Posts
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)
Thursday, October 21, 2010
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?
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!
#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?
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
