More on Failing Nerve

I wrote this post just after President Obama was elected the first time.   The video of Peggy Joseph at the bottom is just priceless, and it seems to say that now, more than ever, we are suffering from A Failure of Nerve.

---

Dr. Edwin Friedman - the eminent psychologist, therapist, lecturer and consultant - didn't finish A Failure of Nerve before his untimely death in 1996.  His wife and several former colleagues went ahead and finished it for him.

I use a number of sources as the theological and philosophical bases for my approach to leading and training leaders.  But Friedman's works (Generation to Generation and A Failure of Nerve) have become my primary psychological foundation for leadership. 

Here's a quote from the introduction of Failure.  Emphases are mine.

"I believe there exists throughout America today a rampant sabotaging of leaders who try to stand tall amid the raging anxiety-storms of our time.  It is a highly reactive atmosphere pervading all the institutions of our society - a regressive mood that contaminates the decision-making processes of government and corporations at the highest level, and, on the local level, seeps down into the deliberations of neighborhood church, synagogue, hospital, library, and school boards...

It is my perception that this leadership-toxic climate runs the danger of squandering a natural resource far more vital to the continued evolution of our civilization than any part of the environment.  We are polluting our own species.  The more immediate threat to the regeneration, and perhaps even the survival, of American civilization is internal, not external.  It is our tendency to adapt to its immaturity.  To come full circle, this kind of emotional climate can only be dissipated by clear, decisive, well-defined leadership.  For whenever a 'family' is driven by anxiety, what will also always be present is a failure of nerve among its leaders."

Friedman goes on to detail the symptoms of nerve failure throughout the book.  And of course he outlines the cure - which is brilliant, yet astonishingly easy to understand.  

I must admit that the book could have used more of Friedman's touch - he was the master of applied Family Systems Theory and he also had a way with words that his proteges have unfortunately not quite captured.  But nonetheless, the ideas expressed in the book stand, in my opinion, as the genesis of what I hope will become a significant new trajectory in leadership thinking.

I'm now old enough to have paid attention to a sizable chunk of the political discourse in this country.  And in watching the presidential campaigns, culminating in yesterday's election, I'm reminded of Friedman's analysis.

Now more than ever I'm convinced Friedman was right on when he spoke of our nasty, self-destructive tendency to adapt to our own personal and national immaturities - to adapt toward weakness rather than strength.  Here's an example of what I'm talking about.   

What is Peggy actually saying?  Is her fundamental approach good for her or for our country?

Again, I'm with Friedman - I believe we're polluting our own species.  Any thoughts?

2012: Looking Ever Forward

2011 was truly a challenging year in my little corner of the world.  I hate to invoke a metaphor I use too much - but it was quite a mountain to climb.

We made a few big decisions, some of which have proven to be good.  For some, of course, we still await the verdict.

And all the while, the age-old conundrums mock us - "Why is everything so hard?" or "Why do bad things happen to good people?" or "Why is there so much suffering in the world?".

Christianity and the Continuous Improvement Mindset

So I'm working on a project to improve how we're going about the job of releasing millions of children from poverty in Jesus' name.  A part of what we're implementing could be termed a "continuous improvement mindset", and discussions on the subject reminded me of the following post I wrote a few years ago.

---

I worked in technology management for an uber-successful chemical company back in the late eighties and nineties. I owe so much to that organization because I've based a chunk of my approach to business, ministry and life on a few of the concepts I learned there.

Leadership Lunacy

A friend of mine has an entire bookcase jammed full of tomes on the topic of leadership and you know - just thinking about those sagging shelves gives me a headache.  

I get a headache because popular leadership authors almost invariably propose "The 10 Steps to Laudable Leadership" or "The 7 Habits of the Workplace Wunderkind" or "The 92 Traits of . . . " and on and on and on.  

One book's title, "Leadership for Dummies", is perhaps the most telling example of leadership lunacy.  Dummies, indeed.  

Climbing and Living

I'm thrilled about a number of things these days.

For instance, I'm thrilled to be investing my time and my gifts in a vocation that anticipates what Messiah will do when he returns.

I'm thrilled to be a small part of some significant ministry work being done by a great team of super-talented yet nonetheless-still-human folk.

And I'm thrilled to be able to provide for my family in the context of the above vocation.  Believe me, it doesn't always work out that way.

Many thanks go to Compassion International for being such a tremendous blessing both to kids around the world and to its employees.

Yes, as they say, "it's all good!".  And looking back, it's been an interesting journey so far - to say the least!

Osama bin Laden, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and N.T. Wright

I hear you.  How on earth can I justify putting those three names anywhere near each other?  Well, hang with me for a bit - I'm processing the interesting international events that have unfolded over the last few days and this is just how it goes with me!

As the news of Osama bin Laden's demise spread far and wide, I thought of Tom Wright's excellent book Simply Christian.  It's aimed at both everyday Christians trying to make sense of the world around them, and at non-Christians that may wonder why we make all the fuss about Jesus and the Judeo-Christian story.

In Simply Christian, Tom identifies a few universal human traits that he calls "echoes of a voice" - echoes, in fact, of the voice of God.  I thought today of one of those echoes that has many times reverberated off the walls of my heart during the last troubling decade.  That is, the longing for justice.

Tom reasons that our longing for justice - the universal desire we have to see wrongs righted, to see criminals thwarted, to see the innocent protected - is a steadfast pointer to the voice and will of God himself.  These impulses are remnants, he says, of Adam's original vocational call - to steward the Earth and all its inhabitants with wisdom and justice for all.

To me, that's not only brilliant but emotionally satisfying as well.
 
But I'm also drawn to Dietrich Bonhoeffer's provocative situation and viewpoint as I ponder how the world will respond to bin Laden's death.  For me, Bonhoeffer's Ethics, on which I've written a few times around here, is the gold standard on justice and dealing with evil.  

I have great respect for Bonhoeffer, as do so many Christians, because of the unique perspective (smack in the face of Hitler's Evil) from which he reasoned.  Theorists and practitioners alike pay homage to him because of this.

FYI, World War II began with Bonhoeffer as a pacifist, and ended a few weeks after his execution for helping to plot Hitler's assassination.  

Leadership and The Princess Bride

I'm reminded of a scene in The Princess Bride - one of our favorite movies. You remember the part I'm talking about - where Vizzini keeps exclaiming "inconceivable!" as the Man in Black gains on his ship.

Westley has almost caught up and Vizzini yells "inconceivable!" one last time.

Inigo then classically replies, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means."

Yes, people keep using that word - "leadership". Preachers, teachers, authors and businessmen throw the term around like crazy. But in many cases, like Inigo, "I do not think it means what they think it means." :)

Significance Revisited

After I finished teaching The Big Picture of Judeo-Christianity this week, one of the young ladies commented that "this way of looking at the Bible shows us that we don't have to become preachers.  We can build the Kingdom with whatever unique gifts God has put in us."

I'm thrilled when students begin to see how their lives snap into the bigger picture of what God is doing on the planet.  It reminded me of the following post I wrote last year.

---

A good friend of mine is leaving a long-held job and finds a certain sadness in it.  Another has just returned to the familiar only to plot a new course toward the unknown.  And yet another is in waiting, hoping to be discovered by those he holds in high esteem.

I look at all these.  And then I think of all the people over the years I've been privileged to encourage and to minister to.  And in them I see pieces of myself. 

What is it that drives us?  What is it that churns our emotions and motivates us to take action, or in some cases merely stand by in muted desire?

Psychologists have long discussed the need buried in each of us for significance.  The need to be validated by others.  The need for our lives to mean something.

Now and Then

We've been talking for years around here about the way Judeo-Christianity is designed to be future oriented.  So I believe you've got to be more oriented toward the future than to the present (and certainly to the past) in order to do Christianity the way it was intended to be done.

And no matter what your religious beliefs may be, long term success in life depends on your orientation to the future.

So thanks Nick, for the link to this very entertaining video on the subject.  My friends - check it out!

Leading Desperate Lives

Here's a famous bit of Thoreau's Walden:

"The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation. From the desperate city you go in to the desperate country, and have to console yourself with the bravery of minks and muskrats.

A stereotyped but unconscious despair is concealed even under what are called the games and amusements of mankind. There is no play in them, for this comes after work. But it is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things.

When we consider what, to use the words of the catechism, is the chief end of man, and what are the true necessaries and means of life, it appears as if men had deliberately chosen the common mode of living because they preferred it to any other. Yet they honestly think there is no choice left."

Thoreau connects the desperation of most people ("the mass of men") with their deliberate choice to live a "common" life. But to them, he says, there is no other choice.

I've found this to be true at times in myself and in those I've been privileged to lead. I think most of us are so afraid of losing something that we choose the safety of a mundane existence rather than the risk of an adventurous one.

We choose to live in patterns prescribed to us by our surroundings, by the institutions to which we cling and by our own past experiences. And rather than face our fear of failure, we console ourselves by believing that there really is no other choice.

Paradigms and Percentages

I spent the morning at an excellent Christian school, giving a talk during the high-school chapel and then in religion class.  My challenge to the students was to figure out why they believe what they believe - to honestly question the basis of their faith and see how firm it really is.

The discussion today reminded me of a question I've been asked many times.  That is, "How can intelligent people that have the capacity to think critically - how can they believe in something they cannot see?"

They've asked me to come back and help the students answer that question - to help them map out a path to maintain their faith in spite of the onslaught of doubt and skepticism coming their way at the secular university.

I can't wait to dig into it with them!  I think I'll start with something like this.

A paradigm is:

"A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline."

Here's a piece of my "Christian paradigm".   At the highest, most abstract level - this is where I start.

First off, I always play the percentages.

I spent most of my adult life in the hard sciences.  And pure science, as you know, is all about hard facts.

But I can't prove (to myself or to you) that orthodox Christianity is the one right way. And I refuse to hold a set of beliefs just because my mother or some churchman told me to.

So what's a thinking man to do?

Well, I tend to go with that which has the highest percentage chance in my (admittedly peculiar!) mind of being "true". That goes for just about everything in my life.

So why then do I hold fast to orthodox Christianity? Because I think it has the highest percentage chance of being the truth.

Am I 100% sure?  Nope - I won't be until I'm standing in New Jerusalem.

But you know what?  The list of things I'm 100% sure of is really, really short.

I think I'm about 99% sure of Christianity, and that's fine for me.

I'm just being honest here - I think most Christians would fear such an admission. Not me. And I should tell you that my trust in this approach to my faith has led to what many people would call "extreme acts".

For example, I cashed out my interest in my software development business and moved my family to another part of the state so I could teach Christian theology. I took a 90% pay cut - so you've gotta know I'm either insane, or I really really believe this stuff (maybe both!).

My confidence lies in the historical person of Jesus for the following reasons:

a) Anyone who believes he never existed isn't thinking hard enough. He certainly
existed.

b) Anyone who believes he was not substantially who he said he was, or that he did not substantially perform the acts the Gospels record that he did - isn't properly examining the evidence.

I say that because there were too many opposing interests (Sanhedrin, Pharisees, Romans) that would've proudly and loudly exposed any substantially fraudulent view of the early Church.

That didn't happen. No Roman produced his dead body - no Jewish leader said, "All that never happened". Again, they'd have done so if they could've.

So in my mind, Jesus was who he said he was, and Jesus did what the Gospels record he did.

Is there, in my mind, a small chance that a wholesale fabrication got by the Roman and Jewish antagonists of the first century? Yes there is.

Yeah, there's a chance (!) that the disciples stole Jesus' body out from under the noses of the burly Roman soldiers guarding the tomb (with a huge rock rolled in front of the entrance).  But not a very big chance!

Let's get silly for a second. Being generous to the naysayers - what if there's a 5% chance of wholesale fabrication? Even 5% against leaves me with 95% in favor - and that'll do for me.

By the way - just so you know - the atheists, evolutionists, postmoderns, Muslims, Hindus and the rest - they're offering no better odds!

So here's the fundamental premise upon which I've built my worldview, and by which I strive to live my life each and every day.

"Since the evidence indicates that Jesus indeed existed, and substantially did and said what the gospels say he did and said, he is without peer in the pantheon of spiritual leaders. No one else comes close.

As such, Jesus is worthy of my complete devotion. I must spend my life seeking to understand him, his words and his actions in the proper context.

I must try and understand his paradigm - to understand what he believed about the past and about the future - and then I must believe the same."

Now, if you want to find out what's so special about what Jesus "did and said" that causes me to say that "no one else comes close" - well, you'll need to read the New Testament for yourself!  :)

A Bittersweet Symphony

One of my favorite songs from the '90s is The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Rythmically and melodically it's just cool - it's a great song.

"Cause it's a bittersweet symphony, this life
Trying to make ends meet
You're a slave to money then you die
I'll take you down the only road
I've ever been down
You know the one that takes you to the places
where all the veins meet yeah

...

Well I never pray
But tonight I'm on my knees yeah
I need to hear some sounds that recognize the pain in me, yeah
I let the melody shine, let it cleanse my mind, I feel free now
But the airways are clean and there's nobody singing to me now

No change, I can't change
I can't change, I can't change
But I'm here in my mind
I am here in my mind
And I'm a million different people
from one day to the next
I can't change my mind
No, no, no, no, no, no, no
I can't change
I can't change it..."

The message of this song is related to teaching we do in The Institute on the topic of "worldview" (simply, how we interpret our surroundings, events and the future for us and for the world) . Let's dig in a bit here.

I teach our students that the various worldviews can be divided into two categories based on how they depict the future.

Teleological worldviews depict the future as progressing more or less in a linear fashion with a grand, ultimate goal in view. The word "teleological" comes from the Greek telos, meaning the ultimate purpose, or end, for which something is made.

Examples of teleological worldviews include Christianity, Islam and Marxism. In each case, there is a force working through history to bring about a particular telos.

We also have many ateleological worldviews. An example in this category is Hinduism. Without going into great detail, in Hinduism the past and the future are cyclical, not linear.

Another example of an ateleological worldview held by many in the West is postmodernism. I've heard it called the "anti-worldview worldview".

For the postmodern mind, the past, the present and the future have no shape. For the postmodern, there's no grand, ultimate purpose being brought about by any force - God or otherwise. We're just bumping along in the universe - hoping not to hit anything too hard.

I think Bittersweet Symphony is a postmodern sigh of despair.

I like the song. But then, I'm not really singing the words, if you catch my drift.

Because for me - history's going somewhere. For the Christian, the future is the world set straight under the leadership of Jesus the Messiah. No more death, no more sorrow and no more despair. Revelation 21 and 22 sum it up nicely.

"I need to hear some sounds that recognize the pain in me, yeah"

I propose that the "sounds" they're looking for are right there in the Christian teleological message.

Doing Good

I'm teaching on the topic of doing good works in the Institute today. So I thought I'd resurrect this post on the subject. I love this stuff!

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

Christians all agree to some extent that "doing good" is the right thing. What we often disagree on is why.

Some suppose to do good in order to salve their conscience from past sins. Others to perhaps earn favor with God. Still others, really, just because their priest, pastor, or parent told them to.

Of course, none of that will work for me - I've gotta have something more substantial.

Here goes.

Paul, in the context of outlining how the Kingdom is to be cultivated and grown, says:

"According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.

If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." - I Corinthians 3:10-15

Notice the phrase "the day will show it". He is speaking eschatologically - referring to "the day of the Lord". The Hebrews had, for hundreds of years, expected a judgment at the end of the age. Christians of course believed the same, and still do. That judgment is what Paul is referring to.

That judgment will eradicate the "wood, hay and straw" work that we've been involved in. Ouch! But think about what he says next.

Those works of ours which are built on the foundation of Jesus (who is the Messiah of the Jews and the King of the Cosmos) will remain.

Put another way, the noble things you do (conceive, create, draw, build, paint, teach, sculpt, write, support, lead) which are built upon the foundation of Jesus' fulfillment of the Messianic expectation and his lordship over the whole world - these things will pass through the judgment to come!

They will remain.

Got that? Let it sink in for a moment.

I can't, of course, predict exactly how this will work. I'm just processing what I read in the OT prophets, in Jesus' own words, in Paul and in Revelation regarding the Kingdom to come. And as I've covered many times here and elsewhere - the Kingdom that's coming is not some fuzzy place on a cloud, or out in space or in some other dimension.

Those fuzzy thoughts would have been laughed off in the first century, and should be in this century as well! Rather, Jesus taught us to pray "Thy Kingdom Come...On Earth!", and that means a real, physical kingdom with a real physical resurrection cranking out real physical bodies that will live forever. Study the Jewish expectations for Messiah and his kingdom, and then read the last few chapters of Revelation if you don't believe me.

And again, the noble work that we do now - the gold, silver and precious stones - will in some sense remain and be represented in that Kingdom. Just the thought of such a thing is overwhelming.

So then, why do I seek to do good works? Just because? Just because my pastor told me to? Just because I feel subconsciously guilty and need a soothing?

Nope, none of that. I seek to do good works so that I may build now what may remain then.

Like most of us, I want to leave a mark - to change the world in some way.

And the Christian story - read rightly - tells me that I can do works, including (conceiving, creating, drawing, building, painting, teaching, sculpting, writing, supporting, leading) that produce (ministries, families, songs, companies, paintings, people groups, architectures) that will remain in the Kingdom to come.

So can you. Yeah, baby!

Morphing Curriculum

The last few days I've been working on how to introduce teenagers to the teleological perspective.

What a challenge - cutting this thing into small enough chunks that they can digest! Heather suggested supplementary videos on the website to give the students more detail over a longer period of time. Great idea Heather - I'm gonna do it....

I've been focusing on the postmodern mindset today. I think I'll use Bittersweet Symphony as one example of the despair and downward spiral that a shapeless view of history can lead to.

Fun stuff!

More on "We" pressure

In his comment on this post, Caleb asked "Then where does staying connected come in?".

When I first read Friedman's Generation to Generation, and first learned a bit of Family Systems Theory as applied to leadership - I also had questions as to how it all worked.

I mean, if I focus on clarifying my own life-goals (saying "I believe") - won't those I'm supposed to be leading just walk away? In other words, how can a team stay together when the leader resists "We" pressure?

Well, FST gurus say that it is the "We" pressure itself, when properly understood and managed, that will keep the team (or most of it) together. Homeostasis (the tendency of a system to maintain equilibrium) works in favor of the properly differentiated (and connected) leader.

But how?

Here's an example. When I was entering 9th grade in high school, my father announced to us that we were moving from St. Louis to Oklahoma City due to his job requirements. This pronouncement was jarring and abrupt - we had little time to prepare ourselves at all.

Of course, I emoted all over the place, and expressed my discontent with the situation to anyone that would listen. But here's the thing...

When it came down to it - I valued the family system itself over my particular desires in that situation, and so - I reluctantly capitulated. We moved to OKC and life continued. The family system remained together in albeit difficult circumstances.

Another example... How many times have you heard of a parent being extremely unhappy with their child's choice to get married? It happens all the time.

Mom and Dad blow a gasket. "He doesn't make enought money!" or "she's not good enough for you!" are comments often screamed by such parents. But after the marraige takes place - guess what? Mom and Dad (usually fairly quickly) line up and honor the family system.

What's at work in these examples? Friedman would say that homeostasis pressures lead the anxious family members to finally seek to preserve the family system. Put simply - family systems want to stay family systems.

And how does this apply to self-differentiated leadership? Well, if you find your "I believe" statements and your clarification/communication of your life-goals to be upsetting those in your family of origin, or your church, or your workplace - just stay the course.

Don't knuckle under to the "We" pressure. Just remain emotionally connected to the family system without allowing the anxiety flowing through that system to invade you. Remain a "non-anxious presence" in the system.

And then the natural tendency of the family system towards the status quo will (most of the time) cause the other members of the system to straighten up and fly right.

Not so hard, eh? :)

The powers and pitfalls of "We"

We.

"We" is a force that is often used for tremendous good. "We", when working together in unity, can encourage one another to heights of achievement that alone we'd never consider. The sense of community that "We" brings can be God's healing touch for the brokenhearted. Yep, "We" can often get things done that no "I" could ever do.

At K-Colorado (soon to be Camp Kivu) - we work hard to provide a place where young men and women can be part of a global community of world changers. That's because we believe strongly in the creative power of "We".

Yes, I believe "We" is perhaps the most powerful human force in the world - both for good, and unfortunately, for "not so good".

Huh - what was that? How could "We" be a bad thing?

Well, we all know about the really nasty instances where "We" went badly astray. Hitler's Germany and the more recent Rwandan genocide both come to mind. The rampant and oft-reported problem of gang violence is another example.

But there is a more subtle and I'd say more difficult problem with "We". That is, "We" can make change impossible.

Family Systems Theory uses the term "homeostasis" to describe this "We" pressure to remain the same - to stay stuck together even though saying "I" would be more beneficial to everyone involved.

For example - have you ever made a decision against your better judgment just to "keep the peace" - perhaps in your family or in your group of friends? Have you ever seen a "leader" knuckle under to the demands of the group rather than take a stand for her own life-goals?

And perhaps nastiest of all - have you ever seen members of a church, a business team or even members of your own family "sabotage" the leader who attempts to say "I" in the face of the homeostasis - when he tries to define his goals apart from those of the group?

I've seen all of this junk - and sad to say - I've been involved in some of it myself. But years ago I made a concerted effort to just say "no" to this kind of behavior - and I still strive to rid my life of it.

Good leaders must learn to continually define themselves and their life-goals over against the surrounding togetherness pressures. But they must do this while remaining connected to the groups and families to which they belong and of which they lead.

Otherwise - there's no way the group or family will make any progress. Such a team will remain "stuck" - never achieving anywhere near what they could with a properly differentiated leader.

So let's continue to work on clarifying our own life-goals while teaching others to do the same. This may mean that you end up leading your group or family to a totally new place.

Would that be so bad? :)

Father, help me to help others clarify the gifts and goals you have placed in them. Help all of us to value progress over "peace at any cost" in the groups you've given us to lead - so that we may fully complete our part of your Great Project to renew and rebuild the world.

Seeing is Believing, or Is It?

Feel free to ignore this article if you haven't been following our discussions on epistemology, or if you haven't been out to our weekly chats in awhile, or if you're tired or hungry - or if you have anything better to do at all. :)

But for the rest of you - here's a news flash.

I think I've finally uncovered, or perhaps merely understood, the underlying systemic reason for the decline in modern approaches to Christianity (the term "modern" describing the Enlightenment program of logical positivism) as compared to the emergent, or postmodern-flavored approaches.

Put simply, the modernist approach to Christianity will never satisfy a person today, affected by the postmodern critique, who is 2000+ years distant from the people, places and events that define the worldview.

Here are a few questions that I think make my point.

1) Did following Messiah while he was on the earth depend more on a priori knowledge, or more on a posteriori knowledge?

2) Does following Messiah now, 2000 or so years after his departure from earth, depend more on a priori knowledge, or a posteriori knowledge?

I believe the answer to #1 is "more a posteriori than a priori knowledge".

The first-century inhabitants of Palestine heard Jesus' claims, saw the signs he used to prove those claims and ultimately, they experienced him firsthand. They knew what he looked like, what he liked to eat and where he liked to hang out.

So, because of their experience with him, their belief that he was Messiah involved lots of hindsight (posterior knowledge) with some foresight (prior knowledge) involved when it came to his claims about the future.

I believe the answer to #2 is "more a priori knowledge than a posteriori knowledge".

Today, we cannot hear Jesus make claims, we cannot see Jesus perform signs to prove his claims, and we cannot experience him in-person. Thus, our belief that Jesus is Messiah involves lots of foresight (prior knowledge) with some hindsight (posterior knowledge) thrown in relative to the historical documents that tell of Jesus' life and work.

In other words, the way we come to Jesus today is substantially different than the way the first century Jesus-followers did. We come with much less certainty about the whole thing - plain and simple.

"OK", you say, "but what does this have to do with the death of Christian modernity?"

Well, I believe the modernist, fundamentalist church chant of "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" flat out ignores this simple issue.

By and large, this generation isn't satisfied that "some old book says something, so that makes it true". We can't verify Jesus' claims in any way as his first-century acquaintances could.

So then, our position is by default much more about a priori faith or hope - not absolute certainty.

Today's church ignores this by and large. It's largely stuck in a modernist "I've got all the facts nailed down, and if you don't agree - you're goin' to hell" approach that simply can't satisfy a thinking postmodern person.

Now lest someone fret about this, as I've stated many times before - this is just fine, it's as it should be, it's OK!

Because, after all, Christianity is a faith - it's a worldview that places a whole lot of emphasis on what is to come in the future.

Check out this vignette from John 20:26-31.

"After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, 'Peace be with you.'

Then He said to Thomas, 'Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.' Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!' Jesus said to him, 'Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.'

Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."

We can't touch Jesus' wounds, or in any other way verify his claims as Thomas could. But that's OK - Jesus said we're blessed as we believe without 100% verification.

It's all good!

Father, I pray for my friends and I - for the continued courage to believe in your story and in your Messiah - so that we may one day inherit your Kingdom to come.

I Can't Prove That God Exists

And neither can you!

We spent last week's chat talking about this, and we'll likely continue to work out the implications when we meet again on the 24th.

I think the best way to think of Christianity is to recognize that it - like every other worldview that proposes to explain the past, that gives meaning to the present and that predicts the future - is first and foremost a story to be believed.

Christianity is much closer to being a Broadway play than it is to being a microbiology class. But a part of me seems always to try and make it a science.

"If I go to church faithfully, and give 10% of everything I have, and pray this way, and sing that way, and on, and on and on - then that's when I'll 'break through' to some new plane of existence..."

That kind of thinking tries to turn Christianity into something it was never meant to be - indeed, that it can never be!

For instance, if I were to stand on my deck, and hold a rock out over the edge, and let 'er go - I know beyond a shadow of doubt that the rock will fall to the ground. How do I know this?

I know this because I've proven such a hypothesis time and time and time again under all kinds of circumstances.

But I've never seen God. He's never appeared to me, or spoken audibly to me. Never - not once in all these years. In fact, I don't even know anyone that's seen God, or spoken with him face to face. :)

So I don't "know" that God even exists. At least not like I "know" what will happen when I drop that rock off my deck.

And though Jesus' existence is pretty much a given, I still can't be 100% sure that he and his followers did everything the Bible says they did. And further - unless you've been hiding something from me all these years - you can't be sure of any of it either. :)

And the point of all this is - that's OK. It's "par for the course". It's just as it was meant to be.

Because neither the macro-evolutionists with all their data, nor the Buddhists with all their meditations nor the Hindus with all their vedas nor even the postmoderns with all their....nothingness (!) - none of them can prove their worldviews to be "right" either!

All those worldviews are "faiths" - just as Christianity is a faith.

So my friends - stop beating your heads against the wall trying to make Christianity a "sure thing" - like dropping a rock off your deck. It's just not. It was never meant to be.

But that doesn't stop me from believing in God, in Jesus, in the Christian worldview and in the kingdom to come.

Let's just relax and enjoy exploring the world through our chosen lens - the lens of the Judeo-Christian worldview.

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for,
the conviction of things not seen." - Hebrews 11:1

On Rwanda

Today I've been working on a project that has the potential to dramatically help the young people of Rwanda, with the ultimate effect of strengthening the nation as a whole.

I spent the afternoon studying several analyses of the Rwandan situation. For instance, in 2000 the Rwandan Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning articulated a grand vision for Rwanda's future in a document entitled "Rwanda Vision 2020".

Here's a quote.

"During the colonial period, the Belgian administration applied contemporary
Darwinian theories, thereby deeply dividing the people of Rwanda. This
unfortunate development can be seen as laying the foundations for periodic mass
killings even after independence was gained in 1962, culminating in the the 1994
genocide."

The idea put simply is this. Darwin believed that animal species survived through "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest". Weaker members die off as the strongest members of a species survive to pass on their genetically-based traits to their ancestors.

Thus the entire species adapts towards strength rather than weakness.

Whether or not you believe this is how the animal kingdom works is irrelevant to this discussion. Because the Social Darwinism/eugenics folks take a huge leap from the animal kingdom. They apply Darwinism to human culture.

They essentially say "Oh, well..." when racism, and its logical twin brother genocide, remove a race of humans from the planet. They believe it's just evolution at work.

Social Darwinism - eugenics - whatever you want to call it - I call it Evil with a capital "E".

Why is this shocking? Why do I bring this up?

Because the situation in Rwanda isn't ancient history - it played out in the mass murder of 500,000 to 800,000 Rwandan human beings in 1994. Not to mention the rapes, mutilations and other atrocities that are continuing to pay their grotesque dividends to this day.

I'm not free to go into alot of detail on the current Rwanda project here, but suffice to say, I'm a bit dizzy trying to connect what this project can offer to such a nasty, complicated situation.

Economics, values, education, beliefs - ultimately worldviews.

Yes, there it is again friends. Worldview. That's a great place to start.

The gospel of the Kingdom is the story we Christians both tell and live while standing against these kinds of things. But the challenge, as always, is in its precise application.

Father, give us strength and insight to wisely apply our gifts on your Great Project - the redemption and restoration of the entire world.

A New Kind of Christian.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I just recently got around to reading Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christian.

I say that I'm embarrassed not because McLaren is such a dynamite Christian thinker, but because of the stir the emergent church has caused in evangelical circles in recent years. If you're an evangelical and you're paying attention - you've likely heard about the emergent church.

In this book, McLaren expresses the drivers behind the emergent phenomenon in a conversational narrative that is easy and enjoyable to read.

In A New Kind of Christian, McLaren exudes in many ways the same feelings I have toward the traditional church. A sense that the traditional church is still answering questions no one is asking anymore. A gnawing in my gut that we're never going to really make a dent in the Great Commission if we keep trying to do church the way we've always done it in the face of the postmodern world.

McLaren is ambiguous with regard to solutions, though. That ambiguity might be intentional and meant to align him more fully with the deeply ambiguous postmodern world.

Neo (the fictional emergent guru of the story) and I don't see eye to eye on the telos of Covenant and Kingdom, culminating in the very real New Jerusalem. But that in itself I can handle.

I appreciate McLaren's willingness to express his own disappointments in a rather candid fashion - disappointments that I share in many ways. I would prefer a prescription or two, though, rather than vague admonitions.

But that's why Neo would likely call me a "modern" - I'm looking for real answers rather than a postmodern shrug.