reason from time to time as to why the rules shouldn’t apply to us; sometimes we are even in a position to ignore the rules altogether.  Ministry leadership is no exception, and it’s worth taking a moment to reflect honestly on whether we have a habit of throwing the ‘rules’ out the window when convenient, and what effect such a habit might have on others who are looking to us to set an example.

As for the drama on the court, here’s how it went down.

I approached the music-playing group and said, “Hey, guys, I love Tom Petty, too, but could I ask y’all to abide by the posted rule and not play music?”

Their leader said, “Oh, is the music bothering you?”

I responded, “How about we just leave it at ‘can we honor the posted rule and not play amplified music’?  If I’m reading the rule incorrectly, y’all can educate me.”

Their leader said, “Oh, well just so you know, I work here.”

I responded, “Good to know.  Can we observe the posted rule?  Thanks.”  And I headed back to my court.  They turned off the music.  We had no further interaction.

There are two things worth noting here.

First, I didn’t get into explaining why I find music distracting on the courts.  If you answer yes to the ‘being bothered’ question, it is an invitation to negotiation.  You will then be asked to justify your botheration in detail, and your preference will be minimized at every turn.  You will find yourself engaged in a micro-debate about exactly how low the volume needs to be on the speaker or what specific music you hate so much that you would ruin everyone else’s enjoyment.

Secondly, I did not opt to enter into the other invited dialogue, which would have been along the lines of “And what does that mean: you work here?”  Did that mean he and his playing partners were exempt from the posted rules?  Did that mean he was an authorized arbitrator as to when it was permitted to temporarily waive the rules?  Was it a subtle threat?  I’ll admit, I would have been curious to hear, but in the moment I just wanted to get back to my game as quickly as possible with minimum fuss.

And it was a minimum amount of fuss.  But here’s the thing: these folks (one of whom should clearly have been familiar with the rules) put the onus on me to navigate this situation.  They chose their preference in spite of the agreed-upon rules, and they put me in the very uncomfortable position of challenging them if I disagreed.  There is a lot of presumption in their decision to proceed; it is distinctly different from a scenario in which they might have politely asked if it was okay if they played some music over at their court.  The approach they chose to take instead leveraged the likelihood that I would be put in an uncomfortable spot and, therefore, probably would avoid a confrontation, giving them what they wanted in the first place.

As ministry leaders, if we are honest, we do this to other people far more than we would like to admit.  We bend or break the rules for convenience or preference, and we put others in the position of calling us out on it.  (Even asking others if they mind if we bend or break clearly established rules is tricky, since the power dynamic is almost always in our favor.)

So, what about crotch dogs you’re wondering, having been intrigued by the blog title and having hung around for this many paragraphs out of prurient curiosity?

Ah, well, the morning after the Great Pickleball Playlist incident, I went on a run in the neighborhood, and a thing happened that happens every couple of months or so.  A large off-leash dog ran straight at me, full speed, head at crotch level and not stopping until he had planted his nose in my nethers.  If you have not had this experience, I will testify that it is straight-up terrifying.

“Ha, ha, ha,” laughed the owner, out for an unfettered jaunt with his enthusiastic canine.  “He’s harmless!”

Sure he is, until he isn’t.  I mean, I love dogs.  We owned dogs for over 30 years, but I don’t know your dog, mister.  I was being asked to get up close and very personal with a large, toothy mammal whose history was a mystery and whose motives would be revealed in real time without regard as to whether I’m scared to death of dogs, allergic to dogs, or just find dogs a major irritant.

As was true in our tale of the pickleball playlist . . . much is presumed.

The dog’s owner was presuming that their dog would not pose a physical threat and was unconcerned whether their animal would create mental anguish for other people in shared public spaces.  I don’t think such owners are bad people; they are just so enamored of their own experience, perspective, and preferences that they have dismissed everyone else’s.

Alas, ministry leaders also sometimes behave in this manner.

Having an unleashed dog in my neighborhood is both a violation of legal rules (in our county there is an ordinance which specifically defines the appropriate control of pets in public) and, perhaps more so, a violation of decorum.  It’s inconsiderate and selfish.

For ministry leaders, even when there is no technical rule about behavior that might make others uncomfortable, there is a choice to be made for politeness, empathy, and putting others first.  This is leading with love.  You might have the authority to make a unilateral decision, but isn’t it so much healthier to solicit genuine buy-in from the team?  You might be entitled to take the preferred spot on stage or in a meeting, but wouldn’t giving someone else the spotlight be a statement of humility that would create goodwill?  You might have strong preferences about how something should look or sound or how something should be done, but isn’t it a powerful statement to give voice to the preferences of others?

And as far as explicitly stated rules – procedures, protocols, and processes – if we overrule them just because we have the power to do so, we undermine the institutions that we serve.  Good governance depends on faithfulness to the agreed-upon rules.  Morale depends upon a culture of everyone being treated equally under ‘the law.’  If we exempt ourselves or our favored inner circle, we fatally wound morale and we undermine good governance.

If you have an agreed upon rule that there will be no cell phones during team meetings, and you pull yours out because “this is important,” you sabotage the whole point of the thing.  If you ask people to maintain a spirit of quiet and prayerfulness during communion, but then you’re yakking it up with someone in the back of the sanctuary, you have no moral authority to ask for the next thing.  If budget paperwork is due on the first of the month, but you’re late with yours, pleading a higher priority, nobody should be held to that standard.

A rule for thee is a rule for thee, or else the rules should cease to be.

Do you ever break or bend the rules because it’s inconvenient to follow them?  Do you ram your preferences through despite the desires of others?  Do you exempt yourself from restrictions and processes that others must abide by?  Have you seen others exhibit these behaviors?  How have these decisions affected the atmosphere of the work and ministry space?  What are the benefits of everybody adhering to the agreed-upon rules?