My hypothesis is that it can be demonstrated in Scripture that Paul wasn't the only one that practiced contextualization. I believe that the entire Canon of Scripture lays out a pattern of Incarnation, Contextualization and Indigenization (I/C/I). By recognizing this pattern both in the meta-narrative of Scripture and in the micro-narratives, I hope to demonstrate the principles that should guide I/C/I as they are based in the OT and NT and are practiced by both Yahweh and Christ. By setting the foundation that way, more discernment will be available for those of us who are called to discern how to practice I/C/I in our context - whether that is an ethnic context, generational context, geographical context, etc...
My approach will be to address the patterns and forms that Yahweh used like the Law, circumcision, mythic genres, Temple worship, Wisdom Tradition, etc... that were originally co-opted by Yahweh from the ANE (Ancient Near East) culture surrounding the Jews. By demonstrating that nothing or very little of the patterns that Yahweh employed to reveal himself, to form a people, and to transform them was original to him then I can demonstrate that our call is to do the same. I hope to establish patterns of I/C/I that are exemplars for us. God chose to reveal himself through the forms, patterns and functions of human society, a society effected by the Fall and yet a society that still retained the effect of the Imago Dei.
The forms and patterns are completely born from human origin and co-opted by God in the process of Incarnation. Once Incarnation takes place, then Contextualization can begin. Once contextualization has laid the foundation the move then is towards Indigenization of the redemptive elements that God has introduced into the co-opted forms and patterns. The goal of I/C/I is not only to transform the people that use those forms and patterns to convey meaning, belonging, community and worship but to transform the forms and patterns themselves.
For example, in the ANE, animal sacrifice and entrails were used in worship to the gods. The entrails of a goat were used to also discern the future. There is about a 1000 year tradition of annals that record how the spots, coloration, shape, etc... of a goat's liver show how future events are going to take place. What's interesting is that "parts" of an animal were very important to ANE culture and had purposes that other parts could not. In the OT law, the same is true but the difference is that the ANE cultures were doing this first before God ever gave the Law. Before the Law, the Jews were following the ANE cultures in these practices of animal sacrifice. I realize this is not new to you but to get to the point of what I want to do, I just wanted to lay the groundwork.
So when Yahweh instructs the Israelites to do many of the same patterns and forms of worship as their ANE neighbors, he does it very similarly but always with an element unique to him that is like a mustard seed which when it works its way out, it finally takes over the ground it was planted in. The unique element that God introduces into the patterns and forms is what I'm after. In the sacrificial system of Israel the liver and entrails commonly used to discern the future by their ANE neighbors was set apart as holy unto the LORD. Yahweh instructed that those parts of the animal be totally and utterly burned up and consumed and that they were holy to the LORD. The reason, of course, was to take away the ability of the Israelites to use the Jewish sacrificial system to "tell the future" and turn to their newly co-opted patterns and forms back into divination/extispacy (telling the future through animal entrails) because that ability only belongs to Yahweh. The interesting thing is that Yahweh used the very forms and patters used to tell the future to undermine its idolatry and then turn the worshipper towards him. The question then stands what forms or patterns exist today that we use in the same idolatrous way that we could employ with I/C/I in order to undermine the idolatry and then worship Yahweh.
So first I have to establish that the patterns and forms that Yahweh instituted are similar/same to the ANE patterns and forms and why that's important (Incarnation & Contextualization). Then I will identify the unique aspect that Yahweh introduces within the patterns and forms that is unique to Him that actually effects the long-term tranformation. After that I will display how these two movements eventually create a foundation for a people to be markedly different in their orientation in worship, ethics and perspective while still maintaining their common identity within the common ANE culture of the day (In the world but not of the world = Indigenization)
In my understanding, the battle against contextualization is not so much a battle against contextualization itself as much as it is a battle against this process I've described and the recognition that God is not a purist and has no "pure" forms or patterns that he uses in order to reveal, reform and redeem. In actuality, He cannot use a pure form or pattern because he chooses to work within the realm of humanity. Because there are no "purist" forms or patterns in the realm of humanity and because he won't circumvent humanity in order to accomplish his purposes (humanity in its fullest sense with a few exceptions) and because he structures his revelation around the strategy of accommodation, it is impossible to have a pure form or pattern to communicate with.
For example, the book of Revelation is the only book that uses the word "Worthy" in ascribing worship to God. This is because in the Imperial Cult/Emperor Worship of the Roman Empire - Caesar had begun to require that he be heralded in that way - that he is "Worthy!" So John, writing Revelation, picks up a contemporary image or a "cultural text" that would ascribe glory to a human thought to be a god and co-opts it as a term now reserved for Christ. So the written, inspired and revelatory words in the book of Revelations are actually contextually borrowed terms that are concerned with worship and idolatry.
Eventually, I would like to demonstrate that from the foundation of how Yahweh practiced this pattern, Christ did the same, Paul did the same, Peter did the same, Mark, John, Luke all did the same to varying degrees. Because they did it we should do it but the question is how? I believe the "how" can be established in the development of Yahwehism in the O.T.
I believe that this pattern is also the pattern employed by Satan but for destructive purposes. The pattern itself is not redemptive, it needs to be done redemptively because of how Satan can do it destructively. God in his infinite wisdom, co-opts humanity's forms and patterns for his redemptive purposes but so does Satan for destructive purposes. The difference is that as the Trinity and the New People practice these patterns, we actually do it to create as well as co-opt. We are inherently creative beings alongside the Trinity. Satan cannot create - he can only co-opt or hi-jack and I believe that watching us create and co-opt infuriates him (just a guess). His fury finds its way by hi-jacking destructively what God and humanity are doing redemptively and in so doing - he is attempting to divert attention and distort reality/truth in order to deceive (Garden conversation). We join him in that distortion when we sin. So at the end of the day, what Satan has done to hi-jack must also be rehi-jacked from him as a way to, again, hi-jack redemptively.
I believe that a redemptive pedagogy (androgogy/anthropogogy) and an evolutionary/developmental ethical theory can be established from this pattern as well as an understanding of how to discern what God has been doing historically in the development of a New People participating in the life of the Godhead as we all anticipate the New Creation.
The actual work will focus more on the O.T. forms and patterns at this point in order to establish the foundation for later work in these other areas.
Lastly, I think the "win" - if we were to identify one or two, will be the ability to establish a God who contextualizes more than most are comfortable with and that ethnicity (tribe/tongue/nation) is an everlasting pattern of differentiation between peoples who are at the same time united in Christ. This is because the goal of Incarnation and Contextualization should lead to Indigenization so that the dialogue between tribes, tongues and nations can be done with mutuality, love, respect, reciprocity and synergistic dynamism. We all have something unique planted within our differentiations that the others need, as we need them, and when that all comes together, a greater awareness of truth, love and who God really is will come to life like never before. These categories of differentiation are, I believe, perpetual because this differentiation of relationships lasts into the New Creation (Rev. 7) even though the relational dynamics of marriage and family don't (Jesus' argument with the Sadducees).
Friday, July 30, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Christian Side Hug Rap!
I would love to see the look on these guys's faces if they could watch this ten years from now. This is amazing!
Why more $ can kill creativity
Got this from Sam's blog - www.everyoneisarockstar.com - Really good discussion about how financial incentives don't actually produce better results given the globalizing environment that we are in. I'm sure there are some holes in his reasoning and data, but the overall gist is extremely clear - I look forward to applying this to all areas of life, not just those that have to do with money and work.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Ode to Chicago - I'm already missing you
The year was 1998, I drove downtown
like I'm in a Benz but it's only an 88.
On your highway I heard the radio bang something melodious
with speeches, music and D. Rodman stickin his nose at us
I've walked your streets from the black belt to the north wealth
Yet It hurt to see the dividin' line dropped hard - both theirs' and mine
Lived in Pilsen, worked it in Evanston, & drove the LSD
rode the Metra, heard a preach from northside L down to the city
Excuse for being crass but I know you like to laugh
I thought I could ball like a champ with boys from backstreet & under the ramp
More than once had to find my way back but I never lost my first Love
He buried and carried me through the thick, rough and the tough
A date, maybe two, fell in love with a just a few
then my love fell when you gave me my beautiful sunshine, my magic, my boo.
We brought life to the world right here from within you
you need to know for some reason, my heart already misses you
I never had a black man for a friend or a black woman or a child to know hand in hand
Chicago, you gave me some beautiful people, some soul-stirring friends
My one regret is that I can't hand you more than you shouldered for me
If I turned back time, tried harder - you'd still be the one that set me free
From Cabrini Green, Lakeside laughter to Hancock million dollar view
Chicago, you need to know how much I'm going to miss you.
Like an old soul child, I cry, tear up and reminisce
Why - because of this city I'm leaving, this city of mr., ms. & mrs.
I know that my core was formed by you - by your streets, your lights your people and your food
I laugh so many times when I think of your smiles and cry each time just cause you put me in the mood
Thank you for my family, the friends, the foes, the woes and wilds
for those lonely walks under street lights where you and I hooked up and dialed.
For great music, great pain, great fruit and a little just the same
for terror turned to laughter and everything in-betwane.
Never thought a city could make me choke up
but again you gave me more than I could make up
I now know why Kanye wrote that sweet song
he saw you for real as a person not a pawn
I won't let you down my friend - I'll love this sweet world
you gave me new eyes, strong legs and my heart set sail, strong and unfurled
New York, New Delhi, Bangkok and L.A.
It doesn't matter, I just hope we can come back one fine windy day
Whenever it's cold, windy, maybe some rain, yet still sublime
we'll remember you warmed us, the time you took us in, and made us your mine.
I know there's some rough patches while rhyming this poem
but that's like Chicago - rough with some edges, but you feel right at home
We can't forget you, we won't - you're too one of a kind
you helped make us who we are, you helped us make it through some trying time
So, Wherever we go and whatever we do I want you to know
no one will ever do it just quite like you
Chicago, you need to know our time together was true
Chicago you need to know I'm already...missing you.
like I'm in a Benz but it's only an 88.
On your highway I heard the radio bang something melodious
with speeches, music and D. Rodman stickin his nose at us
I've walked your streets from the black belt to the north wealth
Yet It hurt to see the dividin' line dropped hard - both theirs' and mine
Lived in Pilsen, worked it in Evanston, & drove the LSD
rode the Metra, heard a preach from northside L down to the city
Excuse for being crass but I know you like to laugh
I thought I could ball like a champ with boys from backstreet & under the ramp
More than once had to find my way back but I never lost my first Love
He buried and carried me through the thick, rough and the tough
A date, maybe two, fell in love with a just a few
then my love fell when you gave me my beautiful sunshine, my magic, my boo.
We brought life to the world right here from within you
you need to know for some reason, my heart already misses you
I never had a black man for a friend or a black woman or a child to know hand in hand
Chicago, you gave me some beautiful people, some soul-stirring friends
My one regret is that I can't hand you more than you shouldered for me
If I turned back time, tried harder - you'd still be the one that set me free
From Cabrini Green, Lakeside laughter to Hancock million dollar view
Chicago, you need to know how much I'm going to miss you.
Like an old soul child, I cry, tear up and reminisce
Why - because of this city I'm leaving, this city of mr., ms. & mrs.
I know that my core was formed by you - by your streets, your lights your people and your food
I laugh so many times when I think of your smiles and cry each time just cause you put me in the mood
Thank you for my family, the friends, the foes, the woes and wilds
for those lonely walks under street lights where you and I hooked up and dialed.
For great music, great pain, great fruit and a little just the same
for terror turned to laughter and everything in-betwane.
Never thought a city could make me choke up
but again you gave me more than I could make up
I now know why Kanye wrote that sweet song
he saw you for real as a person not a pawnI won't let you down my friend - I'll love this sweet world
you gave me new eyes, strong legs and my heart set sail, strong and unfurled
New York, New Delhi, Bangkok and L.A.
It doesn't matter, I just hope we can come back one fine windy day
Whenever it's cold, windy, maybe some rain, yet still sublime
we'll remember you warmed us, the time you took us in, and made us your mine.
I know there's some rough patches while rhyming this poem
but that's like Chicago - rough with some edges, but you feel right at home
We can't forget you, we won't - you're too one of a kind
you helped make us who we are, you helped us make it through some trying time
So, Wherever we go and whatever we do I want you to know
no one will ever do it just quite like you
Chicago, you need to know our time together was true
Chicago you need to know I'm already...missing you.
Friday, July 23, 2010
How do we "Wash Feet" for Today?
Washing the other's feet is identifying and forming solidarity with those who have the least amount of leverage in your community.
Washing the disciples' feet moved Christ down to level of the unnamed non-present servant - He was not only serving the disciples but forming solidarity with the unknown servant.
Washing the disciples' feet encompassed all those that should be served. The Creator of the Universe stoops down below the disciples to the least of these - those who had the least amount of leverage - or no leverage at all. Everyone in-between are to be served in this same manner.
So who's feet do we "wash"? - what if Jesus washed the feet of the servant of the house. He didn't but if the servant were there - would he have done so? Whether he would or wouldn't, what he did was to show the disciples that they are to do at least two things because of his example - to serve and form solidarity.
It's not just benevolence that we need to give because benevolence on its own doesn't ensure an ethical decision. There are incredibly benevolent acts of mercy, generosity and love given by the most miserable, violent and criminal people in the world. Benevolence by itself looks good but if other virtues are attached, a stronger accountability is attached and helps to communicate that an act of benevolence is actually coming from a place of conviction, humility and self-giving love. So solidarity alongside benevolence, though not fail-proof, does help to ensure that one's motivations are from a place of conviction and love. If someone gives benevolence but refuses to align themselves, through solidarity, with those who have the least leverage in their community, the act of benevolence can be scrutinized more closely. Generally speaking, this kind of act of benevolence is coming from a place of guilt, paternalism, control, placation, or just simply that ability to feel that at least something has been done, even if the thing that should have happened didn't happen. This self-deception allows the perpetrator to seemingly placate not only the victim but also their own conscience - if they still have one. In Christ's actions, he didn't just wash the disciples' feet for political reasons or really just to give a one-off example of how wonderful he was. It was to lead by example in identifying and forming solidarity in a way that cost him something with the lowest of society - the lowest level servant with the least leverage in that community.
So, how do we "wash feet"? We need to look for those in our community that have the least leverage - economically, politically, culturally, familiarly, historically, reputation-wise, ethnically, linguistically, geographically, educationally, even morally. We then look at the areas that we have leverage in - do we own a home, do we have a good job, do we have better chances at education, do we have a higher salary cap options, do we have more political leverage within a given community, do we speak the dominant language, are we the dominant skin color, do we have a less "spotted" past, do we belong to the dominant cultural expressions, has our family or group historically owned and managed the resources and land in a given area, do we have a strong reputation, etc....
Where we have power and leverage and others don't, we are called to de-elevate (not condescend - too negative) from the elevation we have been given and worked for. We do this in order to make space for others to be raised up both by grace, because of the grace we have given, and by giving them opportunities for growth in competence as we have been given the same opportunities to grow in competence.
The flip side of this discussion is that Christ, when looking at all of his disciples, saw them for what they would be rather than for what they were at that present moment. He saw their identity in the "already-not-yet" status - both seeing where they are presently and what they were to become. This creates the ability for us to do the same and to see the "other" through the eyes of God and not our own limited and natural eyes. The eyes of faith see people for what they will be or could be in the future and not just for where they are at. This is the ultimate equalizer because Jesus is able to see us all as equal in the New Creation while at the same time seeing the temporal hierarchy that we exist in presently - a hierarchy that we use to subsume, alienate and oppress the "other." Hierarchy isn't wrong, because it also protects people and helps to establish healthy boundaries for healthy relationships, but all too often it is used to oppress or alienate.
The way that Christ dealt with that was to take his own glorious position in this "hierarchy" and de-elevate himself as an example to project where we will all end up in equal positions in the New Kingdom and to deconstruct the present hierarchy that we impose upon each other because of the way that the world works, both for ill and for good.
As we look for the leverage-less in our community, we will see dynamics that we have never seen before and experience perspectives of our own community in ways that we could have never imagined possible. There are so many gifts we have to receive through this process, it just might hurt a bit, or a lot.
I'm writing this from a place of privilege as a white American male who is educated at a Master's level. I wonder what this would sound like if it was written by someone from a place without privilege. Is it wrong of me to assume I have privilege - is that condescending in and of itself? Questions for me to ponder on this one.
-Nathan
Washing the disciples' feet moved Christ down to level of the unnamed non-present servant - He was not only serving the disciples but forming solidarity with the unknown servant.
Washing the disciples' feet encompassed all those that should be served. The Creator of the Universe stoops down below the disciples to the least of these - those who had the least amount of leverage - or no leverage at all. Everyone in-between are to be served in this same manner.
So who's feet do we "wash"? - what if Jesus washed the feet of the servant of the house. He didn't but if the servant were there - would he have done so? Whether he would or wouldn't, what he did was to show the disciples that they are to do at least two things because of his example - to serve and form solidarity.
It's not just benevolence that we need to give because benevolence on its own doesn't ensure an ethical decision. There are incredibly benevolent acts of mercy, generosity and love given by the most miserable, violent and criminal people in the world. Benevolence by itself looks good but if other virtues are attached, a stronger accountability is attached and helps to communicate that an act of benevolence is actually coming from a place of conviction, humility and self-giving love. So solidarity alongside benevolence, though not fail-proof, does help to ensure that one's motivations are from a place of conviction and love. If someone gives benevolence but refuses to align themselves, through solidarity, with those who have the least leverage in their community, the act of benevolence can be scrutinized more closely. Generally speaking, this kind of act of benevolence is coming from a place of guilt, paternalism, control, placation, or just simply that ability to feel that at least something has been done, even if the thing that should have happened didn't happen. This self-deception allows the perpetrator to seemingly placate not only the victim but also their own conscience - if they still have one. In Christ's actions, he didn't just wash the disciples' feet for political reasons or really just to give a one-off example of how wonderful he was. It was to lead by example in identifying and forming solidarity in a way that cost him something with the lowest of society - the lowest level servant with the least leverage in that community.
So, how do we "wash feet"? We need to look for those in our community that have the least leverage - economically, politically, culturally, familiarly, historically, reputation-wise, ethnically, linguistically, geographically, educationally, even morally. We then look at the areas that we have leverage in - do we own a home, do we have a good job, do we have better chances at education, do we have a higher salary cap options, do we have more political leverage within a given community, do we speak the dominant language, are we the dominant skin color, do we have a less "spotted" past, do we belong to the dominant cultural expressions, has our family or group historically owned and managed the resources and land in a given area, do we have a strong reputation, etc....
Where we have power and leverage and others don't, we are called to de-elevate (not condescend - too negative) from the elevation we have been given and worked for. We do this in order to make space for others to be raised up both by grace, because of the grace we have given, and by giving them opportunities for growth in competence as we have been given the same opportunities to grow in competence.
The way that Christ dealt with that was to take his own glorious position in this "hierarchy" and de-elevate himself as an example to project where we will all end up in equal positions in the New Kingdom and to deconstruct the present hierarchy that we impose upon each other because of the way that the world works, both for ill and for good.
As we look for the leverage-less in our community, we will see dynamics that we have never seen before and experience perspectives of our own community in ways that we could have never imagined possible. There are so many gifts we have to receive through this process, it just might hurt a bit, or a lot.
I'm writing this from a place of privilege as a white American male who is educated at a Master's level. I wonder what this would sound like if it was written by someone from a place without privilege. Is it wrong of me to assume I have privilege - is that condescending in and of itself? Questions for me to ponder on this one.
-Nathan
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Missional Rennaisance by Reggie McNeal - www.davidmays.org
Visit here to view the rest of his book reviews! Thanks again Dave!
Missional Renaissance
Changing the Scorecard for the Church
Reggie McNeal
Jossey-Bass, 2009, 193 pp. ISBN 978-0-470-24344-2
Reggie McNeal is the Missional Leadership Specialist for Leadership Network
and the author of several popular books on the church. Becoming a missional
church requires three shifts: from an internal to an external focus, from
running programs to developing people, and from church-focused leadership to
community-engaged leadership. The chapters describe what these shifts mean
and give some suggestions for how to measure progress. [See my observations
and questions at the end. dlm]
Introduction
"Missional is a way of living, not an affiliation or activity. . To think
and to live missionally means seeing all life as a way to be engaged with
the mission of God in the world."
Missional renaissance is reshaping the landscape of what church can and
should be.
1. The Missional Renaissance
Altruism and a hunger for spiritual growth and vitality are giving rise to
increased charity and voluntary entrepreneurship in communities. Churches
must move out of the institutional paradigm and focus on the community, on
developing people, and acquiring a Kingdom mindset.
A growing number of people, both Christians and non-Christians, are able and
willing to take on social issues and engage human need. A church should
monitor its positive community impact.
"The missional church engages the community beyond its walls because it
believes that is why the church exists." (6) "They look for ways to bless
and to serve the communities where they are located." (7)
The missional church works to "help people shape their path for personal
development," shifting the emphasis to "following Jesus into the world to
join him in his redemptive mission." (10)
Innovators see the church as a catalyst to mobilize all the community "to
work on the big things God cares about." (15)
2. Missional Manifesto
God's people must be on mission with him to "restore and heal creation,"
intentionally "blessing people and sharing the life of God with them."
"...both truth and love must be present to reflect the whole heart of God
for people." (32)
The welfare of people captures God's heart, both the restoration in his
relationship with them and the benefits of that relationship. Jesus
followers work to enhance life and oppose things that steal life.
3. Missional Shift 1: From an Internal to an External Focus
Church groups and individuals serve in the communities and with the people
where they live and work. The church converts members to missionaries. It
is not a destination but a "connector," not attractional but incarnational.
It focuses on service, humanitarian efforts and public service more than
proclamation, teaching and evangelism. It deploys people rather than
assimilating and separating them. It helps people integrate their life and
mission.
"They live their lives with the idea that they are on a mission trip. On
mission trips, people focus on the work of God around them, alert to the
Spirit's prompting, usually serving people in very tangible ways, often in
ways that involve some sacrifice or even discomfort." (54)
"Once we see what God is doing 'out there' in the world, it changes
everything we do 'in here' in the church." (65)
4. Changing the Scorecard from Internal to External Focus
The chapter is chock full of possible avenues of service. The church
evaluates itself not by internal statistics of giving and attendance but by
the quality of life of the members and those they serve. The calendar,
schedule, facilities usage, finances, and people resource indicators track
whether key community initiatives are more important than building larger
church buildings, that the church is not a club but a mission post.
Church people may be assigned, and supported financially and with personnel,
as missionaries to various apartment complexes or other housing communities.
The church may adopt a school or some other community institution.
"North America is the largest English-speaking mission field in the world."
(80)
[It is also the "mission field' with by far the greatest concentration of
Christian resources. dlm]
5. Missional Shift 2: From Program Development to People Development
Moving from programs to people development means focusing on maturation more
than participation in church, application and debriefing life events more
than didactic teaching, dealing with behaviors and outcomes as well as
knowledge, growing through serving, and integrating versus
compartmentalizing life. Developing people is a labor intensive,
highly-relational, long-term process.
"We have operated off the faulty assumption that if people participate in
our church programs, they will grow and develop personally." "Developing
people requires building relationships, not just delivering a product or
service." (90)
"We do not share the heart of God with the world because we do not have the
heart of God. This heart transplant does not occur by participation in
church activities. It comes from being in a vibrant, growing relationship
with God." [This seems to be the crux of the issue. dlm]
Americans have outsourced spiritual formation to the church. "Everyday
living is where spiritual development is worked out." "Loving God and our
neighbors cannot be fulfilled at church." ".church activity is no sign of
genuine spiritual vitality. The lifestyles and values of church members
largely reflect those of the culture." (92-93) [Genuine spiritual vitality
grows through exercise, for example, in community service. But if we do not
have it at the outset, does service generate it? How do we get the heart of
God that works itself out in the world?]
"Just as people are taking greater roles in choosing their educational
pursuits, designing their workplaces, and managing their health care, they
feel increasingly qualified to craft their own spiritual quests." "But what
if we actually begin to see ourselves as responsible for creating a culture
where people get to participate in customizing their spiritual journeys
based on their spiritual appetites and ambitions? (97-998) [Of course
people should participate in their own spiritual growth goals, etc. But
there are two obvious dangers here. One is the consumer approach and the
other is people acting as their own judge and god, both big problems we are
trying to overcome. I'm sure the author would agree that outside guidance
is still needed.]
"In a people development culture, the key issue is maturation. Are people
growing in every aspect of their life? Are they becoming more like Jesus?
Are they blessing the world as the people of God?" (100)
People need help debriefing their lives. Rather than simply teach in a
classroom and let people figure out how to apply it, stimulate life
discussions and undertake intentional debriefing to unpack their lives and
experiences and issues in light of Scripture. Help people address their
behaviors. [This is an excellent application.]
6. Changing the Scorecard from Measuring Programs to Helping People Grow
This is the most challenging shift. It requires reallocating every
resource. However, a variety of indicators can be monitored in the areas of
prayer, people, resources, finances, facilities, and technology. Identify
specific results in people's lives that signal genuine progress for them.
"To change a culture, you have to change the conversations." "This reality
should cause spiritual leaders to think long and hard about the culture we
are creating by what we say and how we say it." (122-123)
7. Missional Shift 3: From Church-Based to Kingdom-Based Leadership
Kingdom-oriented leadership is organic, personal, prophetic, empowering, and
focused on leading a movement rather than an institution. The leader is a
viral agent that infects the culture with God's love and creates a culture
of ministry in the community. Leadership is not restricted to clergy.
Leaders are focused on their Kingdom assignment rather than their church
job. They are focused on being missionaries in their sphere of influence.
"The challenge is to connect with a culture that is unacquainted with the
good news of Jesus." (137) "These leaders create a culture of ministry and
leader incubation that multiplies everyone's efforts." (140)
Train like Jesus did. Deploy and then debrief. Learning comes through
debriefing life experiences rather than teaching. It is relational and
intensive on-the-job training, up-close and personal.
Leaders may well need to become bi-vocational in order to shed some church
responsibilities and to provide income for their ministry. [I understand the
need for leaders to model what they want to see in their followers. Jesus
led his followers in ministering to people. At the same time, in Acts 6,
the leaders thought it would not be right to neglect the ministry of the
word of God to serve widows and they assigned this work to others. Where is
the balance?]
8. Changing the Scorecard from Church-Based to Kingdom-Based Leadership
Leaders must consider four areas: perspective, skills development, resource
management, and personal growth.
"I recommend recruiting a personal prayer support team and then figuring out
how to update these helpers on your personal and leadership needs. When
recruiting this team, you may even want to ask people to focus their prayers
on specific aspects of your life and ministry.." (165) [I like this idea and
intend to do it.]
"Leaders have to live the change they seek." (157) "You view life as a
mission trip, and order your own life around that view." (159)
Conclusion
A few of the things we may expect:
. "An explosion of missional communities (MC) will occur. These will be
groups of believers and nonbelievers who will operate in non-institutional
settings. . Their community life will center on an intense desire to grow
spiritually and to aid the community. Some MCs will be connected to
churches; many will not be." (179)
. "Increasing numbers of Jesus followers will live out their missional
expression in the context of their family . attending church services on
special occasions." (180)
. "Many clergy will not be able to make this transition in their current
church roles. Consequently, they will move into the marketplace for
employment in pursuit of their call to be missional leaders."
Additional Observations, Thoughts and Issues
. I believe the missional concept is biblical and churches should pursue
it. I believe Christians have largely failed to be salt and light in their
spheres of influence.
. The book is highly application oriented with many very specific
suggestions and examples.
. I would have appreciated more emphasis on the spiritual dimension, how
we get the "heart of God," how spiritual development takes place in the
missional church. In the book of Acts, while acts of service are mentioned,
the overwhelming emphasis is on the disciples teaching and preaching the
Word.
. I would like to have seen more attention and suggestions for what we
could be doing in the rest of the world beyond our community. While the
world is not excluded, the suggestions for the community predominate by an
overwhelming margin.
. It might also have been helpful to make a larger issue out of living a
life of love, obedience, integrity, and other centeredness in our regular
job roles where we can have influence for Christ within the context of our
regular daily activities among people like us.
. The idea that Christians should be ministers in the community and that
church leaders should equip them for that role is, of course, both
historical and biblical. Does this book make service too central? Is the
church more than service? Is worship more than service? Is blessing more
than service?
. Church leaders will applaud the thrust to spend more time in the world
and less time in church - in principle - but the suggestions that people
meet for growth and serve elsewhere on Sundays instead of attending church
will feel very threatening. It will be very difficult for leaders to feel
good about falling numbers that previously indicated their success and
significance.
. This model requires many more leaders to equip, mobilize, and debrief
the people in our churches. However, we are in a hole of having few leaders
and many "consumers" because that is what the program model has produced.
We lack leaders because we lack disciples.
. Programs are the "levers" that allow a few leaders to "lift" many
people rather than a few. The downside is becoming apparent: programs don't
lift them very far. Doing away with the lever reduces the capacity of
leaders to relate to the many. If leaders get rid of programs and focus on
the relational, labor-intensive discipling of a few, many current church
attenders will be left out. Church leaders will find it extremely difficult
to consider leaving people out.
. Leaders are being asked to take on the additional job of serving
outside the church. Will overloaded pastors be able to give up what appear
to be major important responsibilities to do this? Does Acts 6, the
ministry of the Word and the serving of widows have any input here?
. Because we have learned to think and act in "programs," it is very
difficult to deploy people in large numbers without programs. How would you
adopt a school, for example, without it being a program? How would you help
leaders debrief life experiences without a program to teach them how to do
it? How would you disburse funds and resources to a "missionary" assigned
to a housing community without a program or committee to oversee it and make
the decisions? It will be very hard to stay out of the box.
. It would seem that the younger the church and the younger its leaders,
the more likely the model will be adopted. It may be quite difficult for
large, indebted, "successful" churches to promote this perspective beyond a
safe, surface level.
. To what degree is this happening in younger missional communities that
are flying under the radar screen? What are they doing well and how are
they struggling?
What will happen if churches adopt the missional model on a large scale?
. Will families and small missional communities that meet together in
place of church experience real, ongoing spiritual growth or tend to drift
away?
. To what degree will ministry efforts to serve the community continue
to include spiritual transformation? Will the culture's applause for help
and condemnation of absolute truth affect Christians ministering in the
community? Will community service come to mirror the non-verbal service of
mainline churches?
. What will happen to local church support of global missions? If it
declines what will take its place?
Missional Renaissance
Changing the Scorecard for the Church
Reggie McNeal
Jossey-Bass, 2009, 193 pp. ISBN 978-0-470-24344-2
Reggie McNeal is the Missional Leadership Specialist for Leadership Network
and the author of several popular books on the church. Becoming a missional
church requires three shifts: from an internal to an external focus, from
running programs to developing people, and from church-focused leadership to
community-engaged leadership. The chapters describe what these shifts mean
and give some suggestions for how to measure progress. [See my observations
and questions at the end. dlm]
Introduction
"Missional is a way of living, not an affiliation or activity. . To think
and to live missionally means seeing all life as a way to be engaged with
the mission of God in the world."
Missional renaissance is reshaping the landscape of what church can and
should be.
1. The Missional Renaissance
Altruism and a hunger for spiritual growth and vitality are giving rise to
increased charity and voluntary entrepreneurship in communities. Churches
must move out of the institutional paradigm and focus on the community, on
developing people, and acquiring a Kingdom mindset.
A growing number of people, both Christians and non-Christians, are able and
willing to take on social issues and engage human need. A church should
monitor its positive community impact.
"The missional church engages the community beyond its walls because it
believes that is why the church exists." (6) "They look for ways to bless
and to serve the communities where they are located." (7)
The missional church works to "help people shape their path for personal
development," shifting the emphasis to "following Jesus into the world to
join him in his redemptive mission." (10)
Innovators see the church as a catalyst to mobilize all the community "to
work on the big things God cares about." (15)
2. Missional Manifesto
God's people must be on mission with him to "restore and heal creation,"
intentionally "blessing people and sharing the life of God with them."
"...both truth and love must be present to reflect the whole heart of God
for people." (32)
The welfare of people captures God's heart, both the restoration in his
relationship with them and the benefits of that relationship. Jesus
followers work to enhance life and oppose things that steal life.
3. Missional Shift 1: From an Internal to an External Focus
Church groups and individuals serve in the communities and with the people
where they live and work. The church converts members to missionaries. It
is not a destination but a "connector," not attractional but incarnational.
It focuses on service, humanitarian efforts and public service more than
proclamation, teaching and evangelism. It deploys people rather than
assimilating and separating them. It helps people integrate their life and
mission.
"They live their lives with the idea that they are on a mission trip. On
mission trips, people focus on the work of God around them, alert to the
Spirit's prompting, usually serving people in very tangible ways, often in
ways that involve some sacrifice or even discomfort." (54)
"Once we see what God is doing 'out there' in the world, it changes
everything we do 'in here' in the church." (65)
4. Changing the Scorecard from Internal to External Focus
The chapter is chock full of possible avenues of service. The church
evaluates itself not by internal statistics of giving and attendance but by
the quality of life of the members and those they serve. The calendar,
schedule, facilities usage, finances, and people resource indicators track
whether key community initiatives are more important than building larger
church buildings, that the church is not a club but a mission post.
Church people may be assigned, and supported financially and with personnel,
as missionaries to various apartment complexes or other housing communities.
The church may adopt a school or some other community institution.
"North America is the largest English-speaking mission field in the world."
(80)
[It is also the "mission field' with by far the greatest concentration of
Christian resources. dlm]
5. Missional Shift 2: From Program Development to People Development
Moving from programs to people development means focusing on maturation more
than participation in church, application and debriefing life events more
than didactic teaching, dealing with behaviors and outcomes as well as
knowledge, growing through serving, and integrating versus
compartmentalizing life. Developing people is a labor intensive,
highly-relational, long-term process.
"We have operated off the faulty assumption that if people participate in
our church programs, they will grow and develop personally." "Developing
people requires building relationships, not just delivering a product or
service." (90)
"We do not share the heart of God with the world because we do not have the
heart of God. This heart transplant does not occur by participation in
church activities. It comes from being in a vibrant, growing relationship
with God." [This seems to be the crux of the issue. dlm]
Americans have outsourced spiritual formation to the church. "Everyday
living is where spiritual development is worked out." "Loving God and our
neighbors cannot be fulfilled at church." ".church activity is no sign of
genuine spiritual vitality. The lifestyles and values of church members
largely reflect those of the culture." (92-93) [Genuine spiritual vitality
grows through exercise, for example, in community service. But if we do not
have it at the outset, does service generate it? How do we get the heart of
God that works itself out in the world?]
"Just as people are taking greater roles in choosing their educational
pursuits, designing their workplaces, and managing their health care, they
feel increasingly qualified to craft their own spiritual quests." "But what
if we actually begin to see ourselves as responsible for creating a culture
where people get to participate in customizing their spiritual journeys
based on their spiritual appetites and ambitions? (97-998) [Of course
people should participate in their own spiritual growth goals, etc. But
there are two obvious dangers here. One is the consumer approach and the
other is people acting as their own judge and god, both big problems we are
trying to overcome. I'm sure the author would agree that outside guidance
is still needed.]
"In a people development culture, the key issue is maturation. Are people
growing in every aspect of their life? Are they becoming more like Jesus?
Are they blessing the world as the people of God?" (100)
People need help debriefing their lives. Rather than simply teach in a
classroom and let people figure out how to apply it, stimulate life
discussions and undertake intentional debriefing to unpack their lives and
experiences and issues in light of Scripture. Help people address their
behaviors. [This is an excellent application.]
6. Changing the Scorecard from Measuring Programs to Helping People Grow
This is the most challenging shift. It requires reallocating every
resource. However, a variety of indicators can be monitored in the areas of
prayer, people, resources, finances, facilities, and technology. Identify
specific results in people's lives that signal genuine progress for them.
"To change a culture, you have to change the conversations." "This reality
should cause spiritual leaders to think long and hard about the culture we
are creating by what we say and how we say it." (122-123)
7. Missional Shift 3: From Church-Based to Kingdom-Based Leadership
Kingdom-oriented leadership is organic, personal, prophetic, empowering, and
focused on leading a movement rather than an institution. The leader is a
viral agent that infects the culture with God's love and creates a culture
of ministry in the community. Leadership is not restricted to clergy.
Leaders are focused on their Kingdom assignment rather than their church
job. They are focused on being missionaries in their sphere of influence.
"The challenge is to connect with a culture that is unacquainted with the
good news of Jesus." (137) "These leaders create a culture of ministry and
leader incubation that multiplies everyone's efforts." (140)
Train like Jesus did. Deploy and then debrief. Learning comes through
debriefing life experiences rather than teaching. It is relational and
intensive on-the-job training, up-close and personal.
Leaders may well need to become bi-vocational in order to shed some church
responsibilities and to provide income for their ministry. [I understand the
need for leaders to model what they want to see in their followers. Jesus
led his followers in ministering to people. At the same time, in Acts 6,
the leaders thought it would not be right to neglect the ministry of the
word of God to serve widows and they assigned this work to others. Where is
the balance?]
8. Changing the Scorecard from Church-Based to Kingdom-Based Leadership
Leaders must consider four areas: perspective, skills development, resource
management, and personal growth.
"I recommend recruiting a personal prayer support team and then figuring out
how to update these helpers on your personal and leadership needs. When
recruiting this team, you may even want to ask people to focus their prayers
on specific aspects of your life and ministry.." (165) [I like this idea and
intend to do it.]
"Leaders have to live the change they seek." (157) "You view life as a
mission trip, and order your own life around that view." (159)
Conclusion
A few of the things we may expect:
. "An explosion of missional communities (MC) will occur. These will be
groups of believers and nonbelievers who will operate in non-institutional
settings. . Their community life will center on an intense desire to grow
spiritually and to aid the community. Some MCs will be connected to
churches; many will not be." (179)
. "Increasing numbers of Jesus followers will live out their missional
expression in the context of their family . attending church services on
special occasions." (180)
. "Many clergy will not be able to make this transition in their current
church roles. Consequently, they will move into the marketplace for
employment in pursuit of their call to be missional leaders."
Additional Observations, Thoughts and Issues
. I believe the missional concept is biblical and churches should pursue
it. I believe Christians have largely failed to be salt and light in their
spheres of influence.
. The book is highly application oriented with many very specific
suggestions and examples.
. I would have appreciated more emphasis on the spiritual dimension, how
we get the "heart of God," how spiritual development takes place in the
missional church. In the book of Acts, while acts of service are mentioned,
the overwhelming emphasis is on the disciples teaching and preaching the
Word.
. I would like to have seen more attention and suggestions for what we
could be doing in the rest of the world beyond our community. While the
world is not excluded, the suggestions for the community predominate by an
overwhelming margin.
. It might also have been helpful to make a larger issue out of living a
life of love, obedience, integrity, and other centeredness in our regular
job roles where we can have influence for Christ within the context of our
regular daily activities among people like us.
. The idea that Christians should be ministers in the community and that
church leaders should equip them for that role is, of course, both
historical and biblical. Does this book make service too central? Is the
church more than service? Is worship more than service? Is blessing more
than service?
. Church leaders will applaud the thrust to spend more time in the world
and less time in church - in principle - but the suggestions that people
meet for growth and serve elsewhere on Sundays instead of attending church
will feel very threatening. It will be very difficult for leaders to feel
good about falling numbers that previously indicated their success and
significance.
. This model requires many more leaders to equip, mobilize, and debrief
the people in our churches. However, we are in a hole of having few leaders
and many "consumers" because that is what the program model has produced.
We lack leaders because we lack disciples.
. Programs are the "levers" that allow a few leaders to "lift" many
people rather than a few. The downside is becoming apparent: programs don't
lift them very far. Doing away with the lever reduces the capacity of
leaders to relate to the many. If leaders get rid of programs and focus on
the relational, labor-intensive discipling of a few, many current church
attenders will be left out. Church leaders will find it extremely difficult
to consider leaving people out.
. Leaders are being asked to take on the additional job of serving
outside the church. Will overloaded pastors be able to give up what appear
to be major important responsibilities to do this? Does Acts 6, the
ministry of the Word and the serving of widows have any input here?
. Because we have learned to think and act in "programs," it is very
difficult to deploy people in large numbers without programs. How would you
adopt a school, for example, without it being a program? How would you help
leaders debrief life experiences without a program to teach them how to do
it? How would you disburse funds and resources to a "missionary" assigned
to a housing community without a program or committee to oversee it and make
the decisions? It will be very hard to stay out of the box.
. It would seem that the younger the church and the younger its leaders,
the more likely the model will be adopted. It may be quite difficult for
large, indebted, "successful" churches to promote this perspective beyond a
safe, surface level.
. To what degree is this happening in younger missional communities that
are flying under the radar screen? What are they doing well and how are
they struggling?
What will happen if churches adopt the missional model on a large scale?
. Will families and small missional communities that meet together in
place of church experience real, ongoing spiritual growth or tend to drift
away?
. To what degree will ministry efforts to serve the community continue
to include spiritual transformation? Will the culture's applause for help
and condemnation of absolute truth affect Christians ministering in the
community? Will community service come to mirror the non-verbal service of
mainline churches?
. What will happen to local church support of global missions? If it
declines what will take its place?
Book Summary of "Leading Across Cultures" by James Plueddemann
www.davidmays.org - Thank you David!
Leading Across Cultures
Effective Ministry and Mission in the Global Church
James E. Plueddemann
IVP Academic, 2009, 230 pp. ISBN 978-0-8308-2578-3
Jim Plueddemann is chair of the mission and evangelism department at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He previously spent a number of years as a missionary educator in Nigeria, taught at Wheaton Graduate School, and served as international director of SIM. Leaders from around the world are partnering in ministry but there is continuing frustration from the clash of leadership expectations originating in cultural values. We are often blind to our own hidden assumptions and others are blind to theirs. Jim draws on biblical reflection, cultural research, and his own experience to develop principles and practices for multi-cultural leadership.
Part I. Multicultural Leadership in the Worldwide Church. In this section, Jim gives examples of the joys and challenges of working and leading cross-culturally.
Chapter 1. Leadership for a New Day in World Missions
“I’ve heard youth pastors tell their mission team, ‘Just be yourself, and everyone will love you.’ This is a formula for crosscultural disaster.” (21). Everyone is doing missions. Is this “the democratization of missions” or “the amateurization of missions?”
“The slogan ‘from everywhere to everywhere’ has become a reality where missionaries are sent from nearly every country of the world into hundreds of crosscultural settings.” (25)
“The very concept of ‘partnership’ is loaded with cultural expectations that can puzzle both sides of the agreement.” (26) “…we must look afresh at hidden assumptions about cultural values regarding leadership while we pursue biblical principles that affirm and challenge these values.” (28)
Chapter 3. Why Crosscultural Leadership?
“Missions is the crosscultural task of making disciples of Jesus.” (47) “The ultimate vision is God’s glory in the worldwide church….” “The path… [includes] five stages: pre-evangelism, evangelism, church planting, leadership development and partnering in world missions.” (47) “Leadership development has always been at the heart of God’s redemption plan. Jesus taught and healed the sick, but his lasting ministry came from the training of the twelve disciples.” (55)
Part II. Leadership and Culture. This section summaries research on the impact of culture on leadership worldviews, values, and practices.
Chapter 4. Leadership, Cultural Values and the Bible
“An understanding of cultural values and biblical leadership principles may not guarantee harmonious relationships, but it is a healthy first step.” (64)
1. Uncover your own unconscious cultural values. We unconsciously assume everyone thinks like we do. They don’t.
2. Discover the cultural values of others. Realize that others also hold values they naively assume to be universal.
3. Look for biblical principles of leadership in all of Scripture. Go beyond finding verses that support your style. Look for a synthesis of principles. Too many leadership books are secular books with verses.
“The image of God can be found in every culture, but the effects of our depravity are also evident. Leadership styles in every culture have the potential of reflecting good or evil in the heart of the leader. Leaders in every culture tend toward the sin of pride.” (65)
We should view our own assumptions with suspicion but neither should we romanticize leadership styles of other cultures.
“The worldview of a culture describes deep philosophical assumptions about the purpose of life and the nature of reality. Cultural practices are the externals, the things we can see, hear, smell, taste or touch: architecture, music, food, clothing, language, transportation and hair style. But in between are values, cultural ideals that link abstract philosophy to concrete practices. For instance, if the worldview of a culture is materialism, we might observe the practice of people in a hurry, doing a lot of things to make money. Tying together worldview and practice we could hypothesize inner values of efficiency, time as money, and business goals trumping personal relationship.” (71) “From my experience, the greatest difficulties in multicultural leadership arise from tensions growing out of internal values.” (71)
“Globalization might make us look more alike on the outside, but localization reinforces the deepest inner being of our identities.” (73) “We may think we understand leaders in other cultures when in fact our ignorance can cause serious misunderstandings.” (73)
Chapter 5. Leadership and Context
Some cultures tune in to subtle innuendoes of meaning and others don’t. “A high-context (HC) communication or message is one in which most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message.” (78, quoting Beyond Culture by Edward T. Hall) “In low-context cultures, people pay special attention to explicit communication and to ideas.” (78) They are immersed in the world of concepts, principles and ideas. “Tension and confusion between cultures arises in the hidden messages enfolded in the context. Low-context communication can seem cold and uncaring to people in high-context cultures, and high-context communication can seem baffling or even dishonest to idea-oriented people.” (79)
“Direct communication seems to be the proper way of handling conflict in a low-context culture, but it can bring shame in a high-context culture. Low-context cultures tend to speak truth directly rather than seeking to protect relationships. In high-context cultures, truth is spoken in much more subtle forms, seeking above all to preserve relationships.” (81)
Chapter 6. Leadership and Power
“Some cultures assume a large status gap between those who have power and those who don’t. In these cultures, both leaders and followers assume that the power gap is natural and good. These societies are called high-power-distance cultures.” (92) The leader has special privileges and can make unilateral decisions and expect unquestioned obedience. (95) Low-power-distance cultures expect a more consultative approach to leadership. The leader is one of the team.
This often results in conflicting expectations for cross-cultural partnerships, sharing resources, and multicultural teams. “Power distance is a theological and practical paradox. We are often reminded in Scripture both to respect those in authority over us and to submit mutually to one another….” (107)
Chapter 7. Leadership and Individualism
Does the community serve the individual or does the individual serve the community? If you work on a ministry team, do you expect to fit into, report to, and serve the ministry of the team? Or do you expect the team to serve you and assist your ministry? Does the team leader make the decisions or is that person just one of the team?
In collectivistic cultures harmony is important. A public show of displeasure results in shame and must be avoided. In an individualistic culture, personal self-respect is a driving force and a person’s conscience makes him feel guilt. An understanding of the role of the team may differ radically between cultures and misunderstandings arise when individualistic leaders motivate by praising the individual in a collectivist culture.
In a collectivist society, an employer hires from an in-group someone who gives loyalty for protection. The relationship is one of family. You would not dismiss a person for poor performance any more than you would dismiss your child. Evaluation measures the group, not the individual. The task is not more important than relationships. Collectivism exhibits a sense of belonging and living for others. But it creates an us-them mentality wherein one respects his own family or group but may treat those outside as inferior or as the enemy.
Chapter 8. Leadership and Ambiguity
“For some societies, ambiguity is a serious problem… Leaders…avoid uncertainty by attempting to predict and control the future. They set precise goals, make long-range plans, schedule appointments, design contingency plans, purchase insurance, make to-do lists and develop thick policy manuals. But not every society fears uncertainty. Leaders learn to live with ambiguity and with a laid-back attitude toward life. Communities with little desire to avoid uncertainty are puzzled by the stressful ways of those who do. On the other hand, leaders with a low tolerance for ambiguity can’t understand the ‘whatever will be, will be’ attitude toward life.” (128-29) Scripture supports both trusting and planning. It is helpful to see the dilemma as fruitful tension.
Organizational structure reflects uncertainty concerns and becomes an issue when partnering among different cultures. Greater decentralization is required for multicultural organizations. However, too great a decentralization risks losing the vision and core values. There is often a mismatch of values between those setting specific goals and those they seek to serve. Goals framed in terms of purpose and a broad vision may be more suitable than those with projected numbers and dates. The fastest growing churches in the world don’t set precise goals and numerical criteria. The values of each culture have strengths and weaknesses.
Part III. Contextualizing Leadership. This section describes a model for integrating theology with leadership theory. Those who have studied under Jim will recognize the Frankena boxes.
Chapter 9. A Theology of Leadership
Multicultural leaders must be able to shift their leadership approach according to the situation. Too often they assume their cultural assumptions about leadership are both biblical and universal. “Cultural insights describe what the leadership values are, but theology tells us what they should be.” (157) We look to Scripture for the purpose, worldview, goals, methods, and practice of leadership. The ultimate purpose and worldview should be similar in all cultures. Cultural differences should show up in goals and methods.
Purpose. “Godly leadership exists to promote God’s ultimate purpose for the individual, the world and himself.” (159) However, we tend to let other values slip into the purpose category. “The final evaluation of leadership and of organizations is whether our efforts, programs, finances, structures and leadership style bring glory to God?” (161)
Worldview. “All the problems in the world are directly or indirectly caused by sin, and Jesus is the only solution to the sin problem. Poverty, war, greed, oppression and sickness are the result of the fallen world, so the most competent leader in the world cannot solve any major problem without the gospel of Jesus.” (163)
Chapter 10. A Theory of Leadership
A theory is a mental picture of why things work the way they do. Some are informal guesses. “Excellent leadership theory must grow out of good theology and be echoed in the actual practice of leadership.” (171) “Possibly the greatest temptation for leaders is to turn a secondary task into the ultimate one.” (174) “Older leadership theory assumed that the work of leaders was to accomplish a task through people…but…Effective leaders use the task to develop people.” (179)
“The majority of books on leadership, both Christian and secular, teach techniques on how to grow the organization, without taking the time to reflect on the eternal task of developing people.” “Focusing on methods divorced from theological reflection is hazardous.” (181) “Because of vast cultural differences, it is not possible to describe methods of leadership that are appropriate in every culture.” (183)
Part IV. Global Leadership in Practice. This section applies biblical and cultural insights to practical issues in missions.
Chapter 11. Developing Vision and Strategy
“The greatest danger for any organization…is that leaders will lose their vision while becoming proficient at strategies…. Too often the activity replaces the outcome; the strategy replaces the vision.” (187)
Jim presents three leadership metaphors. The factory metaphor is an assembly line representing the behaviorist model with high value on precision, quantitative goals, predictability, efficiency and control. We aim for what we can measure. The wildflower metaphor emphasizes intuitive personal experience, emotions and dramatic demonstrations of God’s power. It is a go-with-the-flow approach. The pilgrim metaphor pursues a vision with a sense of directions but allows for unexpected twists and turns and serendipitous opportunities.
In visionary planning the leader must a) collect and focus the vision, b) examine the situation, and c) make sure that every strategy contributes to the vision in light of the needs and opportunities of the situation.
“Vision comes through the study of Scripture, prayer and dialogue. It comes through eyes of faith, glimpsing a picture of the future when God will fulfill his purposes. It originates from Holy Spirit-motivated passion to follow God’s vision. Vision is from God and is a faith-picture of what could happen in the lives of people if God were to pour out his blessing.” (192)
The situation is where we are now. Do our programs help solve real and important problems in our present situation? Leaders must be realistic. The situation is always changing. Therefore programs need to change.
Strategy is how we get there, like stepping stones across the river. The vision is the far shore. There is a natural tendency for strategies to migrate into the place of vision.
“The pilgrim leader challenges high-context people to work toward a more definite ‘faith picture’ of results, and encourages the low-context leader to be more open to unexpected outcomes. He or she will seek to sharpen the strategic focus of high-context leaders, while helping low-context leaders to be more open to unfolding opportunities resulting from serendipitous changes. The pilgrim leader will help low-context team members to appreciate insights from an instinctive analysis of the situation, and help high-context team members to appreciate insights from a more objective analysis of the situation.” (199)
Chapter 12. Developing Global Leaders
“Jesus spend three years on earth developing disciples, or followers—not leaders.” (200) Even the best seminary education plays only a secondary role in developing leaders. The gifting of the Spirit and leadership experience are the primary means for developing leaders.” (202) “It would be absurd to expect that a foreign ‘expert’ could teach a leadership course in Nigeria without an understanding of the traditional cultural assumptions about how leaders are developed.” (204)
“The primary stimulus for human development is problems—life challenges and situations that don’t make sense. Disequilibration is the motor that drives leadership development.” “We develop when our world is shaken, when our comfort zone of certainty is challenged.” (204-05)
The most influential leaders have the widest horizons. One of the primary tasks of leadership development is fostering the growth of wider perspectives. “The global-centric leader will look out for the good of the individual, family, clan and nation, within the context of the bigger picture.” (207)
In any culture four steps help develop leaders: “Seek out people with high leadership potential. Assess their current strengths and weaknesses. Challenge them with tasks that are slightly beyond their comfort zone. Support them in the tasks.” (208)
Leading Across Cultures
Effective Ministry and Mission in the Global Church
James E. Plueddemann
IVP Academic, 2009, 230 pp. ISBN 978-0-8308-2578-3
Jim Plueddemann is chair of the mission and evangelism department at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He previously spent a number of years as a missionary educator in Nigeria, taught at Wheaton Graduate School, and served as international director of SIM. Leaders from around the world are partnering in ministry but there is continuing frustration from the clash of leadership expectations originating in cultural values. We are often blind to our own hidden assumptions and others are blind to theirs. Jim draws on biblical reflection, cultural research, and his own experience to develop principles and practices for multi-cultural leadership.
Part I. Multicultural Leadership in the Worldwide Church. In this section, Jim gives examples of the joys and challenges of working and leading cross-culturally.
Chapter 1. Leadership for a New Day in World Missions
“I’ve heard youth pastors tell their mission team, ‘Just be yourself, and everyone will love you.’ This is a formula for crosscultural disaster.” (21). Everyone is doing missions. Is this “the democratization of missions” or “the amateurization of missions?”
“The slogan ‘from everywhere to everywhere’ has become a reality where missionaries are sent from nearly every country of the world into hundreds of crosscultural settings.” (25)
“The very concept of ‘partnership’ is loaded with cultural expectations that can puzzle both sides of the agreement.” (26) “…we must look afresh at hidden assumptions about cultural values regarding leadership while we pursue biblical principles that affirm and challenge these values.” (28)
Chapter 3. Why Crosscultural Leadership?
“Missions is the crosscultural task of making disciples of Jesus.” (47) “The ultimate vision is God’s glory in the worldwide church….” “The path… [includes] five stages: pre-evangelism, evangelism, church planting, leadership development and partnering in world missions.” (47) “Leadership development has always been at the heart of God’s redemption plan. Jesus taught and healed the sick, but his lasting ministry came from the training of the twelve disciples.” (55)
Part II. Leadership and Culture. This section summaries research on the impact of culture on leadership worldviews, values, and practices.
Chapter 4. Leadership, Cultural Values and the Bible
“An understanding of cultural values and biblical leadership principles may not guarantee harmonious relationships, but it is a healthy first step.” (64)
1. Uncover your own unconscious cultural values. We unconsciously assume everyone thinks like we do. They don’t.
2. Discover the cultural values of others. Realize that others also hold values they naively assume to be universal.
3. Look for biblical principles of leadership in all of Scripture. Go beyond finding verses that support your style. Look for a synthesis of principles. Too many leadership books are secular books with verses.
“The image of God can be found in every culture, but the effects of our depravity are also evident. Leadership styles in every culture have the potential of reflecting good or evil in the heart of the leader. Leaders in every culture tend toward the sin of pride.” (65)
We should view our own assumptions with suspicion but neither should we romanticize leadership styles of other cultures.
“The worldview of a culture describes deep philosophical assumptions about the purpose of life and the nature of reality. Cultural practices are the externals, the things we can see, hear, smell, taste or touch: architecture, music, food, clothing, language, transportation and hair style. But in between are values, cultural ideals that link abstract philosophy to concrete practices. For instance, if the worldview of a culture is materialism, we might observe the practice of people in a hurry, doing a lot of things to make money. Tying together worldview and practice we could hypothesize inner values of efficiency, time as money, and business goals trumping personal relationship.” (71) “From my experience, the greatest difficulties in multicultural leadership arise from tensions growing out of internal values.” (71)
“Globalization might make us look more alike on the outside, but localization reinforces the deepest inner being of our identities.” (73) “We may think we understand leaders in other cultures when in fact our ignorance can cause serious misunderstandings.” (73)
Chapter 5. Leadership and Context
Some cultures tune in to subtle innuendoes of meaning and others don’t. “A high-context (HC) communication or message is one in which most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message.” (78, quoting Beyond Culture by Edward T. Hall) “In low-context cultures, people pay special attention to explicit communication and to ideas.” (78) They are immersed in the world of concepts, principles and ideas. “Tension and confusion between cultures arises in the hidden messages enfolded in the context. Low-context communication can seem cold and uncaring to people in high-context cultures, and high-context communication can seem baffling or even dishonest to idea-oriented people.” (79)
“Direct communication seems to be the proper way of handling conflict in a low-context culture, but it can bring shame in a high-context culture. Low-context cultures tend to speak truth directly rather than seeking to protect relationships. In high-context cultures, truth is spoken in much more subtle forms, seeking above all to preserve relationships.” (81)
Chapter 6. Leadership and Power
“Some cultures assume a large status gap between those who have power and those who don’t. In these cultures, both leaders and followers assume that the power gap is natural and good. These societies are called high-power-distance cultures.” (92) The leader has special privileges and can make unilateral decisions and expect unquestioned obedience. (95) Low-power-distance cultures expect a more consultative approach to leadership. The leader is one of the team.
This often results in conflicting expectations for cross-cultural partnerships, sharing resources, and multicultural teams. “Power distance is a theological and practical paradox. We are often reminded in Scripture both to respect those in authority over us and to submit mutually to one another….” (107)
Chapter 7. Leadership and Individualism
Does the community serve the individual or does the individual serve the community? If you work on a ministry team, do you expect to fit into, report to, and serve the ministry of the team? Or do you expect the team to serve you and assist your ministry? Does the team leader make the decisions or is that person just one of the team?
In collectivistic cultures harmony is important. A public show of displeasure results in shame and must be avoided. In an individualistic culture, personal self-respect is a driving force and a person’s conscience makes him feel guilt. An understanding of the role of the team may differ radically between cultures and misunderstandings arise when individualistic leaders motivate by praising the individual in a collectivist culture.
In a collectivist society, an employer hires from an in-group someone who gives loyalty for protection. The relationship is one of family. You would not dismiss a person for poor performance any more than you would dismiss your child. Evaluation measures the group, not the individual. The task is not more important than relationships. Collectivism exhibits a sense of belonging and living for others. But it creates an us-them mentality wherein one respects his own family or group but may treat those outside as inferior or as the enemy.
Chapter 8. Leadership and Ambiguity
“For some societies, ambiguity is a serious problem… Leaders…avoid uncertainty by attempting to predict and control the future. They set precise goals, make long-range plans, schedule appointments, design contingency plans, purchase insurance, make to-do lists and develop thick policy manuals. But not every society fears uncertainty. Leaders learn to live with ambiguity and with a laid-back attitude toward life. Communities with little desire to avoid uncertainty are puzzled by the stressful ways of those who do. On the other hand, leaders with a low tolerance for ambiguity can’t understand the ‘whatever will be, will be’ attitude toward life.” (128-29) Scripture supports both trusting and planning. It is helpful to see the dilemma as fruitful tension.
Organizational structure reflects uncertainty concerns and becomes an issue when partnering among different cultures. Greater decentralization is required for multicultural organizations. However, too great a decentralization risks losing the vision and core values. There is often a mismatch of values between those setting specific goals and those they seek to serve. Goals framed in terms of purpose and a broad vision may be more suitable than those with projected numbers and dates. The fastest growing churches in the world don’t set precise goals and numerical criteria. The values of each culture have strengths and weaknesses.
Part III. Contextualizing Leadership. This section describes a model for integrating theology with leadership theory. Those who have studied under Jim will recognize the Frankena boxes.
Chapter 9. A Theology of Leadership
Multicultural leaders must be able to shift their leadership approach according to the situation. Too often they assume their cultural assumptions about leadership are both biblical and universal. “Cultural insights describe what the leadership values are, but theology tells us what they should be.” (157) We look to Scripture for the purpose, worldview, goals, methods, and practice of leadership. The ultimate purpose and worldview should be similar in all cultures. Cultural differences should show up in goals and methods.
Purpose. “Godly leadership exists to promote God’s ultimate purpose for the individual, the world and himself.” (159) However, we tend to let other values slip into the purpose category. “The final evaluation of leadership and of organizations is whether our efforts, programs, finances, structures and leadership style bring glory to God?” (161)
Worldview. “All the problems in the world are directly or indirectly caused by sin, and Jesus is the only solution to the sin problem. Poverty, war, greed, oppression and sickness are the result of the fallen world, so the most competent leader in the world cannot solve any major problem without the gospel of Jesus.” (163)
Chapter 10. A Theory of Leadership
A theory is a mental picture of why things work the way they do. Some are informal guesses. “Excellent leadership theory must grow out of good theology and be echoed in the actual practice of leadership.” (171) “Possibly the greatest temptation for leaders is to turn a secondary task into the ultimate one.” (174) “Older leadership theory assumed that the work of leaders was to accomplish a task through people…but…Effective leaders use the task to develop people.” (179)
“The majority of books on leadership, both Christian and secular, teach techniques on how to grow the organization, without taking the time to reflect on the eternal task of developing people.” “Focusing on methods divorced from theological reflection is hazardous.” (181) “Because of vast cultural differences, it is not possible to describe methods of leadership that are appropriate in every culture.” (183)
Part IV. Global Leadership in Practice. This section applies biblical and cultural insights to practical issues in missions.
Chapter 11. Developing Vision and Strategy
“The greatest danger for any organization…is that leaders will lose their vision while becoming proficient at strategies…. Too often the activity replaces the outcome; the strategy replaces the vision.” (187)
Jim presents three leadership metaphors. The factory metaphor is an assembly line representing the behaviorist model with high value on precision, quantitative goals, predictability, efficiency and control. We aim for what we can measure. The wildflower metaphor emphasizes intuitive personal experience, emotions and dramatic demonstrations of God’s power. It is a go-with-the-flow approach. The pilgrim metaphor pursues a vision with a sense of directions but allows for unexpected twists and turns and serendipitous opportunities.
In visionary planning the leader must a) collect and focus the vision, b) examine the situation, and c) make sure that every strategy contributes to the vision in light of the needs and opportunities of the situation.
“Vision comes through the study of Scripture, prayer and dialogue. It comes through eyes of faith, glimpsing a picture of the future when God will fulfill his purposes. It originates from Holy Spirit-motivated passion to follow God’s vision. Vision is from God and is a faith-picture of what could happen in the lives of people if God were to pour out his blessing.” (192)
The situation is where we are now. Do our programs help solve real and important problems in our present situation? Leaders must be realistic. The situation is always changing. Therefore programs need to change.
Strategy is how we get there, like stepping stones across the river. The vision is the far shore. There is a natural tendency for strategies to migrate into the place of vision.
“The pilgrim leader challenges high-context people to work toward a more definite ‘faith picture’ of results, and encourages the low-context leader to be more open to unexpected outcomes. He or she will seek to sharpen the strategic focus of high-context leaders, while helping low-context leaders to be more open to unfolding opportunities resulting from serendipitous changes. The pilgrim leader will help low-context team members to appreciate insights from an instinctive analysis of the situation, and help high-context team members to appreciate insights from a more objective analysis of the situation.” (199)
Chapter 12. Developing Global Leaders
“Jesus spend three years on earth developing disciples, or followers—not leaders.” (200) Even the best seminary education plays only a secondary role in developing leaders. The gifting of the Spirit and leadership experience are the primary means for developing leaders.” (202) “It would be absurd to expect that a foreign ‘expert’ could teach a leadership course in Nigeria without an understanding of the traditional cultural assumptions about how leaders are developed.” (204)
“The primary stimulus for human development is problems—life challenges and situations that don’t make sense. Disequilibration is the motor that drives leadership development.” “We develop when our world is shaken, when our comfort zone of certainty is challenged.” (204-05)
The most influential leaders have the widest horizons. One of the primary tasks of leadership development is fostering the growth of wider perspectives. “The global-centric leader will look out for the good of the individual, family, clan and nation, within the context of the bigger picture.” (207)
In any culture four steps help develop leaders: “Seek out people with high leadership potential. Assess their current strengths and weaknesses. Challenge them with tasks that are slightly beyond their comfort zone. Support them in the tasks.” (208)
Michael Jackson, Shutter Island, Jesus and Ambiguity
1. what we build is an unfinished project
2. we need to build anticipating that what we build will eventually taken apart (and that's ok).
3. what we build is a contribution not the solution.
There are no everlasting edifices - only everlasting life.
- Grant Osborne
In its grammar, the prepositions in Greek were added to clarify the initial ambiguity. It is wrong to fear ambiguity. Dispelling ambiguity may not be only a Western agenda but it is definitely a foundational agenda for the Western world. We have done it through dogma, rationalism, literalism, partisanship and hero worship. The anxiety of ambiguity should be given to Christ, not to a doctrine, a rational argument, a leader, a pattern of self-control, etc... Once the control of ambiguity is given to anything else other than Christ, that choice becomes idolatry. In reverse, we shouldn't hide behind ambiguity and elevate it up to a position of the end-all answer to find recluse in while the world goes to pot around us. Either way, the predominant issue is more that the fear of ambiguity has such a grip on us.
Films such as Shutter Island and Fight Club, do give us some answers but also leave us asking more questions and leaving us in a state of irresolution concerning certain aspects of these films. Ecclesiastes and Job in the Old Testament do the same thing for us as well as the book of Revelation in the New Testament. All of these books have some answers but they leave us with more questions. Though there is some resolution, irresolution is actually created by the end of these texts, an irresolution that the authors, directors and producers were all comfortable with. We are also called to be comfortable with this ambiguity as well - because whether we like it or not - our world is much more ambiguous than we want to accept.
If we are to be comfortable with the tension of ambiguity, then what do we do with that tension when being comfortable is not necessarily that easy? Or what do we do with this tension when it hasn't been practiced consistently in our lives prior to realizing this and why is there a picture of Jesus holding the body of Michael Jackson in this post?
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Should Muslims be allowed to build mosques in the neighborhood of their choosing?
This is incredible - thank you Jon Stewart!
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Wish You Weren't Here | ||||
| ||||
Was Adam a historical figure? Is Genesis opposed to evolution - short videos to begin the conversation...
The BioLogos Foundation has provided a list of short videos on its site here in order to help people discover how their faith and Science can be reconciled. This path will require viewing and interpreting Scripture differently than we have historically and traditionally done. Take a peek at a few of the short comments by noted scholars such as Greg Boyd, N.T. Wright, Peter Enns, Os Guinness and John Walton. One such interview in the mix done by a noted Old Testament Scholar, Bruce Waltke, actually got him "fired" (though he agreed to resign overnight) from a renowned Reformed Seminary. He was quickly scooped up by a scholarly community that appreciated his work and influence and will benefit greatly from his scholarship. Thank you to Peter Enns for his contribution and courage to also be "dismissed" agreeably from another Reformed Seminary for his stance on some foundational issues in Christian belief.
Truth is a direction, a pilgrimage and a relationship, not a destination or a static list of propositions that encapsulate reality within the scope and brevity of human language and capacity for knowing. Basically humanity is limited for many reasons in the apprehension of the good, right and true and we need all the help we can get, especially when we think that our understanding of the world is right. We camp out in our nomadic tents of certainty when we should journey ever longingly for the palace of unending intimacy and divine discovery.
Truth is a direction, a pilgrimage and a relationship, not a destination or a static list of propositions that encapsulate reality within the scope and brevity of human language and capacity for knowing. Basically humanity is limited for many reasons in the apprehension of the good, right and true and we need all the help we can get, especially when we think that our understanding of the world is right. We camp out in our nomadic tents of certainty when we should journey ever longingly for the palace of unending intimacy and divine discovery.
Religion owes Science a Big Apology. Marilynne Robinson tells us why!
Marilynne Robinson, author of Absence of Mind: The Dispelling of Inwardness from the Modern Myth of the Self , argues that Religion and Science were never meant to be separate. They need to end their separation and renew their vows. My understanding of this issue is that they were always meant to be together but the reality is that historically, Religion was the overbearing and abusive partner who didn't give space or credibility to the place of Science in their relationship. For too long, Science had been the dominated and submissive voice in the Western world. Through the Enlightenment, Science began to find its own identity and voice without the shroud of Religion and as it has happened many times before, the pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction so that now we find ourselves in a world where certain proponents of Science wants to dominate and disband all Religious voices and identity.
Ultimately, this has a psychological dimension. The two need to go to therapy together and figure their stuff out. The truth is, if a one-sided relationship exists for two long between two equal partners, relational reality has a way of correcting itself. The solution is for the dominant partner to make space and time for the "other" to find their identity, embrace their capacity and exist in the relationship as a full fledged partner, both sitting at the table of intimate communion, joyful collaboration and respectful dialogue. This is the best description of oneness - wherein two or more members are distinct in their identity and capacity for contribution but at the same time ultimately united and embracing the new identity that their distinct and previously separate identities forged.
The oneness that is created by two distinct identities communing together and forming a bond is a oneness that is ultimately a mystery for us to understand. That mystery, though difficult to understand, is still a reality and a truth that can be trusted without necessarily verifying its existence through empirical evidence or rational analytics. That best describes the relationship between Faith and Rationality, Religion and Science, the Natural and the Supernatural. We must embrace the tension of that reality and allow time and delightful discovery to slowly unveil the pre-existing union that both Science and Religion have shared in secret for millenia.
Religion owes Science a Big Apology.
Religion should have provided the time and space for Science to define itself in the relationship in order for true health and intimate communion to take place. Religion didn't know where it ended and Science began and as a result broke through and stepped upon the boundaries that were needed to keep one partner from overwhelming, subsuming, fearing and eventually alienating the other.
So Science has needed its time of separation for many reasons that are healthy and part of natural development that exists in holistic and healthy relational dynamics. The Bible says that God hates divorce. Nobody likes divorce but obviously at times its necessary. What God does understand we need more often in extreme situations is separation. Separation brings perspective, it makes room for respect, it reminds, and it has the ability to renew relationships that otherwise would go on unchecked.
God himself "separated" from Israel in his covenant relationship with them. He never divorced them, but through their abuse of his love, denial of his presence and unfaithfulness, he chose to do the best thing for both of them and separated. The paraphrased version of this is "you are no longer my people and I am no longer your God." This gave them the self-inflicted consequences that were required for them to be reminded of the only true love that ever loved them and what it took to remain faithful to him. In spite of their unfaithfulness, God showed his unending love by remaining faithful, even in the face of their prostitution. But one thing he didn't do was choose divorce - he chose separation. This, at times, is a necessary path on the journey of covenant. In fact, separation can represent an aspect of covenant faithfulness.
Covenanting with another isn't just about commitment, it's more fundamentally about being committed to the commitment. A covenant of faithfulness and love is based upon the foundations of love, selflessness, awareness, dignity, respect, etc... If these values are not being practiced, ignored or being relegated by either one or both members of a covenant, then separation is a likely path to healing between these two, if patterns of destructiveness carry on for too long.
Separation is actually a way to be faithful to the covenant
Therefore separation can represent a healthy break in the spiraling and destructive patterns that many relationships find themselves in. Separation is designed to shock either one or both members of a covenant back to the reality and the foundations that formed their covenant.
It's not the first solution and should be a last resort that has been communicated prior to making the decision (unless there is imminent danger to life), but at times may still be necessary.
We all can easily forget to love as we promised but for some, a shock to their system due to a prolonged and unequal time of one-sided and selfish expectations, may require a separation. At that point, the member or members of the covenant have a choice to re-engage who they love with what their covenant requires for health, or they can continue in their self-destructive patterns apart from the direct effect it will have on their partner, albeit that the effect of separation is always painful for both members in some way or another, directly or indirectly.
So the question is, if separation is necessary, is there a member of the covenant who is more at fault than the other? The answer is yes and no. Both members could be spiraling into destructive and selfish patterns that are ill-effecting the other. Both of them could have possibly conceived of ways to lie to themselves about whether or not they are responsible or whether or not their partner is at fault. But there are times when one member has been more unfitted in their love and respect of the other or just outright abusive without regard, respect or love for their covenant or for their partner.
The separation between Science and Religion was mostly the fault of Religion. The Copernican Revolution to the age of Darwin and for centuries prior, has awaited this separation. It was inevitable and necessary. Religion had been too ignorant, self-focused and unyielding in its fear, self-preservation and power-mongering for too long. Now, at least in the Western World, Religion is getting a dose of its own medicine and of course, doesn't like it. The corrective may take longer than we like but the principle stands: The longer a pendulum is pushed in one direction, the longer it will be required to correct it. The time doesn't have to be as long to form the corrective but the measures to do so may be.
What we can all hope for is that the eyes of each side will be open to their longing for each other, a longing that can only be satisfied, embraced and protected in a covenant relationship. We hope that they would bathe their conversation in love, a universal love value that all humanity agrees is the path to truth and reconciliation. Love keeps no record of wrongs and so our hope is that Science will forgive, though not forget because that is unnatural and unnecessary and ultimately unscientific. Our truest hope will be that Science will keep no records of Religion's wrongs and finally experience the bliss of intimate union, synergistic collaboration and covenant faithfulness.
So what is our place? Well, we are not to endorse or propagate a prolonged separation, we are especially not to promote a call for divorce and we are to never ignore the reality of the pain endured and incurred or make space to repeat it. As reconciliars, we are here to help cultivate the gardens of the other, to cultivate an environment for renewal, for transformed space and for graceful understanding, always remembering that we too have or may need to in the future, experience a painful yet necessary rupture for the health and well-being of our community. Don't promote divorce, don't prolong separation, yet at the same time take steps towards regarding the other in your own life so as to not bring oneself to the point of necessary rupture - no-one is exempt.
Make space for Religion and for Science to be wed once again and more deeply than ever before in your heart and in the hearts and minds of all those whom you have the care of. Recognize which side of the line we may fall on due to our tradition, family line, history, beliefs and convictions - then we are to take steps to bridge the chasms that others may have created for us, though we may have participated. Our call is to embrace mystery and discovery in the same moment, only to realize that in so doing we have participated in and embodied a unity that has always existed. Religion has always been a part of discovery in Science and discovery in Science should have always played a part in understanding Faith. Now is a better time than ever before.
Ultimately, this has a psychological dimension. The two need to go to therapy together and figure their stuff out. The truth is, if a one-sided relationship exists for two long between two equal partners, relational reality has a way of correcting itself. The solution is for the dominant partner to make space and time for the "other" to find their identity, embrace their capacity and exist in the relationship as a full fledged partner, both sitting at the table of intimate communion, joyful collaboration and respectful dialogue. This is the best description of oneness - wherein two or more members are distinct in their identity and capacity for contribution but at the same time ultimately united and embracing the new identity that their distinct and previously separate identities forged.
The oneness that is created by two distinct identities communing together and forming a bond is a oneness that is ultimately a mystery for us to understand. That mystery, though difficult to understand, is still a reality and a truth that can be trusted without necessarily verifying its existence through empirical evidence or rational analytics. That best describes the relationship between Faith and Rationality, Religion and Science, the Natural and the Supernatural. We must embrace the tension of that reality and allow time and delightful discovery to slowly unveil the pre-existing union that both Science and Religion have shared in secret for millenia.
Religion owes Science a Big Apology.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Marilynne Robinson | ||||
| ||||
Religion should have provided the time and space for Science to define itself in the relationship in order for true health and intimate communion to take place. Religion didn't know where it ended and Science began and as a result broke through and stepped upon the boundaries that were needed to keep one partner from overwhelming, subsuming, fearing and eventually alienating the other.
So Science has needed its time of separation for many reasons that are healthy and part of natural development that exists in holistic and healthy relational dynamics. The Bible says that God hates divorce. Nobody likes divorce but obviously at times its necessary. What God does understand we need more often in extreme situations is separation. Separation brings perspective, it makes room for respect, it reminds, and it has the ability to renew relationships that otherwise would go on unchecked.
God himself "separated" from Israel in his covenant relationship with them. He never divorced them, but through their abuse of his love, denial of his presence and unfaithfulness, he chose to do the best thing for both of them and separated. The paraphrased version of this is "you are no longer my people and I am no longer your God." This gave them the self-inflicted consequences that were required for them to be reminded of the only true love that ever loved them and what it took to remain faithful to him. In spite of their unfaithfulness, God showed his unending love by remaining faithful, even in the face of their prostitution. But one thing he didn't do was choose divorce - he chose separation. This, at times, is a necessary path on the journey of covenant. In fact, separation can represent an aspect of covenant faithfulness.
Covenanting with another isn't just about commitment, it's more fundamentally about being committed to the commitment. A covenant of faithfulness and love is based upon the foundations of love, selflessness, awareness, dignity, respect, etc... If these values are not being practiced, ignored or being relegated by either one or both members of a covenant, then separation is a likely path to healing between these two, if patterns of destructiveness carry on for too long.
Separation is actually a way to be faithful to the covenant
Therefore separation can represent a healthy break in the spiraling and destructive patterns that many relationships find themselves in. Separation is designed to shock either one or both members of a covenant back to the reality and the foundations that formed their covenant.
It's not the first solution and should be a last resort that has been communicated prior to making the decision (unless there is imminent danger to life), but at times may still be necessary.
We all can easily forget to love as we promised but for some, a shock to their system due to a prolonged and unequal time of one-sided and selfish expectations, may require a separation. At that point, the member or members of the covenant have a choice to re-engage who they love with what their covenant requires for health, or they can continue in their self-destructive patterns apart from the direct effect it will have on their partner, albeit that the effect of separation is always painful for both members in some way or another, directly or indirectly.
So the question is, if separation is necessary, is there a member of the covenant who is more at fault than the other? The answer is yes and no. Both members could be spiraling into destructive and selfish patterns that are ill-effecting the other. Both of them could have possibly conceived of ways to lie to themselves about whether or not they are responsible or whether or not their partner is at fault. But there are times when one member has been more unfitted in their love and respect of the other or just outright abusive without regard, respect or love for their covenant or for their partner.
The separation between Science and Religion was mostly the fault of Religion. The Copernican Revolution to the age of Darwin and for centuries prior, has awaited this separation. It was inevitable and necessary. Religion had been too ignorant, self-focused and unyielding in its fear, self-preservation and power-mongering for too long. Now, at least in the Western World, Religion is getting a dose of its own medicine and of course, doesn't like it. The corrective may take longer than we like but the principle stands: The longer a pendulum is pushed in one direction, the longer it will be required to correct it. The time doesn't have to be as long to form the corrective but the measures to do so may be.
What we can all hope for is that the eyes of each side will be open to their longing for each other, a longing that can only be satisfied, embraced and protected in a covenant relationship. We hope that they would bathe their conversation in love, a universal love value that all humanity agrees is the path to truth and reconciliation. Love keeps no record of wrongs and so our hope is that Science will forgive, though not forget because that is unnatural and unnecessary and ultimately unscientific. Our truest hope will be that Science will keep no records of Religion's wrongs and finally experience the bliss of intimate union, synergistic collaboration and covenant faithfulness.
So what is our place? Well, we are not to endorse or propagate a prolonged separation, we are especially not to promote a call for divorce and we are to never ignore the reality of the pain endured and incurred or make space to repeat it. As reconciliars, we are here to help cultivate the gardens of the other, to cultivate an environment for renewal, for transformed space and for graceful understanding, always remembering that we too have or may need to in the future, experience a painful yet necessary rupture for the health and well-being of our community. Don't promote divorce, don't prolong separation, yet at the same time take steps towards regarding the other in your own life so as to not bring oneself to the point of necessary rupture - no-one is exempt.
Make space for Religion and for Science to be wed once again and more deeply than ever before in your heart and in the hearts and minds of all those whom you have the care of. Recognize which side of the line we may fall on due to our tradition, family line, history, beliefs and convictions - then we are to take steps to bridge the chasms that others may have created for us, though we may have participated. Our call is to embrace mystery and discovery in the same moment, only to realize that in so doing we have participated in and embodied a unity that has always existed. Religion has always been a part of discovery in Science and discovery in Science should have always played a part in understanding Faith. Now is a better time than ever before.
Monday, July 05, 2010
The Stoning of Soyara M.
The latest travesty involving the stoning of a woman in Iran has been covered by CNN here.
We musn't villainize the whole country of Iran or its people. The people of Iran are amazing and are more frustrated and angry with this regime than the rest of the world is.
Watch The Stoning of Soraya M. Full Movie Trailer Online - Watch more Funny Videos
We musn't villainize the whole country of Iran or its people. The people of Iran are amazing and are more frustrated and angry with this regime than the rest of the world is.
Watch The Stoning of Soraya M. Full Movie Trailer Online - Watch more Funny Videos
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)