Reluctant Leadership

March 15, 2016

Years ago I was asked my opinion about who should become the president of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. My response was that it should be no person who is seeking the job. It was and remains my belief that, in ministry, the person should not seek the job; the job should seek the person.

I think this should also apply to the presidency of the United States.

It’s only mid-March, and I’m already sick and tired of campaign rhetoric and the ridiculously low behavior of candidates for what’s supposed to be our nation’s highest office.

I am looking for humility; and I think, perhaps, that any person who seeks the presidency probably lacks the humility to be the person we need in that office.

I want both a freer and fairer society, led by humble servants within public and private institutions. I want servant-leaders with character more than charisma.

I want a society where individuals with drive and discipline take responsibility for making things better at home and in their neighborhoods, communities and states. And where one of these unsuspecting persons, with lots of grit but little guile, gets drafted to lead our country, and very reluctantly accepts.

Student-Centered Coaching

August 1, 2017

The November 1929 Bulletin of the Michigan High School Athletic Association includes this editorial reprinted from the Oct. 7, 1929 Grand Rapids Herald which invites discussion about what more we might do to promote leadership and sportsmanship in school-sponsored sports today.

“Football teams of Greenville and Ionia high schools Saturday introduced an innovation the nature of which challenges consideration of other Michigan schools. From the time the first whistle blew for Saturday’s game until its close the professional coaches employed by the two schools had no contact with players. Between the halves the usual harangue by the coach was dispensed with in favor of a review of play by players. * * * The result of such a policy is unsullied amateurism along the lines we often have urged. The players are on their own. They do their own thinking as well as playing. Under the system as usually followed the coach sits on the sidelines. If he sees an opportunity for a plan of play differing from that being followed he sends in a substitute who carries instructions: ‘Stick to forward passes. Bang away at their left end,’ etc. Between the halves the coach points out faults and emphasizes opportunities for the final half. In net effect the coach directs the play. The initiative of captain or quarterback is permitted only so long as the coach approves. Under the Greenville system the captain is the only recognized leader of the team. He directs substitutions, orders plays, advises players, etc. At Greenville school boys played against school boys. On other western Michigan gridirons a coach is the 12th member of every team. * * * The plan adopted at Greenville was suggested by President Angell of Yale in his annual report for 1927-28. He urged that, ‘There is a wide and well-grounded sentiment that the control of our games should be put back more fully into the hands of the players.’ Yale has not heeded Prexy Angell’s advice, but the New York State Public High School Athletic Association has adopted it as also have some Detroit high schools. It takes the sting of professionalism out of the scholastic game. The able coach still has ample opportunity to prove his worth in teaching the fundamentals of the game and in developing ‘football brains’; but when the whistle blows it is high school team against high school team. What’s the matter with trying that in Grand Rapids? What, if any, are the arguments against it?”