Father Michael Scanlan, TOR, former president of the Franciscan University of Steubenville, will posthumously receive the 2018 Poverello Medal, the college’s highest non-academic award.
Source: Former president of Franciscan U posthumously receives Poverello Medal
Your mobile phone is not only a carcinogenic, radiation emitting device, but may alter the structure and function of the brain, including brain wave activity that is intimately connected to cognition, mood and behavior.
A concerning new clinical study published in PLoS One titled, “EEG Changes Due to Experimentally Induced 3G Mobile Phone Radiation,” has revealed that so-called 3rd generation (3G) cell phone technology has widespread brain wave disrupting activity in subjects exposed to real-world like conditions, i.e. 15-minute “talk time” exposure to the ear area.
The study abstract describes the experimental design and results:
The aim of this study was to investigate whether a 15-minute placement of a 3G dialing mobile phone causes direct changes in EEG activity compared to the placement of a sham phone. Furthermore, it was investigated whether placement of the mobile phone on the ear or the heart would result in different outcomes. Thirty-one healthy females participated. All subjects were measured twice: on one of the two days the mobile phone was attached to the ear, the other day to the chest. In this single-blind, cross-over design, assessments in the sham phone condition were conducted directly preceding and following the mobile phone exposure. During each assessment, EEG activity and radiofrequency radiation were recorded jointly. Delta, theta, alpha, slow beta, fast beta, and gamma activity was computed. The association between radiation exposure and the EEG was tested using multilevel random regression analyses with radiation as predictor of main interest. Significant radiation effects were found for the alpha, slow beta, fast beta, and gamma bands. When analyzed separately, ear location of the phone was associated with significant results, while chest placement was not. The results support the notion that EEG alterations are associated with mobile phone usage and that the effect is dependent on site of placement. Further studies are required to demonstrate the physiological relevance of these findings.”
While previous research has found that mobile phone exposure affects alpha brain wave activity, and subsequent behavior (insomnia), this is the first placebo-controlled, single-blinded study of its kind to show that as little as 15 minutes of 3G cell phone technology exposure directly to the ear, “is associated with increased activity of the alpha, beta, and gamma frequency bands in nearly every brain region.” In other words, typical mobile phone exposure resulted in electrophysiological changes that resulted in measurable alterations in nearly the entire brain’s structure/function. Even though it is now common knowledge that cell phone radiation is powerful enough to disrupt sensitive equipment within an airplane (think: airplane mode) or hospital, there is still resistance to acknowledging it may adversely affect the human brain, an electrical impulse sensitive organ.
Moreover, since brain waves are believed to encode rules for behavior, altering brain wave activity could have considerable downstream affects on behavior and consciousness. To learn more about the potential of mobile phone and related electromagnetic radiation to affect cognition and behavior, read the Scientific American article, “Could certain frequencies of electromagnetic waves or radiation interfere with brain function?“, which explains why these concerns are valid.
There is also the fact that even more powerful radiation emitting devices are being developed, including 4th generation (4G) phones, which were recently found to significantly alter brain neural activity after only 30 minutes of exposure. We can only presume that these more powerful devices may alter brain wave activity even more than the 3G technology observed in the present study.
Why are we only now learning about the potentially mind-altering properties of mobile phone radiation?
The independent study pointed out that 87% of brain wave studies looking at the effects of electromagnetic radiation from cell phones are funded by the mobile phone industry,1 which may explain why most of the literature on cell phone exposure reveals either null or inconclusive, and in in some cases even positive findings on cognition. Considering that in 2013, 6.8 billion mobile phone subscriptions were registered globally,2 the resistance both by the communications industry and its users to identifying health concerns associated with their use is massive.
Even if the concerns raised about the psychiatric consequences of mobile phone exposure do not provide sufficient reason to reduce usage, the radiation emitted from these devices have already been acknowledged to be dangerous enough to justify a high level of precaution. Mobile phone radiation has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, since 2011, as “possibly carcinogenic.” Watch the video by radiation expert Dr. Chris Busby to learn about the mechanism behind cell phone carcinogenicity:
Also, to learn more about the oft minimized or repressed research on cell phone carcinogenicity, read our article: 44 Reasons Cell Phones Can Cause Cancer
Mobile phones have become an almost necessary evil for many of us in the modern world. This does not, however, mean you can’t reduce exposure, and certainly always avoid putting one up to your head. You can use a headset, for instance, and also remember that you can put your phone on airplane mode if ever you or your child is handling it. Simple precautions like this can greatly reduce you and your loved one’s risk of adverse health effects associated with exposure.
For additional related research read my article, “Ways To Reduce The Cancer-Causing Effects of Cell Phones,” or take a look at our database on research that reveals natural ways to mitigate mobile phone toxicity.
1 The effects of mobile-phone electromagnetic fields on brain electrical activity: a critical analysis of the literature. Marino AA, Carrubba S Electromagn Biol Med. 2009; 28(3):250-74. [PubMed]
2 1. International Communication Union (2013) ICT facts and figures
.jpg)
According to the World Bank about three quarters of people on the planet now use a cell phone. So they must be safe, right? Wrong
Most people have some notion that cell phones communicate with one another and with cell phone towers by emitting and receiving radiation; radio frequency radiation to be more precise.
What is less clear is just how dangerous this radiation is. More to the point, can it cause cancer?
Medpagetoday recently published this headline, Cell Phone Radiation Unlikely to Cause Cancer. Wow so after after decades of debate and millions if not billions spent on research, the truth has finally been uncovered?
$25 million Cell Phone Radiation Study Finds A Cancer Link
What prompted Medpagetoday to publish their article was publication of final data from the U.S National Toxicology Program (NTP) study a few days previously. The NTP study was carried out to evaluate the potential health risks of cell phone radiation. This study is quite a big deal because, at a cost of over $25 million, it’s the largest ever federal animal study to investigate the health hazards of cell phone or radio frequency (RF) radiation.
But here’s the thing. In May 2016 a report of partial findings [1] of the NTP study was published reporting incidences of Malignant Gliomas (Brain Cancer) in the brain and Schwannomas (also known as Neuromas) in the heart of male rats exposed to RF Radiation. The report lucidly revealed the carcinogenicimpacts of RF radiation from cell phones on human health.
In their May 2016 summary, the NTP stated that
…the tumors in the brain and heart observed…in this study are of a type similar to tumors observed in some epidemiology studies of cell phone use. These findings appear to support the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) conclusions regarding the possible carcinogenic potential of RFR.
Bold statements. Not cut and dried, but it certainly told us the direction in which they were heading, or so we thought.
$25 million Cell Phone Radiation Study NOW Finds NO Cancer Link?
Fast forward to February 2018. The NTP held a press conference [2]on their newly published data [3] on the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation from cell phones. Here’s what they said:
The typical cell phone call has radiofrequency radiation emissions that are very, very, very much lower than what we studied. [Yes, he did say ‘very’ three times as if he really wanted to emphasize a point, he could have just said ‘significantly’ – perhaps he thought that would confuse people]
We studied the maximum that one could achieve during a call in a poorer-connection situation and we studied it over 9 hours a day for over 2 years. This is a situation, obviously, that people are not going to be encountering in utilizing cell phones.
I think the message is that typical cell phone use is not going to be directly related to the kind of exposure we used in these studies.
Did they actually come out and say ‘cell phone radiation does not cause cancer’? Nope. But there was a very clear change of direction.
Federal Research Raises Flags about Cancer Risks from Cellphone Radiation
Why is the NTP now equivocal as regards its findings on cell phone radiation-induced cancer at the press conference despite the fact that two years ago this same research provided scientific evidence to back the claim which prompted a worldwide public health warning.
Some of the pathology numbers have been modified since the initial report of partial findings was published in 2016 even before the NTP teleconference. Though, the changes were minor they however came with a very different interpretation.
Yep, it’s not so much about the data it’s about how that data has been presented and interpreted.
The same day the NTP data came out, the Environmental Working Group published an article covering the release of the data with this headline, Federal Research Raises Flags about Cancer Risks from Cellphone Radiation.
They were reporting on exactly the same NTP study results as Medpagetoday but gave it a completely different interpretation.
The fact is these latest results, as well as the imbalanced NTP’s position, are more likely to inflame than resolve the long-running dispute about the world most ubiquitous electronic telecommunication device. What does other research to date say?
Independent Researchers Concur Cell Phone Radiation Can Cause Cancer
It’s by no means cut and dried either but other major independent studies have been carried out by many different researchers to evaluate the carcinogenic effects of RF Radiation from cell phones, notably the IARC Interphone Study [4], Hardell Group Studies [5], CERENAT case-control study [6] and they all concur that RF Radiation from cell phones can cause cancer.
In fact, the decision of the IARC of WHO to classify RF Radiation from mobile phones as a Class 2B (possible) carcinogen was largely based on the increased risk for cancer due to cell phone usage shown by the first two of the three aforementioned very prominent studies.
RF Radiation Causes DNA Damage
In September 2017 scientists from the NTP presented data on the genotoxicity of cell phone radiation in rats and mice. They revealed a significantly increased rate of DNA damage in; the frontal cortex of male mice, Peripheral Leukocytes of female mice and Hippocampus of male rats.
The researchers concluded that
exposure to RFR [Radio Frequency Radiation] has the potential to induce measurable DNA damage under certain exposure conditions.
We know DNA damage is prominently implicated in the development of cancer.
Cell Phone Radiation Can Cause Infertility, Cardiovascular Diseases and Birth Defects
Also, let’s not forget, its not all about cancer. The adverse health effects of cell phone radiation are not limited to causing cancer; cell Phone radiation has been implicated with many other diseases including: Infertility [7], Cardiovascular Diseases [8], Birth defects [9], Memory Problems [10], Sleep Disorders[10], Stress [11,12].
Cell Phone Radiation Can Cause Cancer – Fact!
Don’t be duped RF Radiation from cell phones can cause cancer. This is not fiction nor is it a drill; the health hazards of RF radiation are real. You need to take steps to protect you and your family from cell phone radiation and similar electromagnetic field exposures.
For additional research on dangers of mobile phone usage visit the GreenMedInfo database on the subject.
References
1. Wyde M, Cesta M, Blystone C, Elmore S, Foster P, Hooth M, Kissling G, Malarkey D, Sills R, Stout M, Walker N, Witt K, Wolfe M, et al. Report of Partial findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley SD rats (Whole Body Exposure). bioRxiv [Internet]. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory; 2016 [cited 2017 Nov 30]; : 55699. doi: 10.1101/055699.
2. Niehs. Telephone Press Conference: NTP Draft Conclusions for Radiofrequency Radiation Studies in Rats and Mice Transcript. [cited 2018 Feb 13]; . Available from https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/february2/radiofrequency_508.pdf
3. NIEHS. Draft Reports, Public Comments, and Related Information: TR Peer Review Panel. 2018; . Available from https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/about/org/sep/trpanel/meetings/docs/2018/march/index.html
4. Cardis E, Richardson L, Deltour I, Armstrong B, Feychting M, Johansen C, Kilkenny M, McKinney P, Modan B, Sadetzki S, Schüz J, Swerdlow A, Vrijheid M, et al. The INTERPHONE study: design, epidemiological methods, and description of the study population. Eur J Epidemiol [Internet]. Springer Netherlands; 2007 [cited 2017 Nov 30]; 22: 647–64. doi: 10.1007/s10654-007-9152-z.
5. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Gee D. Mobile phone use and brain tumour risk : early warnings , early actions ? Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2017 Nov 30]. p. 509–29. doi: 10.2800/73322.
6. Coureau G, Bouvier G, Lebailly P, Fabbro-Peray P, Gruber A, Leffondre K, Guillamo J-S, Loiseau H, Mathoulin-Pélissier S, Salamon R, Baldi I. Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study. Occup Environ Med [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2017 Nov 30]; 71: 514–22. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2013-101754.
7. Naziroǧlu M, Yüksel M, Köse SA, Özkaya MO. Recent reports of Wi-Fi and mobile phone-induced radiation on oxidative stress and reproductive signaling pathways in females and males [Internet]. Journal of Membrane Biology. 2013 [cited 2017 Dec 25]. p. 869–75. doi: 10.1007/s00232-013-9597-9.
8. Hayes DL, Wang PJ, Reynolds DW, Estes M, Griffith JL, Steffens RA, Carlo GL, Findlay GK, Johnson CM. Interference with cardiac pacemakers by cellular telephones. N Engl J Med [Internet]. Massachusetts Medical Society; 1997 [cited 2018 Feb 5]; 336: 1473–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199705223362101.
9. Divan HA, Kheifets L, Obel C, Olsen J. Prenatal and postnatal exposure to cell phone use and behavioral problems in children. Epidemiology [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2017 Dec 27]; 19: 523–9. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e318175dd47.
10. Hutter HP, Moshammer H, Wallner P, Kundi M. Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations. Occup Environ Med [Internet]. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd; 2006 [cited 2018 Feb 5]; 63: 307–13. doi: 10.1136/oem.2005.020784.
11. Augner C, Hacker G. Are people living next to mobile phone base stations more strained? Relationship of health concerns, self-estimated distance to base station, and psychological parameters. Indian J Occup Environ Med [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2017 Dec 25]; 13: 141. doi: 10.4103/0019-5278.58918.
12. Augner C, Hacker GW, Oberfeld G, Florian M, Hitzl W, Hutter J, Pauser G. Effects of exposure to GSM mobile phone base station signals on salivary cortisol, alpha-amylase, and immunoglobulin A. Biomed Environ Sci [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2017 Dec 25]; 23: 199–207. doi: 10.1016/S0895-3988(10)60053-0.
MALDEN — Hundreds of future Catholics in the Archdiocese of Boston declared their intention to be received into the Church at Easter during special ceremonies held Feb. 18, the first Sunday of Lent,
Source: Hundreds take step to enter Catholic Church during Rite of the Election
Today, we hear the Genesis account of God’s test of Abraham. Often when we think of Abraham as the man of great faith, we are remembering his leaving everything behind in order to go to the land God was preparing, in order to receive the promise that his descendants would be as uncountable as the stars. It is easier to think of that than of the day when God tested Abraham’s faith by asking for Isaac.
As we read this narrative, we need to put aside our Western mindset and allow the Genesis author to lead us. The storyteller is talking about God and Abraham. This is not a story about Isaac, and focusing on him and his trauma will only lead us away from the question of the test God gave Abraham and what it tells us about the two of them.
God called to Abraham who responded, “Here I am,” literally, “Behold me.”
Check out our newest column: The Gospel of Sports.
On one hand, “Here I am” was the typical answer to hearing one’s name called. In some cases, it carries a deeper commitment. “Behold me” could proclaim, “See, I am here to do anything you command.”
When Abraham said that, God did the unthinkable. The God who had led Abraham from his homeland, the God who had given him the promise of a land and progeny beyond counting said, “Take your son Isaac, the one you love, and offer him up as a holocaust.”
In effect, God was saying, “You gave up everything based on my promise, and I gave you the son who would fulfill that promise. Now, do you love me enough to give it all back?”
Unlike Job, from whom God took everything away, God asked Abraham to give it back freely, to sacrifice everything he had ever hoped for and all he had received in willing obedience to God.
Although our translations don’t indicate it, God’s command was gentle. God said, “Please.” God made no threat about what would happen if Abraham didn’t do as he was bidden. We simply hear the instruction to take Isaac, go to a place God would reveal, and to offer him as a sacrifice. Unlike prophets who protested that they were too young or speech-impaired or afraid, Abraham spoke not a word. He set out to do what he was commanded.
As we know, at the last minute, God again called. This time with an urgent “Abraham! Abraham!” In telling Abraham not to harm the boy, God said, “I know now.”
We might see Abraham’s test as inhuman, too great a demand. Most parents would say, “I would give my life for my child,” but would balk at giving their child.
The message of this story, the example of Abraham, is one that has been pondered in the Scriptures, in the Christian tradition and in world literature. It leads us to the core question of discipleship: What does God ask of us? Just how sovereign is God?
In the reading from Romans, St. Paul turns this story inside out. While Genesis asked us to ponder what God can ask of us, Paul proclaims what God offers us. When Paul says, “God did not spare his own Son,” he is implicitly comparing God to Abraham.
Yet, whereas Abraham’s test probed how much a creature might be asked to give the sovereign God, what humanity owes its Maker, Paul says that the God who owes us nothing sacrifices everything for us. In Paul’s mind, God is the sacrifice.
Genesis presented us with the test of faith: How much do we owe God, how much are we willing to give God? Paul says that God’s love, God’s self-giving for humanity is immeasurable and that Christ’s death and resurrection are the proof of that.
Today, this reading prepares us to hear the story of the Transfiguration and challenges us to allow our concept of God to be transformed and amplified. The dazzling appearance of Jesus on the mountain is a sign of all the good God offers us.
This week’s readings give us a Lenten invitation to contemplate the image of God they present. Instead of calling us to say, “Here I am,” God tells us, “Behold me in the Son.”
Then, God gives us the same command that came from the cloud: “Listen to him.”
Matthews Otalike, Abuja, Nigeria
The Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria has called on Nigerians to engage in politics that will usher in the desired change in the country.
In a homily at the opening of the first plenary meeting of the Catholic Bishops in 2018, John Cardinal Onaiyekan said the 2019 general elections is fast approaching and that Nigerians must “seize this God-given opportunity to radically change things around. We should no longer allow politics to remain business as usual in the hands of the same gang of speculators and opportunists.”
According to the prelate, “Politics is not for miserable people seeking a way out of poverty, nor for selfish business people looking for an easy way to maximize profit by manipulating the system in their favor. Less still is it for the corruptly rich-seeking refuge from just accountability. Rather, it is for altruistic men and women with the talent, conviction, and desire to contribute to making our nation a better home for all of us,” said the cardinal, who serves as the archbishop of the capital Abuja.
Cardinal Onaiyekan called on Nigerians to recover the genuine sense of politics as a noble vocation to serve the common good and that they should stop complaining and get involved in the often-rough arena of politics.
The call for Nigerians to get involved in politics came amid criticism that President Muhammadu Buhari, who came to power three years ago with the promise to change Nigeria, had failed to fulfill expectations.
Buhari came to power promising change to Nigeria. He said he would address the problem of an epileptic energy supply in the country; revalue the naira, the nation’s faltering currency; create three million jobs every year; and lower the cost of fuel.
In addition, insecurity is still a huge problem in Nigeria. Not only is the Boko Haram insurgency still active -even if it has been significantly weakened – other groups continue to carry out kidnappings, assassinations, and engage in tribal raids and other forms of insurgency.
Onaiyekan said that much needs to be done because many problems have been left to fester, adding that Nigeria deserves far better than it is now getting in terms of good governance, social justice, and peace and the minimum of the well-being of our people,” the cardinal said.
The cardinal said the mounting problems the country faces today have completely eroded “the initial massive goodwill” the Buhari government enjoyed at the early stages of his presidency.
However, he cautioned Nigerians not to be given to despair and frustration, noting that the country’s problems were not insurmountable.
At the close of the Conference, Archbishop Augustine Obiora Akubueze of the Archdiocese of Benin, Nigeria was elected President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria, to take over from Archbishop Ignatius Kaigama of the Jos Archdiocese, Nigeria.
In 2016 John Stumpf, then the CEO of Wells Fargo, was called before Congress to explain a massive scandal. For more than four hours, Stumpf fielded a range of questions about why the bank, which had over $1.8 trillion in assets, had created 2 million false accounts, and, after the fraud was discovered, fired 5,300 employees as a way of redirecting the blame. The recordings of the hearing are a shocking but illustrative case study of how leaders are at risk of being corrupted by power.
Stumpf’s appearance before Congress shows a man who had made it to the top of one of the world’s most valuable banks — and who seems to show an utter lack of ability to have compassion for other people. Even though his actions caused 5,300 people to lose their jobs, he seemed incapable of acknowledging their pain. Yes, he apologized, but he didn’t seem remorseful. Rather, he seemed a little taken aback by the whole thing, as if he really didn’t understand what all the fuss was about.
The behavior of John Stumpf can be explained through the research of neuroscientist Sukhvinder Obhi, who has found that power impairs our mirror-neurological activity — the neurological function that indicates the ability to understand and associate with others. David Owen, a British physician and parliamentarian, has dubbed this phenomenon hubris syndrome, which he defines as a “disorder of the possession of power, particularly power which has been associated with overwhelming success, held for a period of years.”
One CEO we interviewed for our upcoming book was very open about this problem. For more than a decade, he had been the CEO of a large global consumer goods brand, but as time went on, the constant pressure, the heady activity of crafting a strategy, and the need to make tough decisions with tough implications for others had made him less empathetic. He found himself pulling back in his relationships with his colleagues, his friends, and even his children, which was against his nature. Empathy used to be a dominant trait of his personality. He used to know how others felt, and he could naturally demonstrate concern for their feelings. But his leadership role had taken a toll, and eventually, empathy was all but absent from his thinking and decision making. He was matter-of-fact about this when he told us, but remorseful, too.
Through our interviews, we heard variations of this time and again. It’s not that power makes people want to be less empathetic; it’s that taking on greater responsibilities and pressure can rewire our brains and, through no fault of our own, force us to stop caring about other people as much as we used to. But it does not have to be this way. Such rewiring can be avoided — and it can also be reversed.
Compassion is the key. While empathy is the tendency to feel others’ emotions and take them on as if you were feeling them, compassion is the intent to contribute to the happiness and well-being of others. Compassion, therefore, is more proactive, which means we can make a habit of it. By doing so, we can counter the loss of empathy that results from holding power, and in turn enable better leadership and human connections at work.
Of the over 1,000 leaders we surveyed, 91% said compassion is very important for leadership, and 80% would like to enhance their compassion but do not know how. Compassion is clearly a hugely overlooked skill in leadership training.
Based on our work with thousands of leaders, here are a few practical ways to enhance your compassion:
A Chinese proverb says, “There is no way to compassion; compassion is the way.” Bringing compassion into any interaction you have and asking how you can be of benefit to others is the way to compassion. Compassion is something we create by applying it to every interaction we have.
In that way, it can become the compass that directs your intentions, attention, and actions. Whenever you engage with someone, ask yourself: “How can I be of benefit to this person?” Ask yourself this every time you meet clients, stakeholders, colleagues, family, or friends. Let it be a mantra that drives your intentions, moment by moment, in meeting after meeting.
John Chambers, the former CEO of Cisco, knew that compassion was more than the right thing to do — it also had a positive impact on his organization. He set up a system to ensure he was informed within 48 hours of any employee, anywhere in the world, experiencing a severe loss or illness. Once notified, he would personally write a letter and extend his support to that person. In this way, he instilled a top-down appreciation of the value of care and compassion throughout the company.
Whether you are the CEO or not, make a daily habit of looking for opportunities to show compassion for someone in need of it. If useful, put a reminder in your calendar.
Compassion can be cultivated through a number of time-tested practices. Research has found that just a few minutes of practice a day will help your brain rewire itself for increased compassion and that with regular training, you can experience increased positive emotions, increased mindfulness, a stronger sense of purpose, and increased happiness. Also, compassion training has been shown to significantly alter the neural networks of our brain in such a way that we react to the suffering of others with spontaneous compassion, instead of distress and despair.
Click here to access more resources on compassion training, or simply follow the instructions below:
Rasmus Hougaard is the founder and managing director of Potential Project, a global leadership and organizational development firm serving Microsoft, Accenture, Cisco and hundreds of other organizations. He is publishing his second book The Mind of the Leader – How to Lead Yourself, Your People and Your Organization for Extraordinary Results with HBR Press in March 2018.
Jacqueline Carter is a partner and the North American Director of Potential Project. She is co-author of The Mind of the Leader – How to Lead Yourself, Your People and Your Organization for Extraordinary Results (HBR Press, 2018) as well as co-author with Rasmus Hougaard on their first book One Second Ahead: Enhancing Performance at Work with Mindfulness.
Louise Chester is the UK Director of Potential Project. Since 1994, her mindfulness training helped her sustain challenging, senior leadership roles in both investment banking and fund management industries.
I was talking with a friend one day who was having to make some difficult decisions for the organization he leads. He had confidence the direction he was leading was the right one and, even necessary for the future life of the organization. He had done his homework. He tried to include others in reaching a conclusion. He was acting prayerful, strategic and methodical.
But, he also knew the decisions he was about to make would be very unpopular. He even suspected he might lose friendships in the process. (Some people respond poorly to change>)
I was able to remind him of something all leaders need to know.
There is sometimes loneliness in leadership, which cannot be avoided.
In fact, I would even counsel people not to offer to lead if they are not willing to sometimes stand-alone. It should be rare, the exception not the rule, and shouldn’t have to last long. That’s also part of developing healthy teams so we are not always alone. It’s why we have others outside the organization who can speak into our life and who we can rely on when we feel isolated.
(Of course, as Christian leaders we are never actually alone. Our God is ever present. But, emotions are often stronger than perceived reality and we will feel alone.)
Even in the best team environment, however, there will be times when the direction the organization needs to go involves making decisions, which adversely affect others on the team. There are times leaders have to make the unpopular decisions to make the right decisions moving forward.
And, in those times, the leader can be left feeling overwhelmed, like no one understands, and very much alone. It could be for an hour, a day, week or season. Again, it shouldn’t last long before the leader reaches out for help, but the emotions are real.
There have been times when I have to have hard conversations, correct people who are wrong, or follow through on the plan I think is best for the church, even though it is unpopular. Sometimes I have to say no when the pressure is to say yes. Sometimes I have to lead us to move forward when everyone wants to sit still. Sometimes I need to defy all the odds and the negative voices and simply lead us to unchartered territory. And, it’s all because I happen to wear a leader’s hat.
We aren’t without Biblical precedent here. Consider Moses, Noah, David, and Jesus, to name a few. They weren’t always “popular” even when they were leading at their best and under the clear direction of God.
The responsibility of being a leader should never be abused. Leadership is never an excuse for dictatorship or control. We must always consider the interests of others ahead of our own. (That’s a Biblical command.) But, make no mistake about it, loneliness sometimes comes with the territory of being a leader. In those days, we stand firm in our faith and our calling. And, we wait for better days.
I say it as I see it
"Exploring the world of words, one Wandering at a time".
Ego stroking and addiction horror stories
Live with More Light & Faith by CM.
travels, books, cosmetics, promo, life
Uncovering truth, however hidden
All are welcome aboard the crazy train — but be warned, the world as you know it, is about to be turned upside down.
Information for Christians
Advice, challenges, poetry and prose
A Long Island lifestyle blog that helps you to be the best you.
Learn more about an artist who makes music, paints, and creates photography.
Art & Blog
Following In Faith
Words, Sounds and Pictures
Become a Story Hunter!
All about Science and Technology
My Awesome Fearless Blog 