In Relationship (Part One)

www.cartoonstock.com-cartoonview.asp?catref=llan448 Staying Loyal

“If something cannot go on forever, it will stop” ~Herbert Stein’s law

If you’re going to stay loyal to an organization you really have to love that organization. You have to love its philosophy, its theology, vision, structure of government, mandate, etc… If you don’t love it, you can not last.

John Boyd wrote that, as individuals, our basic goal is “to improve our capacity for independent action”*. In order to fulfill this goal we can not work alone. We have to cooperate with others. Boyd continues…

“The degree to which we cooperate, or compete, with others is driven by the need to satisfy this basic goal. If we believe that it is not possible to satisfy it alone, without help from others, history shows us that we will agree to constraints upon our independent action—in order to collectively pool skills and talents in the form of nations, corporations, labor unions, mafias, etc.—so that obstacles standing in the way of the basic goal can either be removed or overcome. On the otherhand, if the group cannot or does not attempt to overcome obstacles deemed important to many (or possibly any) of its individual members, the group must risk losing these alienated members. Under these circumstances, the alienated members may dissolve their relationship and remain independent, form a group of their own, or join another collective body in order to improve their capacity for independent action.”

Taking that into account, we can also say that if one is going to stay loyal, one has to feel as though he is able to pursue his own individual goals while belonging to the organization. If he feels he cannot do that, he will either leave or stay as an unhappy member of the group.

Being loyal does not just mean staying with the group. Being loyal means contending for the group in its mission and mandate. If one does not love, or fit in with, the mission or the mandate, then one cannot contend for the organization.

Sometimes, if the leadership has forgotten the original mission, a disgruntled member of the group (perhaps a “Man of Words“) may speak out to remind them. That person may seem like a rebel, but really he is contending for the organization. An organization, once it has initially fulfilled its mission, may turn to other ventures in order to survive. The original, fanatical, leadership may consider the survival (the continued existence) of the organization to be more important than its original mission.** This change in venue may restrict the individual members from achieving their independent goals which, up till that point, lined up with the organization’s original mission.

Other times, however, the members of the group, in their foolhardy zeal to just do something, may have misread the intentions of the organization right from the start. Sometimes the leadership does not make its intentions clear at the beginning because, they too, are looking to pursue an individual goal. If an organization’s leaders can use the members to achieve what they as leaders want, once that achievement is accomplished, they may have no more use for those members, and the members will find that their opportunity for accomplishing their own independent goals has evaporated.

The ideal situation then is when “skills and talents are pooled, (and) the removal or overcoming of obstacles represents an improved capacity for independent action for all.”

Loyalty happens…

…when the intentions (re: mission, mandate, theology, system of government, etc…) of both the leadership and the members are clearly stated and understood right from the beginning.
…when both the leaders and the members feel that they can successfully pursue their own independent goals.
…when, as things change over time, a clear and honest line of communication is kept between the leadership and its members.
…when the survival of the organization does not outweigh the mission and the mandate of the organization.

*Destruction and Creation by John R. Boyd

**You know this is happening when the leadership starts to lie about how successful the organization is.

In Relationship ~ Part Two

In Relationship ~ Part Three

Blue

Blue (Blue Beats Green) Movie

For anyone interested in listening to a different perspective on the environmental issues we face today, watch the film.

Update December 11, 2015…

I guess no one was interested in listening to a different perspective.

blue shutdown

But, you can still watch it on Vimeo…

Use a Transformer

electricity-transformer-300x235 If you live in the west and travel to the east, you have to be careful with the electrical devices you bring.

In the west, the voltage at an outlet is 120 volts, whereas in the east it will be 220 volts. If you plug your western electric razor in without an adaptor, you will fry your razor.

I like to use this illustration when teaching hermeneutics. You have to be careful when taking texts written thousands of years ago and applying them to today’s world.

All the so called “end-times” texts come to mind. When someone writes “the end of all things is at hand” two thousand years ago (1 Peter 4:7*), you don’t read that in 2015 and go out into the streets shouting the end is near.

You have to figure out what the original author meant by his words. What was coming to an end for him two thousand years ago? Then, once you’ve figured out his meaning, you can then apply the principles of what he was saying to your own time.

Sometimes you can take texts and plug them right in without the transformer (like with the wisdom literature), but the bible itself will teach you when and when not to do that.

And… just plain common sense.

*Also see: 1 Corinthians 10:11; James 5:7-9; 1 John 2:18; Hebrews 10:25; Jude 17-18.

Church and Politics

sign

The German Christian philosopher, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, taught that societies can be classified into three different stages: tribes, kingdoms, and empires.

The simplest form of society is the tribe. A tribe is a small group of people held together by a common attribute, like family. Tribes are suspicious of outsiders and tend to stay within their own boundaries. Tribes resist change. Tribes also look into the past and tend to worship their ancestors.

As a society matures, the different tribes bind together to form a kingdom. Because there are now many different people with different viewpoints, a higher culture can develop. Kingdoms tend to worship through temples and looking to the heavens.

Nations can fall into either kingdoms or empires. Whereas a nation refers to a people with common descent and culture, a kingdom will consist of one nation, and an empire will consist of many nations. Cambodia is a kingdom with one nation: the Khmer people. There are some minority groups of Vietnamese, Chinese, and Barang (white people), but the overwhelming majority is Khmer. Canada, however, is a multi-national country. Looking at things this way, Cambodia is a kingdom and Canada is an empire.

As a society matures beyond the kingdom stage, the nations join to form an empire. The empire, though consisting of many nations, must have a common religion or worldview in order to stay cohesive. Without a common “worship” center, the empire becomes multicultural, which doesn’t work. Worship is still through the temple, but despite all the different kinds of peoples and languages, the temple must be the same for all. Rome didn’t care which religion you held to as long as Caesar was the common god for all and over all.

Multiculturalism does not work because you can not have a whole bunch of people living together believing all sorts of different things. It sounds good, but it does not work in real life. People who would disagree and defend multiculturalism are people who don’t really believe in anything, or are at least blind to the fact that they have themselves elevated their particular worldview above all others.

The story of the blind men and the elephant comes to mind. Each man is in touch with one part of the elephant and believes his part is the whole, but of course it is not. Multiculturalists point out that each religion or worldview is like each blind man, each with a part of the truth but not the whole. Therefore, we can all live in peace if we accept the fact that none of us knows the whole truth. The problem with that idea is that the multiculturalist, in order to know each religion/worldview only sees a part of the whole, has to himself see the whole elephant, which is just what he claims is impossible.

It’s easy to put a “coexist” bumper sticker on your car and then only associate with people who believe the same as you believe. Enter tribalism. If multiple belief systems are allowed to pervade the empire, people will form small groups where they feel they can belong, and the empire breaks down to the most primitive form of society again.

Canada would actually be better off (in the short run) to become completely atheist. Rather than trying to force several different belief systems into a doomed syncretistic society, it would be healthier to unify under one banner… in the short run.

And this is the cause of all the political conflict in the west today. Each worldview is fighting to be on top. Christians, Muslims, atheists, multiculturalists, etc… all want everyone else to believe what they believe. That, in itself, is perfectly normal. But it’s only right for the one group who actually has the truth to be on top.

I, as a Christian, believe that one truth to be Christianity. I want everyone to believe as I believe. Is this bad? No, it’s normal. I don’t want tribalism — I don’t want to just hang out with people who are just like me. I don’t want a mono-national kingdom — I don’t want to just be surrounded by people who dress the same, talk the same, and sing the same. I want an empire — a multi-national society with many different variations unified under a common religion. A true Christian empire can only form by the bond of the Holy Spirit who creates a single (yet complex) culture.

But, this kind of empire does not (yet) exist in any part of the world. For better or for worse, western christendom took a run at it, but that attempt is fizzling out now. Tribalism seems to be on the rise in the west. The nationstate has failed our expectations and people are turning inward and into smaller groups to solve their problems.

Western Christians lament at the “fall” of Christianity. Some complain of persecution. (Western Christians have never experienced persecution.) A lot believe the end is near. There isn’t a whole lot of positive feeling for the future.

Many are turning to politics for salvation. “If we could just get the right people in office, that would solve these problems. We need someone tough, who won’t listen to the opposition’s ideas.” While certain levels of tribalism is often a welcome thing in a church (we all need a family), it becomes destructive when combined with us-versus-them secular politics.

Jesus is calling everyone into His kingdom. That kingdom is not of this world (although it is invading this world). No one should be turned away from the Church just because his political views differ from those of the majority of the current members. The politics of Jesus are above ours. Only Jesus is qualified to be the emperor, the king, and the tribal leader all at once.

In the western multicultural neo-tribal society, Christians are called to work beyond the confines of right-wing/left-wing politics — challenging culture where it opposes God’s plan and promoting culture where it conforms to God’s plan. Those who don’t believe in Jesus should be happy when Christians are at work in a society, because they know there will be change for the better. When one does oppose Christianity, let it be because he hates the truth of it, rather than because he hates those who promote it.

Tim Keller is one of the most successful pastors in North America. His church is in New York city, one of the most difficult places to start up a new church. Here is his take on church and politics…

Men of Words

tb 001 “The men of words are of diverse types. They can be priests, scribes, prophets, writers, artists, professors, students and intellectuals in general… Whatever the type, there is a deep-seated craving common to almost all men of words which determines their attitude to prevailing order. It is a craving for recognition; a craving for a clearly marked status above the common run of humanity.”

~Eric Hoffer

“Mass movements do not usually rise until the prevailing order has been discredited. The discrediting is not an automatic result of the blunders and abuses of those in power, but the deliberate work of men of words with a grievance. Where the articulate are absent or without a grievance, the prevailing dispensation, though incompetent and corrupt, may continue in power until it falls and crumbles of itself.” (“The True Believer”, by Eric Hoffer, HarperCollins Publishing, New York, pg. 130)

Here Hoffer is describing the climate of a society before a mass movement begins, but I think we can also apply this statement to a mass movement that has passed its “dynamic stage” but the original fanatical leadership has not yet stepped down, and is in fact doing damage to the movement. The men of words can rise up again at this stage in the movement, inspiring the masses to change the leadership to a practical man of action.

“The preliminary work of undermining existing institutions, of familiarizing the masses with the idea of change, and of creating receptivity to a new faith, can be done only by men who are, first and foremost, talkers or writers and are recognized as such by all. As long as the existing order functions in a more or less orderly fashion, the masses remain basically conservative. They can think of reform but not of total innovation. The fanatical extremist, no matter how eloquent, strikes them as dangerous, traitorous, or even insane. They will not listen to him…

“Things are different in the case of the typical man of words. The masses listen to him because they know that his words, however urgent, cannot have immediate results. The authorities either ignore him or use mild methods to muzzle him. Thus imperceptibly the man of words undermines established institutions, discredits those in power, weakens prevailing beliefs and loyalties, and sets the stage for the rise of a mass movement.” (pp. 130-131)

Again, even after the movement has begun and has been running for several years, the men of words can do the same thing to the established authority of whomever started the movement. As shown in my last article about Hoffer’s book, the most important people to the leadership of a mass movement are the lieutenants. It is these lieutenants that can and should be swayed by the man of words if one wants to see a change in leadership.

What is a man of words like?

“There is apparently an irremediable insecurity at the core of every intellectual (man of words), be he noncreative or creative. Even the most gifted and prolific seem to live a life of eternal self-doubting and have to prove their worth anew each day.

“‘…he has much more vanity than ambition; and he prefers consideration to obedience, and the appearance of power to power itself. Consult him constantly, and then do just as you please. He will take more notice of your deference to him than of your actions.’ (Hoffer quotes Alexis de Tocqueville, Recollections [New York: Macmillan Company, 1896], pg. 331.)” (pp. 132-133)

The man of words is fickle, pledging loyalty to whomever will give him an ear.

“However much the protesting man of words sees himself as the champion of the downtrodden and injured, the grievance which animates him is, with very few exceptions, private and personal. His pity is usually hatched out of his hatred for the powers that be.” However, “When his superior status is suitably acknowledged by those in power, the man of words usually finds all kinds of lofty reasons for siding with the strong against the weak.” (pp. 133-134)

“It is easy to see how the faultfinding man of words, by persistent ridicule and denunciation, shakes prevailing beliefs and loyalties, and familiarizes the masses with the idea of change. What is not so obvious is the process by which the discrediting of existing beliefs and institutions makes possible the rise of a new fanatic faith.

“The genuine man of words himself can get along without faith in absolutes. He values the search for truth as much as truth itself. He delights in the clash of thought and in the give-and-take of controversy.” (pp. 139-140)

But, the future that the man of words hopes for, a society of free thinking people, is usually not what comes. Rather, what is created is a “corporate society that cherishes utmost unity and blind faith.” (pg. 139)

“The tragic figures in the history of a mass movement are often the intellectual precursors (the men of words) who live long enough to see the downfall of the old order by the action of the masses.” (pg. 141)