Left Coast Menno

The zeal of Steve Jobs

As was widely reported a month ago, Steve Jobs has stepped down from Apple. Most of the news articles asserted that the Apple faithful could still expect more well designed and well marketed consumer electronics from the technology giant. After all, they argued, Apple certainly is more than Steve Jobs and he had enormous talent helping him both design and produce the gadget that so many of us crave. And, as my favorite blogger on all things work likes to say, leaders actually matter less than you think.

However, despite that assertion, I still feel that Apple is at its high point right now. Oh, I'm sure that we'll see at least a couple years of new innovations but frankly, I think that we won't see the design leadership that came in the last 14 years after Jobs returned to the Apple helm for a 2nd time. The reason? Steve Jobs was singularly focused on producing revolutionary products and software. He was indeed a bit unhinged. Consider this story from a Google product manager who was working with Steve on a software application for the first iPhone.

One Sunday morning, January 6th, 2008 I was attending religious services when my cell phone vibrated. As discreetly as possible, I checked the phone and noticed that my phone said "Caller ID unknown". I choose to ignore.

After services, as I was walking to my car with my family, I checked my cell phone messages. The message left was from Steve Jobs. "Vic, can you call me at home? I have something urgent to discuss" it said.
...

"So Vic, we have an urgent issue, one that I need addressed right away. I've already assigned someone from my team to help you, and I hope you can fix this tomorrow" said Steve.

"I've been looking at the Google logo on the iPhone and I'm not happy with the icon. The second O in Google doesn't have the right yellow gradient. It's just wrong and I'm going to have Greg fix it tomorrow. Is that okay with you?"

That zealousness defined Steve Jobs. I'm sure those who worked with him had a hundred more stories like it. I've read one where he told the people in charge of the horrible MobileMe initial release that they should hate each other for having let the company down with such a crappy product.

Ken Rockwell, my favorite photography blogger, writes:

Only this sort of craziness results in game-changing, world-changing things that we all (except for me) take for granted. No big company ever creates anything really new; only crazy men working alone do. Jobs is extraordinary in his ability to retain and realize his crazy visions with a large company around him.

So what interests me about a man who is so singularly focused? It's because I am simultaneously attracted to what this zeal can accomplish and still not entirely comfortable with moving out of a well-adjusted state. And yes, I'm quite convinced that the two states are (mostly) incompatible. Right now I live in a fairly well-adjusted state. Decent job, nice neighbourhood, good friends, great church. Yet something calls out to be a bit more unhinged. I see some similarities is the early followers of Jesus. They were definitely a bit loopy. Out there. Ca-razy. But still, there is something really appealing about living that life of sole purpose. The rewards are indeed large. Just have to convince myself (and the family) to take the risk...

You've got to have empathy to let love rule.

A couple years back, I read through a great book that had a lot of application for my job as a change management advisor. Crucial Conversations is a book about how to better deal with high stakes conversations where opinions differ and emotions run high. I was also able to take a training course and still use the information in my job, as well as more generally in important conversations.

The authors of the book put out a regular newsletter/blog, and I thought the last one was particularly good. In summary:

She then taught me something I have never forgotten. “Before I spoke with him I asked myself, ‘In what way am I just like him?’ It didn’t take long before I thought of a couple of ways that I had behaved inappropriately when I thought I could get away with it. As soon as I accepted that I was kind of like him, I felt more forgiving of his weakness. I wasn’t going to put up with it, but at least I could see that he was a human not a villain—a human kind of like me.”

I was blown away by this idea. And I have found that, when I embrace it, I find an increased capacity to love the imperfect people in my life.

 

This book will self-destruct...

I chuckle whenever I see an organization try to create artificial scarcity, particularly when their business model is threatened by the digital age.

As of March 7, HarperCollins e-book titles licensed to Canadian schools and public libraries come with a new restriction: after 26 checkouts, they self-destruct.

Dan Misener has a whole article on the topic in his CBC column. Apparently, they figured that most books in the library only last through 26 checkouts. Seems a little self-serving to me.

Anyways, instead of trying to work with the new digital model to distribute their information more widely than ever, they're making a last ditch grasp at trying to squeeze some more money out of outdated business model. Not to mention squeezing it out of publicly funded libraries. Stupid move, in my book. Someone needs to sick Seth Godin on these guys. He'll set them straight.

 

Spiritual growth comes only in suffering

Closely related to the post that I put up last night, here is a quote from an article by John Ortberg in the latest issue of Leadership Journal:

I once was part of a survey on spiritual formation. Thousands of people were asked when they grew most spiritually, and what contributed to their growth. The response was humbling—at least for someone who works at a church.

The number one contributor to spiritual growth was not transformational teaching. It was not being in a small group. It was not reading deep books. It was not energetic worship experiences. It was not finding meaningful ways to serve.

It was suffering.

Is that true for you too? I know that the author of Hebrews says that Jesus learned obedience through his suffering; however, do you think there are other ways to grow spiritually or is suffering the main conduit of growth?

Epic FAIL Pastor's Conference

No, this is not a joke. In fact, it actually sounds pretty neat:

-What if we offered a space that is gutsy, hopeful, courageously vulnerable for pastors to let go of the burden to be a Super Pastor?

-What if we could hold an event that was free from the thrills and frills of other pastors conferences?

-What if we came together as epic failures and sought not successful models or how-do’s but instead celebrated faithfulness in ministry because of the reality of Jesus?

-What if we were reminded that we’re not responsible for being ‘successful’ in ministry, but we are responsible for being faithful to the calling that God has laid out for us – regardless of the outcome?

-What if we had a conference that was not led not by famous pastors who are household names, but by scandalously ordinary ministers and leaders who are faithfully attempting to join with God – even in the midst of glaring obscurity and anonymity?

Check out more on the conference by reading their site.

I like the idea of this conference because it's touching on something that is not often discussed--weakness is a key element of being a Christian. That is, God's power is most often (or even only?) found in human weakness. Paul goes so far as to tell the Corinthian church that human power needs to get out of the way if you want to see God at work.

But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for [human] power is brought to its end in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me.

2 Corinthians 12:9 - translation courtesy Marva Dawn

Christian Yogi - Part 3

After discussing the need for Christians to contextualize, along with the drawbacks that come from syncretism, I want to come back to the original question: should Christians participate in yoga? And more broadly, do we have any tools that we can use to help us make the decision? Thanks to the handy inter-web, I dug up Paul Hiebert’s model for critical contextualization. According to the Hiebert, the four steps of critical contextualization are:

1. Phenomenological analysis (exegesis of the culture)—studying the cultural practices phenomenologically and uncritically
2. Ontological critique (exegesis of the Scripture and the hermeneutical bridge)—studying the Scripture on what it has to say about a practice
3. Evaluative response (critical response)—evaluate the cultural practice in light of the new understanding in the Scripture
4. Transformative ministries (new contextualized practices)—incorporate new contextualized practices

(This is noted in Paul Hiebert’s article, “Critical Contextualization,” in the July 1987 edition of International Bulletin of Missionary Research, pgs 109-110.)

I find this helpful, but the terminology that Hiebert uses isn't exactly "user-friendly." In order to come up with something that is more workable, let me instead propose a couple of questions:

1) Does the physical nature of the activity align with what the scriptures teach?
In certain types of activities, the physical nature of the activity itself is incompatible with the teaching of Scripture. Prostitution and sexual activity outside of marriage would be pretty clear examples. There is no way that you could claim these as a legitimate contextualization of the gospel.

Another example would be the use of MMA in church. I cannot see how intentional physical harm is compatible with the calls of Scripture to love your neighbour, to live peaceably with each other, and to live out the fruits of the Spirit.

In the case of yoga, I would have to say that there is no scriptural prohibitions that apply. On the contrary, there seems to be an indication that there is some value in the discipline of the physical body.

2) Does the meaning of the activity align with what the Scriptures teach?
The fundamental meaning of yoga, that is, the purpose or goal of yoga, as understood by its leaders and facilitators, appears to run counter to Christian thought. As the Hindu scholar quoted in the article notes: “the idea that the body is a vehicle for reaching consciousness with the divine is fundamentally at odds with Christian teaching.” Christians believe that we have been marred by the effects of sin and are unable on our own accord to achieve relationship with God. Only God, in the person of Jesus, can make this happen. This distinction would convince me that yoga cannot simply be practiced uncritically, like training for a running race, or playing soccer.

3) If no to #2, can the activity be re-purposed?
While the aspirations of yoga and Christianity are clearly incompatible, It would seem possible to separate the form from meaning in yoga; that is, you can incorporate the stretching and breathing exercises into a practice where you replace the meaning of yoga with Christian thinking, much like some people in the original article advocate. Of course, some argue that this is no longer yoga, but call it what you will, the practices are still yoga-ish in nature.

So that would be my sentiment on the original question. Christians should be wary of practicing yoga in its regular form and as a general rule, should steer clear of group yoga practice. As the meaning of yoga is clearly understood by its practioners to run counter to Christian thought, it would seem strange for Christians to uncritically incorporate this practice. However, as I note, there is room for re-thinking yoga--using the stretching and breathing practices, but filling their meaning with Christian thought instead.

Finally, it should also be clear from my framework that Christians need to have a clear understanding of what Scripture teaches. This means not just memorizing a verse or two, but instead we need to be familiar with the major themes and ideas of the Old Testament and New Testament. In particular, let me make a plea for people to study OT and NT theology--rather than just systematic theology, because in my opinion, systematic theology itself is already contextualized. Instead, I urge you to become familiar with the ideas and themes as the OT and the NT uniquely articulate them. For example, if you're not aware of the significance of land in the OT, you need to do some work. And if you don’t know what topic Matthew, Mark and Luke record Jesus speaking about more than any other, you don’t know your NT theology (hint: it’s not love). Study up--it's worth it!

Christian Yogi - Part 2

As I discussed in my previous post, as Christians we certainly have the freedom to integrate practices from our existing cultures into expressions of our faith. However, as I noted, these practices can lead to problems if it isn’t done well. My key distinguishing point for integrating these practices successfully is being able to separate the form of the practice from the meaning of it. In this post, I want to talk about what happens when form can’t be separated from meaning. In these cases, attempting to incorporate cultural practices leads to syncretism, the blending of worldviews.

First, I think that it is worth discussing why syncretism is a problem. Many North Americans (and especially us Canadians), raised in a pluralist culture, see nothing wrong with syncretism. In fact, many people whom I have encountered explicitly encourage it. Their attitude is to borrow “the best” of the practices from various religious traditions and integrate them. The problem with this approach comes when the meaning attached to these practices begins to subvert the meaning of the good news of Jesus. As an example, I would argue that the integration of Church and State in the years following Constantine’s legalization of the Church was a form of syncretism. The Church brought in an “empire” mentality: specifically, the Church borrowed State power to enforce church discipline. Instead of the good news of Jesus being a radical alternative to the world around it, church leaders had subverted the gospel’s message and the Church became just another empire. Like most examples of syncretism, this false integration left the Church very weak and feeble. The clearest example is the sweep of Islam across North Africa. This region had been an area of significant Christian activity (Augustine was from North Africa), but by the time Islam rolled through, the indigenous North Africans were just as happy to become followers of Muhammad.

Of course the real problem of syncretism is that it runs counter to the claims placed on those who wish to follow the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. One of the key messages given to the people of Yahweh and followers of Jesus was that no other material item, person, or system of belief should be placed on the same level as faith in God. Something that takes the place God/Jesus as the “prime” or the first is not acceptable. This is seen in the first commandment: “You shall have no other gods before me.” Jesus similarly demands everything from his followers: “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” Both make it clear: all parts of our lives, including our daily practices, need to be brought in alignment with the rule and reign of God.

In recent times, I would say that a significant number of North American churches have become syncretistic, incorporating cultural practices without critically examining whether the form of the practice can be separated from its meaning. One area that affected our Canadian church in the 80s and early 90s was the seeker-sensitive movement. Though well-intentioned, churches uncritically incorporating consumer marketing practices to get prospective believers into the building. By doing so, we created consumers of religious goods and services instead of disciples of the Messiah. I think that the Canadian church is still dealing with the fallout of this today.

My friend Andy just passed along another good example of syncretism: MMA night in church, a Christian version of the fictional Fight Club. I’ll need to write up my thoughts on this in more detail sometime, but the idea that Christians can physically pummel each other because “Jesus is a fighter” is very seriously flawed.

Of course this begs the question: what can we use to test to see if a practice is syncretistic or a proper contextualization of the gospel message? I’ll leave you in suspense until I post the third installment in this series...

Christian Yogi - Part 1

I’m not talking about the famous bear, but rather last month’s blog posting on Out of Ur, which highlighted the responses to Southern Baptist leader Al Mohler’s declaration that yoga was incompatible with the Christian faith. Mohler seemed surprised at the some of the backlash to his stance, although he also had his supporters, including Mark Driscoll, who never seems to miss an opportunity to wade in on a cultural controversy.

The issue is of interest to me, given the huge number of yoga venues around Vancouver. I’m not sure of the exact number of people who engage in weekly yoga activities, but I’m guessing it would significantly outnumber weekly church attenders (at least around North Vancouver and the city of Vancouver).

When I started writing this post, it began to stretch on, so I figure I’ll split it into at least two parts (maybe three). For this first part, I’ll focus on why we can borrow practices from other worldviews and incorporate them into our faith.

For me, whenever I think about this topic, I like to reflect on the chapter in Paul Hiebert’s book “Anthropological Insights for Missionaries” called Critical Contextualization. Though I don’t have my copy right now, if I recall correctly, Hiebert argues that we are always contextualizing the message of Jesus. This makes sense to me because the good news of Jesus arrived at a particular time, in a particular place and was communicated in a particular language. As soon as we move out of that context, we must interpret/translate that message to make it understandable and relevant in that new context. Still, the message carried by Jesus has a universality that makes it inherently translatable. Hiebert’s point is that this process of translation, which he termed contextualization, can happen haphazardly or critically. David Park, in his blog, summarizes the various steps of what it means to critically contextualize.

For my purposes here, I’ll focus on the question of when we take explicitly un-Christian practices like yoga, and try to modify them to give them an explicitly Christian meaning. Hiebert says that the key criteria for being able to contextualize these kind of practices is whether the form of the practice can be divorced from the meaning. For example, for many North American Christians in the 60s and 70s, the form of rock music could not be separate from its meaning. Rock was evil. Loud guitars and drums were of the devil. Over time, this view (thankfully) has changed: today the majority of North American Christians would say that Christian truth can be communicated through amplified guitars and drums just as they can through a piano and an organ.

The idea of being able to split form from meaning was clearly possible for the New Testament authors; you can clearly see this in the language they used. In fact, most of the key language terms that they used (the “form”) were loaded with pre-existent meaning. For example, take the idea of the divine Word (Logos) that John uses in his gospel. As noted in Wikipedia, “it became a technical term in philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), who used the term for the principle of order and knowledge.” The fact that such a term was already pregnant with meaning didn’t scare the Apostle from using it; John felt free to borrow the term but he also was empowered by the Spirit to fill it with new meaning. Many other key terms like baptize, church, love, etc. were terms that were laden with meaning in the Greek culture, but that early Christians nevertheless used and filled up with their own meaning.

In the next installment, I’ll take a look at what happens when form and meaning can’t be so easily separated.

Unintended hiatus

I hadn't intended on taking off most of December from blogging, but here it is, January 1. I have been pecking away at a few different postings, so I'll start publishing them over the next few days. Hope everyone had a good Christmas and I wish all of you a blessed New Year.

America's financial woes

I confess that I’m more than a bit of a news and information junkie. Addiction could be close to it. CBC News is my homepage. And my favourite journalist over there has to be Neil Macdonald. Neil is the Washington correspondent and has a knack for explaining well what is happening with our neighbour to the south. His latest column explains what type of financial trouble America is in, and the creative way that they’re dealing with it.

The Problem:

The U.S. government borrows about 40 cents of every dollar it spends and it is on track this year to borrow about $1.3 trillion. That is the equivalent of borrowing Canada's entire economic output for 2009.

 

And that deficit will be piled onto the debt, which now stands at about $13.8 trillion and rising. Actually, if you add all the liabilities that Washington simply doesn't have the money to pay for (social security and Medicare are the biggies), the real debt is something like $40 trillion, which is a figure that defies comprehension.

Certainly, it defies repayment.

The Solution:

Basically, the Fed creates the money out of thin air, then lends it to the government by buying long-term U.S. Treasury bills. That means expanding the money supply, which of course makes every dollar already out there worth a little less. Which, in turn, impoverishes anyone who holds American debt.

Technically, it's a form of default. Expect more of it. It neatly solves the problem without any unpopular spending cuts or tax increases.

It also forces the rest of the world to share America's pain and the world is probably just going to have to put up with it because, like those Wall Street banks, the U.S. government is literally too big to fail.