History Repeats, Pendulums Swing, there has to be Another Option

Scary how accurate this is for Pastors / Bad Pastoring

2012-01-03T08:42:00.000-08:00

Was shown this article on bad habits of CEOs 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!

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.

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.'

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.

For the record, here's how I self-assess my pastoring:
( 1 = didn't do this at all, 5 = did this all the time )

Habit #1 = 4
Habit #2 = 5
Habit #3 = 4 - sadly, I wanted to be a 5!
Habit #4 = 2 - was already appalled by this elsewhere
Habit #5 = 4... no 5 (bummer)
Habit #6 = 2 - I think - maybe not? (eek!)
Habit #7 = 1 - Yay! A good score.

God help us. And I mean that literally.

For what is a question?

2010-09-07T21:01:00.000-07:00

"When you ask a question, do you look for an answer or do you go on a quest?" - Tara Malouf, June 2010

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.

Not to confuse Tolerance with Wisdom

2010-07-11T09:24:00.006-07:00

My enemy is the mirror of my priorities, my values - even if only as my inverse.

But as my mirror, it would do me well to listen to my enemy so as to learn more my true self, before I attack.

[[ I may even find that I am an enemy of my now-uncovered self as well! ]]

Aging away from youthfulness

2010-07-05T18:35:00.002-07:00

When I was a young, I managed my imagination...
... now that I'm old, I manage my disillusionment.

I tried to make what I thought possible...
...now I try to make up for what I wish was real.

Facebook is as worthless as this post

2010-04-23T14:53:00.004-07:00

I know there's a pool of competition for social-networking, and that Google's Buzz got in the swirl late and without it's noseplug, but I am SO sick of Facebook being super-slow if not fully inaccessible! Buzz 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.

I know it will cost me some privacy, but I'm making my Google Profile 100% accessible and thusly, Buzz 100% accessible as well. Anything to help ease people away from the fiasco of Facebook!

[[ Irony - this post will show up in both Facebook and Buzz. Yes! ]]

My kids are awesome

2010-04-09T09:28:00.003-07:00

Kids 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 right away - no hesitation, no deflection. When the two were confronted with the situation, the other girl fessed up on-the-spot. Unreal.

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.

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!

Changing 'workplace' dynamics

2010-03-05T10:25:00.004-08:00

I 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.

In February 2010 they posted an article (.pdf) by Richard Donkin out of The Guardian on employment law. Interesting, less-than-4 page read.

The article ends with this last, bullet-point(ish) -- emphasis added by me:

Entrepreneurship: 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 setting up their own networks of ad hoc working relationships," [Ian] Pearson says ['futurist']. "So entrepreneurial skills will be key." (p. 4)

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?

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.

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 should have been investing in something we don't care for (social networking).

As one of the last Gen-Xers (age-wise), am I going to find my current as well as future 'investments' are losses?!?!

[or have I simply commodified relationships in a 1980's sort of way!!]

The payoff of organizing myself

2009-11-09T16:35:00.005-08:00

"Organization is simply being kind to your future self."

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.

Got this quote from Robert Peake, who works IT for The David Allen Company, during a podcast of theirs.

Missing out... so foolish, so sad

2009-09-14T18:19:00.003-07:00

I'm still pulling weeds during harvest.

Am I right or am I wrong?

2009-09-09T08:03:00.001-07:00

I have been trained to discern error. But am I my own false-teacher?

Will government election-parties become "Brands" that fail?

2009-09-08T10:29:00.003-07:00

I was reading the always-behind, monthly 'update' on Faith Popcorn's BrainReserve (the Culture Pulse section) for this September. It is titled "The End of Brands."

Summary of the short article: Brand loyalty is going away. Quickly!

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]".

Jean Baudrillard 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 ...).

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).

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.

[ 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?!?! ]

Idolatry in a Land without gods

2009-08-25T15:04:00.003-07:00

Historically, it seems the VAST majority of people (or better, people-groups) have had some kind of super-human entity/entities** as a part of their understanding of the world/universe.

(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]

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.

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.

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 "E equals m c squared." as if we attempted to make "Power = Information Application squared." Not sure it worked (nor are most postModern philosophers), but it has largely satisfied a centuries-old desire.

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.

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. (the following only works if your browser allows a fixed-width font like Courier)



                 Truth               Power

Classic          people              gods

Medieval    (human)demigods          people

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).

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).

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).

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.

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!

[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. !!]

** 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 utility of any kind of being/entity, not the essence.

The cure for media, newspapers, and trust

2009-08-24T08:47:00.005-07:00

I 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, Walter Cronkite took trust to the grave with him. I start to giggle when I see people get REALLY up-tight that Jon Stewart is now 'the most trusted news giver.' Actually, it's always conservatives that are up-tight...

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 seem 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."

So here's my quick-and-easy solution: attach the audio or video of the interview. Super easy. One can even use YouTube for free.

I predict this will not be done for a few reasons, none of them financial/storage related:
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
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
3) the public will see just how much the 'objective' journalist is fully 'subjective' (seriously, do people really think any journalist is 'objective'?!?!)
- 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 because I know his biases as he does not hide them. It's the fake 'objectivity' that makes me not trust journalists!

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.

Mo Money

2009-06-23T08:36:00.004-07:00

When ever I feel the need to justify my money or possessions, I am proving
they are no longer my tools, my slaves
rather I am a slave
to possessing
or
to the perception of being one-who-possesses-much

And I must wonder,
"Can I even imagine myself simply possessing the tools of money and possessions?
Can I imagine buying only that which is to be consumed and not displayed?"

[ I neither fear God nor love Him and my fellows ]

.

Stuck on a thought (care to help?)

2009-05-12T14:27:00.003-07:00

To the one thinking a thought...

What is the difference between

an assumption . . .

and

. . . truth

I really am stuck on this one. I can't see through this or around this. I'm feeling stuck.

Please help in the comment section.

Confidence vs. Certainty

2009-04-29T06:59:00.002-07:00

I was listening to my friend, Ted Wueste, as he spoke on "Our Confidence".

Although he didn't put it in quite these words, I was struck with this:

Confidence and Certainty do NOT have-to go together.
I can have one without the other.

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.

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']

the KEY to Jesus fixing everything

2009-04-13T06:37:00.004-07:00

I'm coming to the conclusion that Jesus fixes all my problems and answers all my questions when I let Him define what the problem is, when I let Him give the question.

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.

Perhaps part of the issue is that I demand to be the One who defines the problem. God must enter my world and fix my problems: true, but not the complete picture.

A quote from this season: Take this problem away, PLEASE! But not My will, let Yours be done.

from Easter service

2009-04-12T19:00:00.002-07:00

Two things struck me from the Liturgical (Lutheran) readings today. One personal, one mental:

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)

2) 'See the grave its first-fruits giving' - yet another 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!

Is my 'Christianity' really worth it?

2009-04-02T06:24:00.003-08:00

Just finished reading two posts this morning by
- Seth Godin
- Chris Maddox

Putting them together has me wondering this:

is there anything about God Himself

or what He has done in/to/through me (Chris' blog)

that is powerful enough for at least ten people (Seth's blog) I know

to uncontrollably want Jesus as King of their lives?

3 is my new 2

2009-03-10T09:41:00.003-08:00

I'm finding that if I find 3 alternatives, I'm much more 'right' then when I only had 2.

So here's the latest, for me.

There are things in life I can Control, I can Influence, and/or I can Accept. In my control, modified by me, out of my control.

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 thought I was controlling (poorly) when I was really just Influencing (appropriately?).

How many recessions are there in 2009?

2009-01-20T16:34:00.005-08:00

As I read books and blogs, listen to people and podcasts, think about current and future times, watch activities in North America and elsewhere...

I am concluding that the Church in the U.S. is in a recession. 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.

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:
- New ideas (parallel to new markets)
- 3rd and 4th generation 'Christians' being exposed to other Christians around the world via media(s) (parallel to the idea of 'the informed customer')
- the eventual-but-certain demise of the self-centered version of Christ Followers [pun intended] (parallel to consumer reporting)
- [insert your observation here by using the Comment feature of this blog!]

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.

I would like to suggest that the Church has gotten away from deliberate relationships. We have continued to diminish our deep relationships 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 local church to mirror an affiliation with a political party (increased activity based on periodic activity). We are certainly not known for bringing the Love of God Himself to our neighbors much less the needy (vs. the reputation of the Church the first few hundred years, for example). We encourage a "personal relationship with Jesus" but never get back to Him.

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.

Perhaps it's time to invest deeply, 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!).

What if we...

redid how Children are taught and/or involved in the Real life of God's People
created leadership communities inside a local church that include all who are leaders (in particular, young leaders - high school through 90's)
invested in mastering/harnessing new mediums of communication so that content isn't bound by the restrictions of one or two
chose involvement in 'Spiritual' activity as a way for people to enter into a life with God instead of reserving it for those who have already mastered(?!?) it
choose to be not just transparent but outright vulnerable with fellow brothers and sisters, even if it means we might get burned by them - what if we chose to need them
saw each other's passions as under our deep, personal care - and left our passions up to their care
met and engaged in the lives of our neighbors (the people living within a stone's throw from my quickly closing garage door) -- taking care of those we have direct contact with
- or co-workers, bosses, subordinates
met and engaged our brothers' and sisters' neighbors, too -- taking care of those in direct contact with those we are in direct contact with

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.

What if we invested deep into people. All people.

Is God REALLY loving?

2009-01-14T10:08:00.004-08:00

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.

the East African church sings of victory and release from oppression
the Irish church creates art involving the sea, the reality of death, and the 'thin veil' between the realm of God & angels and humans
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
the various North American churches that speak of God's acts of making our lives better (in Canada, U.S., even parts of Mexico)
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.

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.

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 spot (known as 'you are here')

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.

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]."

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
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)
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)
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.

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.

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!

Nonsolid, absolute truth

2008-10-31T09:40:00.002-08:00

I 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!).

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).

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 real!' 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.

Possible parallel: "mass is no longer an inherent property of matter since it CHANGES with velocity. Instead, mass = inertial potential. 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."
What if absolute truth OR my rationality (or human rationality) is NOT an inherent property but an implication of inertia... What if what one feels, senses, thinks, etc. is only the effect of a 'truth' or 'proposition'?

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 relative to mine).
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!).

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.

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 inertial potential which has everything to do with the observer.

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).

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.
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!

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 potential inertia of another object, thought, belief, etc.

This observer would, according to most every defintion I can remember ever being used throughout time, be labeled . . . .

God

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 potential inertia!?!?!
And for those who have tried to let God be true-and-relevant, have we found Him to be too unpredicable - too scary?

Pastors as PickUp Artists

2008-10-29T07:37:00.004-08:00

My good friend, Jesse Gable, 'introduced' me to the sub-culture of "PickUp Artists."

[NOTE: Neither Jesse nor I are pick-up artists!]

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.

When I first meet someone (or a group), I can work towards Respect or Trust.

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). **

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!

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.

I fear pastors have become PickUp Artists: When I ask pastors about their churches, I get Respect answers (number of _____, income, impact). Perhaps this is why pastor conferences feel like bars?

Trust seekers are "good friends", Respect seekers are "desired": 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.

I can choose! 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!!).

Long-term Loss or Payoff: 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?
- 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?
- 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.

My Ego :: Trust has no shock or wow: But sheep follow a shepherd they trust. And since I am not the Chief Shepherd, where does that leave me?

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?

** 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.

I've been to this place of violence

2008-10-20T08:40:00.002-07:00

A 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.

The post he writes (here) is about a hill I have been on - 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.

And now it has obviously gotten worse. I am very, very sad.

I would ask that you read the post above. 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 Light Force.

Hide and Seek with the Holy Spirit

2008-10-15T06:55:00.003-07:00

I've been wrestling with myself as it pertains to my thinking about and relationship with the Holy Spirit (i.e. God). My 'issue' is that I was raised inside a Modern-Western -> Evangelical -> Large Church (increasing results are important) -> Non-Charismatic tradition (that list was intended to be more-and-more precise).

Then I was exposed to the role of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament and in OT prophecy. The ridiculous living of the Apostles after Jesus' resurrection began to make sense.

Then I was exposed to Gordon Fee, _God's Empowering Presence_ in particular. Then 'my eyes were opened' to the self-focused tendency that's all-but built-in to the current rendition of "absolute truth" and Bibliolatry.

Then I listened to Ted Wueste talk about how a "relationship with God" is probably not so much what I thought it was (see http://www.trinitychapelbc.org/Resources/Sermons/Freedom-Understanding-Your-Life-in-Christ).

CURRENT ASSESSMENT: Sin is the act of disconnecting from God as the source of life-and-direction BY finding MYSELF as the source, entrusting MYSELF to find life-and-direction.

A bit ethereal... so I'm going to try to live with two thoughts consuming me.
(1) What does it mean for Jesus to really, REALLY be Lord (of my life, of this universe, of all time)
(2) What does it mean for me to 'be connected' to God as my source of life (physical needs, significance, 'strength', etc.) and direction (what I do and don't do, what I plan for/about).

a dream about John 13

2008-10-01T14:58:00.002-07:00

What if Christians stopped asking their friends to "go to church" to "get saved"...

And instead, asked their friends to "go to church" to "meet the people of God" or "see what God's like ('His Body')" or "to meet some people who will walk through life with you"?

Funny on Friendship (just had to post this)

2008-09-06T21:39:00.002-07:00

Got an email from my daughter today. I liked so much of it, I'm posting it. It's all good, but I really like the very end.

1. When you are sad,

I will jump on the person

who made you sad

like a spider monkey

jacked up on Mountain Dew!!!

2. When you are blue,

I will try to dislodge

whatever is choking you.

3. When you smile,

I will know you are

plotting something

that I must be involved in.

4. When you're scared,

we will high tail it out of here.

5. When you are worried,

I will tell you horrible stories about how much worse

it could be until you quit whining, ya big baby!!!!

6. When you are confused,

I will use little words.

7. When you are sick,

Stay away from me until you are well again.

I don't want whatever you have.

8. When you fall,

I'll pick you up and dust you off--

After I laugh my butt off!!

9. This is my oath...

I pledge it to the end.

'Why?' you may ask;

-- because you are my FRIEND!

Friendship is like peeing your pants,

everyone can see it,

but only YOU

can feel the

true warmth.

Do, Believe, Feel, Know . . .

2008-09-05T13:23:00.001-07:00

1) It seems to me that most pastors/preachers see "belief" as what comes first. "If you'll believe _________, then you WILL [insert desired action here]."

2) It seems to me that there's always an order, a sequence, to these things. The old "Faith - Facts - Feelings" train (or was it Fact - Faith - Feelings? and what kind of mode-of-transportation doesn't have a Do?)

So where does the phrase "I have come to believe..." fit in? Isn't that phrase used, typically, after some kind of "Do" (or, gasp, "Feel") episode?

Perhaps the request to be so linear/sequential and to always start with our rational side (belief, thoughts) is not the best. Perhaps it's not even human. Did we just pick the wrong 'order' - or is there not to be an 'order' but maybe just a 'set'?

Good Girls using Bad Words

2008-08-23T09:53:00.003-07:00

The great Kurt Johnston (the longest-lasting Junior High pastor I've ever even heard of - and an incredible guy at that!) has been commissioned to write a book called "99 Thoughts about Guys... for Girls Eyes Only." He asked for ideas from folks who read his blog. If you get a chance, pop over there and read the comments - some of them are hysterical!

Reading his post prompted me to finally write the following post on Perspectives on Sex (I've been ruminating on this potential post for quite a while now). I write this with the explicit request that you, reader, respond: either for or against or both or ...

Having worked in the restaurant industry of Phoenix for a time, and having been involved with some incredible people as we discussed life, and having read-up some on Pick-Up-Artists and their ways, I have found the following:

One of the primary parts/aspects of Relationships is Power. This is often seen as influence.
- praise God this isn't all there is! There is a problem when this is the dominant factor, though, as seen below.
Value is the dominant 'currency' of relationships. Or is it the dominant currency of Power?
Boys and Girls spend their Relationship Currency on different stuff, just like Boys and Girls spend their monetary currency on different stuff!!
Nobody is satisfied with the amount of Relationship Currency they have, mainly because most everyone has access to most everyone else's Bank Account/Wallet -- that is, our amounts change without us even knowing it (e.g. when someone is surprisingly cold towards me, it's as if they just reached in and too my People Pesos!).
Sexuality has power. It's like an exchange rate for relationships. A guy can give me one Relationship Dollar but it's worth a buck-fifty to a girl. Or a girl can write a Relational Check for fifty cents but it shows up in my account as one dollar due to this Gender Exchange Rate (pronounced, grr).

So here's one of my theories out of all this: the word 'sexy.'

1) I'm curious if you have found the following to be true (as I have): when it comes to clothing, girls use the word 'sexy' and 'attractive' as, basically, synonyms.

2) For girls, 'sexy' is the summing of the following ideas: drawing attention, pretty, distinctly feminine (i.e. not masculine)
- for guys, 'sexy' means 'leading to sex' and not much else! +++

I think I'm making the words Sexy and Attractive out to be 'bad words.' If you get that sense from this... I'm not sure what to write here! Perhaps a nice dialog in the comments would be good? Perhaps my understanding of these words has been influenced by the less-than-ideal worlds of Restaurant Workers and PickUp Artists?

Please feel free to stream-of-conscious in the comments.

+++ in this way, guys ARE more utilitarian ('functional,' getting things accomplished, etc.) while girls are more relational, but I am a STRONG opponent to the ideas that girls are more relational in all of their lives for I believe I have met many females who are quite utilitarian and many males who are quite relational. But that's not the point of this post, in my opinion.

I'm not very pragmatic (duh)

2008-08-18T08:33:00.004-07:00

I'm wondering if I'm ever going to be worthwhile...

I am finishing the free lectures from the history class "Modern Physics: From The Atom to Big Science" taught by Dr. Cathryn Carson @ UC Berkeley. It's the history of physics, basically.

The latest class I listened to was on the history of physics education in the U.S. In particular, research. She noted that from the 1940s (when the U.S. really started offering post-graduate physics) to the 1980s, research (both in the classroom and at G.E., Bell Labs, etc.) was on speculative, futurical ideas. Then it all changed and physicists had to accomplish short-term successes (fix this problem in 18 months or create this new technology in 12 months).

Amazingly, without bemoaning the fact, Dr. Carson stated that the U.S. has been, since it's inception, very pragmatic. While we may think of ourselves as "cutting edge" we are only so when it has immediate benefit. The labs at G.E. and others drastically changed when quarterly stock-value became the deciding mark of a successful product.

Then I was talking to a guy who does sales from a company like Cisco where the product is very complex and it usually takes 12 to 18 months for a sale to complete. What is he supposed to do when the Sales Manager says, "Profits were down last quarter, we need to sell more!"? How can he turn even a 12-month sales-cycle into a profit in 4 months?!?!?

So here's where I fear I'm not going to be worthwhile... I'm strongly inclined to see eventual gain. For example, if Home Depot goes back to treating its customers well (which I believe they are trying to do), I think they will eventually gain back much of the market they lost to Lowes.

If more people meet more Christians who aren't fully-obnoxious about their religion, eventually people will have a new understanding of Christians and, even better, of The Christ.
If more people grow up around more Christians who deeply love God and others, eventually this will become 'the norm.'

At least that's what my eyes see.

So what do I do in a country/culture that is so pragmatic? Do I try to 'sell' what I see to those who are pragmatic? Do I try to give them glasses or binoculars? Do I try to change their pragmatism?!? Do I use metaphors I don't really care for like 'being balanced' (balance of pragmatism and long-term investment)?

Even worse, I sometimes see a win-win in which pragmatic decisions are made based on both short- and long-term goals. Is it possible for someone to see the benefit of both-and when they can't (barely) see 'the other' side?

But what pragmatic person is going to even have a conversation about long-range thinking?

Am I in the wrong part of the sandbox?

Leadership Development can't just be of Leaders

2008-07-14T14:44:00.002-07:00

Having had a conversation about how "leadership is developing leaders" with someone, and being tired of the 6.5 billion irrefutable laws of leading and following, and how often I hear individuals speak of being a "leader of leaders" but never interact with these proteges as it pertains to their ACTUAL FOLLOWERS!, I had the following outline of thought.

1. Leadership development is not just developing leaders but giving them opportunities.
a. There is leadership development of skills, character, history, etc.
b. But there is ALSO develop opportunities for them to learn how to lead: by practice, experience

2. Otherwise "leadership development" is just developing individuals, it's not generating anything that needs to be led!
a. That is, self-promoting in that it is circular (cf. old story about the lighthouse that turned into the lighthouse society that was too busy being a society to save sailors anymore)
b. That is, it would never be FOR the followers but just FOR the leaders!

3. Thus, "leadership development" is the development of individuals (leaders) AND expressions of leadership (on behalf of of the followers) or it will ALWAYS be hypothetical (or worse, circular)

Implication: NOT every leader can/should be involved in this scope of Leadership Development. It is, much more so, a very different kind of leadership development that is not for every leader (due to history, genetics, etc.). In fact, a Leadership Coach/Developer might not be much of a leader at all, but might be a masterful coach who also comes up with/finds expressions of leadership.

Example: Leadership Development in the International (actually, Chinese) District of Seattle. Leadership Development should certainly include skills, theory, character, etc. But if they don't actually get out an lead, then we've done nothing but propagate titles.

[Even worse would be that we now call this person a sage and ask him/her to train others who do nothing but train others]

So leadership development would need to also include actually leading. Perhaps:
+ Creating a "clean up the street" program to be led by developing leaders
+ Founding, staffing, helping create curriculum for a "big Brother training center" where developing leaders can run/manage/engage
+ Handing a young leader the topic of:
"self-sustaining food production inside This District"
Paperwork aid for non-English speakers
homeless legal defense

All examples of something that is done for the locals, on behalf of the locals, with the locals, etc.

Why I like Seth Godin - his single lines

2008-07-04T10:05:00.002-07:00

It may take reading the whole (albiet, short) post to get meaning from the one line, but it's worth it in the case of this post on perks/expectations. Or maybe he has one lines that are incredible and then fleshes them out.

Either way, the post is worth pondering as it pertains to business AND loving my neighbor (or family member or stranger or the person on the other side of the counter at any given retail outlet).

The Shack author on The Shack

2008-06-27T09:27:00.003-07:00

My friend, Mr. J.T. Hardcastle, posted a clip of the author of The Shack talking about the book.

Spoiler Alert: He talks about the reality of the characters / the source of the characters!

But the later part of the interview is quite delightful.

http://jthardcastle.blogspot.com/2008/06/william-paul-young-look-inside-shack.html

Science is Cool

2008-06-26T11:27:00.000-07:00

I forgot emotions are expensive

2008-06-26T11:26:00.001-07:00

I'm remembering why I turned my emotions off.

Life feels less in-control.

Subliminal teaching by Contrast effect

2008-06-10T21:15:00.002-07:00

Is it possible more is taught (or in this case, caught) by the incongruity between what is asked and what is allowed? when what is stated as important is often dismissed by non-action (therein devaluing what is stated)?

If I, as a leader, state that those I lead should "always be growing/expanding" yet never ask if they are, never measure growth of any kind, maybe only briefly praise examples of growth, never show my growth, and put most of the resources into things other than "growth"...

Have I not taught, asked, lead, something other than what I said? Have I not, perhaps more powerfully than direct request, actually instilled the opposite of what I was intending to impart?!?

I am thinking of this as a dad. I am thinking of this as a boss. I am thinking of this as a leader of a cause. I am thinking of this as The Head Dog. I am concerned.

Backing up Firefox . . . everything!

2008-04-30T08:13:00.002-07:00

I'm a big Firefox fan. If you are, too, and would like to backup extensions, passwords, etc. then get Febe. There's even a link to make a single, .xpi that can be used to reinstate/reinstall everything. Sweet.

Silly Scientists, Strings are for kids

2008-04-23T13:33:00.002-07:00

I watched a movie of what is touted as "String theory, explained for the normal human." From all I've read, it's a great video!! He clearly states, in easy terms, that what he's espousing is silly. He just didn't seem to notice!

1) Every "extra" dimension is always called a smaller-than-we-can-see dimension. They never describe NEW dimensions, only super-small measurements, beyond what we can currently measure. That's not a new dimension, it's just small. Even his ants video goes against his point.

2) "Ah, but those are just metaphors, the extra dimensions are in the Math!" Only because they were IMPLIED in the Math (see his first point on how a 5th dimension ever entered the conversation). The extra dimensions are implied, then formulas are created, then the extra dimensions are "validated" with "Hey look! Those extra dimensions are required for our extra-dimension equations to work!" Silly.
- Even further, the 5th dimension guy felt that gravity "took" 3-dimensional space so electro-magnetic radiation had to have a whole new dimension. What?!? First, it would require THREE new dimensions since the effect is 3-dimensional. Second, why can't it co-exist with gravity, since the effects of each of them are on the original, 3 dimensions? Weird.

3) It's like N.A.S.A. looking for "life" by looking for "water" on Mars. Why water? If the odds of live being created as it is on Earth are ridiculously large, is it really a good idea to exponentially increase those odds by stating that all life that could ever evolve will always need water?!! If the odds were say, 1 million to 1 that life could evolve the way it did on earth. The odds of life evolving the same way on Mars is now 1 million to 1 million to 1 -- 1 million to the power of 1 million . . . to 1. Silly.

Sting theory, as is constantly being explained in both "layman's terms" and in more "insider" terms always seems to be a theory based on a hypothesis that's rather silly.

So if the "scientific" scientists are silly, and the Christian-ish scientists are silly . . . who's not silly?

I'm tired so I cry

2008-04-14T09:22:00.003-07:00

I can tell when my soul is tired these days (since around 2004) because I cry easily. I started to cry this morning as we read of Bartimaeus and I heard "Jesus, son of David!, have mercy on me!"

And again, today I finally read the Stiff's blog entry on a great man, Clyde Cook. Among other things, he was president of OC International for a bit. He died on Mikaela's birthday, that's the hard part for me. Sabina Wurmbrand (incredible wife of the incredible pastor Richard Wurmbrand) died on my birthday, from what I recall. While I don't really care much about my own birthday, it's awkward to have a death (end) and a birth (start) remembered on the same day. I think I feel like Solomon writing Ecclesiastes.

I hate it when the greats die. So few of them exist, their death feels almost like an extinction. Great ones, in this sense, are the ones who go through bad life-experiences that they could not create for themselves and not only "make it" but thrive afterward - even more so, they bring light to the darkness that is trying to crush them. Like the "story of the Philippian jailer." I don't really want to be one of these "greats" - too expensive, hurts too much, too much potential for harm to be done to those I love (physically, emotionally, spiritually). I DO want to be one, but I don't.

This is what I think about when I'm emotionally tired.

I surrender all

2008-04-03T08:12:00.003-08:00

In my journey towards emotional health (or simply having emotions), I hit a wall this morning called "Surrender." I realized that I have spent most of my life assuming that I surrender that which is good, desired, or powerful: my future, my will, my gifts, my family, etc. I have wrestled with God about His Church, my future, and other really good things.

But what about my pain? I have wrestled with surrendering my "loss" that comes from not getting the full expression of my vision for the Church (yikes). I have tried to surrender to the "loss" of not fully expressing all of who I am (self-actualization). But I don't think I've really surrendered those losses that actually take-away from what I have or am. I haven't surrendered "the bad."

As I have written previously, I am finding out a lot in regards to being let-down by God. So now I am realizing that I might come to God for help with my pain, but I won't surrender holding onto my pain. Offenses from the past, wounds from 15 years ago, etc. I hold onto them as if they keep me "humble" or "real" or ...

Somehow, pain never seemed to be something to surrender. As if pain is a good thing to have so I just keep holding it, keep it safe. I can be "healed" and able to move on, but I never thought to surrender the pain, the bad. I don't think I'm espousing denial. I think this would be closer to forgiveness, continually forgiving because the pain is continually aroused.

Surrendering the bad. Weird.

Thanks again, Pat, for having gravity in the emotional realm and thereby altering my spin!

Living in America

2008-04-03T07:28:00.002-08:00

In this land of luxury
The greatest threat to Life is me

Culture and Beliefs

2008-03-31T08:40:00.002-08:00

Been doing a bit of work on worldviews: how they are formed, how they can be formed. Then had an interesting conversation with my friend Jesse Gable about our time together in the youth group of a church we were at together.

I think this is what I believe: creating a "culture" is more powerful than teaching truths (or policies or priorities or ...) because it both directly and indirectly alters those beliefs (I'll call them "governing beliefs") that affect actions, feelings, and other beliefs. Perhaps these "governing beliefs" are the same thing as one's world-view.

Critically, maybe this is why who I hang-out with or what I immerse myself in is so important (ex. friends, music, 'scene', books, club, church, etc.).

Perhaps this, 'culture', is what all the current business-thinkers are talking about: how do we get an organization to move-forward, to be always growing, etc. because what we've BEEN doing isn't working (management by walking around, management by objective, six-sigma, reorganization / re-engineering, etc.). How do we shrink the gap between the lowest or newest employee and the CEO or the soul of the organization? Seems to me they are usually asking, "How do we create a culture that just . . . causes! . . . what we want in the company?"

As a leader, how deliberate am I about pro-actively creating the desired culture (since I AM creating culture by my very position)?

As a human, what kind of culture(s) am I in? What would I assume they are doing to my worldview? Is it good, bad, neutral? Do I NEED a different culture to live in right now (in order to grow, expand, heal, etc. some aspect of myself)?

How intentional am I being with those aspects of my life that define what I think is "natural"?

"Reclaiming Time" - N.T. Wright

2008-03-26T05:33:00.003-08:00

"The reclaiming of time as God’s good gift (as opposed to time as simply a commodity to be spent for one’s own benefit, which often means fresh forms of slavery for others) is not an extra to the church’s mission. It is central." - N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope.

As one who naturally thinks in terms of tools (utility), this . . . hurts. My natural instinct is contrary to the idea of time as a gift, a good gift, a gift not to be taken lightly nor used like a dish-towel.
- Nor am I to re-activate my Time Systems(c), my Day-at-a-Glance(c) account. I need a new perspective. I need to see time as more 'holy' than I have. This is actually a heart/motive issue first; for me, this is a soul-problem.

While not a directly Scriptural command, this thought strikes me as a powerful understanding of how my context (me & my choices in my culture) thwarts my praying, "YOUR will be done on earth as it is done in heaven."

[Thanks to Tara for pointing out this quote]

Great quote on Persistence - too good to pass up

2008-03-14T17:07:00.002-08:00

Sorry to simply quote someone else's whole blog-post. But I really like this and it's short.

Persistence

Persistence isn't using the same tactics over and over. That's just annoying.

Persistence is having the same goal over and over.

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/03/persistence.html

My eyes are opened to the opening of my heart

2008-03-10T16:03:00.002-08:00

In our small-group last night, I was challenged. Again.

I find the following unkeepable balance:

Pray, especially because God asks (including: "you don't have because you don't ask" & "your faith has made you well")

-- vs. --

God is sovereign (including: "who are you, the clay, to question the potter" & "were you there when I _____ [formed the word, created the Leviathan]" & "even kings are like drops of water in God's hand")

Growing up in a Reformed-informed + contra-charismatic tradition, there was a strong leaning on the Sovereign God side. Then I watched T.V. and saw the "claiming" approach and thought, "Nice - what a bunch of bunk." Local news shows followed-up and "proved" the sham.

Then Pat (the host/husband) said, "When you do that, you withhold part of your heart from God." Huh. Pat is one of those guys who's all-man, but very healthy emotionally nonetheless (grin). So I listened. [Also, I know I'm emotional behind for my age]

He said it's better to claim God's healing, forgiveness, miracle, etc. and then, should God not do what I was asking, give Him my sense of hurt, of loss, of disappointment. I realized I had kept those kinds of things from God.

Then Pat (innocently) pulled the, "It's better to have felt and lost than never felt at all." The best thing about Pat is that there was NO sense that this was a jab - he really wanted me to get this, to experience this.

So to those that follow my journey or one like it, I have once again re-engaged the emotional aspect of my relationship with God. Not that I drop the other: the mystical or the rational. But now I am learning how to add Emotion to my relationship with God (and my wife, and my kids and ...). I honestly thought the steep part of my emotional journey was over. Perhaps I was wrong!

Pat's the coolest.

Postmodern Grammar and Water

2008-03-10T16:00:00.005-08:00

For some reason, I read this . . . "wrong." I thought I might need to buy a permit for my car so that it could go swimming in the Car Pool 'located' behind the sign.

my Trouble isn't about me but God's Reputation

2008-03-04T06:18:00.003-08:00

I read Psalm 46 this morning through eyes that have seen God's method-of-operation more than yesterday. I think, then, that the New American Standard captures the heart of this Psalm better than the others. Like this:

God is our refuge & strength, a very present help in trouble. So we don't fear.
- even if the earth reshapes itself! Violently! No fear.

Shhh.

God's city, the place where God's "will be done," that's a calm place. But it's in His timing...
- calm like a river, calm like a gigantic rock - so big as to be a mountain

There IS much shaking and reshaping among humans. Violently! But humans and their uproar are melted by God simply saying so.

Shhh.

The evidence of God's work is everywhere. And it is becoming increasingly blatant. He even violently destroys violence(?!).

To strive, then, is not the action of those seeking victory or release. Victory or release are not for me - they are to show God's greatness. My victory, my release, are for God's reputation, not really my situation.

THIS, then, is why He is called Lord of the Mighty Army of Heaven (Hosts)
THIS, then, is why He is called God of the Promise Without End (of Jacob)
HIS reputation is vastly more important than my Trouble

Is this why His help comes only when "morning dawns" and not when I feel most overwhelmed?

Can I live under a God who sees my trouble with two eyes: one of love for me, but one of proving Himself to be the Great God - the later more powerful than the first?

In Ezekiel 36, God makes it very clear to both Israel and the mountains that God has/will wipe the mountains clean of His people who have harmed His reputation. Then He is going to fill the hills with God-fearing people and amazing produce. And His repeated battle cry is, "Not for your sake, but so everyone will know that I, Yahweh, have done ALL of this.
- yet in the middle of this is one of the most dominant, New Testament themes:

a new heart, the Spirit within you

It was this, the coming of the Spirit, that caused Peter & John and the rest to giggle when beaten, to sing when imprisoned, to have what N.T. Wright calls "an almost care-free joy." It is that "something" that I read in the book of Acts yet don't sense in the Church today. It is that "something" that rewrites my trouble by putting into the hands of God. But God doesn't have only me in mind, He also has is own reputation ("glory").

I find myself asking, Can I handle a God like this? Can I, in the height of my pain, be okay with a God who is more interested in using the situation for His reputation more than He's interested in fixing my problem(s)?

Or, as it now sounds to me having read this, Am I okay with a God who is more about Himself than about Me?

Can't figure out what to do with this

2008-02-25T16:52:00.002-08:00

Faith Popcorn's BrainReserve [that HAS to be the weirdest/fakest-sounding legitimate company name] wrote the following:

"Enforcer Brands vs Enlightened Brands" (Feb 11, 2007 - 9:42:00 PM)
which basically states that we are seeing this interesting "battle" between Enforcer & Enlightened brands.
Perfect example:

Viacom going after all the peer-to-peer folks (e.g. Napster), suing like crazy

-- VS. --

Apple (e.g. iTunes store), selling songs using a peer-to-peer feel

Viacom = The Enforcer (boo!) Apple comes along like the Enlightened Savior (yeah!) by simply giving people what they wanted all along at a (seemingly) reasonable price. How . . . enlightened. [Funny side-note, now Amazon is taking on Apple's Enforcer tactics! It's like watching ages happen in the matter of years!]

So I'm thinking this has a great 'lesson' in it for Sunday School teachers, maybe even all pastors. But I don't know if I like the obvious parallel (hands-off, just appeal by being less-direct).

So, sincerely, what is it that this thought from Faith Popcorn.com (I can't even type that without giggling!) helps uncover about the Faith Community (puns are funs)?

Dark Days at Hand

2008-02-25T07:06:00.004-08:00

For hundreds of years, the People of God (Israel) longed for release from the oppressive cloud that engulfed their lives: personally and as a whole people.

O! Come Immanuel!! Please, our God, send the Messiah NOW!
Can you not hear us? Can you not see?
Why do your children SUFFER -
Why is mourning our breath, and bleeding our bread?

One can hope to imagine what it must have been like to see the first fingers of light at the dawn of The Anointed One. The angel statements/choir. The prophecies fulfilled. The culmination of the genealogy of Abraham, the fulfillment of David's throne.

Then HE came . . . the Spirit of the Almighty, Living God Himself! Not only did He come, He made His very home here - among His people. Nay, IN His people!

What could be more incredible than, in one generation, to have the centuries of oppression lifted and the people of God became God-dwelt! The beginning of the very end of the story. The very point of the saga. And to have God never be far again, but more near than near - inside.

Yet we, His people, have placed ourselves under the oppression that destroyed millions by dethroning the King and asked His Spirit to sit by, quietly, as we live in oppositeness, right in front of Him. How can we choose to want His reign to end?

Is this why the "heavenly hosts" roared? Is this what brought stargazers from so far to see? Is this what 800 years of prophecy were pointing toward? Was the point of the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus to simply give us another brand-name we can pick off the shelf, a better market of options? Such dark, dark irony.

How did Christmas become about me? Not the People of God, not the Promises of God, not the Presence of God Himself! Much less the Rule of The King.

[yet He continues as the Right Lord of all who crown Him, a creator of The Kingdom for all who make Him King.]

Going back to college

2008-02-11T11:26:00.000-08:00

Ever wish you could take only the courses you WANT to take in school? Goto http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_feeds.php and watch/listen to a ton of classes (goes back to Fall 2001).

This is not every class U.C. Berkeley has to offer, but there's quite a bit. They are podcast-able (RSS). Some courses are available on Video as well. All have podcast mp3's and download able mp3's. Class outlines/coursework is usually posted as well, if you want to pretend to DO the class.

Just so you know. It's almost like going to school for free, taking the classes you want, and having no homework (unless you want).

Cultural Irony in the U.S.

2008-02-08T12:56:00.001-08:00

We want the perfect, the best, the ultimate.

We want bigger and better.

========================

Aren't those mutually exclusive after a while?

24 Hours of Bad News + Lent

2008-02-07T12:12:00.001-08:00

Went to a Lent / Ash Wednesday service yesterday (thanks to the exceptionally kind pastors at Calvary Lutheran Church) and even got my ash-cross on my forehead (see Tara's blog). During the service, there is a lot about confession / sin and then a lot about the poor, the outcast, the less-than. The Lenten prayers are often, then, about confession (Ps. 51) and for the less-than.

What struck me in the confession sections is this: there seems to be a thread in the Scriptures that God is made great ("glorified") by His actions towards/on us that are then seen by "the world" (be that locals, internationals, angels, etc.). In the traditional passages of Lent, this glorifying is done by His forgiving of sins.

I know there is an accidental trend in Western and/or Evangelical thinking that puts the word "forgiveness" all-but solely on the Cross. There is 1 John 1:9 and the like, but we end up doing this:

Past = Forgiveness
Now = Fixing (sanctification, doing the right thing, being good, "growing", etc.)

Irony: we are asking people to accept God's forgiveness but we can't seem to show it to them because we are too busy with God's fixing(up) our lives. Are we hiding God's forgiveness?
Thought: Are we accidentally telling people that forgiveness is good, but God is really interested in the long-haul of changing actions (and maybe character)?

During the service, I couldn't help but think of our brothers and sisters in Kenya right now. Especially when we prayed for those "dying, and those expecting [the death of a loved one]."
Now, over the last 24 hours, I have not had a conversation that doesn't involve someone's significant physical, emotional, relational, and/or spiritual pain & suffering.

My emotional tank is draining quickly. These are some unique and dark days for me. Yet my hope is in Yahweh. More than ever for I have never been so keenly aware of how much I long to wrestle control from His hands and do the good-work myself. My never-ending tendency to play the Spirit in people's lives, in the world.

Somehow, keeping that as equally prominent "on the table" as the issues at hand has let me rest in the solidity of Jesus while feeling the tempest around me and the unpredictability of God's methods.

Wineskins, paradigms, metaphors

2008-02-05T11:52:00.000-08:00

"Meta" is a fun prefix to me; it just makes everything Bigger! Mikaela's teacher actually has a section called "meta-cognition" on her report card (that means "thinking about what/how you think").

There is a bizarre combination of sociology and postmodern philosophy (majoring on deconstruction) that sprung-up a while ago called "Cultural Studies"++ that has me thinking about currently used Metaphors but through a different Paradigm (sounds pretty snazzy, eh!).

I was conversing with Tara about the metaphors we have used, quite subconsciously I think, to understand ourselves as a society/nation. It seems that Leader/Follower is quite dominant. This is, by now, clearly seen in the Church and in Business (generally).

tying this together...
One of the three threads that Cultural Studies has identified as "that which creates one's world-view" is Discourse.** Where my mind wandering into was this: How has "Leader/Follower as dominant paradigm" affected Discourse?

Thought 1: Lately, it has made Discourse the most-used thread of influence. I suspect this comes from how Leaders & Followers are often physically distant from each other (ex. distance from CEO to store-clerk, Federal Government to constituents, principal to students, working parent to young child). This, then, diminishes the other two threads: Relationships and Animation (activities, habits, practices). Does this help (partly)explain all talk and no Love / no Action, respectively?

Thought 2: Discourse-by-Oration has taken a beating making way for Story and Decentralization, as of late (in my opinion). Does this have ramifications for the Sunday Morning Sermon?

Thought 3: What opportunities might this turbulence* create? What other disruptions might this cause?

Thought 4: What are the long-term effects of such a pendulum-swing away from Oration? [More than once I have heard the "death" of oration. Ironically, I have heard this in an oratory format!]

++ the link is a pretty lame introduction, but the best I've found so far

* [by "turbulence" I mean the move away from a given method (oration) of living-out our most foundational metaphor (leader/follower) plus the renewed interest by the less-powerful (followers) in the other 2 branches of living life (relationships & animations)]

** I am most grateful to James Watson of Outreach Canada for elaborating on the work of Ryan Bolger as he (Ryan) synthesized Cultural Studies unto usefulness!

Myself as idol

2008-01-11T07:04:00.000-08:00

Serious question - if you read this, please chime in (even if you feel as lost as I):

How can it be that the Holy Spirit produces SELF-control? Once I am SELF-controlling, am I not out from under His control? Doesn't being out from under His control imply He is no longer producing?

More implications of a Faith-based God

2008-01-10T07:12:00.001-08:00

I wrote about this previously, but am finding it almost all-consuming anymore so I have more thoughts (duh).

A quick perusal of the Gospels finds that Jesus often "waits" for someone's faith: "Your faith has made you well" "He didn't do many miracles there because of their lack of faith" etc.

So what if God's "agenda," His "work in this world" IS my faith. Then God's Plan, His Action, His Will is my faith, my submission. I have often found it awkward how God (as usually seen in Jesus in the Gospels) lets His plan get altered. The when and why often seem much less significant than what is being stopped (ex. Jonah: one guy's submission vs. a major city-state's repentance).

This seems to have some serious ramifications as to:

Truth: the reason for Truth, the use of Truth
God's love of that _____ (lost, poor, sheep, etc.)
God's "activity in this world"
Wisdom and/or advice in the Community/Body
How we measure God's activity, others' activities
Role of the Holy Spirit personally, in a local Body, globally
"What is God's will for my life?"
"What is God's will for Life?"

Does this imply that anything other than my faith is less than faith?

When I work on different aspects of my "walk with God" (that's code for, "mainly my morality, especially the parts that can be seen and/or measured so I can feel good about myself - maybe even come to trust myself to be Right"), should I always start with finding the faith parts?
If I focused on faith first, would this life (or my "walk") look different? be done differently?

I fear I have no idea. I have trusted myself far too long. I have trusted that Obey is equal (better?) than Faith only to find that this is not God's way?

Good Power

2007-12-30T06:23:00.001-08:00

Thread 1: There's a TV show I like called The Unit on CBS (can't believe the show is still going!) about the lives and missions of a secret, elite military team. During the latest episode ("Side Angle Side"), one of the team's wives helps "save" a gal from her suicide attempt. In talking with her husband she says, "When you're out on a mission ... I feel so helpless. But with this, I really felt (pause) powerful. I know, it's wrong to want power..."

Thread 2: I read a bit of business literature/theory, especially Jim Collins and Hamel & Prahalad. One thing they all key in on is what Collins calls a "Level 5 Leader" - the leader who leads on behalf of the organization, not him/herself. Example: CEO of CostCo makes ~$350,000 (as of 2006), "I figured that if I was making something like 12 times more than the typical person working on the floor, that that was a fair salary," he said. (ABC News interview) I'm sure he has nice bonuses and other benefits, but $350k?

Thread 3: I fear my own pride and strength of relationships. I fear what I might do with such . . . power. In an old Tuesday Night conversation (which we used to host in ~2004) it came out that Relationship can be measured in Power (persuasion). I REALLY didn't like that. But it seemed accurate.

Thread 4: I always - always - think there is a better or even perfect expression for everything. Call it perfectionism. Call it control. Call it "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Call it bringing the future into the now. Call it the Reign of Christ. I long for the ultimate expression of any/everything. Whatever is perfect for a given time/circumstance, that's what I want to think about, to pursue.

After weaving these threads (and I'm sure others), I have concluded that Power does not corrupt. Self-gaining use of power is an expression of corruption-already-existent. Two leaders I work with (a.k.a. my kids) often hear, "Leading is always for those being led - you never use leadership or power for yourself."

Yet I find that most Christians I talk to, read, or work with see Power as something toxic.

Like the wife in that episode of The Unit. Power is bad, only God can handle power. And is this not one of the messages just under the surface in The Lord of the Rings trilogy - those who want power are enslaved by it (power == ring). In the books, this is made even more clear by the character of Tom Bombadil.

It seams we humans either run away from power for fear of wanting it, abuse it, or try to develop a series of controls for (against?) those who have it (Elder boards, denominations, policies, etc.). But we never seem to develop power "skills."

More useless wastes of time, but fun

2007-12-26T11:11:00.000-08:00

http://www.games1.org/flash-games/Shuffle

Surprisingly strategic ball game - use your red marbles to knock-off computer's yellow marbles before you loose all yours.

My Will be Done

2007-12-14T07:10:00.000-08:00

Had my head stuck in research lately - actually research of research (?). I'm convinced we can use research to find out what people are actually thinking, feeling. But this runs smack up against most everything church-health related (ex Natural Church Development (cf. graph in upper right), Vision Renewal, CRM, etc.).

they ALL have their pre-set list of what churches should be
[and none of them include the poor, for example]

This is really driving me nuts. How is it that with all the resources, insight, wisdom, and history that the Church has, we still cannot figure out how to stop swinging like a pendulum from one way/method/idea to the other?!? Why can't we see that these are short-term, reactive (at best!) solutions that will not get us further but simply different?!? And why is "different" such an important value? Why isn't "better" or "preparative"? Why do we have to be so today-driven? (or at best, today plus a little bit of the past)

Seriously, am I nuts? Does it disturb only me that the majority of people coming to Jesus (worldwide) are no longer Evangelical, non-charismatic (which, as I understand, has been what most Western Christians are/become)? Not that I'm bothered by their being non-Evangelical and somewhat charismatic (I think I might prefer that!), what's disturbing is how much of it all is reactionary. I'm sure you, reader, can think of a few other pendulums your country/culture are swinging on.

Seriously, am I nuts? Am I so fixed on an aberration of the future that I am I have lost touch with reality? Seriously?

Afraid of Pain

2007-11-26T09:08:00.000-08:00

What kind of a sick culture mistakes

Not Feeling Pain for Strength?
Numbness or even Denial for Character or even Faith?

Expecting God causing me to Miss God

2007-11-04T06:18:00.000-08:00

Reading in Matthew some more, and came across the goofy "Transfiguration." At the end of it, the disciples are asking, "Isn't Elijah supposed to come before the Messiah/Son-of-Man comes?"

Jesus replies, ""Elijah does come, and he will restore all things. But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands." Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist" (Matt. 17:11-14, ESV).

It has been pointed out to me a number of times over the last years that Many Things were different between what Jesus did and what was "obviously" prophesied in the Scriptures before Him. [The last I heard it was in looking at how the End Times have been over-done :: Jesus re-interpreted a number of Scriptures, but the assumption is made, essentially, that He would not do that at His Second Coming]

So does this problem still exist with me? Do I make assumptions about how God is going to act and therein miss what He's actually doing? If I were the disciples, I never would have guessed that John was the Elijah to Come. John didn't . . . "fully" live out the prophecy ("restore all things"). And who kills Elijah!?!

He's already dead and everyone knows you can't kill a zombie
Were they not waiting for Elijah with much anticipation (cf. EVERY Passover meal had an empty chair for Elijah plus his return was a part of this annual, Jew-defining liturgy)?

So I expect (long for, assume from Scripture, etc.) God to do or be certain things. I expect Him to love "like a Father," for example. Have I misunderstood "Father"? I pray "help me follow You" but I also know that I have my own responsibility in this - does this dichotomy signal an expectation problem? I expect Him to always "be there" and never get frustrated with my constant coming to Him, going my own way, coming back, going away, ... Am I missing the discipline Scriptures? or just "plain relational common-sense" -- if I did that with Tara, there'd be problems! Does this also apply to God?

I expect God to protect His name. I expect Him to "do something" about those Christians over there ('there' being at a different church, in a different part of the country, in West Africa, etc.). Has my desire for "purity" caused me to miss God's desire for "His glory" ("His reflection")?

I expect God to be a "God of order" [can we say, Over-application of Scripture?!?] - what "kind" of "order"?

Where else am I self-blinded?

Wrong (church) Goal

2007-11-03T05:38:00.000-08:00

As I was reading through Matthew 13, I noticed this: "the kingdom," which I take as being something like the Ultimate Expression of the Rule (sovereignty, control, etc.) of God, isn't made perfect/pure until the End. That is, the two parables that Jesus uses to talk about how the Kingdom is going to rid itself of the bad-guys have this "cleansing" at "the end of the world"!!

Yet I find myself trying to figure out how to get "them" out now. I find a similar approach in the Missional movement.

How can it be that Jesus is okay with having people contrary to His desire/plan? Why does He still allow Judas-types in His Body/Bride? This seems all-wrong to me. Yet it's God's method. So now I'm trying to assess: what of my understanding needs to change so that my 'approach' to the Kingdom is the same as God's? [Note: I know I made the jump from "Kingdom" to Church. I think it's a legitimate connection]

[more important, how do I know if I am a Judas-type or have slipped into being one?!?]

Ugly girl thought beautiful, asked to Prom

2007-10-09T06:56:00.001-07:00

What it must have felt like to be a "sinner" in Jesus' time. I wonder if it was like other outcast groups today - they mock the "in" people, further the gap between themselves and the majority (including the "in" but not only them). But would really like to be accepted unconditionally. Would really like to stop working so hard to find an identity, especially one that is a contrast and not self-contained (not a tick but a real dog).

So when Jesus shows up and actually CALLS one of the "sinners," perhaps it is no surprise that the rest of them show up. And to actually EAT with Jesus - not just be acknowledged or "reached out" to. They are asked to enter Jesus' domain (albeit in Matt's home - but it's Middle Eastern intimacy to eat).

I read this passage and thought of all the cheesy, musical-like movies where the top-kids mock the bottom-kids but then there is that cross-over moment. And then the top-kids freak!

So do I see myself as a top-kid, bottom-kid, crowd? Do I let Jesus love all "sides?" I was just enjoying the story . . .

My Proof that God Forgives

2007-10-09T06:02:00.000-07:00

I was wondering if there was a way to know that God will forgive no matter what someone has done. The following came together in my mind.

What would define "the most difficult to forgive"? For me, it would be the most personal offense. Something in regards to my family, perhaps? But I can imagine myself not forgiving my family (I've done this once or twice, although God has adjusted me) which kind of nullifies that offense as being "the worst."

For me, it would have to be something offensive as it pertains to my ideals, values, etc. - things in my brain. [While I am going to see God through this lens of myself, I am not claiming this is God's only perspective. I am elaborating on this aspect of God only] The following scenario came to mind.

When Jesus is towards the end of 3+ years of Gospel-recorded activities, He has been emphasizing the servant role for Himself and His disciples. In this context, James and John and their Mommy come to Jesus and ask to be First.

If I were Jesus, I would kick them out of my discipleship group (sic). How could they ask, nay, manipulate unto the goal of me-first, anti-servant?!?! Hadn't this been the POINT of all human-to-human interactions? And to have 2 of the 3 closest disciples pull this stunt! If I were Jesus I would have toasted them right there. Or I would have deliberately and recordably gone back in time, with Mark or Q or someone, and changed my calling of the Boys Of Dumber.

Yet when it's all over, one is His best friend and one is the pillar of the Church.

For me, that would have been an unforgivable offense - in my very face, ASK for me to go 100% contrary to that which is most important to me, for the sake of destroying one of the top 3 purposes for my existence. And they SO should have known this!

From a mental/rational point-of-view, I cannot see God as being unable to forgive.

Active vs. Passive - When God talks first

2007-10-02T06:58:00.001-07:00

I have a lot of ponderings lately about God's sovereignty and/or "listening" to God and/or "Jesus as Head of His church." This has bubbled up.

The primary passage quoted on Spiritual Warfare states, "stand firm." Not really what I was taught to do by every action movie I've ever seen. It's even contrary to a lot of the John Eldridge stuff I like.

Why such a passive posture?

I would think that it has to do with that whole "faith" thing that Jesus talks about over and over and over (seriously, read the Gospels quickly and see if "faith" isn't perhaps the most dominant thread). I have to "leave it in God's hands" kind of thing.

So here's what struck me as I was passively (sic) listening to a sermon-thing this last Sunday at our local church.

I would rather have a Christianity that causes activity not unlike the offense in a football game. But God, I'm thinking, is asking me to play defense; I am supposed to react to what God is wanting, doing, etc. I am even supposed to react (stand firm) to what Satan et al. are doing.

I don't get to cause the play but I do get to pick, sometimes in advance, how I'm going to respond. Not just preparation, but actively picking my defensive posture (e.g. blitz, stunt, prevent, etc.).

I don't like this. It means I'm not in control. More on that . . .

A guy who tried to "live" every rule in the Bible

2007-09-28T14:58:00.000-07:00

Don't know if you read/heard about this, but a guy does these year-long "experiments" where he immerses himself into something (I think round 1 was the Encyclopedia) for a year and then writes about the experience. While excessively fascinating from a philosophy/cultural point-of-view, it's kind'of fun.

Read the article to see how he viewed his time. Pretty good!

A Definition of "Health"

2007-09-21T15:03:00.001-07:00

"We are coming to understand health not as the absence of disease, but rather as the process by which individuals maintain their sense of coherence (i.e. sense that life is comprehensible, manageable, and meaningful) and ability to function in the face of changes in themselves and their relationships with their environment." - Dr. Aaron Antonovsky

Did this REALLY happen?

2007-09-10T18:16:00.000-07:00

In 1 Samuel 17:37 David says that God Himself was involved with David's killing (rescue) of a lion and a bear as David was protecting sheep.

Does God really get involved with that? Or is it possible that David took God's protection too far. I am NOT arguing against being heavily involved with Goliath's death.

Is it possible that God was NOT involved with the bear or lion and that David was mistaken?

What do YOU think?

More on metaphors: by Tony Miles

2007-09-07T07:32:00.000-07:00

My blog-friend Tony Miles has a GREAT line in his latest (as of this post) blog: don't call me Veronica: reviewing sabbath: a beautiful mess

In it he writes:

Truth is both poetic and rational . . . Unfortunately, to hold truth (or anything for that matter) in tension means that we loose control over it.
(emphasis added)

I love how he makes the connection between tension (in this context, "tension" parallel to "metaphor" in that a metaphor is an incomplete [tense] picture) and control.

And this is why I read Tony Miles ;-)

The metaphor of "Salvation"

2007-09-06T06:05:00.000-07:00

Some of the Emergent Church ('emergent village' to be precise) folks, at least around 2001, were making a pretty interesting rumbling about the use of metaphors. What was uncovered for me was how many of my thoughts about God and God+life (i.e. my theologies) were actually based on metaphors. Including "salvation," "son," even the word/idea "trinity."

My first reaction was to say, "No!" Not metaphor but rather real.

Then I came to believe that the reason for metaphors was to express something fully on my human level while pointing to (?) something greater than I could understand. The beauty of using a metaphor is that it often has more "levels" allowing my increased understanding and experiences with God to enlighten more levels - the metaphor doesn't contain ALL there is to grasp but allows me entry into the idea; often allowing more doors to be opened inside the metaphor itself since the metaphor is pointing to, explaining, something so grand.

The point . . . the idea of being "saved" (in a non-Biblical, non-Christian-specific way) usually means to be removed from a situation - saved from something. I read N.T. Wright write about God allowing bad things ("the theodicy problem"). Good article. It got me thinking about how unique our Salvation is compared to the typical use of the word. Our Salvation does not remove us from the location of the problem (sin, imperfection, distance from God, no-relation to God, unable to live as a subject of the King, etc.).

But perhaps this metaphor has been tainted by our common use of "salvation." Is it possible that part of what has happened in Western theology is that we use the Salvation metaphor so much (I would propose it is the primary metaphor, eclipsing all other metaphors combined) that we have accidentally let it focus our attention on the "out of here" nature of the word? God through Jesus didn't come to save me out (off) of this planet. But the metaphor reinforces this kind of thinking, I think.

N.T. wrote his article using a more "healing" than "saving" metaphor. Really, picking up the "redemption" metaphor more than the "salvation" one. Healing vs. Fixing. Living in this new metaphor, on purpose, for a while might change my view on people, my disobedient kids, my awful parenting, my neighbors, my thought-life, etc. I tend to like shiny, new things. What if I have to "recycle" everything (sorry, a bit of my Washington home coming through here!)? My assumptions about the innate evil-ness have to be replaced if something is redeemable. [Like our last house - some saw it as evil and needing to be destroyed, Tara saw it as redeemable]

I'd rather be fixed - the Bible stories-out healing. I'd rather be saved, God seems to choose redemption (buying back, re-owning, re-valuing).

More kid fun

2007-08-31T20:22:00.000-07:00

My 10 year old daughter is trying to explain to my 60+ mother the how and why of a Myspace account. If you don't know Mikaela, imagine a very precocious and highly verbal girl explaining the need for a Myspace account and all the great things one can do with their home-page.

[Note: my daughter got her Myspace account last night. 2 friends, one is me. She has changed the background/theme twice. She has a song playing from a High School Musical 2 actress. She has a picture up of her (proving she is too young to actually have a Myspace).]

I had a VERY hard time catching my breath after listening to Mikaela talk to Oma about Myspace, especially when Mikaela had a hard time understanding why her grandmother doesn't understand the incredible weight of Myspace nuance.

The world is changing.

Mouth of children

2007-08-25T17:39:00.000-07:00

Thought this was a great commentary on society(ies):

Tara: Why is that so expensive?
Mikaela: Because it's cool!
Luc: That's stupid.

My life at this time

2007-08-12T08:16:00.000-07:00

A blog entry that is so incredibly accurate to the way I think and so relevant to my current life-situation, only way more beautifully written/crafted than my own observation about life . . .

Monday, July 30, 2007

Steering is this: empowering leaders, resourcing plans, evaluating outcomes.

The active alignment of money, mandate and measurement is *not* judging tactics or leading execution. Steering is all about alignment. Steering is not making things happen. It is catalyzing the circumstances that allow for things to happen.

Steering is about a certain indirect influence in the future that is always already coming. The public face of steering is strategy embodied in initiatives. One steers initiatives. One executes projects.

One steers through initiatives as one turns a ship with the slight movement of its wheel. One executes projects as one swabs the deck of the ship that turns.

Another continuum to put people on

2007-08-12T08:07:00.000-07:00

I have made the observation that there is yet another continuum that people tend to fall on. Unless I am only seeing in lame, binary sorts of ways.

Here's another line:
Teach now (e.g. teachable moment) but remember-the-moment later
- and -
Live in the moment now and see life-lesson(s) as one remembers/reflects

It's a Teach vs. Presence sort of thing.

I have some people in my life who like to always evaluate the moment as it happen (usually by teaching). But will reminisce about the past. I find this awkward: why didn't you just be Present with me when the event happened?!? Why did you teach me then, but reminisce with joy as if it was a delightful time - I didn't enjoy the time, you were teaching at me!

I have some people in my life who just want to be present, but later find all kinds of interesting things to talk about. Like people who will fully engage a movie and then talk about the movie, the motifs, the parallels to life, real stories that spring from the movie, etc. It's as if no memory exists if it didn't have all kinds of implications (personal, social, etc.). Like some blogging friends for whom the only parts of reality that exist are the ones they journal/blog.

Then I have friends who do not observe where they are/have-been present. As if the past just falls off behind their feet into an abyss.

What am I?

Am I super?

2007-08-07T21:14:00.000-07:00

Saw the preview for a reality show called "Who Wants to Be a Superhero?" on the SciFi network. This primed my thinking for today's self-observation . . .

I went for a walk this morning. Partly to warm-up my muscles so that I don't hurt my back and partly for my "health." Health being eventually related to attractiveness, sadly.

So I'm pondering my sin as I walk around (?) and thinking that I want:
1) to have power to have things happen (i.e. my will be done)
2) I want to be wanted (desired, lusted after, good-looking in a spandex top, fun at parties, bright unto all situations, etc.)

YIKES! I want to be a super-hero!!

I know I used to want to be a super-hero so I could fly. But that was in the early 70's. How sad to see my immaturity like this (or like the picture above.

Then to top it all off, I came back, sat down, talked about this all with God, confessed and repented, felt embarrassed over the silliness of my pride that had seemed so reasonable early this morning, bowed my head in shame . . . and realized my zipper had been down the entire walk.

If you want to know me, read this . . .

2007-07-30T08:59:00.000-07:00

I found the webpage that perfectly describes me (and maybe you, if you know Myers-Briggs junk):

Here is me:

ENTP: The Mad Scientist

The ENTP, like the ENTJ, is charismatic, outgoing, and intelligent. ENTPs are often quickwitted, clever, and genial; they typically display a highly organized, rational cognitive ability which makes them natural scientists and inventors.

ENTPs are creative, complex people who seek to improve their understanding of the natural world, usually by building armored fifty-story-tall robotic monsters with iron jaws and death-ray eyes, or by creating genetically mutated plagues that spread unstoppably across the land, turning all who are contaminated into mindless zombie drones. They are less likely to want to conquer the world than to destroy it utterly, reducing it to nothing but slag and rubble--though this is often merely a side-effect of their pursuit of knowledge.

RECREATION: ENTPs enjoy recreational activities which challenge them physically and intellectually, such as water skiing and porting Linux to their iPods. They are also fond of collecting gadgets like combination cellpone/PDAs and orbiting arsenals of brain lasers, which they may port Linux to as well.

COMPATIBILITY: ENTPs and ENTJs make natural companions, as the one's unspeakable hunger for power complements the other's unspeakable hunger for knowledge. They do not generally build successful relationships with ESFJs, as ENTPs they are prone to behaving in inconveniently erratic ways, which pisses ESFJs off to no end; and because ENTPs simply do not know how to dress appropriately for formal occasions.

Famous ENTPs include Spencer Silver (the inventor of Post-It Notes), Robert Oppenheimer, and Dr. Jeckyll.

Find yourself at: http://www.xeromag.com/fun/personality.html

Another angle on human collections

2007-06-12T13:47:00.000-07:00

"The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them." attributed to Albert Einstein

Been reading "Finding our Way: Leadership for an Uncertain Time" by Margaret Wheatley. It's a look at human systems (organizations, companies, groups, pairs, etc.) through the lens of biological systems. From these evolutionist (and often Evolutionist) biologist comes the following set of needs organisms have (note: the more complex the being, the more these needs are felt):
1) the need to be myself and live (or create) out of my sense of self
2) the need to be with others, in actual community

Here's the basics of their framework . . .

3 Conditions for a Sustainable, self-organizing Organization (human or otherwise!):

1) Identity: the making-sense capacity of the organization
- core values, lenses/filters, intent of the org.
- the "self" is an internal construct
- self generated
- creates filters, values, etc.
- canNOT be created externally, only externally disturbed
- why try to shape what cannot be reached?!?

2) Information: the Medium of an Organization
- in-form, what forms from the Inside
- data becomes information when it is used by the "in" to form itself

3) Relationships: the Pathways of Organization
- data/information is passed, shared, amplified down these paths
- identity is created and re-created
- community is had, held, formed, given to new members

I find the #2-Information point interesting. Have I, as a pastor, tried too hard to change what I cannot even touch? Granted, the Spirit can mold there, but I cannot form in those places (values, ethics, morals, habits) that I was trying to reach with sermons, advice, meetings, events. [this point is directly tied to the ideas of "teachable moments" and "salting the oats"]
- I also like how date becomes information

#3-Relationships is expanded on quite a bit throughout the book. It is definitely a two-way system. More than just feedback, there is a equality that 's interesting: the head (human head, for example) that cannot get data except by Relationship, but the members only pass along that data which they consider Informative!!

This angle of bio-systems is fascinating my mind!

The Word "Culture" is Recursive

2007-04-19T16:51:00.000-07:00

I know someone who I think is mean and rude. I have a friend whom I really enjoy, very nice person, who thinks the mean/rude person is "quite pleasant."

So we all have "lenses" color the way we take in reality. In clinical psychology, it is well documented that people who are depressed have "bad luck" and those who are giddy seem to always have "good luck" - even when they have all-but identical things happening to them.

So I watched my friend-I-like interact with the mean/rude person. Sure enough, they were both pretty nice to each other.

I'd like to propose another metaphor that runs parallel to (and interacts with) lenses - that is Bubbles. It works like this: how I act not only colors how I see the world, but also how people act towards me. It's as if there is a bubble around me that affects Others; when people enter my bubble, they are affected by being in "my bubble" and act differently. It's as if the color of my lens affects the way I view the world, but the color of my bubble affects the color of the Other's lens. If I have a blue lens and a blue bubble, then my red-lensed friend sees things purple-y when in my bubble (red + blue = purple).

That's why my friend-I-enjoy likes the mean/rude person because the mean person isn't mean around my friend - my friend's bubble affects the mean person. It's more than just a happy person and a happy lens, the mean/rude person changes.

--------------------------------------------------

I have noticed that pastors tend to know some of there staff and some of "the congregation." Usually about 20 people (that's an emotional statistic that I just made-up to convey a hypothesis/conclusion). I've noticed that when someone close to a pastor/speaker has a deep up-movement (or down-movement) in life, the pastor starts seeing most people in a much more positive (or negative) light. Even more frequent, the whole church-body "is doing well" when the majority of "the 20" is doing well.

===================================

Putting these two together, I would like to propose that the word and idea of "culture" is recursive, that is, self-defining. [In the Linux world, there is a "program" called Wine - the letters spell out "Wine Is Not an Emulator." That is a recursive description in that the word "Wine" is in the definition of "Wine."] Here's what I see happening (read: hypothesis with no experiment coming)...

We think we are seeing a "culture" - foreign nation, inside the U.S., etc. But it's impossible to loose our lens(es) nor our Bubble. So the lens we look at "culture" with is tinted. And all of our direct (anecdotal) experience with a "culture" is tainted by both our lens(es) AND our bubble. That is, people of a given "culture" will be viewed with a bias (lens) as well as interact with me in a unique way (due to my Bubble). Further, my assessment of a culture becomes a part of my lens by which I observe that culture (plus a part of my bubble). This, it would seem, is a bit spiral.

So is it possible that "the culture" around me has much more to do with the 20 people closest to me? That I read cultural news through such a deeply colored lens that it really is more about my 20 closest?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Ever been categorized by someone who has completely missed? When I was working in the computer realm, I was thought of as a geek. When I talk to people at my local church, many of them think I'm a musician (most of how most people know me is from my involvement with the music on Sunday mornings). When I consult pastors, they see me as a academic. Mikaela and Luc's friends think I'm a "professional clown."

So when I hear my pastor/ministry friends talk about being "culturally relevant" or reaching out to those of a certain "culture," I cringe. If I am correct and culture IS recursive, then treating a "culture" as "those out there" makes absolutely no sense.

So what - maybe I should stop being "culturally relevant" and be interested and invested in at least "the 20" closest to me and perhaps another 20 whom I come across -- since "culturally relevant" is actually a misnomer ;-)

Push back if you get time.

Teaching Kids Giving - creative method

2007-04-13T08:48:00.000-07:00

This is a fun post on teaching kids giving. Works with adults (i.e. over-ripe children), too.

Stop Arriving and Start Traveling

2007-04-11T20:48:00.000-07:00

Jesus does NOT satisfy.

He sustains.

Levels of Death

2007-03-28T11:40:00.000-08:00

I) Sometime in grade school (c. 1978), I read a book called A Walk Across America. What's relevant is that the guy's dog died midway through the first leg of the journey. I wept. It was the last, major emotion I remember feeling until the 2000's, save a few incidents.

II) We saw Bridge to Terabithia the other night. I cried. It felt the same as that book in grade school. I realized, upon reflection this morning, that what I felt was the Loss of Relationship Future. That is, I actually dread the idea of a good relationship not lasting.

III) It doesn't take long reading commentaries on the Bible or going to a Bible or theology class before one comes across this, "The definition of Death is separation." That makes more sense as I get older.

Conclusion: I realized this morning that a huge part of my world(view) is Great Relationships. I strive to help them exist, I attempt to provide a multiple-source paradigm so that people are not left without Great Relationship should one relationship end.

Internally, I am working to prevent what God has allowed: death. If I can't prevent it, I try to make sure it can be easily and quickly replaced. It is a major part of my vision for the future.

Now I have to figure out if and where I am out of resonance with God.

One simplistic view of effective Leadership

2007-03-26T14:48:00.000-08:00

QuickDefinition to establish a starting point: Leaders act on behalf of their followers while directing same followers. In most situations, it's an issue of taking them from one "place" to another.

The nature of the "other place" is that it is, typically, more ideal than the current situation. As such, leadership can be seen as helping people experience more and more of "tomorrow" until today becomes what used to be the new tomorrow. Ideally, it's a cross-fade between Reality and Vision. Parts of tomorrow "infiltrate" today. Then more. And more.

One question test for Depession

2007-03-13T21:06:00.000-08:00

I may have some variant of a Psych. degree, so in theory I should be able to answer this myself. But, alas, I studied the hypothalamus much more than human interaction.

I stumbled across a song by Imogen Heap called "Hide and Seek" (featured on my friend's myspace site). It has a traditional, upbeat chord progression but somehow has a sad, longing overtone. It made me sad-ish just to listen to it.

So I did my typical response: self-observation (hah). Here's what I found . . .

The place of least friction in my soul is in the sad, the homesick, the slightly despairing.

I take to C.S. Lewis here who is the one that uncovered "desire" as a longing-for-God. So I don't know that I see this form of depression as being altogether evil. I don't live here all the time, but it is so easy for me to snap into this space. And it feels quite comfortable.

But I am curious about you - whoever you are reading this. If you are one who struggles with mild depression of some kind (clinical or otherwise), does this post resonate with you?

Or perhaps you would like to answer this: how would you describe the place where your soul seems most at ease, with the least friction, like being in the perfect spot on a slow river - the place where you can effortlessly float at that perfectly effortless speed?

What might be after the Modern era

2007-02-15T08:11:00.000-08:00

[Era defined as (1) what defines / how do we know what is "truth" and (2) what defines "authority"]

Two threads have been floating through my mind as I read both "modern" and "post modern" philosophers, critiques, some business articles, etc. I think they are coming together, but maybe not.

1) All things computer are coming to be led/run-by a unique blend of people. They are a combining art, industry, and economics. Example: Google (everybody's favorite example).
They are creating offerings, divisions, etc. like an Artist (i.e. most everything that Google does that is NOT the front-page search engine). They are innovating (ex. meta-tags instead of folders in Gmail), modifying (Blogspot, Google's maps and Google-Earth), and creating memory (the "cache" component of searching, the mass scanning of books, etc.).
They are helping form an industry/industries: information access, one-stop portal (with integration of parts like calendar, mail, search, map, entertainment, connection, purchasing, etc.). Notice "form" an industry: an industry to be sure, being created/formed - "art" words.
They are causing their own economy. Yes, advertising has been around. But not like this: Person-specific, cost by click, even you or I can make money by simply putting ads on our blog pages!
-- Most important: Google isn't stopping. Google is a trajectory company. They aren't looking to become #1 anything. They are looking to excel, at which point that will be #1 everything by means of their labor (as opposed to their "goals").

What I'm seeing is this: these companies aren't led by business folks. They are led by these hybrid artist/industrialist/economist persons. This is way more than just having a service-based company (vs. product based). I'm wondering if, for the first time, Art, Industry, and Economy are going to merge.
That would certainly change things! Art is typically the place where the future "is" - things happen in the world of Art before they happen in the world of "the common." But what if The Commoner is also an Artist? [Then again, maybe this is simply what happens at the turn of any age, like the "Renaissance Man" was to the beginning of the Modern period]

2) "... the flattening of the world means is that we are now connecting all the knowledge centers on the planet together into a single global network, which -- if politics and terrorism do not get in the way -- could usher in an amazing era of prosperity, innovation, and collaboration, by companies, communities, and individuals," The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman (page 8).

Almost sounds Marxist! Utopia not by war (one kind of power) but by knowledge (another kind of power).

-----------------------------

So when my brain starts mashing these together I get this: might the next ere see "Truth/right" as that which contributes to the greatest number of people? If this holds true, the super-powers (economically, not militarily) are in for a rude shock. This would be the exact opposite of what happened in "the 60's" -- free love, semi-anarchy, etc. gave way to . . . Yuppies (read: money). What if they hadn't given way . . .

If you bother with such thoughts, please feel free to push back, agree, dismiss, etc. Just do it in a comment so I can grow personally. Thank you. the Management.

Test for no longer being a youth (or young adult)

2007-01-01T05:04:00.000-08:00

It used to be . . . if I did not work-out, I would have extra energy that needed to be spent.

Now . . . if I don't work-out, I have no energy at all.

PLEASE BREAK THIS POST, BECAUSE I'M A BIGOT

2006-12-18T19:28:00.000-08:00

I'm going to lay out a few thoughts on the fully-mis-worded subject of "Women in Ministry," as it is too often called. Please, for the sake of all things of value, post SOMETHING if you disagree with anything in this post. I am so tired of arguing with myself since the people who write on this topic don't ever (1) defend their position nor (2) deal with the other side. Even if you agree with a conclusion but see something wrong in the path getting there, WRITE SOMETHING!!

So let me clarify: the issue is, can a woman be in authority over a man? Or, can a woman be in the top-authority position (typical example, "senior pastor")? This post will not deal with the issue of having a senior pastor since it is only used as an example common to us today.

1) Paul writes about how a woman cannot teach/exercise authority (v.12) over a man. I would take, as is common among the commentaries (but evidently not among the Greek-to-English interpreters), that "teach" and "exercise authority" are appositional. Thus I would write it, "teach-exercise authority" as if they mutually define each other.

2) Paul writes that a male has headship over a woman, just like the Father has headship over Jesus.

So let me stop there with the Biblical quotes and make a few observations in no particular order:
First, Jesus is fully qualified to be in-charge, but He wasn't allowed to be [parallel: why can't women lead when they are equally 'qualified']. Makes one wonder if this is a question of "qualification."
Second, both times, Paul refers to Creation as his rationale.
Third, Paul has most of the self-explaining writing on this subject

It is very common to also read our current need-for-power into Paul's context. Paul's use of Jesus and the Father or the Church and Jesus as a parallel/metaphor seems to imply that he (Paul) did not view leading the same way we do since the examples and metaphors we use have nothing in common with Paul's (e.g. slavery, C.E.O., etc.).

-- First Observation: Leading is supposed to be an act of Love and seen as a gift to the followers. If this isn't happening, then the leading is bad. No matter the gender of the leader! Please don't deal with bad leadership as some kind of male-dominance issue.

-- Second Observation: The common critique is that this issue comes from Paul's opinions (even though they almost universally cite Paul as their primary verses for male-female equality). This works its way into two, dominant threads.
First, the "obvious" male-and-female, side-by-side documentaries (e.g. Priscilla and Aquilla). This is a frustrating one to hear because it is, by definition, wholly subjective and flat-out reading into the accounts, basing the whole weight of the argument on word order. Yikes.
Second, the idea is espoused that Paul was putting his own bias and/or culture into his writings. This obviously runs into issues of how much control God kept in the writing of the Bible. I have yet to see it written (although I presume it has) that someone will come out and say, "This is my stance, and it works because I don't see God having much control over what Paul wrote." I don't subscribe to that idea of how the Bible was formed. Fine. The actual problem is this: without some kind of restraint on the writers, we have NO idea what is or is not cultural / we have no idea what is from God!! Too often I have heard in these contexts, I believe what Jesus said, not Paul. And we know what Jesus said from . . . Jewish, male writers with the same culture as Paul. Hmm. Making Paul suspect makes Matt., Mark, Luke, and John suspect, too. Then Jesus really does become God in (wo)man's image.

The other trend I see is that the whole male-over-female authority structure is an issue of the Fall and is therefore something that is reversed by Jesus and should be reversed by His Body as it ushers in the Kingdom.
Problem #1: "the Fall" refers to Gen. 3:16 where the woman is told the man will rule over her. A quick read brings up a goofy word: "desire." Susan Foh wrote an article many moons ago showing how this word "desire" translates a Hebrew word that shows up in Gen. 4:7 and Song of Solomon 7:10. Gen. 4:7 is an issue of who gets control, Song 7:10 is an issue of sexual attraction. Not too difficult to find out how Moses uses the word, go 15 verses and see it's a control issue. So we have the Fall and, as is written, the inequality starts. She has to be ruled by man.
-- why don't we see the woman's desire to control her husband / men as part of the Fall?!? It's in the same sentence! We are only going to condemn HALF the verse?!?
Problem #2: Paul, in both the examples I cite above, goes back to Creation. Pre-Fall!

Note of sadness. Two things bum me out in this: 1) we're taking whacks at the Scriptures because it's contrary to current struggles (why don't people go after forgiveness - that one's a whole lot more difficult to live out!) and (2) most women I've seen get into positions of authority end up leading just like the bone-headed males that have preceded her for the last few centuries.

There it is. My current ;-) thesis. Please hack away!! Even if you're reading this months or years after it has been posted - please respond if you disagree with one single word, phrase, sentence, idea . . .

[The real issue, for me, is the quality of the leadership which is STILL not being addressed!!]

The Future is starting to bubble-over in my head

2006-12-13T15:39:00.000-08:00

My incredible yet former boss, Brad Holaway, gave me an article from Forbes (September 2006) titled "The Cheap Revolution." 'Cheap Revolution' is a term coined by a Forbes writer (that's why almost no one else is using the phrase!) for the latest wave in technology that typically has to do with networking and/or the Internet. The article raised the temperature in my mind...

I'd rather think about the future

What I dream about, in a nutshell (note: every word is specifically used):
i) the Church, the people of God, would live in submission and reliance on the Holy Spirit

ii) the Church would shift towards every person living out what God has wired-into ("giftedness") or said-to ("listening to the Spirit") them

iii) the current Church would get ahead of this time of change and create a place, a space, that is fully-ready for the future when it/they/we get(s) there

Back to the article. The author rightly identifies what is happening but misses the trajectory of what is happening. He sees it as fully economic (specifically, people are going away from the big companies to cheap, fast, often free versions that do less but do them better - this is also sometimes called 'Web 2.0 initiative'). I see it as deconstruction. Most philosophical changes start in the arts and end in the masses and then finally in the social structures (which have traditionally been religious in the West). Here, this aspect of the Modern era is showing up differently than other shifts in the past because our economics, information, and "industry" are becoming one-and-the-same - and this new hybrid is being led by artists loosely called "programmers." See Google's lifespan so far as an example.

These artists are deconstructing what has been, even what they themselves have created. This is more than just economics, more than just competition. Here are a few quotes from the article:

"The last thing elite talent wants to do is work on making a 15-year-old software program into a 20-year-old software program." Scott Dietzen, former principal architect at BEA
"Startups always define the new era." William Coleman ("Bill" - "B" of BEA; around 2001 he was personally worth $900 million - he himself! He has since left and started a startup)

It was interesting to see how many statements/quotes in this article could easily, if taken out of context, sound like a quote from many of the church-planters I read or the Christians (even leaders) who are irritated with the way things are.

But even moreso. The guys being quoted spoke repeatedly that the form, the structure, the layout of the past generation of tech. companies is not the problem these companies now face. The first quote above (Scott) captured it: the problem is that everyone is required to maintain, nothing more than better what is. One more quote from William Coleman, "To survive, companies must undergo a transplant of corporate DNA, and few survive the surgery."

Suppose Coleman's right, startups define what's next. IF that is true, then it's not too hard to see what's next for the Church in the West: small, even house, local churches that subscribe to a wholly different set of values, needs, and beliefs.

Assuming Coleman's right, are we nothing short of fools if we simply point fingers and say "That's bad," distancing ourselves into what will become battle camps!?!? Not based on anything as grand as "spiritual" issues, this is simply a matter of social observation -- startups define what's next. Remember when every new church played acoustic or rock music, contrary to the churches of the day? So when was the last time a church ordered a set of pipes for its organ?

Worse still . . . Modernity is ending. In Mapping Postmodernism, Robert Greer correctly (I think) states that what we currently call "post-modern" is actually "hyper-modern." It's more Modernity taken to the next step. It's kind of like living with another family you really respect, like, admire, are in awe with. Stick around long enough (500 years in the case of Modernity) and you'll see its own uglinesses.

My proposal: draw some trajectories through what is currently being kept, challenged, and replaced to see if we can see what is coming up. Then start preparing a place, a space, for people for when they are done churning the waters (i.e the upheaval that will then lead to whatever comes after Modernity).

"... and few will survive the surgery." I hate this, but perhaps it is true. I'm not sure I'm willing to give up on the idea that what is cannot change into what will be good for tomorrow. I know some others, whom I respect deeply, aren't so sure.

Just in case, I'm starting a new idea: a wave inside the Church that will rise when what we currently have stops working. It would work like this, a coalition of people (not just leaders) who have in their mind to establish local churches that are specifically designed to be healthy for the citizens of the year 2030.

the Problem with Forgiveness

2006-12-11T17:07:00.000-08:00

I was reading a book called Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jurgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida that asks two highly divergent philosophers what they thought of the September 11 attacks just a few months after they happened. Habermas has a highly political bent to his philosophy while Derrida likes to see what's causing things to happen.

Derrida has an interesting distinction between conditional and unconditional forgiveness (the latter he calls impossible forgiveness - more below). Conditional forgiveness is the "I forgive you / there are consequences" whereas unconditional forgiveness is "I forgive you and there are no consequences to your actions."

On page 143, After weaving a few threads together, Derrida basically says unconditional forgiveness is impossible forgiveness (at the very minimum, we carry the pain/scar of the episode where one autonomous human destroys the other's autonomy by taking over some aspect of their life: physical striking, emotional striking, being neglected, etc.).

It's a brilliant piece that basically deconstructs unconditional-forgiveness so that it is impossible to do while still maintaining one's autonomy (seen, for example, in Democracy wherein the individual has the right to be oneself and not "puppeted" by another).

Beautiful! Saying it another way: without an outside force, unconditional forgiveness is impossible! If one believes individuals are responsible for themselves, then unconditional forgiveness will never happen among humans. [Note: I do not fully subscribe to 100% individual responsibility, but I am gathering most people do]

But with Children of God, we DO have an outside "Force" that gives us the ability to have Unconditional Forgiveness. Further, "God's autonomy" does not have to be questioned in that He is self-autonomous (vs. created).

It's a pretty lame book, but I really like how Derrida paints us all into a corner: without direct activity by God Himself, no one will ever experience what we all so desperately desire: unconditional forgiveness! Notice, without unconditional forgiveness, there will never be unconditional love.

Democracy Destroyed by Consumerism

2006-12-11T16:31:00.000-08:00

Another quote from Philosophy in a Time of Terror. This time by Jurgen Habermas.

"Without the political taming of an unbounded capitalism, the devastating stratification of world society will remain intractable."

In other words, we can push for Democracy as hard as we can ("we" = U.S., U.N., etc.), but until we "tame" our consumption (consumerism, capitalism), we will ALWAY be forcing some countries to be lower and some countries to be higher (especially while we remain at that top).
- the height metaphor being defined as: who can take over, devastate, or force their will on another

Problem: Democracy is based on Capitalism as a form of government. Consumerism is also based on Capitalism - as a form of economics. We don't want to be told we cannot buy something, for example. We have come to live on Democracy and Consumerism as the politco-economic foundation of our daily living.

And as long as we do this, we force the rest of the world to remain "under" the U.S. Even worse, I would contend, we cannot stop just the economic part of Capitalism - it's an all-or-nothing issue in that it is so foundational.

[Notice: the Kingdom of God has its own government, economics, society, and (non)geography!!!]

Defining "postmodern"

2006-12-06T13:36:00.000-08:00

Rene' Descartes, "I think (actually 'doubt'), therefore I am." -- 1600's A.D.
- with this, most every idea for the following 400 years was able to be "validated."

post-Descartes question (asked sincerely, not in aggression), "Why you and not me / why your thinking and not mine?" -- 1940's+ A.D.
- with this, post-Modern philosophy pulled the rug out from under the last 400 years.

Today, perhaps, "What was on the rug?" -- 2006 A.D.

Just plain fun

2006-11-14T13:14:00.000-08:00

Sweet, on-line, optical illusion

more on "Home"

2006-11-09T15:27:00.000-08:00

Watched enough Extreme Makeover to know something about myself:

Hope and Home cannot coexist. Hope, by its very existence, states that the one hoping is not Home. When the soul is at Home, there will be nothing to hope for.

Does "contentment" = the non-existence of hope?

[and if so, can Home be made!?!]

on My Rights

2006-10-24T05:45:00.000-07:00

In John 13, Jesus washes the feet of His disciples. Certainly a lowly task in a walk-everywhere world. Then, when explaining what He was doing, comes to the sad truth that Judas is going to live contrary to Jesus. But Jesus does it like this,

But the Scripture will be fulfilled, "He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me." John 13:18

Ironic how the foot He just washed will be lifted against Him. Additional irony, Jesus is quoting Psalm 41 which starts:

Blessed is the one who considers the poor!
In the day of trouble the Lord delivers him;
the Lord protects him and keeps him alive;
he is called blessed in the land;
you do not give him up to the will of his enemies.

The Lord sustains him on his sickbed;
in his illness you restore him to full health.

Yet that very night, He will feel sick, be betrayed, and killed the next day - killed on a cross of curse and shame.

Question: at what point do I stand up for my "rights" - what determines whether I become a Strong Man or a doormat for someone else?

(to put it in terms of Jesus' story, When do I whip the boneheads in the Temple and when am I to be slaughtered like a dumb sheep?)

Why it's hard to Worship

2006-10-20T06:28:00.000-07:00

Much of what I do/did as a pastor was overly . . . mental. "Belief" was the primary objective. Belief in contrast to believe-and-do. Yet my standard for ownership of a belief was the creative expression of the belief, that is, I believed (sic) that someone fully owned a belief when they expressed an action out of that belief that was unique to him/her.

Nonetheless, it has been quite a bit about what one believes, what one thinks. I think I am a part of a long history in the Church of such a pattern. Herein lies a problem. Much of what is called "teaching" or "preaching" is the presentation and defense of ideas. That is about all that comes from pastors. And I believe it is harming Worship of God.

Worship can and does have a myriad of forms, not just Sunday morning sing-time. Worship being defined as the expression of the god-ness of God. It feels like (hint: upcoming statistic is emotional, not an actual survey) about 50 percent of worship expressions are actually mental. To quote one definition, "I ascribe worth to God."

Summation: when so much of the Sunday morning / pastor / teaching experience of Christians is so overly-mental, it perhaps dilutes Worship. Christians are so tired of the baseline, mental activity (called sitting and listening to someone talk about beliefs) that it becomes difficult to ascend to Worship. When I used to run laps in junior high, I would get this sense that I was on auto-pilot - couldn't speed up nor slow down, just kept moving my legs. It's like that.

Perhaps this is one more reason why so much of the poetry and prose of the Church focuses on what God has done for Almighty ME. In stark contrast to a vast number of Psalms and prayers in the Hebrew Scriptures ("Old Testament"). Perhaps we are habituated into auto-pilot and cannot get our minds to ascend to the worship of the King, for the very ones who were to lead us (e.g. me) have numbed us.

God save you from me. And may you see Him when He does.

"Middle Evangelical"

2006-10-16T06:13:00.000-07:00

I've been reading through the book of John and the following quotes from Jesus struck me:

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. - John 5:39-40

If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. - John 7:17

In Mapping Postmodernism, Greer "concludes" that there is a necessary shift from seeing "turth" as an abstraction unto seeing it as a Person. So with that somewhere in my mind, I am reading these passages (in context) and finding that Jesus sees two things greater than the Scriptures: 1) Himself and (2) obedience.

I'm not sure any deep follower of Jesus would think that Jesus is great and that obedience is a great idea! But to force them to be in competion with the Scripture . . .

So here I find myself somewhat Evangelical and somewhat "middle." I hold to deep moral convictions that I believe are more than just good ideas, they are necessary. I believe that there is a source of Truth outside of my own/cultural rationale (and that it is most easily found in the Bible). Put those two together and source them in Jesus and I find myself "Evangelical." But that's about where it ends.

I find myself "middle" because I don't buy the far right abstraction of all human problems nor the far left "fix the problems but keep the seperation of Morals and State." I find myself in the middle. But to vaguely quote some journalist I heard the other day, "The middle is not a balance of left and right, it's a set of convictions on its own." The 'middle' is a third option, not a synthesis.

So here's what I understand "the middle" to be: actually wanting to make a difference in the world both today and tomorrow. Wanting to deal directly with the problems being faced - without regard for whether an idea comes from the left, the right, or somewhere else. Wanting to deal with issues of poverty/corruption, racism, eco-destruction, unbridled consumerism. Looking ahead and wanting to prevent social decay or destruction in issues like 2-party America, homosexuality, immigration, unbridled stupidity in the name of "science," and many more.

So I am making up a label (and hoping a political party will form so that I can at least have some other option at the polls): Middle Evangelical. Obeying the Scriptures because they are the Words of/from God, the Jesus who is my King, my Friend, my Spouse, my Lord.

Handling Fear

2006-10-03T06:58:00.000-07:00

I was listening to my friend Rocco a few weeks ago discuss what he had learned as the most important part of being a "man." It is to initiate. This has stuck in my head ever since.

Then came discussions at home about courage and fear, etc. And it became apparent to me that dealing with fear has some pretty simple components. In particular, knowing what I'm afraid of, knowing the solution, and then, the one I tend to forget to identify: Initiate.

With my newer sensibilities, I find that this start-up action can have two paths: self-initiation (e.g. "God helps those who help themselves") or faith-step (e.g. Trusting God with what to do as well as the power to do it). I long to not initiate my own path but rather to initiate my step(s) into faith, into the unknown, often cloudy direction of faith.

Yet I must initiate. Without everything calculated, worked out, accounted for. Folly, save that it is supra-human to trust-walk as God's.

Land of the free (to be lame)

2006-09-29T09:32:00.000-07:00

Why is it that those representing ME are so concerned that Congress is filled with others like THEM?!?

More-on leadership

2006-09-25T05:50:00.000-07:00

Leadership too often is simply defined as either the action of saying, or the person who has the power to say, "No." Too often it is the prevention of new that is called "leadership."

Or it is the use of "no" by an all-wise, benevolent to prevent a small harm at the cost of a broader good - like when I tell my kids no out-of-hand because what they are asking for is not the ideal request, meanwhile squashing their creativity, enjoyment of life, and sense of self-ability. PLUS teaching them to not self-generate new ideas while training them out of learning to think.

As if leadership = control = leadership

My medical career

2006-09-24T07:34:00.000-07:00

I have observed the following three usually-truisms from my time in the medical profession (which consists of a Bachelor's degree in medical stuff and at least 3 seasons of faithfully watching "E.R." on Thursday nights).

1) The creativity of the human body is amazing. Beyond-reason amazing. Most of what we know about the brain (or genes or the impact one system has on another) is, candidly, about 10% deep. We have fields like "neurosurgery" but we're not sure what we're doing. Most of what we "know" is what not to touch. It's just way too complex. And beautiful.

2) Sin is an evil that is incapable of being understood. Almost equal to the beautiful complexity of the human body is the power and totality of the sin's rampages. My personal sin can cause personal human decay, social toxicity, and multiplied reverberations of mal-intent towards others. In their book "Vital Friends," the Gallup Poll folks describe that a bad work environment can all but destroy a marriage and/or family. One boss (or employee) will cause those affected grief, who will in turn become carriers to the disease as it spreads out.

3) Those in the profession are NOT better at the profession when compared to non-professionals. Example, respiratory therapist who smokes 1.5 packs per day. Internships and Rotations that ask people to make snap, vital decisions but forces them to work 18 hour shifts.

Is this not just like the Church?

Oops

2006-09-16T09:12:00.000-07:00

"I think therefore I am."

"But what if you're wrong?"

"Who's going to tell him?"