tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-97208052024-03-06T22:27:17.869-08:00History Repeats, Pendulums Swing, there has to be Another OptionIf you are reading this, PLEASE push against the thoughts presented! Disregard all social conventions and respond with whatever fills your stream-of-conscious. For I dread holding false notions developed in a vacuum of fear!?! Ask the king with invisible clothes!!
So think with me, if you please. Not just quoting or referencing . . . think out loud!!
[I reserve the right to completely disagree with myself both now and at a later date]David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.comBlogger173125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-13947979960363876312012-01-03T08:42:00.000-08:002012-01-03T08:42:03.341-08:00Scary how accurate this is for Pastors / Bad PastoringWas shown this article on <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/01/02/the-seven-habits-of-spectacularly-unsuccessful-executives/" target="_blank">bad habits of CEOs</a> in a NUMBER of contexts (Google+, in-house Yammer, etc.). Creepy how many of these are super-typical of pastors I've worked with / worked for. CREEPY!<br />
<br />
I see all but #4 consistently in, I kid you not, over 80% of the pastors I've worked with over the years. This makes me quite sad.<br />
<br />
If you are a pastor and reading this, please do your best to not rationalize why you should/have-to do any of these. Rather, let them be new ways to see what needs to be sharpened or removed. Let them be different ways to look at your soul first - not your tasks, your 'ministry.'<br />
<br />
<i>I write this not because I'm projecting myself onto others (as you'll see in my sad "report card" below). But using assessments not created by me, I gathered enough data to make the above statements.</i><br />
<br />
For the record, here's how I self-assess my pastoring:<br />
( <b>1</b> = didn't do this at all, <b>5</b> = did this all the time )<br />
<br />
Habit #1 = <b>4</b><br />
Habit #2 = <b>5</b><br />
Habit #3 = <b>4</b> - sadly, I <i>wanted</i> to be a 5!<br />
Habit #4 = <b>2</b> - was already appalled by this elsewhere<br />
Habit #5 = <b>4</b>... no 5 (bummer)<br />
Habit #6 = <b>2</b> - I think - maybe not? (eek!)<br />
Habit #7 = <b>1</b> - Yay! A good score.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
God help us. And I mean that literally.<br />
<br />
<br />David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-50684354537751570732010-09-07T21:01:00.000-07:002010-09-07T21:01:09.332-07:00For what is a question?"When you ask a question, do you look for an answer or do you go on a quest?" - Tara Malouf, June 2010<br />
<br />
Yes, that IS a word-play on Question/Quest. And, yes, there IS an assumed better-answer; that the built-in answer is more ideal.David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-48865204217589151312010-07-11T09:24:00.006-07:002010-08-02T01:34:56.588-07:00Not to confuse Tolerance with WisdomMy enemy is the mirror of my priorities, my values - even if only as my inverse.<br />
<br />
But as my mirror, it would do me well to listen to my enemy so as to learn more my true self, <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">before</span></span> I attack.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >[[ I may even find that I am an enemy of my now-uncovered self as well! ]]</span>David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-40936019111418790252010-07-05T18:35:00.002-07:002010-07-05T18:38:08.738-07:00Aging away from youthfulnessWhen I was a young, I managed my imagination...<br />... now that I'm old, I manage my disillusionment.<br /><br />I tried to <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">make</span></span> what I thought possible...<br />...now I try to <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">make up</span> for what I wish was real.David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-1017714060076058762010-04-23T14:53:00.004-07:002010-04-23T15:02:36.278-07:00Facebook is as worthless as this postI know there's a pool of competition for social-networking, and that <a href="http://www.google.com/buzz">Google's Buzz</a> got in the swirl late and without it's noseplug, but I am SO sick of Facebook being super-slow if not fully inaccessible! <a href="http://www.google.com/buzz">Buzz </a>is fast, easy, multi-media and properly integrated (anyone else notice the lame-ness of Facebook plug-ins as of late - they seem even slower than Facebook!), and doesn't waste my time and computer resources on feeding pigs.<br /><br />I know it will cost me some privacy, but I'm making my <a href="http://www.google.com/profiles/malouf.david">Google Profile </a>100% accessible and thusly, Buzz 100% accessible as well. Anything to help ease people away from the fiasco of Facebook!<br /><br />[[ Irony - this post will show up in both Facebook <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">and</span> Buzz. Yes! ]]David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-22958409848663838502010-04-09T09:28:00.003-07:002010-04-09T09:31:33.117-07:00My kids are awesomeKids at school treat Mikaela with ridiculous respect... just the other day, one child admitted to cheating off of Mikaela's test. The child admitted it <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">right away</span></span> - no hesitation, no deflection. When the two were confronted with the situation, the other girl fessed up on-the-spot. Unreal.<br /><br />Luc is such a great boy/man. This week, I have driven him to school so he can work the morning 'safety patrol' shift (he's on every other week). When I drop him off, he RUNS into school! Not because he's late. He just runs. It makes me smile. Huge smile. Every time.<br /><br /><br />There is a season for sowing, and a season for harvesting... The hard work of sowing (and tilling, and nurturing, and working, and pruning, and ...) is SO worth it!David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-28747518621325380812010-03-05T10:25:00.004-08:002010-04-09T09:32:03.192-07:00Changing 'workplace' dynamicsI like to read cranky futurists on www.FaithPopcorn.com There's a section (after the super annoying hand-clapping intro!) called "Culture Pulse" which is a very knocked-down version of what they're thinking about.<br /><br />In February 2010 they posted an article (<a href="http://www.faithpopcorn.com/ContentFiles/PDF/Guardian_employment%20law.pdf">.pdf</a>) by Richard Donkin out of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/">The Guardian</a> on employment law. Interesting, less-than-4 page read.<br /><br />The article ends with this last, bullet-point(ish) -- emphasis added by me:<br /><u></u><blockquote><u>Entrepreneurship:</u> Opportunities to start up your own business, create partnerships or work freelance will blossom. "It will become difficult for employers to hold on to their key staff, who will realise they can earn more working freelance or <i><b>setting up their own networks of ad hoc working relationships</b></i>," [Ian] Pearson says ['futurist']. "So entrepreneurial skills will be key." (p. 4)</blockquote><br /><br />Got me thinking: What if 'the workplace' and 'career' are replaced with the uncertain & highly volatile "networks of ad hoc working relationships." Will 'social networking' skills cross-over in the same way 'people skills' are cross-vocational? Will having existing 'social networking capital' (i.e. a long-standing, highly invested-in social-networking presence [read: Facebook- or Twitter- or Google Buzz- account]) become valuable like a degree or alumni association or recruiter or ____ is today?<br /><br />Gen-X is, according to most historians and culture observers, a 'stuck' generation: what they invested in (mid-to-late 1900's education, buy everything on-loan [called "leverage"], family & social (& financial) values/morals) doesn't have a positive return - made even more frustrating by the fact that the generations before them DO have a positive return on those same investments while at the same time the Gen-Xers are taking a loss.<br /><br />Blah, blah, blah... all that to say, I wonder if those of us (i.e. ME!) who don't really like social-networking are going to find ourselves sad and frustrated when we realize that we <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">should have</span></span> been investing in something we don't care for (social networking).<br /><br />As one of the last Gen-Xers (age-wise), am I going to find my current as well as future 'investments' are losses?!?!<br /><br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size:85%;">[or have I simply commodified relationships in a 1980's sort of way!!]</span><br /><br /><br /></div>David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-21682525709308685092009-11-09T16:35:00.005-08:002009-11-09T16:47:16.164-08:00The payoff of organizing myself<div style="text-align: center; font-family: arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 102);"><span style="color: rgb(102, 51, 102); font-weight: bold; font-family: courier new;font-size:130%;" ><br />"Organization is simply being kind to your future self."</span><br /></div><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;">That about sums it up! And is a good filter, for me, to know what needs to be 'organized' (addressed, acted on, etc.) and what can be ignored or stored.</span><br /><br /><br />Got this quote from Robert Peake, who works IT for <a href="http://www.davidco.com/robert.php">The David Allen Company</a>, during <a href="http://www.davidco.com/podcasts/play/36.html">a podcast</a> of theirs.David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-90737250786078377212009-09-14T18:19:00.003-07:002009-09-14T18:21:59.381-07:00Missing out... so foolish, so sad<br /><br />I'm still pulling weeds during harvest.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-2594174181130336622009-09-09T08:03:00.001-07:002009-09-09T08:03:59.867-07:00Am I right or am I wrong?I have been trained to discern error. But am I my <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">own</span> false-teacher?David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-26956982341882657852009-09-08T10:29:00.003-07:002009-09-08T10:41:04.931-07:00Will government election-parties become "Brands" that fail?I was reading the always-behind, monthly 'update' on <a href="http://www.faithpopcorn.com/">Faith Popcorn's BrainReserve</a> (the Culture Pulse section) for this September. It is titled "The End of Brands."<br /><br />Summary of the short article: Brand loyalty is going away. Quickly!<br /><br />Her assessment? Because Brands don't really deliver on what they promise. The antithesis of 'the Brand' (or, read another way, where Brands have failed) is "transparency", "Honesty", and "Serv[ing the customer]".<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillard">Jean Baudrillard</a> in his anti-Consumerist (read: semi-Marxist) days had a pretty interesting observation: those running for Office in the U.S. use a marketing approach (vs. an intellectual or governmental/service or ...).<br /><br />Putting Baudrillard and Popcorn together, the "Two Parties" have become Brands. And they are failing. They promised Utopia and are, at best, fulfilling their own Utopia of power and importance (amongst those in D.C., ironically).<br /><br />But we can't stop 'buying' the government like we can a Brand. The government doesn't 'go out of business' if we don't vote. It's easy enough to simply buy the brand stocked right next to The Brand. Maybe we should buy the Party right next to the Brand parties.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">[ Unless you live in Washington, and maybe other states, where the "pre"elections make sure we leave off the non-Brand options. Isn't the Pacific Northwest supposed to be 'progressive'? not Super-Limiting?!?! ]</span>David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-8607939054435340842009-08-25T15:04:00.003-07:002009-08-25T15:47:38.205-07:00Idolatry in a Land without godsHistorically, it seems the VAST majority of people (or better, people-groups) have had some kind of super-human entity/entities<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">**</span> as a part of their understanding of the world/universe.<br /><br />(Western) Modernity has put forth a variety of methods to negate the need or connection with all things more-than-human. My assessment is that this comes from the voracious drive we had (and have largely satisfied) to control . . . everything! [for those that chew on such statements, I think 'prediction' is a form of control]<br /><br />So here's my theory on the usefulness of a deity/deities. It is a theory that, for the moment, ignores the question of the existence of deity(ies) and the question of whether deity-existence is innate to humans or created. This only looks at utility/usefulness.<br /><br />As far as I have read, seen, been told, etc. a spirit or god is really important for those parts of life that we cannot control but rely upon nonetheless. Weather, war, & women (that's funny - 'women' can be men and children, too, but they don't illiterate :: 'weather' can be food, too) being the most common.<br /><br />What these super-humans hold is two things: power and information. What Western Modernity has attempted to accomplish is actually a two-fold feat: massively and rapidly increase knowledge to the place where the sum of information & wisdom can actually become a power in itself. Somewhat similar to how energy and matter become roughly the same thing in "<span style="font-style: italic;">E</span> equals <span style="font-style: italic;">m c </span>squared." as if we attempted to make "<span style="font-style: italic;">Power</span> = <span style="font-style: italic;">I</span>nformation <span style="font-style: italic;">A</span>pplication squared." Not sure it worked (nor are most postModern philosophers), but it has largely satisfied a centuries-old desire.<br /><br />Then came the more subtle shift in what we call 'epistemology' (how is truth determined to be truth). In the Classic period (for discussion, ~500 B.C. to ~500 A.D.), 'truth' is a rationalized ideal, Medieval truth came from authority, with Modern truth swinging back to ideals. What caught my attention is that what was swinging was not just epistemology by itself.<br /><br />In the Classic period, truth was bigger than the gods, but the gods had Power. Medieval truth came from the humans who had some power, but not much. <span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">(the following only works if your browser allows a fixed-width font like Courier)</span></span><br /><pre><br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Truth Power</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Classic </span><span style="font-style: italic;">people</span> gods</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:courier new;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Medieval </span>(human)demigods <span style="font-style: italic;">people</span></span><br /><br /></pre><br />Perhaps in Western Modernity we were able to fully collapse Power and Truth into one source. "Information is Power" sums up the belief that Truth is either equivalent or a subset of Information and that it is convert-able, back and forth, with Power ( I=PA^2 like E=mc^2 ). People, if we work hard enough and 'smart' enough, will eventually conquer all Information (from sub-atomic physics to biology to psychology to sociology to astrophysics). Then, we can become all-powerful (modified by the assumption that prediction is a form of Power).<br /><br />Then we hit relativity, in all its forms. Philosophically (in my opinion [sic]), 'relativity' means each person lives as if they are the final judge on what is True or not; that we are not hypocrites when it comes to Truth (as if we are fine holding onto something we absolutely know to be false).<br /><br />Practically, if I can get enough information, I can be all-powerful ('enough' being, ironically/recursively defined by 'me'). So I gain Information, mastery, etc. of what I think is important and, thus, fulfill the role that used to be ascribed to deity(ies).<br /><br />So as the West moves towards a practical (if not real) atheism, we are turning our lands into Mount Olympus where each person thinks of themself as Zeus.<br /><br />No wonder religions of any kind are having a bit of hard time during these last days of Western Modernity... any god, set of rules, etc. that places itself over Me, King Zeus Himself, is my enemy and must be pummeled like the Titans!<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">[Note: this is, in good David Malouf fashion, just the beginning of a thought. I'm not sure I like it... yet. Please feel free to interact with me in the comments, personally, email, etc. !!]</span><br /><br /><br /><hr /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">**</span> deity, super-human, spirit, etc. are all considered the same thing in the context of this post precisely because this post only looks at the <span style="font-weight: bold;">utility</span> of any kind of being/entity, not the essence.</span>David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-69314240717605023202009-08-24T08:47:00.005-07:002009-08-24T09:22:42.496-07:00The cure for media, newspapers, and trustI hear/read more and more about how newspapers, and the news in-general, are crumbling financially. And even more so, people no longer 'trust the media.' Evidently, <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/17/eveningnews/main5170556.shtml">Walter Cronkite</a> took trust to the grave with him. I start to giggle when I see people get REALLY up-tight that <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/">Jon Stewart</a> is now 'the most trusted news giver.' Actually, it's always conservatives that are up-tight...<br /><br />I laugh because ANYONE who has ever been interviewed knows that misquotes, undesired spin, and slander are expected on everything from the Iraqi war to 'how my neighbor's cat got stuck in a tree.' Just because journalists <span style="font-style: italic;">seem</span> to be held to some standard higher than 7th grade gossip doesn't mean it's happening!! "The news" and meteorologists go to the same school (sic), "Give them just enough truth so that you can't be ignored, but be wrong often enough to never be trusted."<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;">So here's my quick-and-easy solution: attach the audio or video of the interview. Super easy. <span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="font-style: italic;">One can even use <a href="http://www.youtube.com">YouTube </a>for free.</span></span><br /></div><br />I predict this will not be done for a few reasons, none of them financial/storage related:<br /> 1) the public will get to see what a total moron the journalist is (cf. the absurd John Stossel and other national, talking-heads) by listening to the incredibly useless questions and follow-ups<br /> 2) the public will get to see what a total moron the journalist is (cf. the fully incapable John Stossel and other national, talking-heads) when we read/listen to the journalist's synopsis of the whole interview<br /> 3) the public will see just how much the 'objective' journalist is fully 'subjective' (seriously, do people <span style="font-weight: bold;">really</span> think any journalist is 'objective'?!?!)<br /> - actually, this is a great reason to publish the whole interview. Jon Stewart makes it obvious that he has a political/philosophical bend. I 'trust' him to be biased so I can 'un-spin' what he's saying to fit my tastes as needed. I, then, 'trust' Jon Stewart as a journalist <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">because</span></span> I know his biases as he does not hide them. It's the fake 'objectivity' that makes me not trust journalists!<br /><br />Basically, publishing full interviews will make clear whether or not I want to ever read/listen-to a given journalist. But that kind of clarity will destroy the careers of MANY journalists. So I suspect this will never happen. As long as this 'trust' issue remains in-tension (i.e. is NOT resolved), inept journalism will continue as-is.David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-52359214023344612742009-06-23T08:36:00.004-07:002009-06-23T08:44:33.410-07:00Mo MoneyWhen ever I feel the need to justify my money or possessions, I am proving<br />they are no longer my tools, <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">my</span></span> slaves<br />rather I am a slave<br /> to possessing<br /> or<br /> to the perception of being one-who-possesses-much<br /><br />And I must wonder,<br /> "Can I even imagine myself simply possessing the tools of money and possessions?<br /> Can I imagine buying only that which is to be consumed and not displayed?"<br /><br />[ I neither fear God nor love Him and my fellows ]<br /><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">.</span>David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-75481342501679682812009-05-12T14:27:00.003-07:002009-05-12T14:30:06.628-07:00Stuck on a thought (care to help?)To the one thinking a thought...<br /><br />What is the difference between<br /><br /><span style="font-size:180%;"> </span><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-family: verdana;"> an assumption . . .</span></span><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">and </span></span><br /></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-family: verdana;">. . . truth</span></span><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><br /><br />I really am stuck on this one. I can't see through this or around this. I'm feeling stuck.<br /><br />Please help in the comment section.<br /></div></div>David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-66436014315025424692009-04-29T06:59:00.002-07:002009-04-29T07:09:09.942-07:00Confidence vs. CertaintyI was listening to <a href="http://akalt.wordpress.com/">my friend, Ted Wueste</a>, as he spoke on <a href="http://www.trinitychapelbc.org/Resources/Sermons/Ecclesiastes-the-divine-disruption">"Our Confidence"</a>.<br /><br />Although he didn't put it in quite these words, I was struck with this:<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center; font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Confidence and Certainty do NOT have-to go together.<br />I can have one without the other.</span><br /></div><br />I have been swayed by the idea that being Certain about more and more of life will bring the Confidence that I so deeply long for, run after.<br /><br />Yet Ted proposes (by way of Ecclesiastes) that Confidence comes from entrusting myself to a God that will not always look for my, personal benefit. Confidence comes from entrusting myself to a God that is wiser than I, a God whose wisdom draws me to better self-understanding, to less self-destruction, and ultimately to both a right-standing with Him and a desire for such right-standing above all else [which, ironically, is the essence of 'right standing']David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-851913019982354732009-04-13T06:37:00.004-07:002009-04-13T06:46:33.817-07:00the KEY to Jesus fixing everythingI'm coming to the conclusion that Jesus fixes <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">all</span> my problems and answers <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">all</span> my questions when I let <span style="font-weight: bold;">Him</span> define what the problem is, when I let <span style="font-weight: bold;">Him</span> give the question.<br /><br />Or, more realistically, when I come to Him with my issues, I'm finding that He sometimes needs to rework them so that He can (1) be King of my life, (2) 'solve' them according to His intentions/will, (3) be allowed more fully into 'my' world.<br /><br />Perhaps part of the issue is that I demand to be the One who defines the problem. God must enter <span style="font-weight: bold;">my</span> world and fix <span style="font-weight: bold;">my</span> problems: true, but not the complete picture.<br /><br />A quote from this season: <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-family:arial;font-size:130%;" >Take this problem away, PLEASE! But not My will, let Yours be done.</span>David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-81050169101221385792009-04-12T19:00:00.002-07:002009-04-13T07:05:16.594-07:00from Easter serviceTwo things struck me from the Liturgical (Lutheran) readings today. One personal, one mental:<br /><br />1) 'You have made me worthy' - as I struggle to let God love me (read: dysfunction), I find myself naturally(?) going back to my self-definition of Unworthy, Unclean. Jesus' death making me "worthy" is extremely powerful to my self-destructing soul. I was deeply moved and felt deeply loved (both coming 'out of' my dysfunction)<br /><br />2) 'See the grave its first-fruits giving' - yet <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">another</span></span> Great Reversal! Graves are NOT associated with producing, giving, creating... That Jesus is the first-fruit of the grave - how perfectly backwards, how perfectly God-like!David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-15043454382621623242009-04-02T06:24:00.003-08:002009-04-02T06:28:25.019-08:00Is my 'Christianity' really worth it?Just finished reading two posts this morning by<br /> - <a href="http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/04/first-ten-.html">Seth Godin</a><br /> - <a href="http://chrismaddoxblog.com/?p=223">Chris Maddox</a><br /><br />Putting them together has me wondering this:<br /><br /> is there anything about God Himself<br /><br /> or what He has done in/to/through me (Chris' blog)<br /><br /> that is powerful enough for at least ten people (Seth's blog) I know<br /><br /> to uncontrollably want Jesus as King of their lives?David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-87123586698082021822009-03-10T09:41:00.003-08:002009-03-10T09:48:34.260-08:003 is my new 2I'm finding that if I find 3 alternatives, I'm much more 'right' then when I only had 2.<br /><br />So here's the latest, for me.<br /><br />There are things in life I can <span style="font-weight: bold;">Control</span>, I can <span style="font-weight: bold;">Influence</span>, and/or I can <span style="font-weight: bold;">Accept</span>. In my control, modified by me, out of my control.<br /><br />I have lived my life (that is, my conversations inside my own head) with only Control and Accept. I'm wondering if most of life is Influence. I'm wondering if my frustrations (historically) have cycled around trying to Control what I was only supposed to Influence. Maybe I was 'deceived' by the movement/change that was happening - I <span style="font-style: italic;">thought</span> I was controlling (poorly) when I was really just Influencing (appropriately?).David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-7659534532246968302009-01-20T16:34:00.005-08:002009-01-20T17:17:01.393-08:00How many recessions are there in 2009?As I read books and blogs, listen to people and podcasts, think about current and future times, watch activities in North America and elsewhere...<br /><br />I am concluding that the Church in the U.S. is in a <span style="font-weight: bold;">recession</span>. God is moving mightily, vastly, and obviously in the Southern Hemisphere and/or the Eastern Hemisphere right now (2000 to present 2009). While there is much talk and desire for God's movement here in the West (e.g. the multitude of new 'movements', 'returns', and organic networks), I would contend that it's not really happening like it did (?) here and is (!) elsewhere. And I'm in-network with many of those working to see it happen.<br /><br />Personal opinion, I think we are in a "spiritual correction" that is parallel to the financial "corrections" we have seen over the last few years. We built an inflated, less-than-actual 'Christianity' in the West and now it's not working out to be what it claimed. Possible causes, as I see it include:<br /> - New ideas (parallel to new markets)<br /> - 3rd and 4th generation 'Christians' being exposed to other Christians around the world via media(s) (parallel to the idea of 'the informed customer')<br /> - the eventual-but-certain demise of the self-centered version of Christ Followers [pun intended] (parallel to consumer reporting)<br /> - <span style="font-style: italic;">[insert your observation here by using the Comment feature of this blog!]</span><br /><br />Recession brings options: push even harder using current methods (or values or competencies or _______) until the recession ends or resources stop, downsize, invest in deeping what is, panic, do something else altogether and wish for better days gone by, get pummeled by market and/or competition and die out.<br /><br /><br />I would like to suggest that the Church has gotten away from deliberate relationships. We have continued to diminish our <span style="font-weight: bold;">deep relationships</span> between fellow Christians so that the Body and Family metaphors of the Bible are now more like social clubs or Facebook groups. We have shrunk our concept of a <span style="font-weight: bold;">local church</span> to mirror an affiliation with a political party (increased activity based on periodic activity). We are certainly not known for bringing the <span style="font-weight: bold;">Love of God </span>Himself to our neighbors much less the needy (vs. the reputation of the Church the first few hundred years, for example). We encourage a "<span style="font-weight: bold;">personal relationship with Jesus</span>" but never get back to Him.<br /><br />So we throw up 'alternative' movements, we talk about "Change" (a la Obama), we throw money around the world (seriously, how many more times do we have to hear about how easy it would be to end ____ -- for all the money I personally know that people and organizations have 'sent', I still hear little to nothing about change. Perhaps we aren't dealing with the root problems!)... just like our political life. What a waste.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Perhaps it's time to invest deeply</span>,</span> like Singapore Airlines, Amazon, and numerous others who don't talk much during recessions but spend money, time, energy on that which has only long-term payoff (and no immediate payoff - crazy!).<br /><br />What if we...<br /><ul><li>redid how Children are taught and/or involved in the <span style="font-weight: bold;">Real life of God's People</span></li><li>created <span style="font-weight: bold;">leadership </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">communities</span> inside a local church that include all who are leaders (in particular, young leaders - high school through 90's)</li><li>invested in mastering/harnessing <span style="font-weight: bold;">new mediums of communication </span>so that content isn't bound by the restrictions of one or two</li><li>chose <span style="font-weight: bold;">involvement in 'Spiritual' activity</span> as a way for people to enter into a life with God instead of reserving it for those who have already mastered(?!?) it</li><li>choose to be not just transparent but <span style="font-weight: bold;">outright vulnerable</span> with fellow brothers and sisters, even if it means we might get burned by them - what if we <span style="font-weight: bold;">chose to need </span>them</li><li>saw each <span style="font-weight: bold;">other's passions as under our deep, personal care </span>- and left our passions up to their care</li><li>met and <span style="font-weight: bold;">engaged in the lives of our neighbors </span>(the people living within a stone's throw from my quickly closing garage door) -- taking care of those we have direct contact with<br />- or co-workers, bosses, subordinates<br /></li><li>met and <span style="font-weight: bold;">engaged our brothers' and sisters' neighbors</span>, too -- taking care of those in direct contact with those we are in direct contact with</li></ul><br />What if we saw the Kingdom of God as a slow moving, all-encompasing bacteria that eventually takes over the entire petrie dish leaving self-replicating cells all the while? What if instead of trying to convince others to take huge jumps, we simply brought local humans along on our own journies as God's clay? What if we began to live as if vital-connection to others is equally important as righteous living? What if we stopped being soley pragmatic about the next 50 years and started thinking, "Slow and steady wins the race..." and accomplishes much along the way.<br /><br />What if we invested deep into people. All people.David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-46384170314772233352009-01-14T10:08:00.004-08:002009-01-14T10:50:18.234-08:00Is God REALLY loving?Having recently 'visited' (in person, in dialog, and/or in print) a number of churches over a number of continents, I've been struck by how each one has a tendency to start with God where they (felt) need Him most.<br /><ul><li>the East African church sings of victory and release from oppression</li><li>the Irish church creates art involving the sea, the reality of death, and the 'thin veil' between the realm of God & angels and humans</li><li>the U.S. church filled with those recovering from various addictions speaks often of Satan and demons / spiritual warfare, of harsh realities and Spiritual platitudes</li><li>the various North American churches that speak of God's acts of making our lives better (in Canada, U.S., even parts of Mexico)</li><li>the Palestinian Christians who pray often for the release from the oppression of the Christian Nation (U.S.), the local Arabs, and the Jews - praying many of the Psalms.</li></ul>And God seems to be just fine with this - meeting us in our situation (vs. us going to Him in His situation). In my objective (ha) assessment, this seems extremely kind of God Almighty.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center; font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size:130%;">I know God can see the ramifications of all decisions, so I'm a bit surprised by His willingness to let us start with ourselves - we seem to have a very hard time moving on from this <span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">spot </span><span style="font-style: italic;">(known as 'you are here')</span><br /></span></div><br />During a conversation about Galatians 1 Tara and I were having with two other couples, Tara noticed that we all have our favorite picture (metaphor) for God: King, Father, Rock, Lover, and Hypocrite. This got me thinking about how we use 'Biblical' metaphors but often with a localized twist. "King" probably means something different to me (here in the leaderless state of Washington) than to my friends in Saudi Arabia - different still than my friends in Jordon. Different still than our brothers and sisters living in tribal situations in the mountains of South America or the island-tribes of the western Pacific.<br /><br />And once again, I came across the phrase that makes me puke: "A God of Love ______ [insert what one wants God to be, usually justified by a narrow focus on certain parts of the Bible]."<br /><ul><li>A God of Love wants me to be happy (so that's why I'm leaving my spouse) - heard this in 3 divorces to-date</li><li>A God of Love wants me to feel loved (used for everything from helping Evangelicals and/or Catholics trying to overcome religious guilt to Oprah's 'religious' advisers condoning homosexuality)</li><li>A God of Love wants me to have a deep, personal, intimate relationship with Him (based on how certain words in the Bible are taken to mean what the speaker longs for in most relationships, in general)</li><li>A God of Love wouldn't... A God of Love would... A God of Love won't... judge, condemn, make me feel bad, keep me from feeling good, leave me oppressed, let me fail financially, etc.</li></ul>I am not espousing God is not involved / wanting to be involved in our lives. I am not stating God doesn't care - deeply! I am not denying that God is intensely moved by compassion.Ephesians 1, for example, raises in me some doubts about the me-centeredness approach. I appreciate how God comes to me where I am - I think the problem arises when I define God according to my situation alone.<br /><br />Seems like we have a hard time letting God be bigger than my situation - my survival, sustaining, or benefit is just not the extent of God's greatness and power. Unless life is all about me. Which it is not, no matter what I say!<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:130%;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></div></span></div>David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-5315621018255450972008-10-31T09:40:00.002-08:002008-10-31T10:22:15.056-08:00Nonsolid, absolute truthI tend to enjoy parallels-by-metaphor for two reasons. First, they're fun. Second, they tend to actually shape the way societies think (for most of the people) so if one is accurate in seeing them as they happen, one can predict (and who doesn't like such a feeling of power or control!).<br /><br />So I have come across an shift in physics that I think might either mirror what is already going on, might be the cause, or might be the result. Regardless, the connection is quite tight (in my opinion).<br /><br />Parallel: absolute truths & matter. We tend to think of 'stuff' as 'just being there - you can't deny that the chair I'm sitting on is <span style="font-weight: bold;">real</span>!' Something like absolute truths - they're just there, you can't deny them, for in doing so you make an absolute statement and accidentally, then, prove the existence of absolute truths.<br /><br />Possible parallel: "mass is no longer an <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">inherent property</span> of matter since it CHANGES with velocity. Instead, mass = inertial <span style="font-weight: bold;">potential</span>. Again, this makes 'mass' not really a quality solely within the object itself but only see-able (observable, measurable, understandable, etc.) using external objects or force."<br /> What if absolute truth OR my rationality (or human rationality) is NOT an <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">inherent property</span> but an implication of inertia... What if what one feels, senses, thinks, etc. is only the effect of a 'truth' or 'proposition'?<br /><br />Implication: 'relativity' in physics/science does NOT state that everything is relative but, instead, the OBSERVER can only have a relative relationship with the object. The mass of an object depends on MY velocity (and by extension, the object's velocity <span style="font-style: italic;">relative to mine</span>).<br /> Or put a little more simply (in my opinion), I can measure the speed of my car at 60 miles per hour. But that's on a planet spinning something like 1,000 mph on a planet moving at about 67,000 mph around the Sun. So how fast is my car going? It depends on the observer's relationship to my car (the object). To the police officer I'm going 75mph. To the moon, I'm going between 900 and 1,100mph (I'm NOT going to bring that before the judge!).<br /><br />BUT! That doesn't make measuring worthless! Nor does it prevent there being a place in the universe where one COULD measure everything accurately - if there was a central point around which everything else rotated, for example. <br /><br />EVEN MORESO - if "it's all relative" then my car sitting in my garage is going an insanely dangerous 68,000 mph in the morning (slowing down to 66,000 around 2am). This is silly because what I'm actually concerned about (for safety purposes) is <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">inertial potential</span> which has everything to do with the observer.<br /><br />What happens when some post-modern philosophers speak of the death of the metanarrative is that they are saying, "I don't like what the potential affect certain metanarratives have (or have had!) on people/society." But that only makes sense in their own metanarrative (as many of them eventually bemoan).<br /><br />My Opinion on the Practical Ramifications: What we're all looking for is a true, context-specific measurement of what is or is coming (could be, should be, will be, etc.). I don't care what speed my car is going from the perspective of the moon for that is not context-specific (me and the police officer's radar gun). Nor do I care that a physics professor can tell me that my car is going between -6,000,000 and +12,000,000 miles per hour -- that isn't 'true' because each context that contributes to that 'answer' negates the other contexts giving me all-but infinite false-positives.<br /> This, to me, is the parallel plight of Modernity - Modernity claims to have truth but it doesn't have even CLOSE to enough accuracy for local situations. But the post-modern falicy is to state that lack of accuracy means worthlessness. Getting hit by a large truck going an inaccurate, relative 100 mph still hurts!! That inaccurate, relative assessment of speed is NOT worthless!<br /><br />I need (want?) an objective (outside) observer that can think - that can measure in a way that is true AND context-specific. That can not only tell me what is REALLY going on (yet in terms that make sense to me / my context) but can also tell me what will happen to me/us if we are hit by (absorb, become, believe, etc.) the <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">potential inertia</span> of another object, thought, belief, etc.<br /><br />This observer would, according to most every defintion I can remember ever being used throughout time, be labeled . . . .<br /><br />God<br /><br />Did we kill God when we made His previous, context-specific observations into Universal & Absolute? Did we replace Him with His statements? Have we not let Him unleash His <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">potential inertia</span>!?!?!<br /> And for those who have tried to let God be true-and-relevant, have we found Him to be too unpredicable - too scary?David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-29566441359157272962008-10-29T07:37:00.004-08:002008-10-29T08:01:59.298-08:00Pastors as PickUp ArtistsMy good friend, Jesse Gable, 'introduced' me to the sub-culture of "PickUp Artists."<br /><div style="text-align: right; font-style: italic;">[NOTE: Neither Jesse nor I are pick-up artists!]<br /></div><br />So I read a bit on this approach to life. I found it dumb and base but powerful. This drew me to ponder my own use of power, posture, etc. in relationships and even my work. And now I have distilled a major insight.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:130%;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;">When I first meet someone (or a group), I can work towards Respect </span><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">or</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> Trust.</span></span><br /></div><br />PickUp Artists work for Respect. They work to create a (sub)version of reality that gives them incredible respect. They want the respect of their 'target' (girl). But ALSO self-respect as well as the respect of others (even other males). **<br /><br />Ironically, the one book I read on/by PickUp Artist ended with the author's (fake)world being 'popped' by a real girl who didn't play the game. She had more power (respect) over him than he had over her. He left "the game" (as he called it) to be with the more powerful one. Irony to spare!<br /><br />So what sets apart a PickUp Artist? Why are they so "successful"? Because they go after Respect-Only. The rest of us (intuitively) go after some amount of Trust.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:arial;" >I fear pastors have become PickUp Artists:</span> When I ask pastors about their churches, I get <span style="font-weight: bold;">Respect</span> answers (number of _____, income, impact). Perhaps this is why pastor conferences feel like bars?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:arial;" >Trust seekers are "good friends", Respect seekers are "desired":</span> I had a good friend in high school whom girls flocked to. I wanted girls, too! But I had friends. I had been trained/taught to generate trust, not respect. I envied my 'player' friend.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:arial;" >I can choose! </span> I realized yesterday that this information allows me to deliberately choose one way or the other. I think we also have natural-bent. I am predicting (haven't thought this one out fully) that 'pastors' are Trust seekers and 'teachers' are Respect seekers (in their current, late-moderntiy, U.S.A. contexts!!).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:arial;" >Long-term Loss or Payoff:</span> Perhaps there are times when I should(?) focus on Respect? If I am in a short-term (2 days or less) situation, might it be better for me to establish Respect (more than Trust) so as to achieve maximum impact?<br /> - But what about those who discipled me that focued on Respect. Is that why I don't talk to them anymore? maybe even not-respect them anymore?<br /> - Should a presidential candidate even TRY to gain my trust? Why not just go after my respect! But a Congressional candidate might work for trust due to the potential, long-term relationship with my state.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:arial;" >My Ego :: Trust has no shock or wow:</span> But sheep follow a shepherd they trust. And since I am not the Chief Shepherd, where does that leave me?<br /><br /><div style="text-align: right;">Facing the real point of this post: am I okay getting my significance obeying the Chief Shepherd and not from the 'respect' of the sheep?<br /></div><br /><br /><br /><hr />** It reminds me of Dungeons and Dragons in the 80's!! Create a fake world, work hard to get respect (power), and try to spend as much time as possible in the fake world. Eventually, one comes to believe that the virtual world is more real than the physical world.David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720805.post-55698031954988311802008-10-20T08:40:00.002-07:002008-10-20T08:48:22.184-07:00I've been to this place of violenceA very good man, Sami, is being used by God to help alter the Israeli/Palestinian situation. Sami is committed to non-violent protests in the Jerusalem-Bethlehem area.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >The post he writes (<a href="http://samiawad.wordpress.com/2008/10/18/when-settlers-get-abusive-israeli-soldiers-attack-the-abused-but-the-sun-shines-on-all/">here</a>) is about a hill I have been on</span> - I walked into the guard-houses, walked around the hill, saw the construction of the park mentioned in the post. I, too, was forced off the hill by the military. When I was there, there were no settlers (they had already left). But the Israeli army forced us off Palestinian land. Us and the other non-violent, international group. Very surreal.<br /><br />And now it has obviously gotten worse. I am very, very sad.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">I would ask that you read the post above.</span></span> From what I saw when I was there, I fully believe that Sami is writing with extreme accuracy (except for the part about the big-game animal reference - grin) about what happened/happens. I also know that Sami's commentary at the end is true to his heart. It is amazing to me that he can still have those thoughts after this many years. You can read about some significant parts of his story in Brother Andrews' book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Light-Force-Stirring-Account-Crossfire/dp/0800731042/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224517634&sr=1-1">Light Force</a>.David Malouf --http://www.blogger.com/profile/13756209137101502564noreply@blogger.com0