Lead

"The Man Who Leads The Church" is an early journalistic attempt to explain Pope John Paul II and to predict the road that his papacy would follow. Written in 1980, it attempts to discern his themes and goals from the observation of the first year of his Papacy. Now, with 25 years of Papal leadership to reflect upon, we can form our opinions as to how close the authors came to the mark. In my opinion they came pretty close.

The starting point of this book is that John Paul II is, at his core, a Polish Pope. His Polish background shapes his world view and his view of the Church. John Paul II matured in a society in which the Church was suppressed and in which a united front was the only way the that Church could stand up to the Communist authorities. The concept of dissent within the Church was not known in Poland and would be little recognized in John Paul II's mind.

The next point is the background of intense Polish Marian devotion which plays a role in John Paul II's theology. The positions he has taken as a philosopher are explored to some degree.

The authors next assess John Paul's interaction with the cultures to which he has made his early pastoral visits, primarily those of Mexico, Poland, Ireland and the Unites States. In Mexico the issue was Liberation Theology, which John Paul identified with Marxism. In Poland the main issue was the protection and preservation of the faith against Communist oppression. In Ireland, the challenge was to preserve the faith nurtured in a simple, agrarian society against the onslaught of a rapidly advancing modernity. In the U. S. the challenge was to make the Christian message heard above the cacophony of worldly sirens.

As an admirer of John Paul II, my biggest gripe with this book is that the authors either do not understand or refuse to recognize that John Paul's mission is to preach the gospel to all nations, not to mold the Church's message into a better version of the Consumer Culture. If John Paul preaches traditional Catholic teachings to Modernists who want some combination of married priests, artificial contraception and abortion, or class warfare in the name of liberation, the problem is not necessarily because the Pope is wrong. The authors imply a criticism of John Paul as being out of touch with the world. They overlook the possibility that the world may be out of touch with true Christian morality.

As to the predications of his Papal course, the authors assume an initiative to the East, primarily to reunited the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Here again, the authors could not avoid implying a criticism of John Paul for not presenting an initiative more acceptable to Protestantism. They only grudgingly concede that the doctrinal chasms between Catholicism and Orthodoxy are much less deep than those between Catholicism and Orthodoxy on one side and Protestantism on the other. The authors' thinking is that Ecumenical success with the Orthodox Churches will make unification with Protestants easier.

How has John Paul done, 23 years later? Obviously, the attempt to unify the Catholic and Orthodox Churches by 2000 was unsuccessful. The assessment that in Poland "people's expectation of eventual change has been heightened and that itself represented a new danger for the authorities " has been richly fulfilled. The contrast between great personal popularity of John Paul II with less enthusiastic acceptance of his message remains. The authors' completely missed the advance of the Church in Africa which John Paul has strongly promoted.

Today there are several newer books which better assess John Paul II. This book is best used to draw historical and stylistic contrasts to later works.

By taking the time to think about the way you think, you can actually become a better, or at least more effective, thinker. That's the main premise of Jim Wheeler's brief book, which despite being somewhat simplistic, still manages to convey some valuable insights into thinking patterns. Readers who are new to the study of mental processes will be well pleased with Wheeler's work, which is written in a non-intimidating, conversational tone. He takes a methodical approach in examining human thought and offers clear suggestions as to how to change your thinking habits to encourage positive results. We [...] recommend this book to human resources executives, who will find its concepts helpful in training employees, forming teams and identifying potential leaders, and to any executive or student looking for a competitive edge.

A basic good look at telemarketing. There is nothing though that isn't already known by most telemarketing professionals. Mr. Domanski obviusly has a great deal of experience, but again, nothing earth shattering.

Well, I'm always looking for good books on this subject, but sadly I can't recommend this book to anyone.
You would be far better off with "Peopleware", which I would unconditionally recommend.

Thanks to this marvelous piece of literature, I found myself acquainted with a variety of colorful terms such as "like white on rice" and what it means to "hair-lip hell." Fortunately for the hapless reader, the author has graciously provided footnotes to explain these and many others. Quotation from the Matrix and Star Wars movies are also abound. Unfortunately, all of the above failed to alleviate the trauma that afflicted me as I swung between drowsiness and frustration while I read this book.

Team Leading is both an art and a science. As such, one can't expect to find a how-to book with specific instructions on mastering the subject. One can only hope to find common sense and experience distilled for easy digestion by the newcomer. This book fails to cover either science or art. It reads more like a crippled hybrid between Steve McConnell's "Rapid Development" and Stephens Covey's "Seven Habits", with plenty of clichés sprinkled throughout for good measure. The author's attempt to classify programmers into "types" is laughable and useless, and the constant underlining of the special traits and shortcomings of our geeky friends is resentful.

For the science of software team leadership, I would highly recommend the McConnell set of books. For the artistic and social side of the equation, I would recommend the Seven Habits book. You'll find all the knowledge that you would need in these books. Applying that knowledge is the real challenge. A challenge that can only be overcome with discipline and understanding.

So I got this book: Herding Cats: A Primer For Programmers Who Lead Programmers, by J. Hank Rainwater. When the programmers I manage came into my office they'd see it and they'd say, "We're cats?!" "Better than being sheep," I answered.

Although I was put off by the author's photos in the introduction, and he quotes Steven Covey, it actually turned out to be quite good: it crystallized my thoughts in some areas and gave me brand new thoughts in others. And when you mostly agree with someone, maybe you should give those items you don't agree with, or rarely think about, another look.

The points I agreed with: avoid unnecessary meetings; leads can't be programmers anymore, but leads have to still code; hiring people you can't communicate with is no good, even if they're superstars; keep track of the tasks people are working on (duh); software development is more like gardening than construction (watching Greenfingers the other night I discovered that gardeners go through a design phase too); micromanagement is bad; geniuses shouldn't be made managers; borrow from software methodologies, don't accept one as a whole package.

And the points I realized where I had room for improvement: delegate, inspect, organize, and manage meetings. Since I read the book, about a year ago, I've tried to follow some of his advice in these areas. Some of it has worked, some hasn't, but I don't regret experimenting with any of it.

If you're like me, and you read almost every software management book you can get your hands on, this should be in your collection too.

I was shocked. This book is the most boring piece of "literature" that i have ever read. I only finished it because i kept thinking that something interesting was going to come along eventually. But it never did. There is absolutely no interesting content at all. Luckily i bought it on sale for 4.95 but it is still the worst investment i have ever made. Just don't buy it. And if its given to you kindly ask for the receipt so that you can exchange it. Or use it to start a fire or to wipe yourself. This read was a total waste of time.

I was quite excited when I first saw this book, being a twentysomething die hard Yankee fan. I enjoyed Maury Allen's work for the New York Post for some time. Now that I've read it, I must say I'm terribly disappointed.

If you are looking for an objective view of George Steinbrenner, don't bother picking this book up. The Boss is clearly a complicated man, generous one moment and cruel the next, but not in Allen's view. He only casually mentions Steinbrenner's Hyde-like moments, then spends pages gushing about George's generous deeds. Yogi Berra's anger toward the Boss and self-imposed exile from Yankee Stadium is left out almost entirely.

Allen can also be quite sloppy at times. Chances are most people reading the book know that the "Curse of the Bambino" was born when Babe Ruth was traded to the Red Sox. Even so, bringing up the phrase once or twice is justifiable; to retell the story every time the Red Sox are in a pennant race, every time the Yanks sign a free agent from Boston, etc. gets to be tedious. Yet, that anecdote and others, are repeated and repeated.

Plus Allen glosses over that long, rough Yankee stretch between playoff appearances and completely ignores the terrible trades where that Yanks gave up future all-stars like Willie McGee for mediocre players like Bob Sykes. When Allen closes with the notion that the Boss is worthy of consideration for the Baseball Hall of Fame, I shivered and wondered where such an idea could have come from.

A good read if you remember the 1970s thru 2000 Yankees. Maury Allen is a bit full of himself (he refused to vote for Thurman Munson for the Hall of Fame because HE did not like him as a person) and repeats some lines thought the book. It's well worth the basement price of 5.00 (new) you find around town.

Easley Blackwood is famous, and justifiably so. But his book on opening leads just doesn't cut it. It will teach you two major lessons about opening leads. First, when your world-class opponents use strange and often archaic bidding methods to arrive at difficult contracts that will make against poor defense, you should make the opening lead that will work the best. And second, classic methods (fourth best, top of a sequence, etc.) are good because they give information to your partner, while modern innovations are bad because they give information to the declarer.

There are some interesting tidbits, but only a true masochist would attempt to learn much about opening leads from this book. On the other hand, if you like reading about interesting hands that were played in world championships twenty to forty years ago, and if you're into name-dropping, I can wholeheratedly recommend Blackwood's effort.

Anyone who needs a recommendation on what to get instead, feel free to ask.

The most complete book ever written on opening leads.

I purchased this book at a booksigning and thought I would purchase additional copies at a later date as gifts to my teen relatives. However, after reading this book, I cannot recommend it to my family who are advanced readers.

From the standpoint of the three short stories, the author provided a very positive message for teens (especially girls) by illustrating consequences of traveling down the "wrong path" and spoke highly of self-respect, self-love, Christian values, and positive thinking.

The novel faltered badly in the areas of grammatical construct, overall editing, and dialogue handling. There were too many instances of single sentences starting with "I", switching tenses, repetitive uses of the same adjectives and adverbs, and young adults "speaking" like 8 year olds. These errors made it difficult to want to keep reading this book, but I perservered because I wanted to finish it to rate it fairly.

The author admitted this was her first novel and I commend her for following her dreams but prior to her next release I'd strongly recommend finding a professional editor.

As a writer, I know the complexity involved in writing. I can relate to the countless hours it takes to put a story together, the expense of hiring an editor and the excitement one feels when completing a project only to have it rejected by publishers. This book though it did have some errors (but then what book doesn't), was a very delightful book for young girls. I applaud the author of this book and encourage her to continue writing, shake off the negative criticism and keep pursuing the God given talent she was given.

Despite some of this book's expressed opinions to the contrary, what instructions does the Bible give regarding those who should be in a position of leadership and authority in the Church? With so many differing opinions, how do we know what to believe?

2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Timothy 2:15 says to "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

1 Thessalonians 5:21 says to "Prove [test, examine, scrutinize, verify] all things; hold fast that which is good."

In Acts 17:11, the Apostle Luke wrote about the noble Bereans: "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

So, what does God's Word have to say about homosexuals/lesbians in the pulpit?

In 1 Timothy 3 (see Titus 1:5-16 as well), Paul instructed Timothy about those who should hold the office of a bishop or deacon: 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour...

10 And let these [deacons] also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

So the bishops and the deacons (those who are in charge) must be "blameless" and of "good behaviour". They must set an example for others to follow. Would God call abominable sin (Romans 1:26-27, Leviticus 20:13) "good behaviour" and those that commit such acts "blameless?" Should we also arbitrarily promote the idea of drunkards, fornicators, adulterers, extortioners, and pagan religions in the Church pulpit as well, despite God's strongly expressed will and commandments to the contrary?

Paul writes in Ephesians 4 that apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, are given to the church for the 'perfecting of the saints' (v.12), among other good things.

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Ephesians 5 says: 3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person...hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. 7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. 12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

Reprove, means 'to rebuke' or 'to correct', not 'to promote, partake and fellowship with'. Jesus said in Revelation 3:19, "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent."

Titus 1 says: 10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers... 11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not...

13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

In Revelation 2:18-23, we read how the church of Thyatira had allowed an adulterous woman named Jezebel to teach in the church. As a result of her influence, we read the Lord's servants were seduced into committing fornication and idolatry. Jesus rebuked this church and warned that failure to repent would result in judgment. There is hope though. Jesus gave even this false teacher space to repent of her deeds.

2 Peter 3:9 says that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all would come to repentance (turning away from sin...a change of mind). Unfortunately, many will reject God's Word, choosing rather to stubbornly remain willfully ignorant, continuing on in their sin. There will be no hope for them in the Day of Judgment. Hebrews 9:7 says it is given unto men once to die, and after that the Judgment. Jesus said in John 14:28 that in the last day, people will be judged by the Word which He has spoken. Therefore, our emphasis should be on His Word, as opposed to the fallible opinions of men.

Ministers in the pulpit teach not only by word, but by deed. They are an example to others. If I call myself a minister of the Lord, and condone living in open sin, this sends a strong message to weak believers. They would become emboldened to go out and sin, and if continued in, would eventually perish. Jesus said in Matthew 18:26/Mark 9:42/Luke 17:2 that it would be better for a millstone to be tied around a person's neck and them flung into the sea, than for them to offend [literally meaning to 'cause to stumble'] someone. Are these matters left up to opinion? Do vain words of fallible men outweigh the Word of God? Sadly they will be held accountable for not only their own actions, but the influence they had on others on the Day of Judgment, unless they repent.

I strongly urge the reader to search the scriptures daily! See if the opinions and interpretations you read and hear from others line up with all of the Word of God. And finally, we should follow the instructions written in Romans 3:4, "..let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

1 John 4:1 says, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try [test, examine, scrutinize, verify] the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

This review is in response to the issue this book raises in advocating the acceptance and promotion of open sin into the church. When professing Christians depart from the truth and seek to elevate those living in open sin into a position of authority, then it suddenly becomes a serious issue that needs to be responded to. In the quest for truth, one can either turn to man's opinions, or to the source itself: God's own Word.

The church was warned early on about the rise of this kind of anti-Scriptural theology. Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 4:3-4, "3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."

And also in 1 Timothy 4:2 he writes, "1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;"

In 2 Timothy 3:4-5, Paul warns Timothy of those who are, "4 ...lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."

Paul, writing to Titus in Titus 1:16 said, "16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."

In Matthew chapter 7, Jesus said, "15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

Are those who call themselves Christians, who are living in open sin, bringing forth 'evil fruit'? By continuing in open sin and thus setting an example for others to follow, are they doing what Jesus would call the 'will of my Father which is in heaven'?

Galatians 5:7-10, "7 ... who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? 8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. 9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. 10 ... he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be."

2 Peter 2 says, "1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."

"14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: 15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;"

"17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. 18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. 19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. 20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."

How can it be any more plainly stated? Who are the "wolves in sheep's clothing" and the "false prophets"? How can they subtly gain entrance into the Church? By simply turning people away from the authority of the Word to the vain opinions of fallible men. Much of what they say is dressed in religious sounding terms.

Not everyone who claims to be speaking by the leading of the Holy Spirit is speaking by the leading of the Holy Spirit. That is why we are instructed in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 to "Prove [test, examine, scrutinize, verify] all things; hold tight that which is good", and in 1 John 4:1 to "Test [examine, scrutinize, verify] the spirits (to see) whether they are of God..." After comparing the liberal theology espoused in the pages of this book to the clear commandments in the Bible, we clearly see the two cannot be reconciled. So when man says one thing and God says another, who are we to believe?

Romans 3:4 answers, "...yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

James Wood has written the definitive book for our time showing how the homosexuality debate within the mainline churches (specifically the United Methodist Church) exemplifies how the churches have always interpreted the biblical witness within the surrounding culture's ethical and moral understandings. Wood shows how a person can be both a committed Biblical believer and understand "the role of culture in mediating God's revelation." Wood's sociological-organizational-church polity understanding of the issues is must reading for anyone who wants a specific vision of how the mainline churches can live in unity and avoid schism during this crisis. The depth of understanding and the wealth of specific information contained in these 144 pages is astounding.

I read this several years ago, set it aside, and idly picked it up to reread recently. I had forgotten just how bad this book is. It's the cry of a frustrated 1960s liberal who found, at the end of the 1980s, that the world had refused to reshape itself in accordance with his utopian wishes. Bennis is usually pretty coherent, but this book isn't. Rather than providing insight into the dilemmas of leadership, it really makes me wonder if Bennis knows much about leading at all.

I am mystified why Peter Drucker would lend his endorsement to this book. I'm only 70 pages into it, but have elected to write my first book review because I DISLIKE this book!

So far, I have read chapter after chapter of ranting about why the golden of age of America began in 1962 and ended in 1963. Television, fast food, yuppies, and above all, rock and roll, have conspired to corrupt America and with it, ostensibly, the world.

What a crock! How about getting on with life!

I agree with Bennis' premise that there is an "Unconscious Conspiracy" which sucks the life and creativity out of would be modern leaders. However, I was extremely disappointed in the chaotic prose and exclusive stabs at politically conservative leaders. For example, he highlighted Ralph Nader as an example of a good modern leader.

Throughout the book, I had trouble figuring out what Bennis was trying to convey. I don't normally hate a book, having loved so many before. But I hate this one. Stick to Dilbert, it's more apropo.

Apart from its title, the book itself superficially describes certain important issues in the work place. It merits attention for its "timeliness" but fails in its "prescriptions" for success in the upcoming millenium. Business per say is much more complicated than the book defines it to be, and improvement within the workplace depends on many other factors that the book at best alludes to. All in all, it simplifies everything rather than show the specific nuances that exist within the issues. It brashly treats such issues with zero tolerance. As so, this book deceives the reader, a classical work of appearence and reality. It appears to do a good job, but in reality it's just another mediocre book that summarizes the work of better books. Its bibliography, however, is worth a peek. Therein will the reader quench his desire to understand what this book fails to explore well.

Unfortunately, this book fails its reader on many, many issues. It reads a little too much like a kids work, with a small summary at the end of each chapter titled "Moving On" where the book provides the reader with an unenlightening preview of the next chapter of the book. On the whole. it's redundant, superficial at best, and supremely vague. Your best bet as a consumer is to find better books on the same subject, or simply peruse a copy of this book for its bibliography. All in all, not worth it. Stephen Covey's works are far superior.

This book deserves a look-through for its bibliography and nothing more. Do not read it because you will waste your time. Neil Snyder offers this as a "management tool" for all times, but what it effectively does is rehash better books by better authors on the same subject. Other books in the bibliography will give the reader insight into the issues that Snyder tries to tackle but cannot for he has rather monstrous biases that infect his work and call into question the work's accuracy. At best, the book reflects the author himself -- an extremely haughty character who stifles any argument to the contrary of his own. This proves interesting precisely because he pretends to espouse a universal and delicate understanding of the business issues at hand, and considers himself worthy to lead his discussion, armed with "VISION, COURAGE AND VALUES", when IN FACT, SNYDER POSESSES NONE OF THE ABOVE. As a former student of his, I can vouch that Snyder's work is full of hot air. His book is a pretender -- it pretends to be good but it's not. If you wish to read it, save your money and check it out at a library.