Flowers in the Mud

A blog by Garrick Roegner. Missions, theology, pilgrimage, George Fox doctoral work, and maybe even some music and other cool stuff.

[garrickroegner-blog]

Liquid Modernity

Alright, so I am in the process of banging out a dissertation about Spain, missional communities and pilgrimage and probably some other stuff.  Sounds fun, huh?

I want to keep blogging, so instead of coming up with totally new content, I will be blogging some of my material for the dissertation.  

First off, a bit of a conversation with Zygmunt Bauman about liquid modernity, or how he sees our current postmodern situation.

The current sociological situation in the West and Europe is complex and characterized by three shifts to postmodernism, post-Christendom, and globalization.  In order to find a central and encompassing metaphor for the mood of the West, this research proposes using Zygmunt Bauman’s explanation of “liquid modernity” as the confluence of postmodernism, secularization, and globalization. For Bauman this means a “growing conviction that change is the only permanence, and uncertainty the only certainty,” caused by the modern capacity of “melting the solids.”[1]  Solids are the institutions, bonds, and cultural norms that held societies together giving them meaning, direction, limits, safety, and community.  When the solids, seen as limiting to individual freedom, of the modern era failed to produce the progress and accomplishments they promised, combined with the triumph of deregulated, flexible, consumerist, and liberal world economy, humanity was thrown into a precarious situation.  On one hand, humans are left alone in the world to sort out their own individual meaning and success.  On the other hand, this forces a hyper individualization from the rebellion against the solids, for utter human freedom.  Thus, the twin forces worked to melt all solids that stood in the way of individuality, choice, and total human freedom.  Individuality and choice have thus become the benchmarks of the liquid world.  Anything that gets in their way must either flex or melt. Shared meaning, significance, moral order and expectation, and other social imaginaries which hold society and community together have given way to pluralism and the fragmentation of meaning.[2]

            The melting of the solids into liquid modernity has come with a high price.  The solids which guided and directed life, labor, and happiness, have not been replaced in the true sense.  They have simply been replaced by infinite choice, amusement, false emancipation, insecurity, fragmented community, and identity crisis.  Moreover, choice and individuality in all things and at all times have meant that society is “thrown into an unstoppable hunt for novelty” in search of the next identity, brand, experience; thus, existentially and physically constantly on the move.[3] Bauman sees this “hunt for novelty” at all expenses manifested in the meaninglessness and emptiness of a hyper consumerist society, which replaces desire for relationship and community with the ever unfulfilled desire for the powerful but ephemeral experience.[4]

What is more Bauman sees that “unlike our ancestors, we don’t have a clear image of a ‘destination’ towards which we seem to be moving… the goal is nothing, the movement is everything”[5]  People now accrue and discard experience and identity at rapid pace.  Community is only that which one chooses to enter into, it too can be discarded when it no longer serves its purpose.  Society become more and more liquid, dislocated, and fragmented as “non-places” protect polite society from having to accept and deal with the strangeness of others, collapsing onto themselves into a mode of “disengagement, elusiveness, facile escape and hopeless chase.”[6]  As such, “’the individual’ has already been granted all the freedom he might have dreamed of…so that the communitarian dream of ‘re-embedding the disembedded’, nothing may change the fact that they are but motel beds, sleeping bags and analysts couches available for re-embedding, and that from now on the communities- more postulated than ‘imagined’- may be only ephemeral artifacts of the ongoing individuality play.”[7]

            Bauman makes the assertion that in the liquefied world all “to one extent or another, in body or thought, here and now or in the anticipated future, willingly or unwillingly- on the move.”[8]  This is primarily because “the hub of postmodern life strategy is not making identity stand- but the avoidance of being fixed,” thusly “mobility is the name of the game.”[9]  Here Bauman introduces a typology of postmodern identity postulated in the figures of the “tourist” and the “vagabond.”[10]  The tourist is the truly free in liquid society, with the ability to pay for and choose his mobility.  He flits about from one experience to another, the ultimate consumer.  The tourist is physically close, yet spiritual remote, in a sense aloof, exempt from “all non-contractual duties having been paid for in advance…[i]deally with the moral conscience having been fed a sure fire dose of sleeping pills.”[11] Vagabonds are the dregs of liquid society, the alter ego of the nomadic elite tourist.  Vagabonds “are the waste of the world” and are on the move because they have “no other choice.”[12]  They are dislocated from time and space, forced to move on, but never accepted and satisfied.   

            For Bauman, the rise of the tourist and the vagabond, and the immense spatial and moral gap between them is a blow to community, and subsequently ethics.  Tidball explicates Bauman’s point: “we can either have the security of community life with the rigidity that goes with it, or we can reject that because we do not want to be fixed and face the uncertainty and self-imposed exile of being uprooted.”[13]  Postmodern society is thus ever on the move, restless and wandering ironically locked in full rejection of any value, narrative, community, or institution which could offer stability.

  [1] Zygmunt Bauman, Liquid Modernity (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2012), Kindle, loc 75, loc 333.

  [2] Bauman lays out his explanation of liquid modernity in a number of texts analyzing the sociological imaginaries of the time from a number of perspectives. Culture in a Liquid Modern World trans. Lydia Bauman (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2011), Kindle. Liquid Love: On the Frailty of Human Bonds (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003), Kindle. Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Uncertainty (Cambridge: Polity Press,  2007), Kindle.

  [3] Bauman, Liquid Modernity, loc 139.

[4] Zygmunt Bauman, Consuming Life (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007), Kindle.

  [5] Bauman, Liquid Modernity, loc 56, loc 130.

  [6] Ibid., loc 2146, loc 2479.

  [7] Ibid., loc 665.

  [8] Zygmunt Bauman, Postmodernity and Its Discontents (New York: New York University Press, 1997), 93.

  [9] Ibid., 89-90.

  [10] Derek Tidball, “The Pilgrim and the Tourist: Zygmunt Bauman and Postmodern Identity,” in Explorations in a Christian Theology of Pilgrimage, eds. Craig Bartholomew and Fred Hughes (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2004), 187.

  [11] Zygmunt Bauman, Postmodern Ethics (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1993), 243.

  [12] Bauman, Postmodernity and Its Discontents, 92-93.

  [13] Tidball, “The Pilgrim and the Tourist,” 187.

[garrickroegner-blog]

Some Last Thoughts on Culture, the Church, and the Future

Well, this is the last blog I will write for my George Fox Seminary Doctor of Ministry program, so I thought it could be a bit of a summation of a couple years of study strained through this week’s reading of Terry Eagleton’s (Culture and the Death of God) witty take down of modern Western society’s blind cultural collapse into atheism.  Eagleton’s thesis is that secularization began unwittingly with the Enlightenment experience to elevate reason, but not at the expense of God, over and against the abuses of organized clerical religion.  In a sense, it was more following the Reformation, than any real attempt at imposing atheism.  In fact, Eagleton argues that humanity needs God and religion to give it meaning, purpose, a wellspring of morality, and to avoid that deep emptiness of the black void.  In short, we are designed for these things, and they naturally and effortlessly flow from the Divine.  Idealism and Romanticism (within the modern schema) carried this further, attempting to supplant God with idealized values that could carry out our divine urges.  Full-fledged modernism occurred with the folding of culture, the state, politics over into itself to become a monolith that would replace God.  All of these worked under the elitist principle that the intelligentsia of the world could grasp the terrible reality that God no longer existed, but that the poor and foolish masses still needed something like God to keep them in place, motivated and away from the barricades.  True atheism entered the world through Nietzsche and his warm, cuddly embrace of the black void and meaninglessness of his soul.  The promises of modernism were hollow.

Eagleton ends up with the current postmodern situation (more influenced by the collapse of meaning), where God has been supplanted by culture, but culture supplanted by advertising, capitalism, vacuous entertainment, and consumerism.   These are the new gods which the masses pray to and worship, all the while allowing for the further enrichment of the capitalist classes where the poor are crushed and reform is stifled.  Where desire was once located in God, and controlled by morality, it is now located in the unending search for more, and controlled by the spending limits on our credit cards.  Bauman and Giddens find that postmodern society is full of the same discontents.  Eagleton alludes to the failure of community and flat out political interest in postmodernity, that possibly can only be retrieved when we actually live out radical Christianity… love your neighbor, love your enemy, serve the poor.

  Thus, Eagleton’s assessment is bleak for the state of Western society, but seems to hold out hope in a more robust Christianity.  It is hard to tell if Eagleton’s Christianity is just mere radical communism wrapped up in Jesus.  As always, Eagleton holds his faith commitment cards close to his chest.

  For Eagleton, Christianity is the way forward, a theology that tackles the major arcs of existence and has stood up remarkably well against the perpetual sticks and stones thrown at it.  Here Eagleton seems to suggest that ideas, theology, philosophy, and ideology are important.  Western Christianity seems to be in crisis, bounded by skepticism and bad news around every corner, depending on who you talk to the church in the West is either fracturing or slowly disappearing, or both.

  I tend to be optimistic.  It appears to me that the church is passing through a liminal phase where it must uncouple itself form the Christendom epoch.  What will emerge and is emerging  will be a church  more committed and more prepared for the coming culture of the West, more focused on mission and evangelism to a culture which will look more like post collapse of Rome paganism and Christian cultural nominalism than 1950’s Leave it to Beaver. But, it means the church will pass through some difficult once again.  Here are some key points for the future of the church in the West:

  Orthodox: The church must be centered in the historic creeds and faith of Christianity, and unashamedly so.  We must resist the temptation to change not only structure and strategy but also essential theological tenets to make the faith more palpable to postmodern culture.  Orthodox Christianity continues to prove historically robust, against the theological accommodation that classic Protestant liberalism bled itself to death with. 

Uncoupled: It is important that the church do some deep digging to think properly about its own cultural captivity to Western culture, consumerism, humanism, idealism, and postmodernism.  This applies to both conservative and progressives who are both captivated by their own received modern and postmodern presuppositions that they have fashioned into their own ought faith.  We must avoid the false binary straw men of “my way is Jesus and their way is cultural captivity” and instead ever strive to find how Jesus transforms culture.

Faith: One of the great crisis of the Western Church is often how utterly bland and toothless it is becoming.  We have become content to sit front row for the collapse of Christianity, munching on popcorn.  Most things in the church have become easy and just part of a simple formulaic program.  Rarely do we challenge people to great faith adventures, instead content to ask for the lowest level of commitment or effort, and if things get too difficult, we simply acquiesce.

Missional: Faith leads to stepping out into the impossible and trusting God to show up.  Missional follows through on this to lead us into the true call of the church… to fulfill the Mission of God that all will know him through Christ, and all will be healed and restored.  The church is not an inward focused institution of bricks and mortar, it is an outward focused community that exists for mission: namely the Great Commission.  The church will only regain its true form when it becomes its true self, and thus becomes missionary, sending and probing communities into new contexts.

Comunitas: This is the essential ontological Trinitarian nature of the people of God.  Unity in perfect diversity, pure love.  But, also in a postmodern, liquid society it means that it stands against the fragmentation, isolation, and discontent of Western society.

Holistic: The great error of American evangelicalism to reduce the gospel to personal salvation and experience was in reaction to the great error of liberal Protestantism to remove personal salvation from sin from the gospel, thus making the gospel all about social and justice issues.  Both, gospels are mere shadows of the plan of God, and are less divided in other nations and faith expressions.  Modern evangelicalism will need to recover the true holistic gospel, and not divide evangelism from service, nor the Great Commission from the Great Commandment.  They must be seen as essential, and part and parcel to each other.

[garrickroegner-blog]

Lead Like Lincoln

The United States of America had been through some tough times.  However, never has the country been so divided by disparate interests, violence, racism, personal infighting, political conflict, and cynical self-advancement as during the presidency of Abraham Lincoln.  And for Lincoln this was all within his unionist government, he still also had to deal with the break-away Confederate rebellion!

  Amazingly, Lincoln was able to lead the Union to victory, solvency, and better days during the darkest chapter in American history.  Time and time again he was able to avert disaster and hold his nation and government together.  Lesser leaders probably would have presided over the final dissolution of the US.  This week in my Global Leadership and Perspectives Doctor of Ministry program at George Fox Seminary we read Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln and The Save Time Summary of the text, both by Doris Kearns Goodwin.  As I read through Lincoln’s challenges and how he ably handled them, I was able to reflect on my last two years of studying leadership.  Several themes begin to emerge about leadership that are evocative in Lincoln’s leadership style.  These intersect with many of the findings of leadership gurus like Kets de Vries, Collins, Li, Friedman, Morse, Rath, and Clifton.  For instance, Lincoln had amazing, almost prescient emotional intelligence, and knew how to unwind and help others unwind also.  He knew how to encourage and motivate people, but he also actively encouraged criticism and dissent from all sides, listening well to those whose opinions differed from his.  Below are just a few of the leadership qualities clearly manifested in Abraham Lincoln that aided in the preservation of the USA.

  Lincoln built consensus.  The first thing that Lincoln did during his presidency was to build his cabinet.  He immediately sought out to appoint his major political rivals to important positions.  Many of these men strongly disagreed with Lincoln and with each other on policy and politics, and some even had personal grudges against one another.  But, Lincoln knew three important things.  One, the country would need a strong show of unity and consensus to hold together and have everyone’s voice count. Two, disparate points of view would be healthy for coming to healthy and strong policy decisions.  Three, you want the best, most capable people, not just the ones who agree with you.

Lincoln actively encouraged open discussion, debate, and criticism. Several of the men Lincoln tasked with major responsibilities initially declined the position citing that they disagreed strongly with Lincoln’s positions and politics.  Lincoln went out of his way to encourage these men to openly communicate with him their disagreements, notifying them that he would always listen and take into consideration their points of view.  Lincoln’s office was open to hear criticism, and he never squashed it.  This created trust with certain key cabinet members, but also allowed for Lincoln to always have a bigger view of the situation.  It also allowed for measured and informed decisions to be made, in which most eventually came to agreement.

Lincoln led with grace, kindness, and graciousness.  Into the political cauldron of Civil War era intrigue and bickering, Lincoln gingerly stepped.  Choosing a cabinet of political rivals only intensified the political stakes.  Lincoln was able to diffuse much of this with his openness, but also with his incredible kindness and grace towards others.  He always attempted to encourage and quickly forgive his subordinates.  Moreover, he often agonized over letters and telegraphs he had to send, hoping to strike a balance between encouragement and censure.  He had committed himself to never send a letter in anger.  Lincoln also, whenever he felt he had been too harsh, sought out the party he offended to offer a personal apology.  Even those he had to punish or remove, he often attempted to set them up in a situation where they could succeed.  He was tremendously patient.  For this, Lincoln engendered great trust and loyalty even from those who disagreed with him.  This often helped to diffuse potentially fracturing political and policy conflicts during the intensity of the war.

Lincoln always took responsibility. Lincoln knew the buck stopped with him.  For this he often took the responsibility and the blame for the failures of his government officials.  He made sure that he ultimately protected their reputation and future.  The men working with Lincoln knew that he had their backs, and once again this engendered great trust and loyalty.

Lincoln forgave generously. On several occasions subordinates apologized to Lincoln for failures and in some cases gross betrayal.  Lincoln always quickly forgave and attempted to restore friendship and status to those who had wronged him.  In some cases he appointed people to important positions who had clearly wronged him or looked down on him.  In one case, it was revealed that his Postmaster General, Monty Blair, had written a derogatory letter about Lincoln.  Blair, as an act of attrition apologized and offered to resign because of the betrayal.  Lincoln simply said, “forget it and never mention or think of it again (loc 8773).”  Most would have harbored grudges or resentment, but Lincoln’s policy of mercy further engendered respect, admiration, and ultimate loyalty.

Lincoln knew when to make decisive and unilateral decisions. Despite his kindness, Lincoln was no pushover.  He held strong and with integrity pushed through those things he felt strongly about.  When he felt that a decision had to be made that was essential to maintaining the future of the Union, he was not afraid to act.

Lincoln led with hope and vision. Despite the darkness and horror of the Civil War, Lincoln never wavered from the importance of maintaining the integrity of the Union for a brighter future of the nation and all mankind.  He kept himself and his cabinet focused on the vision of America and the Constitution as the great hope of all humanity.   After every set back (and the North experienced many) Lincoln was always there to continue to encourage his generals, his soldiers, and his cabinet with kindness and the hope of the future.  He knew how to do this both explicitly and implicitly.  Kearns explains: “As he had done so many times before, Lincoln withstood the storm of defeat by replacing anguish over an unchangeable past with hope in an unchartered future (loc 10631).

  Are you leading in a difficult and challenging situation?  Do you have a divided and contentious team, church, or organization that you are in charge of?  Lead like Lincoln.

[garrickroegner-blog]

It's Rough Out There

They got Charles Darwin trapped out there on Highway 5 Judge says to the High Sheriff, "I want them dead or alive" Either one, I don't care, high water everywhere -Bob Dylan, High Water

History is fascinating stuff.  Often it gets short shrift from poor high school teachers more focused on the memorization of facts and dates, than on helping their students make sense of the world.  But, history is essentially telling the story of a people or place, so that we can understand those people, or that place, and ourselves better.  Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies explains that history helps by “teaching us what shaped the modern world, and what might shape our future (loc 6918).”  And this is the general question behind Diamond’s thesis of why certain societies and peoples were able to achieve wealth, dominance, and modernization, while others entered the 20th and even the 21st century still stuck in the Stone Age.  How did we get to where we are as a world?  Why were European societies able to establish dominance and colonize much of the world, while others were not able?  Why do some societies conquer others with ease?

Diamond’s multi-disciplinary study (he brings to bear history, biology, geography, anthropology, and other sciences) argues that it is a set of essential geographical and biological factors that have shaped human history, allowing for certain regions and peoples to get a jump start on others societies that do not have similar advantages.  In short, geographical access to the correct climate and flora and fauna mix, allow for hunter-gatherer societies to produce enough food surplus to settle and become food producers.  Certain areas, such as the Fertile Crescent have a high amount of domesticatiable plants and animals.  If things go well, this means that population growth occurs and societies stabilize allowing for the emergence of more advanced economies, a bureaucrat class, and most importantly more free time for certain people to dedicate time to further innovation.  Thus, innovations such as writing and steel lead to further innovations and ultimately the opportunity to dominate other societies.  What is more, regular exposure to domesticated plants and particularly animals means that certain populations build up immunity to diseases which for other peoples are a quick deathblow, especially when different peoples come into contact with each other.

Simply put, certain other regions and societies (whether because they are too remote, have little access to plants and animals which can be domesticated, or live in areas where effective food production simply is not sustainable) get off to a slower start in the advancement game, and thus can arrive into the 20th century, like the Australian Aborigines, living in the Stone Age.  Diamond does a good job of supporting his thesis with strong historical arguments, and also makes sure to note the importance of culture and historical anomaly.  Yet, his argument is still open to the charge of geographical determinism, a kind of tautology of Darwinian evolution.

Diamond interestingly finds that economics may be at the core of human existence and flourishing.  We are ultimately tied to our ability to develop stable food supplies and then leverage those to our advantage.  However, even before Polanyi’s pessimism in The Great Transformation, we find that in fact the past is not a veritable Garden of Eden of pastoral and rural peace where farmers enjoyed pure labor, before the .  Nor were hunter-gather societies, living off the abundance of the land, idyllic Actually a story of fighting over resources, insecurity, and ultimately violent and accidental conquest is what emerges. Diamond explains that “the main process running through the history of the last 10,000 years: human groups with guns, germs, and steel, or with earlier technological and military advantages, spreading at the expense of other groups, until either the latter groups become replaced or everyone came to share the new advantages (loc 7397).”  It’s rough out there.

Even our own Biblical story seems to match up with Diamond’s narrative.  Were Cain and Abel caught up in a battle over food production?  And Cain was afraid of other bands of people that lay outside the protection of his group.  Perhaps the reality of expansive and conquering bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and nations taking hold of the land at the violent expanse of others should inform our reading of the Old Testament text.  Obviously the Jewish people lived out the improbable story of wandering nomads to slaves, to nation state, to displaced exiles in the midst of conquering and often rather nasty kingdoms.  Not only does the Old Testament narrative match up with the history of humankind from wandering pre-societies to established political states, but perhaps it helps us to better understand the more unsavory and violent parts of the story.  Humanity left to its own has chosen or accidentally stumbled into   It’s rough out there.

And thus we come to religion, a topic which Diamond barely touches on, yet is a cultural and political force in shaping history.  So can religion, and in particular Christianity help to turn the tide of dominance, conquest, and economic disparity?  Violence is certainly part of the human story, one part which a just God can only punish also with violence.  But, that violence was ultimately poured out on the God-Man, Jesus the Christ, hanging on the cross, so that violence, conquest, and fear are turned to love.  With Jesus we go to establish his kingdom, now and not yet, and it is thus no surprise that many Christians throughout history have sought to bring about the end of violence, the equilibrium of societies, and human flourishing.  Robert Woodberry’s recent study on how Protestant missions have helped to fashion democratic institutions is helpful here.  As Christians our ultimate destination is not one of conquest and violence, it is a kingdom of justice, peace, love and salvation. 

“Violence is not human destiny because the God of peace is the beginning and the end of human history.” Miroslav Volf- Twitter feed 

[garrickroegner-blog]

Of Zograscopes, Facebook, and the Internet

Zygmunt Bauman has posited that contemporary (or postmodern) society is characterized by “the growing conviction that change is the only permanence and uncertainty the only certainty (Liquid Modernity, loc 75).”  We live in thus a liquid time, where structures and societal solids must be flexible, changeable, and ultimately liquid.  Furthermore for Bauman this all is “triggered by the horrifying signs and prospects of durable things falling apart, and of a whirlwind of transient ephemera filling the vacancy” leading to modernity’s “unstoppable hunt for novelty (loc 136).”

Nowhere is this liquid sensation more apparent than in the constant change and alterations that consume our technological hunger and our love affair with new media.  Some ten years ago, no one even knew about Facebook.  Today they are a global power that has changed the way people think and communicate, globally.  Indeed, during the globalization of the technological, postmodern (liquid?) world the rise of new media has played a drastic and radical role in reshaping nations, governments, and cultures.  One tweet can ignite a revolution.  Or, one Facebook post can incite a hoax affecting millions.  Recently the President of Turkey pledged to eradicate Twitter in his nation.  At the same time, we are all immediately aware of the transience of new media.  That in fact we are all waiting for the next big thing.  Facebook is particularly aware of this reality as they rapidly buy up and subjugate potential new medias with their billions.

Lisa Gitelman and Geoffrey B. Pingree edit a history of new media that is surprising in its historical, cultural, and sociological perspective.  New Media, 1740-1915 reminds us that “new media” is not so new, and show us a litany of media innovations that have changed and at times not changed the world, but have created the same kinds of conversations in the past that we are also having today.  We must remember that the Catholic Church once fought against the translating (out of Latin) and mass producing the Bible and other religious texts.  It was in fact Luther’s “tweet” attached to the doors of a church that instigated one of the greatest cultural shifts and religious reformations of all time.  What we see from Gitelman and Pingree, is that words and communication are important.  Point of view and perspective can be altered, and as such cultures and people shudder, or sense great liberation.  The advent of the zograscope in the mid 18th century seemed to shift a radical way in which people could perceive the world.  In a sense, it was the first pass at virtual reality.  The zograscope came to be a defining new media of certain parts of English society for a short time, and then passed into obscurity.  What is more, Erin C. Blake points out that while it is tempting to herald the zograscope as some kind of media breakthrough that altered European society, in fact: “did not provide a new dominant model of seeing; it provided a different way for a limited group of people, the men and women who considered themselves of polite society, to visualize public space (4).”

These observations of the “newness” and historical depth of new media help to ask deeper questions of our technological digital age.  Are our Iphones, tablets, and relentless internet usage really a major shift in seeing and understanding, or just a social marker.  Still millions have limited or no access to these forms of new media.  What is more, in my own context of Andalucia, Spain, one can observe that an Iphone is marker of status and wealth.  Do these forms of media divide us more than they unite us?

Twitter and Facebook, and in general the blogospherical internet ignite firestorms of controversy and rancor at the drop of the hat.  Sure we no longer crucify people at the city gates, instead we digitally stone them.  Hoaxes, half-truths, and polemics abound. Much of the internet is an echo box… people with lots of strong political or religious points of view (but very little actual experience or expertise) lead online movements, often always emotionally shooting from the hip. One wonders if this is all more for entertainment and self-satisfaction than actual communication, reflection, and societal betterment.  Dialog seems to be missing, as a trip to the comments sections shows almost always overwhelming approval of the posts in some cases, with dissent being quashed.  While in others, it is simply a Darwinian battle for who can be the meanest.

This is particularly the case amongst the Christian blogging community, where disaffected progressives square off against curmudgeonly traditionalists, conservative vs. liberals, Reformed vs. non-Reformed, and on and on.  In the end I feel a lot more echo boxing is going on, as opposed to any real theological or cultural dialog.  Never mind the complete lack of anything resembling scholarly thinking or research.  Some have also pointed out that many who actually pastor, lead, serve, and are in any way proactively caught up in the work of expanding the kingdom of God day to day in people’s lives, probably don’t have that much time for this type of thing.  I wonder how much of the internet is to build followings to sell books to.

Still, I am not that much of pessimist to write it all off.  Great things do happen with the new media that is intimately connected with the internet.  Communication and discovery occur.  Relationships are created, and there is some genuine debate and dialog.  It is a world of opportunities.

The internet isn’t going anywhere, but we should not be surprised if Twitter, Facebook, and Blogging go the way of the zograscope.  Perhaps we should view our interactions with these forms of new media loosely and lightly.

What do you think?

[garrickroegner-blog]

Power, Empowerment, and Disempowerment

We have all had THAT experience.  Seeing power used in a ministry setting in a negative way.  I have a good friend who had his first pastoral assignment, the head pastor made him preach his sermons in private just to the head pastor for feedback and approval, and to make sure they would be adequate for the few times he preached on Sunday morning.  The message was obvious, “I am in control.”  My friend is now the head pastor of a fairly large church, and his former boss was eventually removed in disgrace from his role.  Off the top of my head I can think of many similar stories where pastors used power to cajole, control, and manipulate.  I am blessed to work in a great organization where leadership development is prized, where everyone is encouraged to be a leader, and where the ultimate goal of leadership is to empower fellow staff, as well as volunteers and students to unlock the power of the Holy Spirit in themselves and help fulfill the Great Commission.  Still, even in a democratic movement such as ours, you can occasionally come across people who abuse power.  I once sat in a meeting with a high level leader where he lied, manipulated, and intimidated everyone else in the room, ever so subtly.  Everyone knew what he was doing, but he held all the power.  I serve alongside my wife as a co-director and it has been here that I have also seen how systems and patterns can often work to exclude women from power.

Mary Kate Morse’s Making Room for Leadership: Power, Space and Influence delves into the intricacies of power.  Morse explains that power is embodied, it is carried within us, and the way we present ourselves, dress, move, and talk carries with it the amazing power to influence.  In essence, “our bodies tell others whether we have power (or not) and whether we will share it or not (loc 77).”  Furthermore, power is always played out in a social and communal dimension, where the very unconscious sensitivities and emotions of a group and culture decide who will have power and who will not.  Thus, leadership is “a physical and a social process. (loc 164).”  In this sense, Morse is quick to point out that leadership is rarely appointed or confined by structure or labels, instead leadership is always happening, and some who don’t even know they are leaders are actually leading.  Morse then dichotomizes the use of power into that which either functions to “consume or invite (loc 115).” 

As leaders, we all have influence, and we all have power.  Our choice is to use that power either to empower others towards positive changes in their lives and in the organization, or to use the power to exclude, control, manipulate, protect our interests, or even to abuse.  In a sense, true leadership is more about character and how one handles one’s power.  As such, Morse gives an excellent definition of leadership as: “Authentic leadership- leadership that catalyzes a group toward deep change and moves its members in a positive, energizing direction-involves the group acting together (loc 256).”  Leaders use their power to build consensus, encourage others to participate, be a part of the team, and be change agents themselves.  In fact, true leadership empowers.  It gives all a sense of their own ability to make change happen. 

Morse’s book reminded me very much of Henri Nouwen’s wonderful little meditation on leadership In the Name of Jesus.  Nouwen a professor at Harvard left that world of power and influence to work with the mentally handicapped at the L’Arche community.  One of the things Nouwen writes about is his relationship with a mentally handicapped man named Bill, who Nouwen had tasked with accompanying him on some of his speaking engagements.  For Nouwen he very much wanted to empower Bill, and for him to know that “what we did, we did together in Jesus name (Nouwen, 101).”

Power that empowers is of course part and parcel of the ministry of Jesus and the New Testament church.  It was built into the Trinitarian love for humanity, that humanity would participate in the life and mission of God.  God sends into all the world all people, regardless of sex, race, or station in life in order to bring about the Kingdome of healing, justice, and peace.  Unfortunately, the church we have inherited is often one beset by struggles with power and how to use it.  It is an institution desiring to protect its institutionalness.  The best leaders understand that power must be given away, and be used for the benefit of the powerlessness.  Perhaps in our postmodern, post-Christendom setting we are seeing the rending of the uneasy relationship of power in the church.  The missional movement (and  other movements) instinctively understand that to expand and grow, one must use power to empower. That is the genius of the Jesus who empowered women, crooks, and all kinds of riff raff to change the world. Power must be gripped loosely, but not rejected.  Power is not the problem, it is how it is used. 

I firmly believe that the early church, and many Christian movements that have changed the world understood that power must be used to empower, and to unleash all the people of God to influence the world for Christ.  As I sit here in Spain in 2014 watching the continual decline of faith and the institutional church, I can’t help but wonder if churches and organization could reverse this course by changing their understanding of leadership and power.  Perhaps Pope Francisco is a breath of fresh air who will do just that, against the cronyism and corruption that for so many generations has used its power to protect and insulate itself.

If you are leading a missional team, or any organization that seeks to empower the body of Christ, then I highly recommend this book.

[garrickroegner-blog]

Leaders Think and Thinkers Lead

In 2005 we moved to Spain with our 1 year old daughter and a team of 4 Americans, 1 Mexican, and 1 Spaniard to do campus ministry.  We were sent as Short Term Internationals, even though we were planning on staying long term.  The idea was to go for two years as short termers, try out life and ministry in Spain, and then return as long term missionaries.  In Cru, short term teams are sent out to get things done, and do as much as they can within a year or two time frame, hoping to get ministry and movements up and running in a rapid period of time.  This strategy has actually worked well in certain contexts and normally with young singles carrying the load.  Unfortunately for us, Spain is not a good context for this strategy, nor was it a good situation for us a family leading a multi-cultural, multi-generational team.  Three weeks after we touched down in Spain, and having not yet even moved into an apartment, we were expected to start ministry.  Our first year in Spain was a spiritual, mental, marital, and team nightmare.  We kept up a peripatetic pace trying to engage with students, maintain our team, learn language and culture, and set a strategic course for accomplishing our ministry goals. 

Daniel Patrick Forrester in his excellent tome on pausing to think, Consider: Harnessing the Power of Reflective Thinking in Your Organization, speaks of the human proclivity towards “action bias.”  Action bias is basically a tendency to do and act, rather than sit back and reflect or think through a problem.  Evangelicalism typically has a strong action bias. We have been doers, and through the Protestant work ethic, and a typically fearful stance towards more contemplative (read Catholic) spirituality (echoes of Taylor and Weber here), we tend to attack problems and challenges by stepping out in faith, rolling up our sleeves, and taking action.  This isn’t always bad, and probably has led to some tremendous movements, growth, and societal change.  Action bias isn’t always wrong.  However, Forrester points out that action that is always separated from solid thinking that understanding of context and meaning can be destructive.  Moreover, living in a global, connected, technological world of rapid pace and speed where emails and messages should be answered in just minutes, “action bias now manifests itself in impulsive and instantaneous responsiveness to every request… the trade-off is easy to make: we gain speed, immediate connection, and reactions while giving up richer contexts that emerge only when we take time to think (loc 337).”

This can be seen in our short term experience in Spain.  We didn’t have time to reflect or think about the culture, about what would work best to communicate the gospel, or even how to best live incarnationally… we just had to do.  Most missions organizations want new missionaries to go through a period of adaptation, learning language and culture and spending adequate time thinking about their future ministry in this context.  Actually, once we became long-term we were afforded this time to process, and we are allowed to sit back and learn from the first two years of working in Spain.  This allowed us the time to think through with ourselves and other long term staff, strategies and tools for connecting with the culture, and even process in real time, instead of running around trying whatever.  Moreover, we have seen the productivity and fruitfulness of ministry grow over time as we have had the time to learn and think through how best to do life and ministry in Spain.  Now we are at a pace where we can actually work faster, more competently, and focused on many tasks.  But, all of this took time to think through and process, maybe even more so because it is a cross-cultural experience.

Forrester explains that as leaders mired in a connected world of constantly having too much to do, and constant media distraction, to avoid organizational and personal disaster it is imperative that we take formal, structured time to think and reflect.  Otherwise, we can become so consumed by action bias that we will miss the key changes, decisions, and innovations that will truly grow an organization.  In a sense, “in our culture of immediacy, we can easily solve the wrong problems with great speed (loc 554).”  This is how my first two years in Spain felt: “Coupled with our culture’s bias towards action and exacerbated by constant distraction, it can be nearly impossible for today’s leaders to consistently pose and then answer the right questions while employing sound judgment (loc 801).”  It was only when we had time to gather the big picture of Spain and ministry there, that we could process it and begin to move forward with confidence tackling the correct issues before us.

Forrester thus encourages leaders to make time to think and reflect, even in hectic and overly busy schedules.  The mind needs time alone, its own space, to focus completely un-distracted on the issues, challenges, and opportunities before the leader.  Otherwise, the leader will simply make knee-jerk decisions that may or may not be helpful.  Moreover, Forrester explains that thinking time must be reflective in that it must be able to question perceived data, the status quo, and group think.  In a sense, good leaders schedule time to think!  And they do serious, heavy lifting thinking.  This means closing down email and setting the phone on silent, and engaging in serious focused thinking.  Forrester also encourages leaders to create time for everyone in the organization to think, and to create a “reflective culture.”  That is a culture “that makes it possible for people to constantly challenge things without fear of retaliation (loc 1511).”  This allows for ideas, innovations, and checks of bad decisions or practice to arise within the organization.  Issues like group think and terminal niceness (saying yes to bad ideas) are thus avoided.  Forrester points out that many successful companies like Google insist that their employees have time to think and also reflectively challenge company assumptions. 

Returning to my experience in Cru, I believe that as Christians we need to find a good balance between thinking and action.  Too much thinking can become negative and paralyzing, but action without attention to thinking can lead to waste and even disaster.  So it is essential that we build in structured time within our organizations for thinking and reflection.  As my responsibilities and roles in Spain continue to ramp up, I need to make a more and more concerted effort to spend time alone, just thinking.

In short, if you want to be a good leader, make time to think, and help others also think and express their ideas. 

[garrickroegner-blog]

More on Isolation... and Humility

My good friend Rick Rhodes did a great job writing about the spirituality of isolation and humility.  So give it a read here:

http://dminlgp.com/post/78070257867/a-rare-commodity

[garrickroegner-blog]

Isolation: Into the Desert

The motif of entering into the desert, a dry and waterless place, for a time of spiritual testing, pain, and growth is prevalent throughout the Bible.  Shelley Trebesch in her book Isolation: A Place of Transformation in the Life of a Leader explicates these periods of isolation for Biblical leaders from Moses to Paul, not failing to mention Jesus’ rather important sojourn into the desert for 40 days.  What is interesting is that the theme of isolation does not end with the closing of the canon.  Trebesch points out that in her research at least 90% of leaders will experience a time of isolation in their lives.  When one begins to think historically through a list of Christian leaders, the isolation experience further becomes standard.  Patrick spent years as a slave in a foreign land before catching the vision to reach the pagans of Ireland with the gospel.  Teresa de Avila faced an uphill climb and much isolation in her attempts to enact her vision, and her friend John of the Cross gave us the very apt phrase of anguish in isolation, “the dark night of the soul.”  More recently it was discovered that Mother Teresa had experienced tremendous bouts of spiritual isolation.  Off the top of my head I can think of several good friends who have passed through seasons of isolation because of ministry changes, failures, retirement, or conflict.

Trebesch defines isolation (via Clinton) within the leadership model as: “the setting aside of a leader from normal ministry involvement in its natural context usually for an extended time in order to experience God in a new and deeper way (10).”  For Trebesch the focal point for any isolation experience is to grow in greater intimacy with God, and to thus encounter a time of radical spiritual transformation.  Isolation experiences can be entered into either voluntarily or involuntarily, but they are always a result of God wanting to do something new in the core of our lives.  Ultimately, Trebesch find three main reasons why God brings us into an isolation experience: “to transform identity, to introduce a paradigm shift, and to deepen his relationship with the leader (46).” 

All of this written on the page often sounds admirable and deeply spiritual.  It seems that we would all want to jump expectantly at the opportunity to have an isolation experience, but Trebesch does an important job in reminding us that isolation experiences, sojourning through the desert alone, are not pleasant experiences.  They are often a result of chaos in the world that leads to sickness, imprisonment, failure, burnout, and transition.  Isolation is often a place of deep anguish and pain, as the familiar and the comfortable melt away.  Trebesch outlines the process of isolation in the steps of: 1. Stripping, 2. Wrestling with God, 3. Increased intimacy, and finally 4. Release to Look Towards the Future.  The process of stripping and wrestling with God are painful and disorienting, but is the key of what allows us to be re-made and transformed anew. 

Trebesch’s work here is ultimately hopeful, in showing the role of isolation (as painful as it can be) in radically forming and shaping leaders to be more like God and more in line with God.  Isolation is often a part of God’s plan, and the Bible would suggest that the humbling of leaders into truly godly people is an essential part of the leadership process for God.  As Western Christians however, we often shy away from the transformative pain of isolation.  We question those who have burned out, or failed.  Rarely do we offer pastors and leaders the grace and understanding they need in these moments.  As leaders ourselves, we do not see the power of the isolation experience to our own health and vitality.  As such, we fight against God’s plan for our lives, avoiding the pain that can transform us.  Really, this is scary stuff!!  No one wants to enter the desert alone.  We demand comfort and safety, when God calls into a place of danger, isolation, and chaos.  God calls us into the whirlwind to meet him and be transformed.  Perhaps as Western Christians we need to recapture the spiritual practices of sacrifice, of pain, of pilgrimage into the wilderness (a practice that was once common), and an embrace of isolation. 

Have you ever experienced a period of isolation?  If so, how did God use it to change you?

[garrickroegner-blog]

The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind

Signs of Life

It is hard to believe that Mark Noll’s groundbreaking shaming of evangelical culture, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, is now 10 years old.  I first read it in 2000 at Dallas Theological and for many of my professors and classmates it was a clarion call.  To be clear, Noll was not saying that evangelicals were not serious about biblical and theological scholarship, but “to think within a specifically Christian framework- across the whole spectrum of modern learning (7).”  In a sense, evangelicals had become anti-intellectualist, utilitarian, and escapist, living in a well constructed evangelical ivory tower, at best, or a ghetto, at worst.  The scandal of the evangelical mind, was that there was no mind.  Noll however in 1994 saw glimpses of change, and in a very real sense a new generation of scholars, artists, and intellectuals have emerged from the evangelical wasteland. 

My own organization Cru, made significant changes in how it understood ministry and engaging culture during this time period.  Before, all students were either just future staff or future supporters.  But, about 8 years ago, the organization made a massive change… attempting to encourage, train, and launch not only student movements, but also movements by graduating students in the worlds of law, medicine, art, music, and business.  In many ways, Noll’s vision is starting to come to fruition.  Evangelicals can now be found throughout the music, arts, film and film industries as well as across academia.  Francis Collins headed up the Human Genome Project.  Miroslav Volf is one of the most respected theologians and public thinkers at Yale. His Center for Faith and Culture is a bastion of thinking about the intersection of religion and public life, and is populated with other evangelicals.   I have two friends who are evangelicals on the faculty of the University of Texas (one in science and the other in business), an institution in Texas known as a bastion of liberalism and secularism.  At the same time, dispensationalism is a spent force, sidelined by irrelevance.  And even the religious right has gone the way of the buffalo, dying out with its progenitors.

Evangelicalism has had a widening affect across the board.  U2, with deep Pentecostal and evangelical roots, (what other rock band travels with a pastor?) has created popular rock and social movement with a Christian ethos. They were well ahead of their time, and have inspired an entire generation of Christians to do great work and make great art that is both Christian and accessible and relevant.  Two of our most acclaimed actors have evangelical roots and connections: Tom Hanks and the late Phillip Seymour Hoffman.  Hanks grew up as an evangelical and is currently a practicing Orthodox Christian.  Hoffman was a practicing Catholic enamored with Jesus whose sister was an evangelical, and who often brought him to church.  His connection to the faith of his sister led him to discover faith, Jesus, and Catholicism in hew ways.  The connection was profound for one of the greatest actors of our time: “’There was something that was so heartfelt and emotional,’ he said. ‘Nothing about it felt crazy at all. And my sister was certainly the sanest person you could ever meet. It all felt very real, very guttural, even rebellious. My time with my sister and her circle of friends is something I still think about today.’ He noted that he is often defensive about the way that many actors react to the idea of evangelical Christians.” (see more here: http://bustedhalo.com/features/the-gospel-according-to-philip-seymour-hoffman)  It is not difficult to observe the redemptive threads running through the characters they have played. Then there is Tony Hale, an Emmy award winning comedic actor who starred in one of the most critically acclaimed comedies of all time: Arrested Development.   Hale has worked hard to be a force for opening the door to more and more for dedicated Christians into the arts to do their craft professionally and excellently while living out their faith.  From Volf to Hale, all of this would have been scandalous in the evangelical world 10-20 years ago.  The reality is that evangelicals are more and more, doing art and scholarship well and with the mind of Christ.

A Word of Caution

One thing that Noll might be missing in his survey of American evangelicalism is that evangelicalism has often grown on the margins of society.  It is easy to see why those on the margins, often without access to education and advancement, have not had the ability to advance the life of the mind.  I don’t think this is the case across the board, but it needs to be explored.  Conversely, the mainline  denominations have done an excellent job of being engaged in the pursuit of a Christian intellect.  Presbyterians and Episcopalians tend to have high levels of education, and access to academic, political, artistic, business, and literary influence.  In my home Presbyterian church you can just as easily sit in the pew next to business tycoons, assorted Ph.Ds, university professors, Hollywood actors, and noted artists.  For the conservative evangelicals in the mainline, Noll’s thesis seems quaint and far off.

However, there is of course a dark side to the pursuit of intellect.  My past denomination is witnessing it firsthand.  Christianity always functions best when it is a movement, when it is orthodox in its application of faith, when it is active and practical, and when it is centered on Jesus. In the great mix of things, one can lose their soul in the pursuit of intellect for intellect’s sake.  Within my previous denomination, the PCUSA, this very much had become the case.  The pursuit of intellectual menagerie became unmoored from an orthodox faith, evangelism, and vision for practical application.  These things are now belittled as oppressive and colonial, while the denomination teeters ever closer to a one sided secularist agenda that by their own admonition is identical to that of the wider liberal culture.  The denomination now spends more time and resources on divestment from oil companies and condemnations of Israel, than it does on church planting and evangelism.  Not to say that those things are necessarily wrong, but one has to ask if the denomination has lost focus.  The reality is telling, of the 10,000 churches, half don’t have a pastor, and each year hundreds are closed or flee to a more vibrant denomination.  At the current rate, the denomination will cease to exist within a generation or two.  Hoffman may have been onto something, Christianity is powerful when it is emotional and guttural.  Perhaps we need to develop a faith that is fully orbed, neither reticent of emotions or the mind.

What we must strive for is excellence of the academy and the mind, but not lose our activist and evangelistic zeal.  Above all, here we find Noll’s admonition in his follow up to Scandal, Jesus Christ and The Life of the Mind.  True Christian intellectualism and scholarship will come only when it is deeply rooted in the life, incarnation, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the traditional creeds of the historic faith.  This is the way forward.

Noll’s contribution to evangelicalism as movement is without hesitation, excellent.  Any serious evangelical should read both of these books both as a reflection and a calling to a greater intellectual mission.  

[garrickroegner-blog]

Integrating Morality

David Brooks socio-psychological study, The Social Animal, while full of holes and inconsistencies overlaying a political agenda, does very much get to the heart of how human’s develop, grow, and flourish.  His central thesis is that our emotional subconscious is very much a key leader in how we will interact, live, react, and succeed or fail in the world.  Using an almost bizarre amount of random factoids and scientific studies, he strings them along with a life narrative about two people to illustrate his point.   The complex social systems we inhabit, whether they be family, culture, neighborhood, or school, go on to have profound influence on our emotional subconscious, affecting our intelligence, emotional well-being, successes, failures, and even our next generation.  Brooks does not seem to be deterministic though, he is working mainly with statistics and probabilities, and does a good job pointing out the exceptions, and that people can overcome and break through. 

Brooks does give us some good things to think about as Christians and leaders.  Generally, he is asking how do we affect change, or create systems that will promote human flourishing.  For Brooks, the ultimate focus should be on “the character of the society” so that we are also utilizing “emotional and social perspectives” in how we tackle societal problems (loc 5279, 5299).  That is to say, Brook’s final thesis is that emotionally healthy people of high character will emerge from socially strong and adequate systems, to continue to form equally strong social systems.  There is not much really new here.  One need only read Bauman or Castells, or really any anthropologist to find similar conclusions about how human’s develop emotionally and cognitively. Brooks is much more optimistic though and simplifies by focusing in on the powerful urges of our emotions.   Culture is of course one of the biggest, unconscious emotional delimiters of morality, beauty, cognition, and values.  It is no wonder Yahweh set forth such strong cultural markers for his chosen people in the Old Testament, for their protection and flourishing.  Still, we know how the story goes, even when training up a child in righteousness, we get some good and some bad, and in the end God’s chosen failed at their ultimate end (although a study of the myriad success and flourishing of Jewish culture would be interesting in light of Brook’s thesis).  Still, they were just part of a bigger plan, a sign and a foretaste of what was to come, and incubation of God’s ultimate plan and love.  For God, had said he would one day bring about his Spirit and write his law on the hearts of the people, and thus would flow mercy and love.

Here we turn to the issue of morality.  One which Brooks makes some interesting observations about how our unconscious informs our morality put into actual action.  Morality is an essential part of the puzzle here.  It is essential how we treat each other, and ourselves.  Adultery breaks up and destroys families, greed leads to stealing (at all levels), and how we view others can either lead to exclusion or embrace.  Even different cultures do not always agree on the clearer definitions of morality.  For a Spaniard, not being completely direct or honest is not a matter of importance, but to a German it is everything.  Current political and economic European realities bear this out.   Here Brooks explains that it is our deep unconscious emotions that really enact our moral agency.  The problem of immorality is when there is a strong disconnect between our emotional self and our actions.  Perhaps this is what Paul railed against when he said he did the things he did not want to do.  For Brooks healthy morality comes together when we become deeply aware of our inner selves and strive for “integrity-integrating inner ideals with automatic action. (loc 48522).”  This seems to be what God is calling us to: moral action that comes from a deep emotional well spring from within.  That the law be written on our hearts.  That mercy and compassion flow out of us into action.  Jesus often acted out of compassion for others.  In fact his acts of healing and miracles often directly followed the use of the verb “splagchnizomai.”  This Greek verb signified being moved in one’s deepest bowels towards loving action.

As Christians we often struggle between the letter of the law, in imposing righteousness through structure and rule, and the Spirit of the law, acting out of love of God and neighbor, but not a weak kneed Hollywood type of love, one of Jesus centered compassion.  So there we have it, the church still often has a morality issue.  Either we fail to live up to our ideal morality, or we do, but we lack the real connection to our inner emotional life.  What to do? 

Perhaps we do need to deal with our deep unconscious and emotional self.  Perhaps we need to spend more time digging deep like a mole into the inner recesses of our soul.  Reflection, contemplation, and silence may need once again to become a part of mainstream Christian spirituality, and not just for monastics.   Monastics like Teresa de Avila understood this link, how in the contemplation of the inner self and of God, one could receive great healing, and integration of the emotions with the will, so that one could be better prepared to truly love God and neighbor in action.

[garrickroegner-blog]

I Believe in Love

Don't believe the devil I don't believe his book But the truth is not the same Without the lies he made up. Don't believe in excess Success is to give Don't believe in riches But you should see where I live. I, I believe in love.

Don't believe in cocaine Got a speedball in my head I could cut and crack you open Did you hear what I said? Don't believe them when they tell me  There ain't no cure. The rich stay healthy The sick stay poor. I, I believe in love.

-       U2, God Part II

You Never Know

Apocalypse is perennially upon us.  It seems that humanity has an obsession with the end of the world.  Paul Boyer in his study on the continuous cycles of belief in the end of the world throughout history, When Time Shall Be No More, shows that America has even put a particular spin on the theme.  In 1987, R.E.M. famously sang It’s The End of the World as We Know It with the famous refrain “and I feel fine.”  More recently Wilco sang, “every generation thinks it’s the last, thinks it’s the end of the world.”  All of the fear and talk of apocalypse has a desensitizing effect on us, making us blasé to the times and troubles that swirl around us.  But, as Wilco point out “you never know.”

Joanna Macy and Chris Johnstone address the startling human sense of dread and fear (or desensitization and denial) with the current state of the world, in their book Active Hope: How to Face the Mess We’re In Without Going Crazy.  The authors are mostly correct in pointing out the current problems facing our world: financial instability, ecological uncertainty, war, poverty, corruption, etc.  The state of the world is enough to drive most people crazy.  The authors also rightly assert that our world lives in three narratives when facing the immense challenges of sustaining human flourishing: Business as Usual (blissful denial) and The Great Unraveling (paralyzing doom and gloom).  The authors offer a third alternative called The Great Turning, where “what’s catching on is commitment to act for the sake of life on Earth as well as the vision, courage, and solidarity to do so (loc 654).”  Here Macy and Johnstone posit the need for active hope over passive hope, that is “becoming active particpants in bringing about what we hope for (loc 272).” 

Macy and Johnstone pose an ambitious and necessary balm to the realities of our world.  And in many senses The Great Turning is already underway.  Just this week The Gates Foundation released a letter showing how much better things have gotten in the world: “By almost any measure, the world is better than it has ever been. People are living longer, healthier lives. Many nations that were aid recipients are now self-sufficient. You might think that such striking progress would be widely celebrated, but in fact, Melinda and I are struck by how many people think the world is getting worse (http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/) .”  Humans when they set their minds to things, imbued with image of God, and full of common grace, can accomplish great heights.  While, I thoroughly applaud the authors central thesis, their core idea is not nearly radical enough, and while it can bring about very real gains in human flourishing, it cannot sustain them, or bring about the final and ultimate peace and end of fear.

We really do never know.

  I Believe in Love

The fundamental  issue with Active Hope is that it fails to come to grips with a realistic anthropology, and what is more, loses site of what can bring about true human transformation and flourishing.  The authors rightly discover that selfishness is a core issue with moving humanity forward.  However, their addressing of the issue is left severely wanting.  For them, the alteration of selfishness to action, is by simply helping people to see that what is good for others, will also be good for them.  Selfishness is not addressed here, just shifted.  This is fairly limp.  What is to keep a billion Chinese from seeing that their selfishness and wellbeing is best preserved by the violent eradication of their biggest competitors to resources?  What is to keep the common good from simply becoming the new tyranny?   Jesus and the Gospels are clear, what really changes the world is radical self-giving love, which sacrificially gives and gives, with no expectation of return.  Miroslav Volf, MLK, and Mother Teresa are examples of those who have rightly shown the transformative power of this type of love.  Only this kind of love, located in the cross, can melt a selfish heart, and bring about healing for the enemy, the abuser, the greedy, the sick, the powerful, the poor, and the abused.

U2 understand the contrasts of human heart.  In their song God Part II, a response to John Lennon’s atheist hymn God, the lyrics deal with the fight of the human soul, between wanting to do what is right, but being gripped by sin and selfishness, and ultimate defeat.  They find that world transformation will only come through the power of God’s love to transform real evil and selfishness into active hope in “kicking the darkness till it bleeds daylight.”  Love that covers over and forgives our errors and failings, yet beckons active participation in extending the same radical love to all human beings.

Christians should be out in front leading on these issues, the gospels demand it.  And in many ways, throughout history serious followers of Jesus have been on the forefront of abolition (the Southern Christian defense of slavery is a sad aberration), poverty, equality, health, education, and more recently the global fight against AIDS, but most importantly the eradication of selfishness for agape love and grace.  U2 in their song Stand Up Comedy call believers to action:

Out from under your beds C'mon ye people  Stand up for your love Love love love love love... God is love And love is evolution's very best day

It is here in the power of the love flowing from the cross that we can join God in the redemption of his world, into the ultimate comedy, where time shall be no more, only joy and laughter.

[garrickroegner-blog]

We Have All Been Here Before

Certain narratives flow through our world defining and explaining where we have come, where we stand, and possibly where we are going. The television series Lost was a perfect postmodern tale.  A mixture of genres colliding into a huge question of existence, reality, and meaning, played through characters with the names of famous philosophers, scientists and thinkers.  Certain characters represented certain narratives of how human’s deal with reality and meaning.  Furthermore, the Gilligan’s Island plot centered on a group of people “lost” on an island, all having the same déjà vu experience of having been on the island before.  There is a creeping mystery of a bunch of lost people sensing that they are meant for more, and that the mysterious force of the island has something for them.

What is often amazing is that in a postmodern world, where meta-narratives no longer hold sway, so much of the world still ascribes to one or the other.  This is of course ironic in and of itself, as postmodernism is an explanative narrative.  What Charles Taylor enthusiastically jumps into in his A Secular Age is helping us to see how modern man understands history and time differently, so that we now perceive of ourselves as progressing through history.  Taylor exhaustively chronicles Western society’s slow slide into secularism, or a time when believing is an option.  As such Taylor thrashes the simplicity of secularization theory, that humanity through wit and reason has arrived at an enlightened state, banishing religion to the wayside for the betterment of the entire world.  As a Christian, this often feels like tiresome elitist stuff… accusing believers as being bounded by cultural and epistemological prisons.  Taylor turns the argument, taking us on a tour of the emergence of modern thought from the rise of Christian Reform movements which in attempting to raise all out of the medieval Catholic stratified nominalist mindset, essentially democratized church and society.  This reform minded bent, when combined with the shifts to Deism (to better explain the scientific world) and the failures of Western society and church, called for a process of civilization of the world, which led to a radical shifts in elevating people out of a pre-modern mindset. Taylor calls it a “rage for order” against the disorder and magic of the pre-modern world (63).   In turn, this necessity led to the disenchantment of the world, and the rise of humanism, which has come to roost in the sense of invulnerability of man, that he lacks nothing, and needs no God.  Taylor hits the nail on the head by seeing the bigger shift in human epistemology here, and not in grand subtraction stories.  Secular society finds it ultimate expression and reason for leaving belief in “authenticity, or expressive individualism, in which people are encourage to find their own way, discover their own fulfillment, ‘do their own thing (299).’”   What emerges is that atheists and unbelievers are just as constrained and conditioned by the radical shifts in thinking.  If we can get here, through iterations of human philosophical shifts, to a growing acceptance and idealism in humanism, then we can certainly get back, or get to another place.   We are not fixed in deterministic time.  We have been here before.

If anything, the Reformation and Protestantism opened up Christianity to new possibilities, and the shattering of homogeneity and corruption of power.  He rightly asserts that gradual slide in Protestant countries, while highlighting the violent conflict in Protestantism which broke down the formal artificial walls between mystery, monks, professional priests of the true spiritual depth, with the nominalism of the average citizen.  Unfortunately, its first steps went too far and not far enough all at the same time.  They did not usher in Taylor’s network of agape, and banished mystery (setting the stage for Western disenchantment), but still opened the door to change, and democracy and equality.  But, this is probably the church in its essence, always reforming, always seeking to be a network of agape, yet falling short, geriatric waiting for the next iteration.  We see this soon after the Reformation with the Wesleyans and the rise of Evangelicalism, and now with Pentecostalism.  What will be next?  We have been here before.

Thus, for Taylor, secular modern society is that which finds human flourishing involving “no relation to anything higher (151).” It is important to note, that Taylor doesn’t see the society as totally lost.  For him, secularity is not a full out rejection of faith, but the need for competition between the many, and the end of naiveté in belief.  It cannot be taken for granted anymore.  This is an important point, where many lament the loss of privilege in Christendom, or on the more Anabaptist side, revel in the ashes.  But, neither is a proper response, and both are knee jerk reactions, that fail to grapple with their own approbation of victimization.  As Taylor laments the dark side of modernism in hyper individualism, personal rights, which find it’s ultimate break from the stale bonds of the pre-modern in meaning in full sexual gratification and expression.  Our society is drenched in this, and in the individualism to buy, be, to express one’s self for one’s own satisfaction and happiness.  This is modern human flourishing.  It is not found in loving God and loving neighbor.  But, can it continue to be good and just?  To express limits, or hesitations, is to offend (and to be pre-modern), which is now the highest order of oppression.  In a society more concerned with battling housewives than wars and suffering, has exclusive humanism now begun to swing towards an inevitable collapse of meaning? Everyone is now a victim of someone else’s oppressive opinion, while real people suffer and die in places like Syria.  As such, modern society finds very little outside of itself to believe in, to guide it, to give it actual meaning.  It is fragmented, and lonely, chasing after nothingness.  Hollow men indeed.

Taylor makes a keen observation here, in that Christianity has not had its full impact in Western culture as “what we got was not a network of agape, but rather a disciplined society in which categorical relations have primacy, and therefore norms (158).”  God’s in breaking of radical love has not fully saturated the society and church.  But, this is not to say that it hasn’t at times and even today.  Taylor doesn’t lose hope here; instead he believes that modern society is effectually doomed by its lack of mystery, meaning and ultimate transcendence.  Like the searching heroes of Lost mankind is still looking for ultimate meaning and purpose.  Just this last week, brilliant writer Malcolm Gladwell wrote of his conversion back to Christianity by finding ultimate meaning, mystery, purpose, and agape power in God:  http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/books/how-i-rediscovered-faith

This secular age, can and probably will pass.  We can get back to where we were before, and if our churches and lives exhibit agape love, then all the more better to establish again societies where human flourishing in God can happen.   

[garrickroegner-blog]

Malcolm Gladwell Writes About Re-Discovering Faith

Gladwell is a bright and intelligent guy, who usually has some interesting things to say.  This story of how he returned to his Christian faith is a great read.

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/books/how-i-rediscovered-faith

[garrickroegner-blog]

Ain't Them Bodies Saints

Really enjoyed this movie, some deep human and theological issues to ponder... plus it is made by a Texan about Texas.  But, don't take my word for it, check out this great review from Christianity Today:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/august-web-only/david-lowerys-ballad-of-outlaws-and-lovers.html

[garrickroegner-blog]

Open Leadership

A word on openness from Ron Swanson:

  Perhaps you feel a bit like Ron Swanson when it comes to social media and organizational openness.   Either you are overwhelmed and a bit frightened by the brave new world we live in, or maybe you work with someone who has a more closed view of leadership and communication.  Whatever it may be, we now live in a world where the rules of leadership and communication have totally changed, and will continue to change.  Leaders who can adjust to these realities will struggle to find success in the emerging world.  The culture has changed through social technology in how it thinks, processes, and deals with organizations.  The rules are now different.  This is essentially the main thesis of Charlene Li’s book Open Leadership: How Social Technology Can Transform the Way You Lead.

Li goes on to explain that what was once prized as effective leadership and institutional acumen was “control.”  The world has shifted to a place where control is almost impossible to maintain and where customers and employees expect a greater sense of collaboration and sharing that goes way beyond the inner circle of organizational leadership.  Li explains that successful leaders and organizations will be able to find the perfect blend of openness and control for their specific situation and context.  The heart of the book is in explaining the key character and heart changes that must take place in an organization for openness to occur: “In order to be open, you need to let go of the need to be in control. But to fill that void, you need to develop the confidence- to develop the trust- that when you let go of control, the people who you pass the power will act responsibly (loc 392).”

I have had the opportunity to work with some very open organizations.  My democratic Presbyterian home church had a high value on lay leadership.  That is, no initiative was to go forward unless it was conceived of, planned by, and carried out by lay members of the church.  Working for Cru, our mission is student led movements.  Students are to take the active responsibility to carry the mission of the Great Commission to their campuses.  They are to start, lead, and multiply their own spiritual movements.  Staff help by casting vision and, supporting and coaching students through the process.  In both cases (Presbyterian and Cru), the process was often messy and clunky, but it worked in that people were motivated and empowered for mission, growing the impact of the organization.  Studying the history of Christian movements, the research overwhelmingly points to the importance that successful movements are always led, enacted, and empowered at the lay level.

Where Li’s book speaks to two main areas that help to aid me most in my own understanding of creating an open culture of leadership. They are:

The actual character traits needed by a leader to foster openness.

The emphasis on social media to engage with co-workers and stake holders.

Character Traits

Openness is essentially found in creating relationships and engaging with people.    Li goes on to explain that open leaders need to have two essential traits: optimism and a desire for collaboration.  Optimism with healthy doses of curiosity and humility allow us to see the best in people and want to hope for the best in people and organizations.  This allows us as leaders to be more open, sharing, and to give away control, knowing that other will be able to handle the responsibility and/or learn and grow from failure.  Collaboration allows for the unleashing of creative and innovative power throughout an organization; moreover, it imbues the organization with ownership of the vision and mission.

Social Media

I will admit that I have often been slow to see social media as a real engine to accomplish leadership goals.  But, Li makes a strong case for their inclusion in leadership strategy and organizational strategy.  Working in a country like Spain, where not everyone is using social media like Americans (although this is changing rapidly) it has been hard to see the real need here.  However, for those like me, who are a bit skeptical, Li explains that we need to put together a plan and follow it through.  This is probably my biggest take away from Li’s work, to begin to think how I can use social media to foster greater openness amongst the staff I lead and the students we are all trying to empower and send.

In short, to become a better open leader:

Work on engaging those you lead or serve.  Your job is to give away control, but to do that effectively you need to be in a trusting relationship with those you are leading and giving control to.

Develop the traits of optimism and collaboration in your leadership style.  This will open up others to have the freedom and power to grow and develop the success of the organization, from the inside and outside.

Develop a personal and organizational plan for using social technology to foster openness.

Avoid the Ron Swanson style of openness.

[garrickroegner-blog]

The Ethics of Evangelism

Patrick Nullens and Ronald T. Michener unpack the intersection of ethics and Christianity in their work The Matrix of Christian Ethics: Integrating Philosophy and Moral Theology in a Postmodern Context.  They begin with a definition of ethics as “emphasizing the methodical thinking of morality rather than morality itself (9).”  As pertains to Christian ethics they offer the working definition of “methodological reflection on the values, norms, virtues, and purposes of human life in one’s contemporary context, drawing on Scripture and the tradition of faith (12).”  Tracing philosophy’s intersection with ethics, we find that ethics at its core is about helping people and society live a “good” life.  Ethics is essentially about how one ought to be, magnified to also how the world ought to be.  In this sense, there is so much at stake both theologically and existentially at the intersection of Christianity and ethics.  Christianity in itself is an ethical framework, a totality, of seeing and understanding ourselves and our place and purpose in the world.  Proper Christian ethics allows Christians to show their moral authenticity to the world in their proper orientation to God, neighbor, and creation.  Much is at stake.

Postmodern Crisis

Ethics of course need to be situated in the real and practical reality of our everyday culture.  Currently much of Christianity in the west faces a crisis of how to implement an authentic Christian morality and way of life in the face of the postmodern turn.  Holding to perceived traditional ethical stances is seen as regressive and dangerous.  The concept of historical Christianity has been rejected by most.  Absolute truth has become anachronistic.  In our political climate of victimization, the idea of evangelization carries a stigma of one group imposing their dominant world view on others by force and manipulation.  Metanarratives are abusive, thus, “by you explaining that my truth does not get to God, you are being abusive.”  The very essence of evangelism seems to scream “exclusion” to many people.

The postmodern turn has even strongly influenced the way churches and individual Christians see evangelism.  I would suggest in the Western church we may have a crisis of evangelism, as many no longer believe in the need for evangelism having bought  the postmodern assumption that evangelism is always a power play, colonialism in disguise.  Still others are simply embarrassed by it, or don’t know how to ethically navigate the call of the Great Commission in Western society.  I have experienced my own crisis of evangelism many times, working in a cultural paradigm where even if there is a God, he is cruel and distant, thus evangelism is an evil manipulation.

Perhaps, thinking about evangelism ethically can help solve this problem?

Towards the Morality of Evangelism

Christian theology, often against the broad sweep of ethics and philosophy, finds that humanity faces a major barrier in its quest to find shalom.  That barrier is sin.  Sin taints our world, and divides us from God, our neighbor, and the creation.  As humans we yearn for a healing of sorts to bring all into a peaceful unity, however, this remains elusive at best.  Jesus proclaimed the coming of the Kingdom of God, a time when all would be justice, peace, and harmony.  Ultimately his call, and the message of Christianity is an ethical call to live out lives that are indicative of the Kingdom of God, while thus waiting its final consummation.  In the already/not yet tension of the resurrected Lord Jesus, as humans we can experience the reality of the goodness of the Kingdom now, while also yearning, believing, and working towards its very real coming.  This is of course good news.

The barrier of sin still exists to keep us from living out the ethical mandate of the Kingdom.  This is where Nullens and Michener develop a strong framework for the importance of Christian ethics.  It is through the Son, sent by the Father, that on the cross sin is conquered and humans are restored into Trinitarian relationship with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  The ethical call of the Old Testament is then renewed in the New Testament as equipping all humanity for every good work, that is an ethical life that manifests the kingdom of God (2 Timothy 3:17). However, this ethical state can only come through Jesus, as through his death and resurrection we are free to enter into relationship with the Father liberated from sin, and empowered and transformed by the Holy Spirit. Thus, we are freed and empowered to live the ethic of Trinitarian love. 

What is more, the authors suggest that this new ethic of love written on our new hearts by the redemption of Christ and the empowering of the Holy Spirit, further allow us to live out the ultimate ethical life, by our broken relationships being radically healed.  Sin has entered the world, and broken the relationships that exist between ourselves and God, neighbor, and creation.  As Bob Dylan sang, “everything is broken.”  We are broken people and as such fully incapable of joining the Trinitarian love in its redemptive work.   The forgiveness of sin and its banishment, allow for right loving and restored relationships, flowing in both directions, to exist.   I would add a fourth element to their three part ethical relational structure: God, neighbor, creation, and then self.  The work of the cross also heals the broken relationship we have with ourselves (found in our anxieties, neurosis, psychological conflicts, etc.) further opening ourselves up to be a part of the loving mission of the Kingdom.

Reclaiming Good News

Evangelism simply means good news.  I would also suggest that in light of our current world situation, full of violence, exploitation, and ecological stress, that evangelism is much needed.  It offers the starting point for all to enter into the true ethical life of Trinitarian love, and to begin to live orientated towards the eschatological desire.  It offers personal healing, relationship with God, peace amongst all people, and the restoration of creation.  Who wouldn’t want to be a part of that?  In fact, it is our best hope at addressing the ethical failings and conundrums of the world, because by entering into right relationship with God we are freed from the barriers of and our brokenness in sin to have our hearts transformed for love and thus act accordingly.

Ethically and morally, if we care about our neighbor, should we evangelize them?

Can we speak of and believe that evangelism may even be the source of solving such massive global issues like ecological collapse?

Can Western Christians recapture a confidence in evangelism once again?