Since his recent death, the Hengel industry has been in 'drive', with his passing noted on a number of theology and culture websites and blogs.
This lead me to re-read an article by him published in Christianity Today in 2001 (v. 45, n. 8, p. 78), entitled The Genesis of Our Woes.
Hengel makes a number of wonderful statements in this article, notwithstanding his entertainment of the contradiction between biblical 'creation' and contemporary materailist conceptualisations.
I'll quote the introduction.
"The most realistic and hopeful prophecies for our era come not from Daniel or Revelation but from the opening chapters of the Bible.
The breathtaking progress of the natural sciences and new technology has created modern prophets. On the one hand, these prophets dream up new human paradises that include the hope for never-ending life. On the other hand, they predict apocalyptic diasters. Some promise to conquer the aging process or incurabe diseases; others predict self-destruction of humanity by nuclear conflict or biological warfare.
Of course, they are not inspired by the Spirit of God but by the spirit of our time. Their hopes and fears are their utopias and their nightmares. They do not preach from public square or ecclesiastical pulpits. Their stage is the media, from newspapers and magazines to television and the World Wide Web. Sometimes they reflect a pretentious sort of intellectual moneymaking entertaining or high-brow showbiz, which have overtaken the role of the former revival preachers, expecially for upper-class society.
We Christians of the new millennium do not need such modern, sensationalistic prophesies and messages. We have no need of their predictions of abundant well-being or of universal mischief, because we live with the promises of God. In the first pages of the Bible, in fact, we possess prophesies that help us understand our exciting but overbearing world and thus point implicitly to God's promises for his church."
28 August 2009
25 August 2009
Darwin in Forbes
Interesting application of Darwinian thinking to management in this Forbes Magazine article by Ron Heifetz and others.
The only trouble is, if they were truly Darwinian, managers would try just anything, knowing that their false starts would be eliminated by selection: they'd be selected out to bankruptcy, just like Lehman Bros! Not Good. In fact, good management requires creativity (purposefully) and intelligent design!
That's because reality is not Darwinian, it includes purpose, will and intelligence!
Check here for other opinion pieces on Darwin.
Dissenter touches on allied issues.
The only trouble is, if they were truly Darwinian, managers would try just anything, knowing that their false starts would be eliminated by selection: they'd be selected out to bankruptcy, just like Lehman Bros! Not Good. In fact, good management requires creativity (purposefully) and intelligent design!
That's because reality is not Darwinian, it includes purpose, will and intelligence!
Check here for other opinion pieces on Darwin.
Dissenter touches on allied issues.
20 August 2009
Collins on Leadership
Jim Collins, author of "Good to Great" and other books regarded by Phil Rosensweig as "a mix of The Little Engine that Could and The Da Vinci Code", but still well worth a read to my mind, stated this about my bete noire, 'leadership' [at least in its uncritcal and semi-digested Christian version] (Collins calls himself a "leadership sceptic"):
"
Now, substitute for the value 'leader' the value 'christian minister' and you'll see how corrupt and unbiblical is the common reflexive and ill considered application of that concept in church circles.
"concentrated executive power": in the church? I don't think so! At least not amongst praying and serving communities.
"power model": power? Where does this concept gain any ground in the church; a society of cooperation, mutual support and loving commitment, self-sacrificial loving commitment (opps, I don't see that too much in churches I've known...although I have seen it, I must say, in churches in less well off areas)? Unfortunately it does, to the detriment of the church and the poor fellow who is usually looked to (without much practical or effective discouragement in many cases) as "the leader".
The most pointed observation for churches that find the 'one person leader' model (even if couched in that oxymoronic 'servant-leader' term) applicable to themselves is the final observation: "no single leader can make a great [church?], but the wrong [one] can do a lot of damage."
I think most Christians will have seen that in spades.
When I was young I was much interested in anarchic politics, particularly as described by Murray Bookchin; the use of consensual decision and planning models, where power, if it existed was diffused appealed to me.
Now, I think that anarchism is probably unworkable and impractical, but ironically, it is just the model that I would think that a praying community, dependent upon the Spirit of God, would most readily fall to. Not a power structure, but a serving/ministering structure. No leaders, just ministers of various gifts.
"
Business corporations are the special case in society. It's unlike almost every other type of social system -- it's a concentrated executive power. If you look in government and social systems there's a more diffuse power model where no one person has the concentrated power of a CEO. What we see then is an interesting asymmetry and a sobering one. No single leader can make a great company, but the wrong [leader] invested with power can do a lot of damage"
Now, substitute for the value 'leader' the value 'christian minister' and you'll see how corrupt and unbiblical is the common reflexive and ill considered application of that concept in church circles.
"concentrated executive power": in the church? I don't think so! At least not amongst praying and serving communities.
"power model": power? Where does this concept gain any ground in the church; a society of cooperation, mutual support and loving commitment, self-sacrificial loving commitment (opps, I don't see that too much in churches I've known...although I have seen it, I must say, in churches in less well off areas)? Unfortunately it does, to the detriment of the church and the poor fellow who is usually looked to (without much practical or effective discouragement in many cases) as "the leader".
The most pointed observation for churches that find the 'one person leader' model (even if couched in that oxymoronic 'servant-leader' term) applicable to themselves is the final observation: "no single leader can make a great [church?], but the wrong [one] can do a lot of damage."
I think most Christians will have seen that in spades.
When I was young I was much interested in anarchic politics, particularly as described by Murray Bookchin; the use of consensual decision and planning models, where power, if it existed was diffused appealed to me.
Now, I think that anarchism is probably unworkable and impractical, but ironically, it is just the model that I would think that a praying community, dependent upon the Spirit of God, would most readily fall to. Not a power structure, but a serving/ministering structure. No leaders, just ministers of various gifts.
18 August 2009
Leading: tips
Aspects of ‘leadership’
Notwithstanding that I’m a bit of a sceptic about ‘leadership’ (see this post), and prefer Henry Minzberg’s ‘community-ship’ as a better descriptor of the community of effort in a church, below are some quotes that pertain to ‘leadership’ for those misguided souls who think that it is a better concept than ‘ministry’ in churches where people mutually serve, encourage and share with one another.
Jack Welsh: (ex CEO of General Electric)
Make people feel good about themselves. Make them better, fuller, richer. Tell people where they stand, and what they can grow up to become. Talk about mistakes.
Be real, not stiff. Motivate face to face. You can only rally a team by being with them and having them feel that you know them and care about them.
You want to get everyone to feel free to create and contribute their own ideas. Harness the best ideas, share them, and apply them across functions. Show clear vision. Be decisive. Care deeply.
The central idea at GE was to build great people
When you get it wrong, treat people fairly and move on.
Convey a passion to your people to be great in everything they choose to be and do. A leader can't build trust without transparency, and a team without trust won't win.
Colin Powell (ex US Army Chief of Staff)
Once I examine all the rough edges and make a decision as to what we will do, then we all move in that direction and stick with it, with coherence and consistency—until it's proven that we should move in a different direction.
Tolerate rebels who tell the emperor he has no clothes.
The people in the field are closest to the problem, closest to the situation; therefore, that is where real wisdom is.
The day that people stop bringing you their problems is the day you stop leading them. They either lose confidence that you can help them or conclude that you do not care. Either case is failure of leadership.
The leader sets an example. Other people take their cue from the leader —not so much from what the leader says, but from what the leader does
Michael Porter (Harvard University, Grad. Schl. of Business)
A leader also ensures that everyone understands the strategy. Strategy is not some mystical vision that only the people at the top understand. Strategy informs all of the things that get done every day, and aligns those things in the same direction.
Deciding which customers and needs to serve requires discipline, the ability to set limits, and forthright communication. Clearly, strategy and leadership are linked.
Rudy Giuliani, (former mayor of New York)
You can't accomplish anything of great worth without other people. If you're in charge of anything, ask yourself: "What are my weaknesses?" If you can balance your weaknesses with the strengths of others, you can create a great team. Build your team with people who have strengths in your area of weakness. Tell people why you do what you do. If you can't communicate what you know or expect, you can't lead people. Leaders are rarely doers. They rely on other people. They are teachers, motivators, and coaches.
From 10 mistakes that leaders make, (ones that I’ve seen from time to time in paid Christians (ministers)) (Harvard Business Review, June 09, p. 18)
Have poor judgment
They make decisions that colleagues and subordinates consider to be not in the organization’s best interests.
Don’t collaborate
They avoid peers, act independently, and view other leaders as competitors. As a result, they are set adrift by the very people whose insights and support they need.
Resist new ideas
They reject suggestions from subordinates and peers. Good ideas aren’t implemented, and the organization gets stuck.
Don’t learn from mistakes
They may make no more mistakes than their peers, but they fail to use setbacks as opportunities for improvement, hiding their errors and brooding about them instead.
Lack interpersonal skills
They make sins of both commission (they’re abrasive and bullying) and omission (they’re aloof, unavailable, and reluctant to praise).
Fail to develop others
They focus on themselves to the exclusion of developing subordinates, causing individuals and teams to disengage.
But all said and done, if the 'system' the community, or cultural configuration that you attempt to 'lead' within is flawed, then all you are doing is polishing fish before putting them back in dirty water. See here on 'leadership' and systems.
Because, really, its about community: the life of the body, not of one part!
Notwithstanding that I’m a bit of a sceptic about ‘leadership’ (see this post), and prefer Henry Minzberg’s ‘community-ship’ as a better descriptor of the community of effort in a church, below are some quotes that pertain to ‘leadership’ for those misguided souls who think that it is a better concept than ‘ministry’ in churches where people mutually serve, encourage and share with one another.
Jack Welsh: (ex CEO of General Electric)
Make people feel good about themselves. Make them better, fuller, richer. Tell people where they stand, and what they can grow up to become. Talk about mistakes.
Be real, not stiff. Motivate face to face. You can only rally a team by being with them and having them feel that you know them and care about them.
You want to get everyone to feel free to create and contribute their own ideas. Harness the best ideas, share them, and apply them across functions. Show clear vision. Be decisive. Care deeply.
The central idea at GE was to build great people
When you get it wrong, treat people fairly and move on.
Convey a passion to your people to be great in everything they choose to be and do. A leader can't build trust without transparency, and a team without trust won't win.
Colin Powell (ex US Army Chief of Staff)
Once I examine all the rough edges and make a decision as to what we will do, then we all move in that direction and stick with it, with coherence and consistency—until it's proven that we should move in a different direction.
Tolerate rebels who tell the emperor he has no clothes.
The people in the field are closest to the problem, closest to the situation; therefore, that is where real wisdom is.
The day that people stop bringing you their problems is the day you stop leading them. They either lose confidence that you can help them or conclude that you do not care. Either case is failure of leadership.
The leader sets an example. Other people take their cue from the leader —not so much from what the leader says, but from what the leader does
Michael Porter (Harvard University, Grad. Schl. of Business)
A leader also ensures that everyone understands the strategy. Strategy is not some mystical vision that only the people at the top understand. Strategy informs all of the things that get done every day, and aligns those things in the same direction.
Deciding which customers and needs to serve requires discipline, the ability to set limits, and forthright communication. Clearly, strategy and leadership are linked.
Rudy Giuliani, (former mayor of New York)
You can't accomplish anything of great worth without other people. If you're in charge of anything, ask yourself: "What are my weaknesses?" If you can balance your weaknesses with the strengths of others, you can create a great team. Build your team with people who have strengths in your area of weakness. Tell people why you do what you do. If you can't communicate what you know or expect, you can't lead people. Leaders are rarely doers. They rely on other people. They are teachers, motivators, and coaches.
From 10 mistakes that leaders make, (ones that I’ve seen from time to time in paid Christians (ministers)) (Harvard Business Review, June 09, p. 18)
Have poor judgment
They make decisions that colleagues and subordinates consider to be not in the organization’s best interests.
Don’t collaborate
They avoid peers, act independently, and view other leaders as competitors. As a result, they are set adrift by the very people whose insights and support they need.
Resist new ideas
They reject suggestions from subordinates and peers. Good ideas aren’t implemented, and the organization gets stuck.
Don’t learn from mistakes
They may make no more mistakes than their peers, but they fail to use setbacks as opportunities for improvement, hiding their errors and brooding about them instead.
Lack interpersonal skills
They make sins of both commission (they’re abrasive and bullying) and omission (they’re aloof, unavailable, and reluctant to praise).
Fail to develop others
They focus on themselves to the exclusion of developing subordinates, causing individuals and teams to disengage.
But all said and done, if the 'system' the community, or cultural configuration that you attempt to 'lead' within is flawed, then all you are doing is polishing fish before putting them back in dirty water. See here on 'leadership' and systems.
Because, really, its about community: the life of the body, not of one part!
17 August 2009
Barth: Natural Knowledge of God
An apposite (I hope) blog conference is on at Faith and Theology:
Barth and the natural knowledge of God.
Barth and the natural knowledge of God.
10 August 2009
How far?
At Phil's on the Hill (St Philip's York St, Sydney) recent lunch time Bible discussion, we touched on Romans 5:18: condemnation via one man.
Thinking about my earlier posts on death, I couldn't help but wonder at a connection at this point. If condemnation came to Adam by his sin in a world that already bore marks of condemnation (Paul tells us that the creation: an entirety, a unity in its suffering,'groans' in Roms 8:22); I wonder how Adam could have felt his state of non-condemnation if he was surrounded by the marks of a creation that we see today as having resulted from a rupture between maker and creature? He would have been in a state of condemnation, in effect, but prior to his sin, again, given the unity of creation and the necessary ontological connection between a being in the creation upon which it depends for its life, and that life sustaining creation itself.
That would not, of course, make sense. If condemnation came by Adam to all (men), then it is surely this condemnation that also brought the effects in Roms 8:22. It would seem hard to understand, otherwise, how a discontinuity could exist between a creation from God's hand, reflecting God's authorship and therefore his love and it showing signs of the absence of or denial of God, which would be consistent with the rejection that resulted in condemnation and its alienation from life.
Just as an addendum, Mark Thompson in his post (see my link above) on the last enemy, claimed the Bible had no interest in animal death. Sparrows sprang to mind.
Thinking about my earlier posts on death, I couldn't help but wonder at a connection at this point. If condemnation came to Adam by his sin in a world that already bore marks of condemnation (Paul tells us that the creation: an entirety, a unity in its suffering,'groans' in Roms 8:22); I wonder how Adam could have felt his state of non-condemnation if he was surrounded by the marks of a creation that we see today as having resulted from a rupture between maker and creature? He would have been in a state of condemnation, in effect, but prior to his sin, again, given the unity of creation and the necessary ontological connection between a being in the creation upon which it depends for its life, and that life sustaining creation itself.
That would not, of course, make sense. If condemnation came by Adam to all (men), then it is surely this condemnation that also brought the effects in Roms 8:22. It would seem hard to understand, otherwise, how a discontinuity could exist between a creation from God's hand, reflecting God's authorship and therefore his love and it showing signs of the absence of or denial of God, which would be consistent with the rejection that resulted in condemnation and its alienation from life.
Just as an addendum, Mark Thompson in his post (see my link above) on the last enemy, claimed the Bible had no interest in animal death. Sparrows sprang to mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)