Posts
· 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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment