Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Don't Look Back #dmingml

Just finished reading this inspiring and informative book about David & Carol Bussau, written by Philipa Tyndale.

David was an orphan, became a successful businessman, only to divest himself of his wealth and become a champion of the poor.

As a result of David's efforts in social entrepreneurship and micro finance, he came to co-found Opportunity International. He also represented Australia at Ernst & Young's World Entrepreneur of the Year Awards in 2003.

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Here are my top 10 picks from the books I read this year #dmingml

1. Counterfeit gods, Timothy Keller

2. The Speed of Trust, Stephen Covey

3. Derailed, Tim Irwin

4. The Prodigal God, Timothy Keller

5. The Long Road to Freedom, Nelson Mandela

6. Priceless, Tom Davis

7. Left to Tell: Discovering God amidst the Rwandan Holocaust, Immaculee Iiibagiza

8. Amazing Dad: Letters from William Wilberforce to his children, Stephanie Byrd

9. Leadership and the New Science, Margaret J. Wheatley

10. To Change the World, James Davidson Hunter

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Is it time for the church to have a huge garage sale? Read my review on Phyllis Tickle's "The Great Emergence"

The Great Emergence
Phyllis Tickle, #dmingml

  Coming from a large family with six children, it was highly probably that one of us had an affinity for garage sales. Calling either my brother or sister and letting them know that there was a huge garage sale in the area with great bargains typically resulted in an immediate, “I’m coming now!” Some people always seem to be on the lookout for a bargain: It doesn’t matter if they need the item or not, it’s a bargain!

Similarly, having recently relocated the family from Colorado, U.S to Melbourne, Australia, we went through a massive cleanout and hosted a garage sale for the neighborhood and our friends. The actual sale was relatively painless. Determining what things to keep and what to sell or give away, required some serious thinking about whether or not we needed it, was it redundant, would we be better buying something that had superseded it, did it have sentimental value, and could we possibly sell something that cost us so much to begin with?

In her book, The Great Emergence, Phyllis Tickle presents to readers a view of history that they have unlikely had before. Rather than focusing on single, major events, she focuses on 500-year terms as cultural snapshots where she claims all of the events, intellectual debates, evolving scientific discoveries culminate in such a way where the Church is forced to have a huge rummage sale. Consequently, the Church is confronted with the need to ask of itself some serious questions: Are we still relevant? Has this practice become redundant? Do we still need this? Is there a better way to function? Are we presenting the gospel and living it in a way that is challenging and relevant all at the same time? What should be unique and distinctive about the Church? Is it time to change the way we do church to reach people with the gospel, and so on? Not by any stretch of the imagination does Tickle downplay the significance of such questions, but equally as much, she does not attempt to find potential solutions to the problems she identifies.

Rather, Tickle creates a construct or framework that shows periods of historical upheavals and their relationship to the church and how over time this created pressure on the Church to adapt and find more meaningful ways in which to engage the culture. The immediate challenge she proposes is, that the church currently finds itself in another 500-year period where change is imminent. What is not clear from Tickle, is how the Church should change, and how will that change be facilitated.

While I didn’t particularly find Tickle’s construct of “500 years” to be terribly profound or helpful, it does encourage the reader to engage history and understand how the Church responded to various crises (or not), and carefully consider how the Church might respond to present day challenges.  The “500 years” construct also came across to me as a little simplistic and taken too far would likely result in us missing how God was at work outside of the construct, and during the in between times. Given that her construct is built around key historical events, there are many years that fall between the cracks of when one 500-year period finished and a new one began.

In the first scenario I opened this blog with, I wrote about my siblings’ positive response that a garage sale was to going to be held. In this case, they would be the recipients.
Today, the Church is going through a social upheaval where it is arguable that for many churches the focus is not adequately centered on the needs of the recipient and their ability to engage those needs, but instead on their own insecurities and concerns about maintaining denominational integrity.

The second scenario at the beginning focused on my wife and I needing to determine what we needed to keep and what we wanted to sell. The emphasis is on us as the host. They were questions we asked of ourselves. Similarly, the Church must ask of itself some important questions. Is there in fact a way to engage the culture without compromising its integrity and commitment to biblical doctrine? What are some of the denominational practices we are holding onto for dear life because we fear by letting them go, we will lose our distinctiveness, or worse, lose worshippers who routinely turn up each week? Given my reading of the gospels, I am of the opinion that Jesus would not hesitate to leave the ninety-nine worshippers for the one that is lost, and he would choose to invite those who would not be found in a church to eat with him, rather than attend a party sponsored by the Pharisees.

One certain truth that Tickle highlights is that change is ever present, and for the Church to remain static and unresponsive to those changes will result in irrelevance and ineffectiveness in fulfilling the mission that Christ gave to his disciples and to us. We may as well just shout from the rooftops that God is dead!

Monday, December 6, 2010

Key things I have learned from my first DMin semester at GFU. An incredible journey of discovery and intrigue!

·     Perspectives on Changing the World

Hunter’s essays challenged me about some long held assumptions regarding how I am to act as an agent of change and some of the more traditional ways that Christians typically believe they have open to them as they seek to change the world. Made increasingly difficult by the fact that we live in a diverse society where there is no one, dominant, culture, what has emerged is that God has become far less obvious than he once was. Sadly, by pursuing some of the more traditional and stereotypical channels to influence culture (e.g. politics) Christians have had limited success, thereby reinforcing negative attitudes towards Christians that have alienated them from places within our culture where they could have a stronger and more transformational influence.
I would like to have explored at a deeper level, what practicing the faithful presence of Christ could look like in a number of different leadership contexts we are either working in or pursuing. Personally, and corporately, this could be very insightful.

·     Absence of women in Missiology reflections

I thoroughly enjoyed the presentation and interaction with Dr. Cathy Ross, Director of Training and Lecturer in Mission & World Christianity, London School of Theology. I had never previously thought about the absence of women in most discussions, reading and research about missions, and yet, as Cathy revealed, to do so leaves out key characteristics of Jesus’ ministry expressed in hospitality, service and relationship. Her focus was not so much egalitarianism, as much as recognition that women complete a greater, fuller, more meaningful picture of missions, and what it should and can be.
Given that this is a sensitive issue in Christendom and secular organizations alike, it would be helpful to explore not merely the role of gender in global missional leadership, but also look at how attitudes towards this are changing and what can be done to facilitate discussion and healthy change further in this area. Introducing the concept of gender in my dissertation topic on cross-cultural leadership would be interesting, but unfortunately, I need to narrow my focus not pursue other interesting tangents. Intriguing nonetheless.

  ·     Theology of Hierarchy

I found it interesting that the different perspectives and undergirding assumptions on leadership we have considered via Hunter, Heath & Potter, Bebbington, and Wheatley, have each led us to the position that we do not really have a healthy view or theology of hierarchy that is universally accepted. We explored the impact and role of class, authority and influence in the context of leading and managing change. There is no doubt that the example of Jesus provides us with a bit of a conundrum in that he surrendered the power and status of his divinity that was rightfully his and subjected it to the authority of men. In so doing, Jesus totally confounded the wise of this world. He did not act in accordance to the stereotypes they had become familiar with as portrayed through the elite – the hypocritical religious leaders who burdened people with unscriptural rules rather than setting them free, and the powerful Roman rulers who loved to oppress and enslave the free. In Wheatley’s treatment of leadership and the new science, I began to see that certain hierarchies create organizations with structures that prevent growth, limit ideas and control the flow of information in and out of the organization. Current organizational and leadership processes are often evaluated in the context of an existing rigid leadership structure that do not allow new meaningful processes to be created because they are bound within the same structure that the old ones existed in.
I need some more time to reflect on this in the context of my dissertation topic on cross-cultural leadership and what traits are transferable across cultures. While I have come to the position that leadership behaviors are imminently grounded in the virtues that a leader might have, the creation of those virtues and adherence to them appear to be motivated by a set of core beliefs or worldview. I am wondering if this might be analogous to Wheatley’s hypothesis that we sometimes are unable to see the whole because of our tendency to focus on the parts. The inverse may also be true. We broadly define leadership without understanding the interconnectedness of the parts – the core beliefs, the virtues, the behaviors and ultimately their effectiveness in driving results.
Some questions I have about this include – Is it possible for a biblical view of hierarchy to become universally accepted? What might prevent this from happening? Most leadership books focus on structure rather than process, and behavioral traits rather than the virtues they are grounded in, and how are they different? I will be focusing on this in my dissertation topic.

#dmingml

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Memo to Leaders: It¹s Time to Find a New Beach

This is the second review of a two-part series analyzing Margaret J. Wheatley's excellent and thought-provoking book, ‘Leadership and the New Science’ as part of my DMin (Global Missional Leadership) with George Fox University.

  The daily news is filled with powerful changes, and many of us feel buffeted by forces we cannot control… I listened one night to a radio interview with a geologist whose specialty was beaches and shorelines. The interview was being conducted as a huge hurricane was pounding the Outer Banks of the eastern United States… The interviewer asked: “What do you expect to find when you go out there?” Like the interviewer, I assumed he would present a litany of disasters – demolished homes, felled trees, eroded shoreline. But he surprised me. “I expect,” he said calmly, “to find a new beach.”

  Throughout her book, and indeed with this remarkable story, Wheatley continues to push the reader beyond the realm of accepting that we merely live in a rapidly changing world from a fatalistic position, and that somehow we must try and manage this by seeking some mystical balance that will bring peace, harmony and balance. Instead, she presents the perspective that says a life that is immune from chaos, disorder, disturbance and disequilibrium, does not allow us to be recipients of new information that has the potential to foster growth and new life, thereby leaving us empty and one step closer to death.

  Wheatley challenges our pursuit of balance where we largely seek to minimize change, claiming that equilibrium has become a prized goal in adult life. Why is this she asks? Is change so fearsome that we’ll do anything to avoid it? By pursuing such a state, it would appear that we have no energy to respond to change and no capacity to grow. How so, you might ask?  In classical thermodynamics, equilibrium is the end state in the evolution of closed systems, the point at which the system has exhausted all of its capacity for change, done its work, and dissipated its productive capacity into useless entropy [“Entropy” = A gradual decline into disorder] (p.76).

  There are many concepts that Wheatley explores in great depth as she takes us on a journey of discovery in relation to managing change and the potential growth that can come from processing new information and the new relationships that might result from them: Our reactions to change or lack of responsiveness, and the fact that there are many times where we have become so fixated on the one factor that is pressuring change or the factor that is itself under pressure to change, that we miss the whole. We don’t see a new beach. Instead, we expect to see in some self-fulfilling way a disastrous or unwanted result where we can see no benefit beyond the immediate chaos and confusion we currently find ourselves in.

  I love beaches! White sand, the peaceful lapping of waves, a crystal blue sky, a hot sun, interspersed with the rhythm of reading a gripping novel and cooling off with an invigorating swim. Is it always like this? No. I also enjoy hearing the sound of waves crashing onto the shore, the wind furiously whipping through the air and blowing the spray from the waves into the air, watching storm clouds develop and the bursts of thunder as it gets closer. But what is it that I really like? Is it the sand? The waves? The wind? No. It is none of these, but all of them. It is not the parts, but the whole.

  Whether we experience tragedy and chaos as a person or we find ourselves in a larger organizational context where change is occurring or imminent, it appears we can choose how we process change, what we want to learn as we change from one state to another, and sometimes even understand (but not always) why change is necessary. Human nature, Wheatley would argue, would also want to over analyze every component that has changed or changing, and totally miss seeing how they are each interconnected – the whole system. We move deeper into the details and farther away from learning how to comprehend the system in its wholeness.

There are many organizations and churches today in crisis. Not because they lack the resources or potential to change, but because they have become wearied by the energy it takes to preserve itself in that state, that they lack the ability and capacity to look beyond the storm to the new beach.

  As a leader I pray for vision to see more than I can with my eyes, and to hear more than I can with my ears. I pray that my heart will have the capacity to change and not be afraid of what it cannot yet feel. I pray that my mind will not be comfortable with merely acquiring information, but pursue wisdom that brings insight and understanding.

#dmingml

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Here is my review of Wheatley's new leadership paradigm for discovering order in a chaotic world

In one of the most fascinating and intriguing books I have read for a long time, I am thoroughly enjoying Margaret Wheatley’s book, “Leadership & the New Science”.

Quite simply, but respectfully, she challenges our simple and entrenched notions of how organizations work and function. Pushing us beyond Sir Isaac Newton’s mechanistic theories, she forces us to take a deeper dive into the ocean of systems, where we are forced to think more about the relationship of how things work together in a symbiotic and complimentary manner, and that the nature of these relationships rarely remain static or constant.

Sir Isaac Newton and machine imagery leads us to study parts as the key to understanding the whole. New science tends to have a more holistic focus that looks at systems and how things within that system relate to each other. Even in the context of human health, the body is viewed more as an integrated system rather than as a collection of discrete parts. A mechanical worldview tends to concentrate on the ‘what’, and ‘how’, not so much the ‘why.’ However, Wheatley impressively takes us on a journey that goes deeper than merely looking at how structures work and how they can be applied in an organizational and human context. Pushing away all preconceived notions and assumptions that sit at the basis of organizational structures (i.e. to create order), Wheatley leaves us questioning the value of disorder and chaos: Not as you and I would typically view disorder and chaos, as being disruptive and unwanted, but rather that it has significant value in creating new order because the old order can no longer be sustained. She cites the work of Nobel Peace prizewinner, Ilya Prigogine in chemistry, where he discovered that the dissipative activity of loss was necessary to create new order (“Dissipative Structures Theory”). Basically, Prigogine was saying that when anything disturbs the system, it plays a crucial role in helping it self-organize into a new form of order. He calls this one of life’s paradoxes.

Wheatley explores this further, by saying those new conditions, and indeed anything that unsettles a system’s equilibrium; there is an opportunity to awaken creativity and a new resolution. Historically, we have tended to believe that all disorder was the absence of the natural state of order, and that chaos and normal were two separate states. However, in the context of where paradox is considered to be a distinguishing feature, we can see that disorder can incorporate a dance – of chaos and order, of change and stability. “Neither one is primary; but both are absolutely necessary.”

Exploring this theory in the context of desiring order in organizations, we come to see that we have focused more on rigid structures than fluid processes that inject creativity into the ebb and flow of chaos as it pushes up against a set order. There is no doubt that at times our rigid structures do not neatly wrap themselves around the circumstances in which we find ourselves, and that our commitment to a mechanistic worldview may prevent us from exploring alternate ways to look at things as we appreciate them in a broader systemic way, rather than discrete parts that bump up against each other randomly.

The concept that jumps out at me from Wheatley’s analysis of systems and structures, is her view that we should not run from chaos or seek to overturn it in order to find a form of organizational utopia, but rather appreciate and encourage constant interchanges between chaos and order to bring about new orders. Wheatley of course, is not proposing that we seek chaos and disorder so that we might find order, but that in the context of a world that always changing, we would embrace the conflict and seek a new order, rather than revert to an old order that can no longer be maintained in the light of new circumstances.

This certainly has ramifications for the way organizations are structured and operate, as organizations often lack the kind of faith that can accomplish purposes in a variety of ways. Once again, Wheatley is not suggesting that structure is unimportant. She does, however, believe very strongly that blind adherence to any one particular structure may in fact prevent growth, impede development and ultimately lead to organizational atrophy and ineffectiveness. Structures are time-limited and certainly not infinite. Structures should not be built to eliminate disorder and chaos, but instead create an environment where chaos and change are foundational to finding a new order to help the organization move forward and sustain itself in a world that has changed and will continue to.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Retreat from yesterday or advance to tomorrow?

We all know times when it is easier to retreat to the safety of a cave, but after too long it’s no longer healthy. It prevents us from experiencing the power of God in our lives in ways we could never imagine. Check out this link - http://www.marketplaceleaders.org/blog/coming-out-of-the-stronghold/

Monday, November 15, 2010

Read my review of Joseph Nye on Global Power Shifts. It's time to write a new narrative about power.

Joseph Nye on Global Power Shifts, Ted.com
Nov 15, 2010
#dmingml

  Historian and diplomat, Joseph Nye seeks to provide a 30,000-foot view of the shifts in power between China and the U.S, and how power moves around the globe. Nye recently pioneered the theory of Soft Power. His notion of "smart power" became popular with the use of this phrase by members of the Clinton administration, and more recently the Obama Administration. Nye is currently Professor of International Relations at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and serves as a Guiding Coalition member for the Project on National Security Reform. The 2008 TRIP survey of 1700 international relations scholars ranked him as the sixth most influential scholar of the past twenty years, and the most influential on American foreign policy.

  Nye provides a high level view of power in the 21st Century and how there exist two primary types of changes. The first he describes as Power Transition. Literally, how it transfers from one state to another state, from West to East). The second change he calls Power Diffusion. Simply, how power is moving among all states, to non-state actors on the world stage, not merely from one player to another.

  He debunks the common theory today that there is a key power transition from the U.S. to Asia, and that instead of referring to this phenomena as “The Rise of Asia,” it really should be viewed as the “Recovery or Return of Asia.” For example, in 1800, more than half of the world’s population lived in Asia and produced more than half of its products. In 1900, more than half of the world’s population still lived in Asia, but it only produced about 1/5 of its products. The Industrial Revolution was behind this significant change. Europe and America became the dominant economic center of the world. It is projected that in the 21st Century, there will be a return to Asia producing more than ½ of the world’s products.

  Nye describes the second change in power as Power Diffusion. This largely centers around the removal of traditional restrictions. For example, computing and communications costs have fallen 1,000-fold between 1970 and the beginning of the 21st Century. While these may appear to be abstract number, if the same change had occurred in relation to automobiles, then you would be able to purchase a car today for around $5. Traditionally, you needed to be wealthy. Today, you need to be connected and have access to networks and the flow of information. There are many more actors today who have this capability and the stage has become crowded. Influence and power have become diffused.

  Nye claims that that we are not thinking innovatively enough about this diffusion of power and how it can effect better outcomes globally. As he pursues this argument, he proposes that whereas traditional power focused on coercion (“sticks”) and payment (“carrots”), it is time to think more innovatively about getting others to want what you want. He introduces a new term to describe this as Soft Power. By utilizing Soft Power, the world can save a lot of “sticks” and “carrots”. He proposes that the way this is done is to focus our efforts around creating a new narrative. It is not about whose army wins, but whose story wins.

  Nye talks about the need to change the narrative away from the rise and fall of countries (the rise of China and the fall of the U.S.) as these metaphors are often very misleading. They are based on projections about the transition of power that find support in simple and inadequate, measures. For example, history is not linear. There are many variables and cycles that interrupt a linear projection of what might be said to be the rise or fall of a nation. The size of an economy is also important. However, although it is projected that China will have a larger economy than the U.S. in 2027, the per capita measure clearly favors the U.S. and overlooks some of the huge development deficiencies that exist in China. Nye also believes it is important not to ignore the fact that there are Asian countries who will want an American insurance policy against the potential dominance of China in Asia as well as other regions of the world.

  Referencing the Peloponnesian War (431-404 A.D.) where the rise and power of Athens created fear in Sparta, and where the European state system and centrality of Europe was caused by the rise and power of Germany and the fear it created in Britain, Nye believes that the greatest danger that exists in the world today, is speculating about what a shift in power to the East will do, leading to the creation and generation of fear. To avoid this, he advocates that Soft Power needs to become more critical than military and economic. Through organizing networks and building collaborative alliances it is important to recognize that power need not be a zero sum game. We need to get away from “I win, you lose.” We need to mix Soft Power with Hard Power (economic, military) to create Smart Power. To achieve this, Nye states that we must develop a new narrative for Smart Power where in collaboration, countries can begin to produce global, public goods or win/win outcomes. This requires that countries define their interests first and become transparent with their desired outcomes.

  This was a fascinating argument presented by Joseph Nye about global power shifts. In particular, the concept that stood out for me was the notion that a new narrative or story about how power should be defined needs to be created and intentionally exercised by the leaders of nations. As Nye stated, it is not so much about whose army wins, but whose story wins. Although this may sound a little naïve or unrealistic, I do think Nye could have taken this one step further by speaking not only to changing the narrative, but how that narrative could be developed, reinforced and communicated widely with the use of today’s computing and communications capabilities.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Read my review on 'A Perspective on Forming Leaders from Lausanne 2010 by Rev. Dr. Solomon Nkesiag from Uganda

I must admit, I wrestled with Rev. Dr. Nkesiag’s paper on forming leaders. To be fair, he started off by acknowledging that there are many different perspectives on approaching the subject “The qualities of a leader”, and that he was going to come at it from a different direction: and he did.

  The basic premise of his paper is that “If you win at the individual and private levels, chances are that you might be a productive leader in public as well.” In essence you are a leader, if you become ‘a leader of self.’ Nkesiag goes on to say that leaders have a tendency to pop up in the public, when in reality they have been significantly shaped by their early childhood experiences over a period of years. He cites Mandela, Museveni and Obama as examples and introduces the notion that by the time Jesus Christ reaches adulthood, he was clearly focused on the purpose of his life and that this resulted from his formative years as a child transitioning into adulthood. He was a leader because he was already ‘a leader of self’ during his childhood.

  I agree with Nkesiag that today’s successful leaders are typically those who are aware of lessons learned and challenges overcome during their childhood, notwithstanding that we will adopt a broad definition of the word “successful, rather than be distracted by how differently this can be defined by culture, industry sector, available resources, and specific circumstances. However, I believe Nkesiag takes the ‘leader of self’ notion too far.

  As flawed as they might be, there are indeed successful leaders who have not succeeded as private individuals. They have not necessarily been effective leaders of self, but have been highly successful in managing their leadership image or brand, and may even have achieved legitimate success. Many of us however, could draw on examples from history and from our own personal experience that reveal significant dissonance between the success a leader might be experiencing in a particular area in contrast to every other dimension of his life. There are church leaders we have held in high regard because they grew the size of their church exponentially, only to learn that simultaneously they were having a marital affair. We esteem driven CEOs who overcame tremendous odds that resulted in overwhelming profits, but who on the same journey left their family in tatters. We know of ministry leaders that are evidently gifted, but they mistreat people and leave bodies scattered everywhere. I could go on: Not to be judgmental or critical of leaders, but to recognize that there are ‘successful’ leaders who indeed are not, and never have been leaders of self. Fortunately, for every leader who has not been a leader of self, there are great examples of leaders who are effective leaders of self.

  I do like the way that Nkesiag defines “vision” as discovering my purpose in creation. And while I agree with this, a biblical view of “vision” doesn’t merely result from a better understanding of ‘self’, as much as responding to the revelation that God has a purpose for your life that he has redeemed you for.

Thank you to Rev. Dr. Nkesiag for helping me to wrestle with this important topic on forming leaders.

** This review by Glenn Williams was an assignment in connection with his DMin in Global Missional Leadership, through George Fox University (#dmingml #capetown2010)

We Have a Problem! But there is Hope! Results of a Survey of 1,000 Christian Leaders Across the Globe #dmingml #capetown2010

We Have a Problem! But there is Hope! Results of a Survey of 1,000 Christian Leaders Across the Globe

Author: Jane Overstreet for The Lausanne Leadership Development Working Group
Category: Forming Leaders

  This review by Glenn Williams was an assignment in connection with his DMin in Global Missional Leadership, through George Fox University
#dmingml
#capetown2010

  ----

  Let me such say from the outset, how refreshing it was to see that this paper was based on responses from 1,037 participants representing seven continents in five languages, rather than merely based on first-hand observations and set of assumptions adhered to by the author. For this reason, I was extremely interested in what was shared.

  By way of overview, I have bulleted the key points and added my comments under each one –

  ·      We have a leadership problem that is inhibiting effective evangelization, specifically leadership succession issues
It seems that no matter which direction one looks, there is a leadership vacuum, whether that is in a ministry, not-for-profit or commercial context. Although culture and geography certainly will impact the nature and severity of a leadership problem, there is no single culture inoculated from ineffective leadership – West or East. The inability of current leaders to see beyond their own respective leadership terms prevents them from establishing a clear leadership succession plan. Other problems that contribute to this include – 1) Pride and the inability to give up power 2) Lack of skills to identify and develop existing and emerging leaders and 3) Lack of understanding regarding what leadership model or paradigm could be explored further for application to a given culture and set of challenges. Certainly, while these issues exist, it becomes more cumbersome to appoint the right leaders and see subsequent generations of leaders build on the work completed by their predecessors

·      Top five pressing issues were – 1) Personal Pride 2) Lack of Integrity 3) Spiritual Warfare 4) Corruption and 5) Lack of infrastructure. The French group listed “poverty” as their #1 issue
It is interesting that #1-4 have more to do with the leader as a person. Some would argue that I have misplaced #4 (Spiritual Warfare), however, it is closely linked to the spiritual maturity and prayer life of the leader. A Christian leader cannot afford to ignore spiritual realities by depending more heavily on other personal qualities and gifts.  Lack of infrastructure is also deeply impacted by #1-4. If others perceive there are pride, integrity, spiritual and corruption issues, then there is less likelihood for the leader to obtain the support and resources that others would otherwise be willing to make available.

·      Consensus on what Christ-centered leadership is, but many fall short. Many characteristics were agreed based on the reading of the gospels, but the top five characteristics of “Jesus style influence” were 1) Integrity 2) Authenticity 3) Character, 4) Servant’s Heart and 5) Humility
It seems we all are sensitive to the failures of others, especially when they directly impact us. I found it fascinating that there was consensus about what constituted Christ-centered leadership, and wide acknowledgement that we nearly all fall short of that, albeit in different ways. Having gone through seminary, studied to be a psychologist and worked in senior executive leadership positions for a global ministry, I must say there has been very little attention given to training and teaching potential leaders in the areas of integrity, authenticity, character, servanthood and humility. It seems we know what they are, but lack the ability to teach them or impart them to others. Perhaps it comes back to the old adage that, “values are caught, not taught.” We simply need more leaders to model for the next generation what Christ-centered leadership looks like. There is no doubt that this is not an event, but a journey.

  ·      There is much debate over what should be the primary content for developing leaders (differentiation between character qualities and knowledge). The top five needs for content centered on: 1) Mentoring/coaching/prayer 2) Personal Life of a Leader 3) People Management 4) Conflict Resolution and 5) Strategic Planning
I liked the way the paper sought to differentiate between knowledge and character. I think this was insightful. Although knowledge is certainly valuable in understanding what leadership qualities people are looking for, and what is necessary for effective leadership, the mere impartation of knowledge does not automatically transform itself into character per se. Again, it is a journey of spiritual discovery and maturity, not all of a sudden acquired in one single event. Naturally, any existing or emerging leader will benefit from the wisdom and maturity of having a mentor walk alongside, exploring and evaluating teachable moments as they arrive, sometimes very ingloriously and depised!

·      Respondents chose the following five most frequent causes of failure in Christian leaders from a list of ten: 1) Burn-out 2) Abuse of Power 3) Inappropriate use of finances 4) Inordinate Pride and 5) Lack of Growth in their Spiritual Life
Again, against this backdrop, the author highlights the complexity of how to best grow leaders. “Is it better time management, better delegation skills, a better theology about work, a better understanding of God, a better insight into one’s culture, a better self-concept, a better understanding of God’s love, or all of the above?”

  Through the responses of the survey participants, the author has raised relevant concerns about the need for Christ-centered leaders, the nature of leadership, the difference between developing character and imparting knowledge, and in the latter part of the paper identified key learning environments that may help towards this end.

  One thing is clear. There is a leadership vacuum. Who will stand up and model Christ-centered leadership to emerging leaders of subsequent generations? And organizationally, how much are willing to invest into this effort?

Saturday, October 16, 2010

I think Jesus would own a Mac, don't you?

Oct 16, 2010
#dmingml

In this post I review Part II of Rebel Sell: How the Counterculture Became Consumer Culture. For those of you following my posts, last week I concluded my review of Part I with the question, would Jesus identify more with mainstream society, the counterculture movement, or neither? Thanks to those who shared their thoughts. I have been asked, who do I think Jesus would identify with the most?

  This is an interesting question. I do think Jesus was countercultural, for reasons that he continually challenged mainstream thinking about consumerism and materialism and challenged people to think carefully about where their treasure was stored as it was often a reflection of their hearts. He revealed the hypocrisy of present day institutions and the abuse of power. He certainly did not exclude the religious leaders of the day who he saw as placing greater burdens upon the people of the day that had nothing to do with God and were not founded in scripture. Surprising to some, was the power of transformation that occurred in people’s lives as a result of either his intervention or spontaneous interactions. It could be argued that although he sought reform, he did not impose this upon people in a coercive manner. The example of Jesus and Zaccheus the tax collector demonstrates this well. There is no record of Jesus telling Zaccheus what he should do. He merely modeled grace and mercy and invited himself to dinner that ended up having a profound impact on Zaccheus’ life. The result? Zaccheus turning his life around and giving back more money than he had taken from people from the abuse of the power he had exercised.

  However, although I believe Jesus was countercultural, I don’t think he went to the extreme of what some would today. He did not try to alienate himself from mainstream, although he was certainly different. The gospels clearly indicate that he was deeply involved in the lives of people – he ate with them, he journeyed with them from town to town, he fished with them, he went to weddings and funerals (although it seemed they didn’t remain funerals for long when he was present J), he went to the synagogue with them, he attended parties, obviously drank the occasional glass or pitcher of wine, and he was clearly attached to a strong family and network of disciples. Although many wrestled with his teachings, both rich and poor were clearly comfortable being around him and vice versa. Even though he loved the outdoors, I’m sure that like me, if he were physically living on earth today, he would definitely be a Mac user!

  All this to say: I believe Jesus was both countercultural and mainstream, but at a point where they both intersected. Jesus, as the incarnate God, became flesh to dwell among us so that we wouldn’t see him as some aloof and impersonal god, or one that only came for a segment of our culture. He came for all, that all might be saved. To achieve this, his countercultural views might have offended many from mainstream society, but they were not presented in such a way that prevented many from seeing the wisdom of his words and the fruitlessness of relentlessly pursuing status, possessions and wealth. In some ways, this reinforces for us the views presented by Hunter, in his book, To Change the World, where he claims believers are more likely to have far greater impact if they could merely practice the faithful presence of God within their own respective spheres of influence.

  Anyway, forgive my little digression, although it does help to lay a foundation for what I am about to delve deeper into.
A quick recap: Although there are multiple viewpoints held by those who prescribe to the countercultural movement, at its core, it is the belief that consumerism delivers a system of rigid conformity that define our individual identities (p. 187). The consumer can disrupt the system by refusing to shop where he has been told to – the birth of the rebel consumer. This rebellion finds expression in being alternative, cool, more hip, and different. Although, as Heath & Potter (Authors of Rebel Sell), they have merely created additional market segments for consumers.

Ranging from a range of attitudes, countercultural proponents saw themselves as being the opposite to the consumerists of the day. They fought against consuming products that would limit their freedoms and self-expression. They were wary not of a few institutions, but of all institutions. Institutions represented oppression: Coercing people to behave, live and consume in such a way that the mainstream illusion could be maintained. They shared the idea that all social injustice is based upon repressive conformity. Many solutions have been pursued by the countercultural movement as a way of rebelling against the system held together by consumerism. Unfortunately, as Heath & Potter reveal, their attempts have been largely unsuccessful. For example, the countercultural claimed that uniforms and uniformity of dress inevitably leads to a uniformity of mind; if you are conforming to the dictates of others, then you are conforming to an externally determined way of being (p. 167). However, getting rid of uniforms led to rampant consumerism. Another example, Feminists quickly saw that without appropriate social norms, ‘Free love’ opened the door to the sexual exploitation of women. What was discovered in creating a new social order with its own system of punishment and reward was that individual incentives did not always align with the common good (p.78).

Heath & Potter explain how advertisers and marketers go to great lengths in promoting their goods to society, while at the same time ensuring that potential consumers understand what benefits can be derived from those purchases, and how some consumers have transitioned from status-seeking to Coolhunting! (p. 193), with cool, being one of the major factors driving the modern economy. Kalle Lasn goes as far as suggesting that cool is a form of branded conformity, the opiate of the contemporary masses (p. 195).

  Describing how the early American class system was rooted in the bourgeois values of material wealth, productive work, social stability and respectability, and changed to where possession and accumulation of wealth resulted in respect and esteem, Heath & Potter follow an historical timeline showing how attitudes have changed. The emergence of the Bohemian ethic challenged the bourgeois value system. It was hedonistic, individualistic and sensual. It valued experience, exploration and self-expression and opposed conformity, directly contrasting with hard work, wealth, and the significance of institutions (p. 201). When the baby boomers graduated and moved into positions of authority with their hippie value system, trading their “bongs for Beemers”, the counterculture’s values couldn’t be sustained. At the very least, they could no longer be described as authentic. The boomer bobos (or bourgeois bohemians) also emerged. They became know as the ‘creative class’ –

  “A group who became “prosperous without seeming greedy; they have pleased their elders without seeming conformist; they have risen to the top without too obviously looking down on those below; they have achieved success without committing certain socially sanctioned affronts to the ideal of social equality; they have constructed a prosperous lifestyle while avoiding the old clichés of conspicuous consumption.” (p. 203)

  Prosperity has changed so that power is increasingly wielded not by the bourgeois, but by the cool, bohemian types. However, this new value system also drives consumerism. They just consume differently.

  While Heath & Potter have provide an excellent review of the countercultural movement and claim that their rebellion against consumerism has been largely unsuccessful, I feel they offered very little substance to dealing with the challenges of a consumer culture. Although in my view they fell short of upholding the legitimacy of a consumer culture, they did advocate the need to recognize some of the strengths of mass society, economies of scale, and the need for conformity and a system of cooperation. They did however, caution that this does not necessarily have to occur at the expense of individualism, unless it is secured at the expense of another.

In closing, I found myself resonating with Heath & Potter, that as we become increasingly alienated from each other and from the social practices that are supposed to give weight and meaning to social existence, we are forced to look elsewhere in search of the real (p. 275). This is reminiscent of the present-day challenge for the Church.

Coming back to my theory that Jesus was both countercultural and mainstream, I don’t think we can opt out of the culture of consumerism. We can however, reflect on our attitudes towards it, and be more thoughtful about what it is we need to consume, and whether or not what we consume has indeed been produced at the expense and abuse of another. The problem is our values have become so enmeshed with the values of a consumer culture that there is no longer any distinctiveness.

Although we are all uniquely created and gifted differently, this is not the same as accepting that our individuality cannot be adequately expressed in the context of community and serving the needs of others around us. We must choose to opt out of individualism, not individuality.

And then finally, we need to recognize that God is indeed a creative God, while yet being committed to social order. Social order is not reinforced by coercion, but choice. He asks individuals to voluntarily commit to belong to a community where a relationship with him is central to that community. The alternative is buying into an eternal system of oppression!

Friday, October 8, 2010

#dmingml I found myself asking which group would Jesus identify more with? Mainstream, counterculture, or neither?

Oct 8
#dmingml

I found it interesting transitioning from reading James Hunter’s, To Change the World to a book called, The Rebel Sell, by Joseph Heath & Andrew Potter.

  Hunter reviews and then in essence challenges pre-conceived assumptions by Christians about how best they can change the world, what has worked, and what hasn’t, before proposing that if Christian’s truly want to change the world, they must start with themselves and practice the faithful presence of God in their own spheres of influence. For more on this, you can read my earlier reviews on Hunter’s first and second essays.

  In Rebel Sell, Heath & Potter review and challenge a more secular perspective on changing the world by adopting a “countercultural” approach. Simply, this is based on the notion that by rebelling against the system or “jamming the culture”, then the system won’t win. What this amounts to, is that anything alternative, more hip, distinctive, rebellious, is going to challenge the consumer capitalism found predominantly in western society. This creates a cultural conflict between members of the counterculture and the defenders of the establishment. Heath & Potter argue however, that, “Decades of countercultural rebellion have failed to change anything because the theory of society on which the countercultural idea rests is false.”

Rather than change mainstream culture or the system through traditional political activism, members of the counterculture have instead sought to rebel against it in a different way. By being distinct, there was the belief that they would not be controlled by the system, and that through their alternative lifestyle they would challenge mainstream society to wake up or look for opportunities to “unplug them” from their consumerist capitalism. This evolved into an attitude, that if you want to be authentic, you have to be unpopular or distinct. Referencing movies such as The Matrix, Fight Club and other French Philosophers, Heath & Potter attribute this philosophy to the work of Guy Debord back in the 1960’s. His thesis was simple.

  The world that we live in is not real. Consumer capitalism has taken every authentic human experience, transformed it into a commodity and then sold it back to us through advertising and mass media (p. 7)

In analyzing these perspectives about our world, I believe we come face to face with two biblical concepts that should be mentioned. The first one relates to the conflict that exists between our sinful, human nature and God’s desire to defeat the presence of sin in our lives and to see us wholly transformed into the likeness of Christ. However, God’s desire for us is constantly at odds with our own ability to rationalize and redefine sin to fit in with our own situations. Where is the conflict? God has given us the power of choice. We have the ability to measure our responses to any given opportunity or situation. As Heath & Potter point out, being countercultural leads people to discover their “own sources of pleasure, independent of the needs that are imposed upon us by the system.” Inevitably, this leads to individualism and selfishness.

  The second biblical concept revolves around the culture into which we are born and the tension that exists between the world’s values (“mainstream”) and biblical values (for which an argument could be made that these are “countercultural”). Historically, while many have sought to become isolated from the world, we simply cannot entirely avoid it. We are faced daily with choices to make about how we live in it, and how we allow it to influence the choices we are faced with. Although there is the risk that those who rebel against mainstream by adopting a countercultural stance may sometimes lead to hedonistic or individualistic decisions that can harm others, there is the reality that they have failed to recognize their ineffectiveness in challenging consumerism. Heath & Potter state clearly that those who sought to rebel or jam the system have merely created a new form of consumerism where in their quest for ongoing distinction, it has led to the creation of new market segments. Be that as it may, from my perspective, at least there exists skepticism about mainstream society and its unrelenting pursuit of consumerism.  This group appears to acknowledge that there exists among people a blind allegiance to the belief that we are all just part of a system. Jesus was acutely aware of the implications of such an allegiance –

  What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man exchange for his soul?

(Matthew 16:26)

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth…. For where your treasure is, there you heart will be also.

(Matthew 6:19-21)


These two biblical concepts highlight the tension that Heath & Potter draw out in the battle between those who seek to challenge the mainstream illusion by being countercultural, but in effect do not succeed against it, because they merely replicate consumerism and individualism, albeit grounded from a different philosophy.

  Unfortunately, I’m not sure that Heath & Potter really present any other solution to this, certainly not in the first half of the book. Are we all just prisoners of a system until we are ready to be set free? In the Matrix, Morpheus’ words to Neo, although somewhat fatalistic, hold an element of truth to Christians, that people are not always ready to be unplugged from something that they have become heavily dependent upon, including consumerism. –

  The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

I think we all want to think that there is a little bit of rebel in us and that a true commitment to Christ should be somewhat countercultural. From this perspective, it was very challenging. I found myself asking which group would Jesus identify more with? Mainstream, counterculture, or neither?

  What do you think?

#dmingml A Review of the Power of Networks

Oct 3, 2010
#dmingml

Power of Networks by Political Scientist, James H. Fowler

Can your social network make you fat? Affect your mood? Political scientist James H. Fowler reveals the dynamics of social networks, the invisible webs that connect each of us to the other. With Nicholas A. Christakis, Fowler recently coauthored, Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives.

  By way of introduction Fowler takes an historical look at the importance of our social networks prior to the Internet revolution, and their complex connections: How we choose our friends, whether to become a friend to someone or not, whether to date someone or not, choosing to marry someone or not, etc. We make choices every day about complex networks as they connect to us directly and indirectly as our network becomes connected to networks of our friends, their friends and other causes we become interested in.

  He explores some of the rules we follow that determine our social network. The first rule is that we each shape our own social network. We decide who to bring into our network or who to exclude, and whether or not we are willing to allow others to have access to our network.

  The second rule is, that our networks shape us. For example, in the context of trying to find Mr. or Mrs. Right, where do we start? How many dates do I go on? Where do I find those dates? Our network sometimes expanded to include our friends and their immediate networks can be used to bring these dates to us through a series of direct relationships and vast networks. Recent research indicates that approximately 2 out of 3 meet each other from within three degrees of separation.

  One thing is clear: that mutual friends, spouses and siblings have the greatest and sustainable influence in our lives in respect to our lifestyle choices. Surprisingly, the influence of our immediate neighbors was insignificant. The bottom line is, “every friend makes you happier and healthier.”

  The third rule is, friends affect us and influence us if we want to make positive lifestyle choices. Geographic distance and contact frequency were not significant variables, rather the importance of having the ability to transmit important messages that strengthen social connections. Our network of friends, and their network, and their network influences lifestyle choices in relation to obesity, smoking, drinking, happiness, loneliness, depression, altruism, piano teacher referrals, etc. Why? Primarily because there appears to be an evolutionary purpose – social networks are in our nature!
Not unexpectedly, our Facebook friends do not make a difference, unless they are part of our close social network. In this category, it is these relationships that matter the most.

  Fowler & Christakis are now conducting further research with a view to identifying online interventions in relation to lifestyle choices and improving health through the management of online social networks. There is an opportunity to utilize these social networks to not only take care of ourselves, but also to influence positive outcomes for our friends and their families, and their friends and families, and so on.
Analyzing some of Fowler & Christakis’ work through the lens of Hunter’s, To Change the World, there is no doubt there exist opportunities for individual’s to influence behavioral outcomes of their social network, and vice versa. The nature of that influence, whether positive or negative, will be determined by the choices each individual makes in regards to how their social network is managed, maintained and/or expanded, and more specifically who is allowed to join and participate within that network.

  If the nature of social networks is largely determined by individual’s selecting similar individuals, then there also exists the potential for these networks to reinforce destructive or unhealthy patterns of thinking and behavior. On a positive note, by expanding one’s social network and giving access to that network to the friends of a friend and their networks, there is also the opportunity for these networks to take on the shape of a community that seeks the welfare of everyone within that community, therefore giving power to individuals within that network to influence change for that community, and to expand the influence of that community to an even wider network of social relationships.

  I imagine Hunter might also raise a concern that a lot of power is being given to an organization (or institution) that is responsible for providing a framework in which social networks are maintained and developed in the online environment. The institution sets the parameters for these social interactions and influences how information can be shared, how much can be shared within the network and how much can be relayed effectively to the additional networks. The Christian Right would be concerned that there is no ability to control and censor content that is being shared, and therefore, opposing ideologies and ideas that have the potential to undermine a Christian Worldview could emerge and influence social networks in ways that the church currently does not leverage (Defensive Against). The Christian Left is more likely to utilize online social networks as a tool for educating and mobilizing communities of people with a cause focused on reducing poverty and attacking the fundamental structures of society that reinforce poverty and class (Relevance To). Whereas, I think the The Neo-Anabaptist who are focused on trying to extricate themselves from the contaminating forces of the world, would tend to be wary of a tool that has so much power for good and for evil (Purity From). They are faced with the conflict of using a tool for good that some use for evil.

  Hunter would conclude that in the context of our social networks – online or in person – we have the ability to meaningfully engage with our sphere of influence in a way where we can practice the faithful presence of God by how we interact and speak to the truth of God’s words and how they in turn can speak powerfully to the realities of the world in which we live, and the world in which our friends live in. I can envisage that the primary concern Hunter would express about social networks in the context of the digital and online world, is the inordinate amount of power given to organizations and institutions who can afford to control and leverage the enormous potential of the tools available – for good or bad.

#dmingml The Power of Social Networks

A review from a video available on www.poptech.org
Oct 2, 2010, #dmingml

Can your social network make you fat? Affect your mood? Political scientist James H. Fowler reveals the dynamics of social networks, the invisible webs that connect each of us to the other. With Nicholas A. Christakis, Fowler recently coauthored, Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives.

  By way of introduction Fowler takes an historical look at the importance of our social networks prior to the Internet revolution, and their complex connections: How we choose our friends, whether to become a friend to someone or not, whether to date someone or not, choosing to marry someone or not, etc. We make choices every day about complex networks as they connect to us directly and indirectly as our network becomes connected to networks of our friends, their friends and other causes we become interested in.

  He explores some of the rules we follow that determine our social network. The first rule is that we each shape our own social network. We decide who to bring into our network or who to exclude, and whether or not we are willing to allow others to have access to our network.

  The second rule is, that our networks shape us. For example, in the context of trying to find Mr. or Mrs. Right, where do we start? How many dates do I go on? Where do I find those dates? Our network sometimes expanded to include our friends and their immediate networks can be used to bring these dates to us through a series of direct relationships and vast networks. Recent research indicates that approximately 2 out of 3 meet each other from within three degrees of separation.

  One thing is clear: that mutual friends, spouses and siblings have the greatest and sustainable influence in our lives in respect to our lifestyle choices. Surprisingly, the influence of our immediate neighbors was insignificant. The bottom line is, “every friend makes you happier and healthier.”

  The third rule is, friends affect us and influence us if we want to make positive lifestyle choices. Geographic distance and contact frequency were not significant variables, rather the importance of having the ability to transmit important messages that strengthen social connections. Our network of friends, and their network, and their network influences lifestyle choices in relation to obesity, smoking, drinking, happiness, loneliness, depression, altruism, piano teacher referrals, etc. Why? Primarily because there appears to be an evolutionary purpose – social networks are in our nature!
Not unexpectedly, our Facebook friends do not make a difference, unless they are part of our close social network. In this category, it is these relationships that matter the most.

  Fowler & Christakis are now conducting further research with a view to identifying online interventions in relation to lifestyle choices and improving health through the management of online social networks. There is an opportunity to utilize these social networks to not only take care of ourselves, but also to influence positive outcomes for our friends and their families, and their friends and families, and so on.

Analyzing some of Fowler & Christakis’ work through the lens of Hunter’s, To Change the World, there is no doubt there exist opportunities for individual’s to influence behavioral outcomes of their social network, and vice versa. The nature of that influence, whether positive or negative, will be determined by the choices each individual makes in regards to how their social network is managed, maintained and/or expanded, and more specifically who is allowed to join and participate within that network.

  If the nature of social networks is largely determined by individual’s selecting similar individuals, then there also exists the potential for these networks to reinforce destructive or unhealthy patterns of thinking and behavior. On a positive note, by expanding one’s social network and giving access to that network to the friends of a friend and their networks, there is also the opportunity for these networks to take on the shape of a community that seeks the welfare of everyone within that community, therefore giving power to individuals within that network to influence change for that community, and to expand the influence of that community to an even wider network of social relationships.

  I imagine Hunter might also raise a concern that a lot of power is being given to an organization (or institution) that is responsible for providing a framework in which social networks are maintained and developed in the online environment. The institution sets the parameters for these social interactions and influences how information can be shared, how much can be shared within the network and how much can be relayed effectively to the additional networks. The Christian Right would be concerned that there is no ability to control and censor content that is being shared, and therefore, opposing ideologies and ideas that have the potential to undermine a Christian Worldview could emerge and influence social networks in ways that the church currently does not leverage (Defensive Against). The Christian Left is more likely to utilize online social networks as a tool for educating and mobilizing communities of people with a cause focused on reducing poverty and attacking the fundamental structures of society that reinforce poverty and class (Relevance To). Whereas, I think the The Neo-Anabaptist who want to extricate themselves from the contaminating forces of the world, would tend to be wary of a tool that has so much power for good and for evil (Purity From).

  I think Hunter would conclude that in the context of our social networks – online or in person – we have the ability to meaningfully engage with our sphere of influence in a way where we can practice the faithful presence of God by how we interact and speak to the truth of God’s words and how they in turn can speak powerfully to the realities of the world in which we live, and the world in which our friends live in.

#dmingml If All Previous Attempts Have Failed to Change the World, Is There a Better Way?

Reposted from Oct 3, 2010
#dmingml

Well, we have come to Hunter’s third essay in his book, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, & Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World.”

  In the first two essays, Hunter has tried to analyze how various groups within the Christian community have sought to change the world (assuming that this is a worthy, biblical objective) and the strategies they have deployed, including how they have either succeeded or failed, and indeed how success is defined by these groups. Hunter throws down the gauntlet so to speak, in asking whether or not Christians as individuals can change the culture, or if this can only be achieved by influencing change through the power wielded by institutions? Hunter specifically looks at the attempts of the Christian Right, The Christian Left, and the Neo-Anabaptists in their attempts to enforce and influence change. There is no doubt that all three are sincere in their desire to see the world changed, but their methodology and underlying assumptions about what that should look like are very different.

  Hunter finally has an opportunity in the third essay to introduce a new paradigm that will result in cultural change.

  Before we look at this new paradigm, it is important to understand why Hunter believes it is important, beyond what he has explained as the inadequacy of previous models. He proposes that there are three primary challenges that must urge us forward to find an alternative to previously unsuccessful models: He looks at the challenge of pluralism (there exists no, one, dominant culture), the challenge of difference (God is less obvious today than previously), and the challenge of dissolution (in essence, there are no fixed points of reference, and the words that we use today simply fail to have the same kind of traction they once did).

  The fact that we live in a diverse society where there is no one, dominant, culture, what has emerged is that God has become far less obvious than he once was. At a time when there is an overwhelming distrust of leaders and institutions, we have the challenge of proposing that Jesus in the context of the institutional church or Body of Christ is authentically God, desires for the creation mandate to be fulfilled through each of us, and that his words and promises can be trusted. I found it surprising that Hunter spent little time analyzing this in any greater depth. For example, there is no doubt that in the time into which Jesus was born, it was also a culturally rich and diverse society, and one where there existed a distrustful and skeptical relationship with Roman rule. The Jewish establishment was given freedom to practice their religion under the authority of Caesar, while at the same time despising Roman rule and their immoral activities. It could be argued that they tolerated Roman rule merely because they were able to maintain their religious activities and festivals while holding onto their status and positions of privilege. The scene was set for Jesus to enter. As we now know, many missed seeing Jesus the Messiah because they were hoping for a political deliverer, much the same, that many today believe that if we conquer today’s governments and institutions of power we can enforce a set of principles that will make society function better. One cannot help but think that if this is the model that Jesus wanted, he was capable of implementing it himself. Instead, in the context of a culturally rich and pluralistic world where there was hatred and distrust of Roman rule, coupled with the overt hypocrisy of the Jewish establishment, Hunter would argue, that Jesus lived a life that exuded the presence of God.

  In the light of the three challenges presented by Hunter, he evaluates three paradigms of engagement. The first he calls, Defensive Against. This is where mainstream evangelicals seek to retain and defend the “distinctiveness of Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy within the larger world.” This has a strong defensive posture. The second is called, Relevance To. A priority is given to being “connected to the issues of the day.” Finding its roots initially in theological liberalism, it has found expression in the “seeker-church” movement. Rather than focusing on distinctiveness, it downplays differences. The third paradigm Hunter calls, Purity From. In essence, this perspective tends to see the world in its fallen, sinful state and largely irredeemable. Given that the church has also been compromised by its complicity in the world’s sinfulness, then it is up to the true church “to extricate itself from the contaminating forces of the world.” This paradigm tends to be embraced more by the Neo-Anabaptists.

  Having argued the need for an alternative paradigm for how Christians should engage the world, Hunter proposes that what is needed today is a call to practicing the “faithful presence of God.” Although a little anticlimactic, Hunter’s proposal is profound and simple. In essence, his theology of faithful presence is based on human flourishing in the context of being incarnational - or living out God's word and love in our day-to-day existence. For the Christian, “if there is a possibility for human flourishing in a world such as ours, it begins when God’s word of love becomes flesh in us, is embodied in us, is enacted through us and in doing so, a trust is forged between the word spoken and the reality to which it speaks; to the words we speak and the realities to which we, the church, point.” (p. 241). In other words, our lives ought to be characterized predominantly by how they interact and speak to the truth of God’s words and how they in turn speak to the realities of the world in which we live. All else is secondary or at the very least, subservient to the goal of knowing Christ and allowing him to pursue us and changing us. It would be remiss of us to suggest that this can happen in isolation from our world or where our distinctiveness is such that it removes from us the ability to engage the needs of people around us, or where we become absorbed by the culture. We are simply called to be “faithfully present within it.” Hunter concludes that this is no better expressed than in the book of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 29:4-7), where the Jewish people are living in exile, away from their homeland,

  4 This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5 "Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. 6 Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. 7 Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper."

#dmingml Could Moving Towards a Post-Political Position Better Equip Christians to Change the Culture?

Reposted from Sept 22, 2010
#dmingml

In Hunter’s second essay titled, Rethinking Power (To Change the World), he reviews Christian history in the context of how Christians and the institutional church have used its power to transform culture. However, one of the biggest hurdles for believers to address and to overcome is the politicization of faith, where faith has become so enmeshed with politics as a way to find solutions to public problems that it has actually distorted the role of faith in society. Slowly, often imperceptively, there has been a turn toward the law and politics as the primary way of understanding all aspects of collective life (p.108). In Hunter’s view, this would apply to faith also.

  On the surface this may appear to be somewhat benign, but in essence what this means is that faith in society is now also viewed primarily through the lenses of law and politics. To counter this, there are those who would argue then, that for faith to have the power to change culture, it cannot be divorced from law and politics, but rather must engage them for leveraging purposes and even seek to change them so that biblical faith can take a more preeminent role is shaping culture. From this perspective, it becomes easier to understand why there are great sensitivities around the dual roles of politics and faith, and how they should or should not be entwined.

  Hunter looks at three specific groups of Christianity and describes how they have used power as a means to change culture or alternatively, not be influenced by it. The three groups are The Christian Right, The Christian Left and the Neo-Anabaptists. Before we briefly review these three groups, I believe it is important to understand that Hunter has taken a decidedly Western view of this, and that these three groups would not necessarily be reflected in all cultures. In fact, there is every probability that there are numerous variations of these groups where degrees of difference between them become somewhat ambiguous and difficult to define. In other words, applying only these three groups to our understanding of how Christian groups operate outside of the Western world may be far too simplistic.

  The Christian Right believes that the founding political documents reflected a profoundly Christian worldview, and that therefore, this once again should be at the foundation of culture reflected through our schools, hospitals, charity, laws, and so on. Anything that opposes this view is seen to be at odds with a Christian worldview, or even worse, at war with it: Thus someone coined the term, the culture wars. The conclusion is unavoidable: “nothing short of a great Civil War of values rages today throughout North America. Two sides with vastly differing and incompatible worldviews are locked in bitter conflict that permeates every level of society.”p.119 (Dobson and Bauer, Children at Risk). This has led to a desire by the Christian Right for dominance or controlling influence in American politics and culture (p.124).

  On the Left (Hunter describes them as politically progressive Christians, p.132), there exists a tension between two groups – the communitarian wing and the social libertarian wing. Individuals in the social libertarian group believe that every individual should have the autonomy and freedom to choose one’s own lifestyle. The Christian Left, tend to focus on the communitarian wing i.e. where liberty is understood more as liberation from poverty, usually caused by economic domination. They condemn the wealthy for their abuse of the poor, weak and marginalized. One of the criticisms of the Christian Left is that they have an extremely narrow focus that concentrates its efforts around the class warfare it believes is raging in our society and where the battle has shifted from a war on poverty to a war on the poor (p.138). The Christian Right however, appears to have virtually no interest in trying to challenge the powerful structures that maintain poverty in our culture. Hunter quotes Tom Sine as saying, “The pro-family folks need a wake-up call. The real threat to our Christian families isn’t some sinister elite living in Washington D.C. The real threat is Christian families unquestioningly buying into the secular aspirations and addictions of the American dream.” (p. 141). To the younger generation of believers this conflict and ‘abuse of power and irresponsibility’ leads many to abandon the institutional church.

  Like the Christian Left, The Neo-Anabaptists share a common dislike for the human and environmental consequences of an unrestrained market economy (p.150). It is different however in that its views play out more in theology and intellectual apologetics rather than in practice. Whereas the Christian Left are committed to a strong State to see its agenda realized in law and policy, the Ana-Baptists desire to keep their distance from the State, maintaining distrust towards their structure, action and use of power. The Neo-Anabaptists believe that the best way for the church to engage the culture is recognize the messianic identity and mission of Jesus. What does this look like? It is rejecting the temptation to use force or coercion and model an alternative relationship with the powers of the day. Their view is that if Jesus has “overcome the world” and has authority over “principalities and powers” then believers should simply ‘be’ the church, knowing and expecting that “it will suffer the condescension and hostility of the world for its social and political nonconformity.” (p. 158). In essence, the Anabaptists “accept powerlessness.” They view the politics of the Christian Right and the Christian Left as inappropriate intervention against the dominant powers of the State, rejecting the example set by Jesus and the way he chose to live in the context of Jewish Law under Roman Rule.

  If the public witness of the church is wrapped up in its political identity, reducing the Christian faith to a political ideology (at least in the West), then how do we move to a post-political witness in the world? This is the question that Hunter asks, and explores even deeper in his third essay that we will look at next week. Fundamentally though, because the Church is made up of individuals and communities, it collectively possesses power in the world. How can this power be used constructively? Hunter suggests that there are two things that must be done before this question can be addressed. Firstly, to disentangle the life and identity of the church from the life and identity of American society (p.184), and secondly, to decouple the “public” from the “political.” Politics is simply incapable of addressing every public issue.

  I must admit that Hunter’s essay on Rethinking Power has been both challenging and stimulating. After working with Focus on the Family (Dr. James Dobson was the Founder) for 17 years, the first 10 years outside of the U.S, I found it even more interesting reflecting on the emerging conflicts that arose from staff in their desire to be effective Christian witnesses to a new generation that is largely biblically illiterate, and how their views represented a sprinkling from the Christian Right, the Christian Left, and the Neo Anabaptists as described by Hunter. Without wanting to pre-empt Hunter’s conclusion in his Third Essay, perhaps rather than move to a centrist position, we can extract biblical characteristics from all three groups and coin a term to represent them…not Right or Left or Neo. How about simply, Christian? There’s a thought!

Is it Possible for Christians to Change the Culture?

This has been re-posted from Sept 17, 2010
#dmingml

To Change the World by James Davison Hunter is the first major text my friends are I are analyzing as part of a Doctor in Ministry on Global Missional Leadership through George Fox University. If you want to follow the dialog you can go to the following link  www.dmingml.com.

For the past few days I thought I had been interacting with others about their own reflections on Hunter’s work, as well as posting some of my own thoughts, only to discover that these had somewhere been chewed up in cyberspace. Fortunately, you can visit the link above and quickly realize that a very intelligent, inquisitive dialog has been going on without me and indeed appears not to have missed me at all! :)

Not to diminish some of the exhaustive work that Hunter has captured in his book, in essence, he is asking the question of how do Christians live our their faith in the culture in which they are engaged?

He assumes firstly that Christians want to engage the culture, and in fact, desire to change it, and goes on to critique a number of traditional models to which Christians subscribe to that measure the degree to which they believe Christians should engage the culture, and the nature of that engagement. This is quite a fascinating analysis, and one that is quite provocative. For me, one of the most critical questions that Hunter raises is on p.6, “To understand how to change the world, one must begin with an understanding of what needs to be changed. In short, everything hinges on how we understand the nature of culture.”

He proposes that for one major group, namely ‘evangelicals’, that their understanding of culture has more to do with the values/morals that individuals hold dear to themselves and the belief that if they could just convince everyone else how important those values are, then the culture would change to reflect those values and that would result in victory! Consequently, he believes that evangelicals tend to be more focused on the strategy of evangelizing individuals who in turn will evangelize others ultimately leading to a ‘majority rules’ perspective that places them in a position of influence and power to protect and change the culture. Although I believe Hunter doesn’t have a higher enough view of the role of evangelism in bringing about cultural transformation, I tend to cringe at the prospect that all Christians have to do is ‘win’ people over, ‘win’ enough people, and then through the power of that group enforce their values and try to impose them upon others – usually, the political process is chosen as the primary vehicle to achieve this end.

There are many examples throughout history where the Church has become implicated in these political processes which has led to non-believers becoming confused, angry and resentful. Sadly, many believers have also become disenfranchised by the Church because of this and left the Church, further weakening the transformational capability of the Church in communities around the world. The irony in this is, that this was not the strategy deployed by Jesus. Although Jesus was intentional about the way he engaged individuals and sought to point them to God, it was clear that he did not seek to ‘win’ them all one by one until he had an army that was capable of enforcing the values he espoused. In fact, he frequently steered away from confronting the powerful political and religious institutions of the day that potentially had the power to reinforce what Jesus preached and lived.

It appears to me that Hunter flounders a little at this point. He clearly believes that Christians are incapable of ushering in substantial cultural change unless it has the support of the elites or powerful institutions. While Jesus is a central figure in the world’s history and a ‘game-changer’ and understood the significance of his historical role in God’s wider purposes, Hunter believes that many Christians are naïve (almost arrogant) in seeking to change culture because they assume they understand exactly what God wants to change in the culture, and how he wants to do that through them. While each of us could recall examples that would support his case, equally, there are many examples when cultural transformation has been initiated because of one individual listening to the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, I found Hunter’s treatment of the reality and role of the Holy Spirit lacking.

I do however, accept Hunter’s proposition, that it is the responsibility of every believer to practice the faithful presence of Christ. How this plays out for individuals and institutions is still to be explored.

Sunday, October 3, 2010

If All Previous Attempts Have Failed to Change the World, Is There a Better Way?

Well, we have come to Hunter’s third essay in his book, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, & Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World.”

  In the first two essays, Hunter has tried to analyze how various groups within the Christian community have sought to change the world (assuming that this is a worthy, biblical objective) and the strategies they have deployed, including how they have either succeeded or failed, and indeed how success is defined by these groups. Hunter throws down the gauntlet so to speak, in asking whether or not Christians as individuals can change the culture, or if this can only be achieved by influencing change through the power wielded by institutions? Hunter specifically looks at the attempts of the Christian Right, The Christian Left, and the Neo-Anabaptists in their attempts to enforce and influence change. There is no doubt that all three are sincere in their desire to see the world changed, but their methodology and underlying assumptions about what that should look like are very different.

  Hunter finally has an opportunity in the third essay to introduce a new paradigm that will result in cultural change.

  Before we look at this new paradigm, it is important to understand why Hunter believes it is important, beyond what he has explained as the inadequacy of previous models. He proposes that there are three primary challenges that must urge us forward to find an alternative to previously unsuccessful models: He looks at the challenge of pluralism (there exists no, one, dominant culture), the challenge of difference (God is less obvious today than previously), and the challenge of dissolution (in essence, there are no fixed points of reference, and the words that we use today simply fail to have the same kind of traction they once did).

  The fact that we live in a diverse society where there is no one, dominant, culture, what has emerged is that God has become far less obvious than he once was. At a time when there is an overwhelming distrust of leaders and institutions, we have the challenge of proposing that Jesus in the context of the institutional church or Body of Christ is authentically God, desires for the creation mandate to be fulfilled through each of us, and that his words and promises can be trusted. I found it surprising that Hunter spent little time analyzing this in any greater depth. For example, there is no doubt that in the time into which Jesus was born, it was also a culturally rich and diverse society, and one where there existed a distrustful and skeptical relationship with Roman rule. The Jewish establishment was given freedom to practice their religion under the authority of Caesar, while at the same time despising Roman rule and their immoral activities. It could be argued that they tolerated Roman rule merely because they were able to maintain their religious activities and festivals while holding onto their status and positions of privilege. The scene was set for Jesus to enter. As we now know, many missed seeing Jesus the Messiah because they were hoping for a political deliverer, much the same, that many today believe that if we conquer today’s governments and institutions of power we can enforce a set of principles that will make society function better. One cannot help but think that if this is the model that Jesus wanted, he was capable of implementing it himself. Instead, in the context of a culturally rich and pluralistic world where there was hatred and distrust of Roman rule, coupled with the overt hypocrisy of the Jewish establishment, Hunter would argue, that Jesus lived a life that exuded the presence of God.

  In the light of the three challenges presented by Hunter, he evaluates three paradigms of engagement. The first he calls, Defensive Against. This is where mainstream evangelicals seek to retain and defend the “distinctiveness of Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy within the larger world.” This has a strong defensive posture. The second is called, Relevance To. A priority is given to being “connected to the issues of the day.” Finding its roots initially in theological liberalism, it has found expression in the “seeker-church” movement. Rather than focusing on distinctiveness, it downplays differences. The third paradigm Hunter calls, Purity From. In essence, this perspective tends to see the world in its fallen, sinful state and largely irredeemable. Given that the church has also been compromised by its complicity in the world’s sinfulness, then it is up to the true church “to extricate itself from the contaminating forces of the world.” This paradigm tends to be embraced more by the Neo-Anabaptists.

  Having argued the need for an alternative paradigm for how Christians should engage the world, Hunter proposes that what is needed today is a call to practicing the “faithful presence of God.” Although a little anticlimactic, Hunter’s proposal is profound and simple. In essence, his theology of faithful presence is based on human flourishing in the context of being incarnational - or living out God's word and love in our day-to-day existence. For the Christian, “if there is a possibility for human flourishing in a world such as ours, it begins when God’s word of love becomes flesh in us, is embodied in us, is enacted through us and in doing so, a trust is forged between the word spoken and the reality to which it speaks; to the words we speak and the realities to which we, the church, point.” (p. 241). In other words, our lives ought to be characterized predominantly by how they interact and speak to the truth of God’s words and how they in turn speak to the realities of the world in which we live. All else is secondary or at the very least, subservient to the goal of knowing Christ and allowing him to pursue us and changing us. It would be remiss of us to suggest that this can happen in isolation from our world or where our distinctiveness is such that it removes from us the ability to engage the needs of people around us, or where we become absorbed by the culture. We are simply called to be “faithfully present within it.” Hunter concludes that this is no better expressed than in the book of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 29:4-7), where the Jewish people are living in exile, away from their homeland,

  4 This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5 "Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. 6 Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. 7 Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper."

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Could moving towards a post-political witness in the world exercise greater 'power' to change the culture?

In Hunter’s second essay titled, Rethinking Power (To Change the World), he reviews Christian history in the context of how Christians and the institutional church have used its power to transform culture. However, one of the biggest hurdles for believers to address and to overcome is the politicization of faith, where faith has become so enmeshed with politics as a way to find solutions to public problems that it has actually distorted the role of faith in society. Slowly, often imperceptively, there has been a turn toward the law and politics as the primary way of understanding all aspects of collective life (p.108). In Hunter’s view, this would apply to faith also.

  On the surface this may appear to be somewhat benign, but in essence what this means is that faith in society is now also viewed primarily through the lenses of law and politics. To counter this, there are those who would argue then, that for faith to have the power to change culture, it cannot be divorced from law and politics, but rather must engage them for leveraging purposes and even seek to change them so that biblical faith can take a more preeminent role is shaping culture. From this perspective, it becomes easier to understand why there are great sensitivities around the dual roles of politics and faith, and how they should or should not be entwined.

  Hunter looks at three specific groups of Christianity and describes how they have used power as a means to change culture or alternatively, not be influenced by it. The three groups are The Christian Right, The Christian Left and the Neo-Anabaptists. Before we briefly review these three groups, I believe it is important to understand that Hunter has taken a decidedly Western view of this, and that these three groups would not necessarily be reflected in all cultures. In fact, there is every probability that there are numerous variations of these groups where degrees of difference between them become somewhat ambiguous and difficult to define. In other words, applying only these three groups to our understanding of how Christian groups operate outside of the Western world may be far too simplistic.

  The Christian Right believes that the founding political documents reflected a profoundly Christian worldview, and that therefore, this once again should be at the foundation of culture reflected through our schools, hospitals, charity, laws, and so on. Anything that opposes this view is seen to be at odds with a Christian worldview, or even worse, at war with it: Thus someone coined the term, the culture wars. The conclusion is unavoidable: “nothing short of a great Civil War of values rages today throughout North America. Two sides with vastly differing and incompatible worldviews are locked in bitter conflict that permeates every level of society.”p.119 (Dobson and Bauer, Children at Risk). This has led to a desire by the Christian Right for dominance or controlling influence in American politics and culture (p.124).

  On the Left (Hunter describes them as politically progressive Christians, p.132), there exists a tension between two groups – the communitarian wing and the social libertarian wing. Individuals in the social libertarian group believe that every individual should have the autonomy and freedom to choose one’s own lifestyle. The Christian Left, tend to focus on the communitarian wing i.e. where liberty is understood more as liberation from poverty, usually caused by economic domination. They condemn the wealthy for their abuse of the poor, weak and marginalized. One of the criticisms of the Christian Left is that they have an extremely narrow focus that concentrates its efforts around the class warfare it believes is raging in our society and where the battle has shifted from a war on poverty to a war on the poor (p.138). The Christian Right however, appears to have virtually no interest in trying to challenge the powerful structures that maintain poverty in our culture. Hunter quotes Tom Sine as saying, “The pro-family folks need a wake-up call. The real threat to our Christian families isn’t some sinister elite living in Washington D.C. The real threat is Christian families unquestioningly buying into the secular aspirations and addictions of the American dream.” (p. 141). To the younger generation of believers this conflict and ‘abuse of power and irresponsibility’ leads many to abandon the institutional church.

  Like the Christian Left, The Neo-Anabaptists share a common dislike for the human and environmental consequences of an unrestrained market economy (p.150). It is different however in that its views play out more in theology and intellectual apologetics rather than in practice. Whereas the Christian Left are committed to a strong State to see its agenda realized in law and policy, the Ana-Baptists desire to keep their distance from the State, maintaining distrust towards their structure, action and use of power. The Neo-Anabaptists believe that the best way for the church to engage the culture is recognize the messianic identity and mission of Jesus. What does this look like? It is rejecting the temptation to use force or coercion and model an alternative relationship with the powers of the day. Their view is that if Jesus has “overcome the world” and has authority over “principalities and powers” then believers should simply ‘be’ the church, knowing and expecting that “it will suffer the condescension and hostility of the world for its social and political nonconformity.” (p. 158). In essence, the Anabaptists “accept powerlessness.” They view the politics of the Christian Right and the Christian Left as inappropriate intervention against the dominant powers of the State, rejecting the example set by Jesus and the way he chose to live in the context of Jewish Law under Roman Rule.

  If the public witness of the church is wrapped up in its political identity, reducing the Christian faith to a political ideology (at least in the West), then how do we move to a post-political witness in the world? This is the question that Hunter asks, and explores even deeper in his third essay that we will look at next week. Fundamentally though, because the Church is made up of individuals and communities, it collectively possesses power in the world. How can this power be used constructively? Hunter suggests that there are two things that must be done before this question can be addressed. Firstly, to disentangle the life and identity of the church from the life and identity of American society (p.184), and secondly, to decouple the “public” from the “political.” Politics is simply incapable of addressing every public issue.

  I must admit that Hunter’s essay on Rethinking Power has been both challenging and stimulating. After working with Focus on the Family (Dr. James Dobson was the Founder) for 17 years, the first 10 years outside of the U.S, I found it even more interesting reflecting on the emerging conflicts that arose from staff in their desire to be effective Christian witnesses to a new generation that is largely biblically illiterate, and how their views represented a sprinkling from the Christian Right, the Christian Left, and the Neo Anabaptists as described by Hunter. Without wanting to pre-empt Hunter’s conclusion in his Third Essay, perhaps rather than move to a centrist position, we can extract biblical characteristics from all three groups and coin a term to represent them…not Right or Left or Neo. How about simply, Christian? There’s a thought!