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)
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
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
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
SOCCER vs. FOOTBALL - Viewing theology as World Cup collaboration not as NBA championships
It's ironic that the NBA and the FIFA World Cup have overlapped at this juncture in history. Having won the NBA championship, Lakers' fans and everyone else turn their attention to the World Cup of Soccer. What is striking for a theologian, is that presently, the US has the opposite effect in global theology that it has in the FiFa World Cup. Soccer, as a truly "international" sport, has left the US in the dust and only recently are we catching up. Soccer, or Football as it is known internationally, hails from almost every nation on the planet. This map shows the popularity of football around the world.
The various shades of green (more) and red (less) indicate the number of players per 1,000 inhabitants indicating very strongly that the US is behind the game (literally) and in the last place group which includes countries such as Finland, Japan, Bangladesh, etc... An indictment that we can no longer evade is that we generally do theology like we do our own national sports.
The American public focuses primarily on the MLB, the NBA, and the NFL, with the NHL in tow. Interestingly, we cannot join the globe in naming soccer as it is globally call "Football" because we have reserved that name for a natinoal sport that we have created. Yet, recently a statistic came out that revealed that Americans were the largest purchasing nation of tickets for the World Cup. So, even though two decades ago the Chicago Bulls symbol was the most popular symbol on the planet at the height of their championship run in the 1990's, football emblems have taken over as the internationally renowned and recognized sports symbols of our planet. The U.S,'s recognition in Americanized symbols is fast waning both in sports and in theology. We can no longer afford to ride the wave of our hegemonic influence in the world.
We need to get back to the field and start competing, not violently, but generatively and cooperatively and realize that we may not come out on top for much longer - and that that's o.k. Many of the wounds we've inflicted both on the "other" as well on ourselves, will no longer go unchecked. Healing for the nations as well as ourselves may begin, and as a result cause our hearts to grow simply in community instead of simply growing cold in isolation.
Our historic policy of isolationism was replaced by its opposite extreme of hyper expansionism. It seems that if we cannot run the show, we go and create our own show. Without the entrance of the US into WWI and WWII, many more lives would have been lost, but the benefactor mentality that we adopted does not entail the right to neglect or disrespect the sovereignty and identity of other nations. So let's stop wearing the "world police" badge and discontinue our infantile isolationist policies and join the international communities' need for us in a way that also includes our need for them. We've gone too long hiding our national pathologies behind the wall of our perceived international strength. The pathologies have had their undue influence for too long in our theologies all the way to our foreign policies. It's time to truly need the world so that they we understand what they truly need from us. Am I being too hard on us? Well, as far as a track record, we don't have the worst record on the planet, we just get away with the most.
What if this map represented the influence that local and national (contextual) theologies had on the big picture of global theology? The question is not what if, it is when? I would like to be part of where this is going and contribute to that direction. It might take some time, but the US will soon be doing theology like they're playing Football - world Football - and the results will be astonishing. We need a dedicated group of theologians, activists, writers and organizers, much like the theologians at NAIITS (North American Institute for Indigenous Theological Studies), who will take this direction and run with it. Many already are, but the numbers are truly dismal compared to the need. The need is simple - the primary focus should be taken off of "Lakers'" theology (not because it is unhelpful) and be given to "World Cup" theology.
Some say that the US has this focus when they are in the Olympics except that the sports designated as sports within the Olympics have been distinctly and historically influenced more by the West than by the globe. Football is inherently global because of its access (save the frigid conditions of northern countries, which is easily remedied), its notoriety, its affordability, etc... Doing a local Lakers' Theology will always be necessary, but it should not be primary.
So...the answer - join the World Cup of theology. The results will blow our minds, enlarge our souls and expand our knowledge and awareness of God more than ever before in the history of our dear planet. As the voices of each country roar from its borders when their team scores or ooohingly lament at the scourge of a bad call, let us raise our voices from respective borders, roar our applause, and lament our losses in our pursuit of knowing and loving our Creator together.
The various shades of green (more) and red (less) indicate the number of players per 1,000 inhabitants indicating very strongly that the US is behind the game (literally) and in the last place group which includes countries such as Finland, Japan, Bangladesh, etc... An indictment that we can no longer evade is that we generally do theology like we do our own national sports.
The American public focuses primarily on the MLB, the NBA, and the NFL, with the NHL in tow. Interestingly, we cannot join the globe in naming soccer as it is globally call "Football" because we have reserved that name for a natinoal sport that we have created. Yet, recently a statistic came out that revealed that Americans were the largest purchasing nation of tickets for the World Cup. So, even though two decades ago the Chicago Bulls symbol was the most popular symbol on the planet at the height of their championship run in the 1990's, football emblems have taken over as the internationally renowned and recognized sports symbols of our planet. The U.S,'s recognition in Americanized symbols is fast waning both in sports and in theology. We can no longer afford to ride the wave of our hegemonic influence in the world.
We need to get back to the field and start competing, not violently, but generatively and cooperatively and realize that we may not come out on top for much longer - and that that's o.k. Many of the wounds we've inflicted both on the "other" as well on ourselves, will no longer go unchecked. Healing for the nations as well as ourselves may begin, and as a result cause our hearts to grow simply in community instead of simply growing cold in isolation.
Our historic policy of isolationism was replaced by its opposite extreme of hyper expansionism. It seems that if we cannot run the show, we go and create our own show. Without the entrance of the US into WWI and WWII, many more lives would have been lost, but the benefactor mentality that we adopted does not entail the right to neglect or disrespect the sovereignty and identity of other nations. So let's stop wearing the "world police" badge and discontinue our infantile isolationist policies and join the international communities' need for us in a way that also includes our need for them. We've gone too long hiding our national pathologies behind the wall of our perceived international strength. The pathologies have had their undue influence for too long in our theologies all the way to our foreign policies. It's time to truly need the world so that they we understand what they truly need from us. Am I being too hard on us? Well, as far as a track record, we don't have the worst record on the planet, we just get away with the most.
What if this map represented the influence that local and national (contextual) theologies had on the big picture of global theology? The question is not what if, it is when? I would like to be part of where this is going and contribute to that direction. It might take some time, but the US will soon be doing theology like they're playing Football - world Football - and the results will be astonishing. We need a dedicated group of theologians, activists, writers and organizers, much like the theologians at NAIITS (North American Institute for Indigenous Theological Studies), who will take this direction and run with it. Many already are, but the numbers are truly dismal compared to the need. The need is simple - the primary focus should be taken off of "Lakers'" theology (not because it is unhelpful) and be given to "World Cup" theology.
Some say that the US has this focus when they are in the Olympics except that the sports designated as sports within the Olympics have been distinctly and historically influenced more by the West than by the globe. Football is inherently global because of its access (save the frigid conditions of northern countries, which is easily remedied), its notoriety, its affordability, etc... Doing a local Lakers' Theology will always be necessary, but it should not be primary.
So...the answer - join the World Cup of theology. The results will blow our minds, enlarge our souls and expand our knowledge and awareness of God more than ever before in the history of our dear planet. As the voices of each country roar from its borders when their team scores or ooohingly lament at the scourge of a bad call, let us raise our voices from respective borders, roar our applause, and lament our losses in our pursuit of knowing and loving our Creator together.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Paradox is a Pedagogy
‘Intellectual uncertainty is not necessarily or simply a negative experience, a dead-end sense of not knowing, or of indeterminacy. It is just as well an experience of something open, generative, exhilarating, (the trembling of what remains undecidable). I wish to suggest that ‘intellectual uncertainty’ is ..a crucial dimension of any teaching worthy of the name.’
(Royle 2003 : 52)
(Royle 2003 : 52)
Sunday, June 06, 2010
Immanuel Kant in 15 seconds!
I got this excerpt from a 5 minute interview BBC did with AC Grayling.
BBC- “Ok, so here’s a challenge: sum up Kant in 15 seconds.”
AC Grayling - “Well…hard one that…well what Kant said was...ah…our understanding of the world around us is in part the result of the contribution that our own cognitive capacities make; so how we see things, how we think about them, how we reason about them, plays its part in constituting the way the world seems to us and once we understand that then our understanding of the world and several of the problems unique within philosophy are resolved thereby.”
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Embodiment to Entrenchment
"Our outer world is not something that needs 2b brought in 2line with our inner world but is an expression of it"
-Peter Rollins
-Peter Rollins
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Human Autonomy can kiss my...
"...If the biblical story is true, the kind of certainty proper to a human being will be one which rests on the fidelity of God, not upon the compentence of the human knower. It will be a kind of certainty which is inseparable from gratitude and trust."
- Lesslie Newbigin (Proper Confidence, 1995)
- Lesslie Newbigin (Proper Confidence, 1995)
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Don't kill 'em, just make like us
Andrea Smith's book, Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide, opens the eyes of those that are not blind but shrouded, the ears of those that aren't deaf but plugged, the hearts of those that are cold but not dead. It may just give a voice to not only the oppressed but also to the unaware yet passive oppressors...
There are options to solving this and it begins with open eyes, ears and hearts...
There are options to solving this and it begins with open eyes, ears and hearts...
Invisible Children Meet Obama and he's going "to do something about this issue"
President Obama signed the LRA disarmament bills today that Invisible Children and many others have worked so hard to get passed through Congress. Watch the video of their recap watching President Obama sign the bill in the Oval Office.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Theological Fragments and an Elephant
Duncan B. Forrester, Emeritus Professor of Christian Ethics and Practical Theology in the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, has written a fantastic approach to theology in his book, Theological Fragments: explorations in unsystematic theology.
The description reads, "Forrester here develops the notion, which is partly borrowed from Kierkegaard, at greater length, also responding to post-modernism and to the so-called end of ideology. This important collection provides a coherent and engaging exploration of a fragmented topic, and the essays contained within demonstrate how fragments of insight can be illuminating and effective guides."
Drawing on the idea that no one perspective can explain what it is perceiving or what it has received comprehensively, Duncan tracks through different chapter titles like,
Theology in Fragments
The Mystery of the Human Person in Community
Good and Gay?
The Pastoral Significance of Mary: A Protestant Perspective
The End of Sacraments: Sacramental Action and Discipleship
While working through this text I was encourage and astounded by it's claim of no center but rather perspectives that should find confluence for greater clarity. Kevin Vanhoozer borrows from this idea in his chapter in Globalizing Theology: Belief and Practice in an Era of World Christianity.
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
Truth is not relative - we are relative to the Truth!
The description reads, "Forrester here develops the notion, which is partly borrowed from Kierkegaard, at greater length, also responding to post-modernism and to the so-called end of ideology. This important collection provides a coherent and engaging exploration of a fragmented topic, and the essays contained within demonstrate how fragments of insight can be illuminating and effective guides."
Theology in Fragments
The Mystery of the Human Person in Community
Good and Gay?
The Pastoral Significance of Mary: A Protestant Perspective
The End of Sacraments: Sacramental Action and Discipleship
While working through this text I was encourage and astounded by it's claim of no center but rather perspectives that should find confluence for greater clarity. Kevin Vanhoozer borrows from this idea in his chapter in Globalizing Theology: Belief and Practice in an Era of World Christianity.
Their basic premise can be summarized in the story of the blind men and the elephant,
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, "Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
Many have critiqued this poem and held it up as an example of relativism. The problem with that is that the premise of the poem is that all the men are blind and have never seen an elephant before.
In regards to theology, this explains the message of the book. There can't be one way of describing God, especially from one's cultural-linguistical-geographical context. We need the global community to do that and as such have a long way to go.
Truth is not relative - we are relative to the Truth!
Theological Butt Dust?
My sister posted this about my 4 year-old niece and her theological question in church recently,
"This particular Sunday sermon...'Dear Lord,' the minister began, with arms extended toward heaven and a rapturous look on his upturned face. 'Without you, we are but dust ...' He would have continued but at that moment my very obedient daughter who was listening leaned over to me and asked quite audibly in her shrill little four-year old girl voice, 'Mom, what is butt dust?"
"This particular Sunday sermon...'Dear Lord,' the minister began, with arms extended toward heaven and a rapturous look on his upturned face. 'Without you, we are but dust ...' He would have continued but at that moment my very obedient daughter who was listening leaned over to me and asked quite audibly in her shrill little four-year old girl voice, 'Mom, what is butt dust?"
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
"Tribes" by Seth Godin book excerpts - by www.davidmays.org
Tribes
We Need You to Lead Us
Seth Godin
Portfolio, 2008, 147 pp. ISBN 978-1-59184-233-0
Seth Godin is the author of ten international bestsellers, including Permission Marketing and Purple Cow. A tribe is any group of connected people and an idea. With barriers eliminated by the internet, those with a passion have the opportunity to lead their fellow employees, customers, investors, readers, etc. Individuals have far more power than ever before in history. Rather than chapters, the book is divided into segments of ideas, principles, and suggestions.
A tribe needs only a shared idea and a way to communicate. Plus a leader. Tribes are about belief in an idea and a community. Humans need to belong and many can’t resist the thrill of a new idea. There is an explosion of new tools to help people connect around an idea. So it’s easier to create a movement.
A leader doesn’t market to his audience or manage it or push it. He leads it.
Everyone is now a leader.
People work a lot and it is much more satisfying to work on things they believe in. Consumers are deciding to spend time and money on things they believe in.
Heretics are the new leaders. They challenge the status quo and make new rules. “Leadership…is about creating change that you believe in.” (14)
“New rule: If you want to grow, you need to find customers who are willing to join you or believe in you or donate to you or support you. And guess what? The only customers willing to do that are looking for something new. The growth comes from change and light and noise.” (18)
Messages go from leader to tribe, sideways within the tribe, and back to the leader. People are in it together. People wanted to hear the Grateful Dead “together.” “The movement happens when people talk to one another, when ideas spread within the community, and most of all, when peer support leads people to do what they always knew was the right thing.” (22)
“So a leader can help increase the effectiveness of the tribe and its members by
* Transforming the shared interest into a passionate goal and desire for change;
* Providing tools to allow members to tighten their communications; and
* Leveraging the tribe to allow it to grow and gain new members.” (25)
The ideas that spread are remarkable ones.
“An individual artist needs only a thousand true fans in her tribe. It’s enough…because a thousand fans will bring you enough attention and support to make a great living, to reach more people, to do great work.” “…the real win is turning a casual fan into a true one.” (33)
Organizations that destroy the status quo win. The status quo could be the time that ‘everyone knows’ it takes you to ship an order. Changing it gives you the opportunity to be remarkable.
Twitter doesn’t cause an event; it merely enables it to occur because of the respect and permission a tribe allows a leader.
Organizations of the future will be filled with smart, fast, flexible people on a mission. And that requires leadership. (41)
Boring ideas don’t spread. And ideas that spread, win.
Great leaders focus not on their own glory but on the tribe.
A leader may first tighten the tribe by increasing communication among them. This is more important than growing the tribe. A tribe that communicates quickly with emotion thrives.
You do not need a majority to win, only to motivate people who choose to follow you. “Through your actions as a leader, you attract a tribe that wants to follow you. That tribe has a worldview that matches the message you’re sending.” (65)
“Ultimately, people are most easily led where they wanted to go all along. While that may seem as if it limits your originality or influence, it’s true. Fox News didn’t persuade millions of people to become conservatives; they just assembled the tribe and led them where they were already headed.” (66)
“Great leaders don’t water down their message in order to make the tribe a bit bigger. Instead, they realize that a motivated, connected tribe in the midst of a movement is far more powerful than a larger group could ever be.” (67)
“Welcome to the age of leverage. Bottom-up is a really bad way to think about it because there is no bottom.” (75)
Easiest: react. Next easiest: respond. Hardest: initiate. Sometimes it makes more sense to follow. If so, get out of the way and follow.
At first, the new thing will rarely be as good as the old thing. If the new thing has to be better from the beginning, you’ll never begin. Soon enough, the new thing will be better than the old. But if you wait until then, it will be too late. The music industry refused to understand this. Industries don’t die by surprise. It’s not as if you didn’t know it was coming. (95)
The key elements in creating a micromovement:
1. Publish a manifesto.
2. Make it easy for your followers to connect with you.
3. Make it easy for your followers to connect with one another.
4. Realize that money is not the point of a movement.
5. Track your progress publicly and create pathways for your followers to contribute to that progress. (103-04)
Principles:
1. Transparency really is your only option.
2. Your movement needs to be bigger than you.
3. Movements that grow, thrive.
4. Movements are made most clear when compared to the status quo or to movements that work to push the other direction.
5. Exclude outsiders.
6. Build up your followers instead of tearing others down. (104-05)
“Tribes are the most effective media channels ever, but they’re not for sale or for rent. Tribes don’t do what you want; they do what they want.” (107)
The transactional costs of tribes are falling fast while the costs of formal organizations keep increasing.
Initiative is an astonishingly successful tool because it’s rare. (112)
“I despair for most of the top fifty nonprofits in the United States. These are the big guys, and they’re stuck. …the top charities rarely change.” (115)
“The big win is in turning donors into patrons and activists and participants. The biggest donors are the ones who not only give, but also do the work. The ones who make the soup or feed the hungry or hang the art.” (116)
“The Internet allows some organizations to embrace long-distance involvement. It lets charities flip the funnel, not through some simple hand waving but by reorganizing around the idea of engagement online. This is the new leverage. It means opening yourself up to volunteers and encouraging them to network, to connect with one another, and yes, even to mutiny. It means giving every one of your professionals a blog and the freedom to use it. It means mixing it up with volunteers so they have something truly at stake. This is understandably scary for many nonprofits, but I’m not so sure you have a choice.” (116)
“Growth doesn’t come from persuading the most loyal members of other tribes to join you. They will be the last to come around. Instead, you’ll find more fertile ground among seekers, among people who desire the feeling they get when they’re part of a vibrant, growing tribe, but who are still looking for that feeling.” (119)
There is a huge penalty for being too late.
Real leadership rarely comes from the CEO or senior VP. “Instead, it happens out of the corner of your eye, in a place you weren’t watching.” (122)
“Hope without a strategy doesn’t generate leadership. Leadership comes when your hope and your optimism are matched with a concrete vision of the future and a way to get there. People won’t follow you if they don’t believe you can get to where you say you’re going.” (122)
“Caring is the key emotion at the center of the Tribe. Tribe members care what happens, to their goals and to one another.” “If no one cares, then you have no tribe.” (125, 26)
“People what to be sure you heard what they said—they’re less focused on whether or not you do what they said.” (128)
“Tribes grow when people recruit other people. That’s how ideas spread as well. The tribe doesn’t do it for you, of course. They do it for each other. Leadership is the art of giving people a platform for spreading ideas that work.” (129)
“Part of leadership (a big part of it, actually) is the ability to stick with the dream for a long time.” (132)
“(Jerry) Sternin went to Vietnam to try to help starving children. Rather than importing tactics that he knew would work, or outside techniques that he was sure could make a difference, he sought out the few families who weren’t starving, the few moms who weren’t just getting by but were thriving. And then he made it easy for these mothers to share their insights with the rest of the group. This seems obvious, but it’s heretical. The idea that an aid worker would go to a village in trouble and not try to stamp out nonstandard behavior is crazy. ‘The traditional model for social and organization change doesn’t work, he told Fast Company. ‘It never has. You can’t bring permanent solutions in from outside.’” (133)
www.davidmays.org
We Need You to Lead Us
Seth Godin
Portfolio, 2008, 147 pp. ISBN 978-1-59184-233-0
Seth Godin is the author of ten international bestsellers, including Permission Marketing and Purple Cow. A tribe is any group of connected people and an idea. With barriers eliminated by the internet, those with a passion have the opportunity to lead their fellow employees, customers, investors, readers, etc. Individuals have far more power than ever before in history. Rather than chapters, the book is divided into segments of ideas, principles, and suggestions.
A tribe needs only a shared idea and a way to communicate. Plus a leader. Tribes are about belief in an idea and a community. Humans need to belong and many can’t resist the thrill of a new idea. There is an explosion of new tools to help people connect around an idea. So it’s easier to create a movement.
A leader doesn’t market to his audience or manage it or push it. He leads it.
Everyone is now a leader.
People work a lot and it is much more satisfying to work on things they believe in. Consumers are deciding to spend time and money on things they believe in.
Heretics are the new leaders. They challenge the status quo and make new rules. “Leadership…is about creating change that you believe in.” (14)
“New rule: If you want to grow, you need to find customers who are willing to join you or believe in you or donate to you or support you. And guess what? The only customers willing to do that are looking for something new. The growth comes from change and light and noise.” (18)
Messages go from leader to tribe, sideways within the tribe, and back to the leader. People are in it together. People wanted to hear the Grateful Dead “together.” “The movement happens when people talk to one another, when ideas spread within the community, and most of all, when peer support leads people to do what they always knew was the right thing.” (22)
“So a leader can help increase the effectiveness of the tribe and its members by
* Transforming the shared interest into a passionate goal and desire for change;
* Providing tools to allow members to tighten their communications; and
* Leveraging the tribe to allow it to grow and gain new members.” (25)
The ideas that spread are remarkable ones.
“An individual artist needs only a thousand true fans in her tribe. It’s enough…because a thousand fans will bring you enough attention and support to make a great living, to reach more people, to do great work.” “…the real win is turning a casual fan into a true one.” (33)
Organizations that destroy the status quo win. The status quo could be the time that ‘everyone knows’ it takes you to ship an order. Changing it gives you the opportunity to be remarkable.
Twitter doesn’t cause an event; it merely enables it to occur because of the respect and permission a tribe allows a leader.
Organizations of the future will be filled with smart, fast, flexible people on a mission. And that requires leadership. (41)
Boring ideas don’t spread. And ideas that spread, win.
Great leaders focus not on their own glory but on the tribe.
A leader may first tighten the tribe by increasing communication among them. This is more important than growing the tribe. A tribe that communicates quickly with emotion thrives.
You do not need a majority to win, only to motivate people who choose to follow you. “Through your actions as a leader, you attract a tribe that wants to follow you. That tribe has a worldview that matches the message you’re sending.” (65)
“Ultimately, people are most easily led where they wanted to go all along. While that may seem as if it limits your originality or influence, it’s true. Fox News didn’t persuade millions of people to become conservatives; they just assembled the tribe and led them where they were already headed.” (66)
“Great leaders don’t water down their message in order to make the tribe a bit bigger. Instead, they realize that a motivated, connected tribe in the midst of a movement is far more powerful than a larger group could ever be.” (67)
“Welcome to the age of leverage. Bottom-up is a really bad way to think about it because there is no bottom.” (75)
Easiest: react. Next easiest: respond. Hardest: initiate. Sometimes it makes more sense to follow. If so, get out of the way and follow.
At first, the new thing will rarely be as good as the old thing. If the new thing has to be better from the beginning, you’ll never begin. Soon enough, the new thing will be better than the old. But if you wait until then, it will be too late. The music industry refused to understand this. Industries don’t die by surprise. It’s not as if you didn’t know it was coming. (95)
The key elements in creating a micromovement:
1. Publish a manifesto.
2. Make it easy for your followers to connect with you.
3. Make it easy for your followers to connect with one another.
4. Realize that money is not the point of a movement.
5. Track your progress publicly and create pathways for your followers to contribute to that progress. (103-04)
Principles:
1. Transparency really is your only option.
2. Your movement needs to be bigger than you.
3. Movements that grow, thrive.
4. Movements are made most clear when compared to the status quo or to movements that work to push the other direction.
5. Exclude outsiders.
6. Build up your followers instead of tearing others down. (104-05)
“Tribes are the most effective media channels ever, but they’re not for sale or for rent. Tribes don’t do what you want; they do what they want.” (107)
The transactional costs of tribes are falling fast while the costs of formal organizations keep increasing.
Initiative is an astonishingly successful tool because it’s rare. (112)
“I despair for most of the top fifty nonprofits in the United States. These are the big guys, and they’re stuck. …the top charities rarely change.” (115)
“The big win is in turning donors into patrons and activists and participants. The biggest donors are the ones who not only give, but also do the work. The ones who make the soup or feed the hungry or hang the art.” (116)
“The Internet allows some organizations to embrace long-distance involvement. It lets charities flip the funnel, not through some simple hand waving but by reorganizing around the idea of engagement online. This is the new leverage. It means opening yourself up to volunteers and encouraging them to network, to connect with one another, and yes, even to mutiny. It means giving every one of your professionals a blog and the freedom to use it. It means mixing it up with volunteers so they have something truly at stake. This is understandably scary for many nonprofits, but I’m not so sure you have a choice.” (116)
“Growth doesn’t come from persuading the most loyal members of other tribes to join you. They will be the last to come around. Instead, you’ll find more fertile ground among seekers, among people who desire the feeling they get when they’re part of a vibrant, growing tribe, but who are still looking for that feeling.” (119)
There is a huge penalty for being too late.
Real leadership rarely comes from the CEO or senior VP. “Instead, it happens out of the corner of your eye, in a place you weren’t watching.” (122)
“Hope without a strategy doesn’t generate leadership. Leadership comes when your hope and your optimism are matched with a concrete vision of the future and a way to get there. People won’t follow you if they don’t believe you can get to where you say you’re going.” (122)
“Caring is the key emotion at the center of the Tribe. Tribe members care what happens, to their goals and to one another.” “If no one cares, then you have no tribe.” (125, 26)
“People what to be sure you heard what they said—they’re less focused on whether or not you do what they said.” (128)
“Tribes grow when people recruit other people. That’s how ideas spread as well. The tribe doesn’t do it for you, of course. They do it for each other. Leadership is the art of giving people a platform for spreading ideas that work.” (129)
“Part of leadership (a big part of it, actually) is the ability to stick with the dream for a long time.” (132)
“(Jerry) Sternin went to Vietnam to try to help starving children. Rather than importing tactics that he knew would work, or outside techniques that he was sure could make a difference, he sought out the few families who weren’t starving, the few moms who weren’t just getting by but were thriving. And then he made it easy for these mothers to share their insights with the rest of the group. This seems obvious, but it’s heretical. The idea that an aid worker would go to a village in trouble and not try to stamp out nonstandard behavior is crazy. ‘The traditional model for social and organization change doesn’t work, he told Fast Company. ‘It never has. You can’t bring permanent solutions in from outside.’” (133)
www.davidmays.org
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Deer Attacks Redneck...
Dealing with Idolatry to Avoid God: Part 1
In G.K. Beale's landmark book on idolatry, We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry, he boldly yet conventionally claims that we become what we worship, either for ruin or restoration. In his own words, "We resemble what we revere for our ruin or restoration." One could summarize this statement by stating that God judges those that run after other gods by making them resemble what they run after. He offers an audio sermon here of the content of his book.
His strategy is to pull allusive material in the Bible together in an intertextual convergence that sheds clarity on the greater idea taking place in the text. His main text, Isaiah 6:19-13 reads,
9 He said, "Go and tell this people:
" 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.'
10 Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed."
11 Then I said, "For how long, O Lord?"
And he answered:
"Until the cities lie ruined
and without inhabitant,
until the houses are left deserted
and the fields ruined and ravaged,
12 until the LORD has sent everyone far away
and the land is utterly forsaken.
13 And though a tenth remains in the land,
it will again be laid waste.
But as the terebinth and oak
leave stumps when they are cut down,
so the holy seed will be the stump in the land."
which is an allusion apparently to this passage in Psalms focusing on verse 8 as the grounds for his statement and the widely held belief that "we become what we worship"...
but to your name be the glory,
because of your love and faithfulness.
2 Why do the nations say,
"Where is their God?"
3 Our God is in heaven;
he does whatever pleases him.
4 But their idols are silver and gold,
made by the hands of men.
5 They have mouths, but cannot speak,
eyes, but they cannot see;
6 they have ears, but cannot hear,
noses, but they cannot smell;
7 they have hands, but cannot feel,
feet, but they cannot walk;
nor can they utter a sound with their throats.
8 Those who make them will be like them,
and so will all who trust in them.
Seems bullet-proof. Not so convincing though if we look at the nature of idolatry, its definition and what it means to worship an idol. Are we really worshiping the idol, ascribing worth and value to it instead of to God? Tim Keller takes a stab at this in his latest book, Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the Only Hope that Matters and explains it succinctly in this video.
The pervasive understanding of idolatry seems to be more of a smoke screen for a much deeper problem that is rarely addressed. Dealing with "idols" is ultimately only a step to the real problem and not necessarily an end in itself. If we become what we worship, the questions I have are,
1. Is it a one way process?
2. Do we become only that which we worship?
2. Do we become what we worship or do we worship what we are becoming?
3. Is addressing idolatry, the "end" or a smoke screen for true our avoidance of God?
These and more questions will be dealt with in a following post.
His strategy is to pull allusive material in the Bible together in an intertextual convergence that sheds clarity on the greater idea taking place in the text. His main text, Isaiah 6:19-13 reads,
9 He said, "Go and tell this people:
" 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.'
10 Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed."
11 Then I said, "For how long, O Lord?"
And he answered:
"Until the cities lie ruined
and without inhabitant,
until the houses are left deserted
and the fields ruined and ravaged,
12 until the LORD has sent everyone far away
and the land is utterly forsaken.
13 And though a tenth remains in the land,
it will again be laid waste.
But as the terebinth and oak
leave stumps when they are cut down,
so the holy seed will be the stump in the land."
which is an allusion apparently to this passage in Psalms focusing on verse 8 as the grounds for his statement and the widely held belief that "we become what we worship"...
Psalm 115
1 Not to us, O LORD, not to usbut to your name be the glory,
because of your love and faithfulness.
2 Why do the nations say,
"Where is their God?"
3 Our God is in heaven;
he does whatever pleases him.
4 But their idols are silver and gold,
made by the hands of men.
5 They have mouths, but cannot speak,
eyes, but they cannot see;
6 they have ears, but cannot hear,
noses, but they cannot smell;
7 they have hands, but cannot feel,
feet, but they cannot walk;
nor can they utter a sound with their throats.
8 Those who make them will be like them,
and so will all who trust in them.
Seems bullet-proof. Not so convincing though if we look at the nature of idolatry, its definition and what it means to worship an idol. Are we really worshiping the idol, ascribing worth and value to it instead of to God? Tim Keller takes a stab at this in his latest book, Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the Only Hope that Matters and explains it succinctly in this video.
The pervasive understanding of idolatry seems to be more of a smoke screen for a much deeper problem that is rarely addressed. Dealing with "idols" is ultimately only a step to the real problem and not necessarily an end in itself. If we become what we worship, the questions I have are,
1. Is it a one way process?
2. Do we become only that which we worship?
2. Do we become what we worship or do we worship what we are becoming?
3. Is addressing idolatry, the "end" or a smoke screen for true our avoidance of God?
These and more questions will be dealt with in a following post.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Prosperity Dating and Christian Culture BS
Ok. This may seem harsh, but this instructional dating video made me cringe and laugh about the same amount. After attending a fairly conservative Bible college in my early 20's, I heard this kind of talking all the time. But there are so many loopholes. It can help some and that's good, but again, there are so many loophole in this kind of thinking.
What about the pressure to be the Proverbs 31 woman. A female professor at my conservative Bible School commented to me once, "Proverbs 31 woman is too hard. It's too much to live up to. Forget it." She was joking but also serious. The Proverbs 31 woman may not be what we expect it to be - it has been proposed to be an attempt by the compiler of the proverbs as an esteeming of the role of women in society. Wisdom was the ultimate virtue/characteristic/goal to have in the life of any ANE person but because the ANE was a predominantly patriarchal society, women weren't esteemed in light of the Wisdom traditions. So shen wisdom is personified as a woman early on in Proverbs, it then moves to chapter 31 where wisdom, again personified as a woman, is doing things that men usually did in that society. Then wisdom is perceived as being an egalitarian virtue that is bestowed upon all, male and female. This chapter could actually be a subversive case for the egalitarian evaluation of women in ANE society - a careful move forward for them. The woman is expected to play a role in society that is both fitted to her feminine and maternal role but also on par with the dealings and international business transactions that generally only men dealt in.
The irony in the video is that though the instruction is to focus on God and not focus on the "man of God" - everything she says and gives instructions for is ultimately based on focusing on "the man of God" and making sure you do the right things so that God will bless. There is a high degree of moralism and Cause/Effect spirituality being taught here. Some of the conventional "wisdom" is not wrong necessarily but the entire presentation is basically, "If you do the right things, the right things will happen to you and you'll get what you want." Prosperity Dating anyone?
There are plenty of people who will give accounts where that wasn't what happened. There are those who waited for the perfect person and "true love waits" promises. Now, their sex life is in disrepair or they eventually got divorced or they can talk a good talk but their ability to be honest with themselves is diminishing daily because they can't keep the facade and reality glued together anymore. This girl's line of thinking is quite dangerous, superficial and extremely self-righteous. Where is the topic of brokenness, forgiveness and the desire to love the bad as much as the good. What about the commitment to be honest about your past issues that will continue to plague aspects of your marriage? The greater one's expectations, the greater the fall when they are not met. This kind of let down, disappointment or disaster can actually end marriages, or end the intimacy because one partner is not getting what they "deserve" based upon their "list" or "godly expectations." Love is something so different from that, something so much more real and visceral and kind. That's the kind of relationship advice that I would like to hear given to young people and will give. There is so much pressure to perform in this video.
Regardless, I have a ton of problems with this line of thinking and propogating a culture of perfection and unrealistic expectations. Why not have high expectations? There is a difference between having standards, growing in maturity vs. having high expectations.
Many college students are looking to their mate to play a role in their life that their father or mother have played historically. The girls in the situation seem to want a "spiritual leader" to make up for their lack of their own commitment to grow up and take responsibility for their own relationship to God. A relationship with the Creator is a rich experience to share together as partners not an expectation to receive from one's spouse.
Many young guys are just figuring life out when they get married. The point isn't to look for someone who "is" a spiritual leader, but someone who wants to grow spiritually and shows signs of a desire to know God on their own. This fellow will probably still screw up and at times royally and maybe continuously, so we need to understand that he isn't a spiritual leader, he is a follower of Christ just like the girl. He needs space to grow just like the girls do. Over time, he will learn what it means to be spiritually sensitive, responsible, gracious, patient, etc... and so will the girl, but to expect him to achieve something on her behalf like "spiritual leadership" prior to marriage sounds more like shifting responsibility for one's own insecurities in their relationship with God.
Either way, the hope that is based in a human relationship should never be placed in the salvific, righteous or messianic characteristics of the individual one is desiring to marry. That is something to look for only in God. Let them be who they are and if that isn't good enough to be around, then maybe you're not the right person for them rather than vice versa. If who they actually are isn't good enough or who you think they should be isn't there yet but could be, then just stay away. You need time to figure out what it means to live in the reality of a broken world for a bit more and they need some that will love them as they are.
The other side of this is that there are some real scumbags out there - but generally - if your eyes are open, they are not that hard to spot.
Loneliness and the desire to be married are strong forces in our culture. How one goes about dealing with those forces in your own life is a difficult path to walk. Advice is the plenty but here goes a bit more. Don't short-change yourself but also don't short-change what it means to be human, a broken and redeemed human. We don't deserve grace and we don't deserve love, we just long for them but they don't come exclusive of each other when they arrive. When and if a list is made, make sure you put somewhere on there, that you want to love them and give them grace like you want to be loved and be given grace and have been loved and given grace by God. That should help to create and filter the great characteristics that you're looking for. One more item - if the majority of your list is made up of moral qualities rather than hobbies, dreams, personality traits and shared experiences, then you're probably not going to satisfy that list very easily. Let that person live, let them breathe and make space for them to be themselves on your list, and then look to enjoy who that person is, who they are becoming and who they will become as you share in that becoming with them. You'll enjoy life with them a lot more and be able to enjoy them a lot more.
WORLD CUP IS ON ITS WAY
After traveling back and forth between about 5 different countries during the 2006 FIFA World Cup, I was able to see the frenzy that it creates. From the UK to Malaysia, to being onboard a 50 + nation international ship, I got to see a lot of response to World Cup action. It's almost like the Olympics. The number of people that are involved globally is staggering. It's truly an international event...
Friday, May 21, 2010
A lament without hope
Sit in my seat of scoffery
and wear my harlot's heart
on your shoulder as you laugh at me
to play the mockers part
I tried so hard to not be
the fool proverbially
The path to her apartment
was just so damn ea-sy
I lick the dust from my teeth
as I lay at your feet
grasping for the moment
when dust before was sweet
You say we see the same sun
I only see the grave's won
You say we see the same moon
but I see only the night's gloom
You say we see the same blue sky
but I can't look up
I can't even cry
When you shook the dust from your feet
was I on your good way
When you shook the dust from your feet
did I get in the way
When you shook the dust from your feet
then went so far away
Do I ever cross your mind?
Do I ever cross your mind?
-Nathan S.
and wear my harlot's heart
on your shoulder as you laugh at me
to play the mockers part
I tried so hard to not be
the fool proverbially
The path to her apartment
was just so damn ea-sy
I lick the dust from my teeth
as I lay at your feet
grasping for the moment
when dust before was sweet
You say we see the same sun
I only see the grave's won
You say we see the same moon
but I see only the night's gloom
You say we see the same blue sky
but I can't look up
I can't even cry
When you shook the dust from your feet
was I on your good way
When you shook the dust from your feet
did I get in the way
When you shook the dust from your feet
then went so far away
Do I ever cross your mind?
Do I ever cross your mind?
-Nathan S.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Crusades for Christ
This interview with Rodney Stark is great for an insight into the fallacies of blaming so much of the Islamic Extremism that we see today on the Crusades. Rodney's interview gives an overview of the Crusades that reflects a more balanced opinion. In one lecture I heard that the Crusades aren't the motivation for much of the Islamic Extremism that we see today because it has more to do with Colonialism and Post-Colonialism. That is as good a reason as any. Very little is written about the detriment of the Crusades for Islamic peoples until the 20th century - the same era of colonialism and post-colonialism. Interesting read! It makes me fear what I've said and will say about "history."
Crusades for Christ
Crusades for Christ
Great Quote by Woodrow Wilson
"If you want to make enemies, try to change something." ~ Woodrow Wilson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)