Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64Lars was a former pastor and well loved by everyone. He genuinely cared about those around him, especially the residents at the mission. But he struggled to use the computer and had weak administrative skills. More importantly, he strug- gled to ask others for money or impose on people for anything. Stated plainly, he did not have the competence to be an effective development director. Despite this, Lars was still there. Lars’ tenure at the mission was supported in part by an epidemic among Christians—an epidemic that is as prevalent in rescue missions as it is in any Christian organization. The leaders at Lars’ mission were sacrificing some of the impact of their work and ministry because they were trying to be nice. They liked Lars and didn’t want to hurt his feelings. They also didn’t want to confront the uncomfort- able feelings often necessary to change direction. So they let Lars run things how he wanted—to the detriment of their mission, employees, and volunteers, and frankly, Lars himself. Jesus teaches us that there is a different way. Truth be told, Jesus was not nice; Jesus was kind. The difference between niceness and kindness is subtle yet profound. The key difference is in focus. Niceness is primarily focused on personal comfort and saving face. Thus, nice people will lower their standards in order to reduce conflict and seem- ingly improve their personal image. In contrast, kindness has more of an outward focus. Philippians 2:3–4 could easily describe kindness: “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own inter- ests but each of you to the interests of the others.” Thus, kindness in your mission is more about the best interests of other people and the broader mission of your agency than it is about you. Jesus exemplified kindness in a variety of ways. Some are obvious, such as how He treated the adulterous woman in John 8. Other examples of Jesus’ kindness are quite surprising. One such example occurs in Matthew 16:21–23. Jesus severely rebuked His close friend and disciple, Peter, for challenging Jesus’ prophecy: “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns” (Matthew 16:23). Was this a warm and fuzzy, “nice” conversation? Not at all! This was harsh and painful, but it was also kind and loving. Jesus knew that He couldn’t allow His disciple to continue down a flawed and harmful path. So in this instance, the kind thing to do was to address it boldly and intentionally so that Peter could correct course. In contrast, if Jesus was nice the conversation would have gone differently. Assuming Nice Jesus would say anything at all, He might have responded to Peter by saying, “That is an interest- ing idea, Peter. We should set up a committee to discuss this further.” It’s time to break the Nice Christian Epidemic. Here are three strategies for implementing a kind culture at your rescue mission. Raise Your Standards Just as “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough” (Galatians 5:9), a toxic employee destroys your mission’s productivity despite how talented he or she is. At the same time, incompetent staff, chronically late volunteers, and unengaged board members sap the potential impact of your mission. Missions must stop settling for sub-par performance and results from board members, staff members, and volunteers. The process isn’t easy, but it can be done. Several years ago, one mission I work with began a journey of raising its standards. In facilitated sessions, which I was fortunate to take part in, this mission began defining the standards they would hold to. Ī 38 WWW.AGRM.ORG JULY/AUGUST 2016 Was this a warm and fuzzy, “nice” conversation? Not at all! This was harsh and painful, but it was also kind and loving.