It's no secret that I have long loved the writing and thinking of Roy H. Williams, the Wizard of Ads, in Austin. I read his Monday Morning Memo virtually first thing every Monday. I've never met him, but he strikes me as my kind of guy: likes beagles, thinks highly of Jesus and the Bible in an irreligious sort of way, and loves to stimulate good thinking. If he plays golf, he might just be perfect...
Anway, his memo this morning is about the economy. Except that like most of his writing, it's not really about the economy, it's about more than that. It's about us. I've copied some of it here, but check out the whole thing at http://www.mondaymorningmemo.com/?ShowMe=ThisMemo&MemoID=1806.
WobbleThe Beagle Sings with Buble
My staff can hardly get any work done. It seems the whole world is calling to ask what I think will happen with our economy.The President of the United States made a primetime speech last week. The press is an interesting animal. The Chicago Tribune predicted the president’s speech would "live among the annals of man," while its competitor, the Chicago Times, editorialized that "the cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat, and dishwatery utterances of the president." Those papers were talking about Abraham Lincoln. The speech was the Gettysburg Address.Before I go any further, let me acknowledge that I’m aware of how dangerous it is to speak of politics or religion. No matter what I say on either subject, I’m going to get a firestorm of emails correcting me.Even so…All indications are that President Obama’s speech lifted the mood of the nation. When the mood of the nation is optimistic, our economy sings like Michael Bublé and money flows like water in the street.
More than one friend has told me that Obama’s plan will end in disaster. I choose to believe otherwise. I choose to believe. I choose.A jet is low over New York City. Both engines have failed. Any idiot can see that everyone on the plane is going to die. The pilot can fly into a building and kill all the people inside, or he can line up on a street and kill unsuspecting motorists instead. These are his only options. Well, I’m on that jet and I say this pilot is going to land on the Hudson River and the plane is going to float long enough for everyone to get out safely and then we’re all going to hop onto some big passenger ferries that will be exactly where we need them to be.Don’t laugh. It could happen. By the way, you’re on this jet, too.I bought a book at the airport the other day. Barack Obama wrote Dreams From My Father fifteen years ago. As a writer, I was deeply impressed. If a man can be judged by what he writes when he is young, we have an extremely intelligent president. A history book of ancient Israel tells of a starving city surrounded by an enemy army. “Now there were four men with leprosy at the entrance of the city gate. They said to each other, "Why stay here until we die? If we say, 'We'll go into the city'-the famine is there, and we will die. And if we stay here, we will die. So let's go over to the camp of the Arameans and surrender. If they spare us, we live; if they kill us, then we die."That story ends happily. Not just for the lepers, but for everyone in the city. Well, not quite everyone. There was one man who insisted that God himself couldn’t save the city. Interestingly, everyone made it safely onto the ferryboats except for that guy. He was the moron screaming hysterically ‘We’re all going to die!’ while the pilot was trying to land the plane on the Hudson.It’s really an interesting story. You ought to read it.Roy H. Williams
Monday, March 02, 2009
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Book Review - Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell
I probably enjoyed this book more than any other I've read recently. Gladwell has written a couple of other tomes I've read; The Tipping Point and Blink. But Outliers jumps to the top of my favorite list for him, and one of the best "aha" moment books for me.
The book's stated purpose is to identify what makes one person (or group) successful and one not. It examines two large ideas--opportunity and culture--and their impact on our success.
Now we USAmericans really like to believe that everyone has equal advantage. We believe in the concept that people (and their success) is by and large a factor of their work ethic and attitude. Sure, your natural ability may provide some limitation (if you're 5'4" playing in the NBA is probably unrealistic) but we can find ample anecdotal evidence of people who were told they were too short/stupid/poor/etc to succeed at a particular task but overcame all odds and succeeded anyway. And we like to think that is us.
Gladwell points out you might as well be planning to win the lottery, cuz the odds are against you.
In the first section, he deals with opportunity. Does everyone have the same opps for success? Again, we want to say yes, believe yes, but in our honest moments we have to answer no. Did you know that 14 of the 75 wealthiest people in the history of the world were Americans born between 1830 and 1835? Why would that be? Because they were just the right age to take advantage of the post-Civil War boom of economy in the US. How about that the 10 founders of the largest, most successful software firms in the US were born between 1950 and 1955? All of them. The world came together to give them opps that others simply did not have.
Maybe the most intriguing example is elite Canadian hockey. If you examine the birthdates of the best players in the late teen clubs, you will find that about half were born in January, February or March. Luck of the draw? Not a chance. January 1st is the cutoff date for age of being on one year's team vs the previous years. Kids born in the last quarter of the year are nearly a year younger than those born in the first quarter. Now at the age of 18, that's probably not a significant difference. But these kids started playing organized hockey when they were old enough to skate, and when you're 5 on Jan 2nd vs Dec 14th, it makes a HUGE difference. So in the younger years, those born in the first 3 months get identified as the best players. They get put on the best teams with the best coaches, and get more practice and game experience as they grow up. If you were born in the last quarter of the year, your odds of a successful hockey career are significantly reduced.
This has incredible implications for parenting, for education, for sports, for all kinds of leadership development issues. We are subconciously giving better opps to certain kids for no other reason than the month they were born in. Are there exceptions? Of course. But they are exceptions.
One implication I thought about a lot in reading this is how we at Buckner develop solutions for the 145 million orphans in the world. How do we really provide the right kinds of opportunities for these kids to succeed in the world?
In my next post, I'll deal with the second half of the book, the cultural factors of success.
The book's stated purpose is to identify what makes one person (or group) successful and one not. It examines two large ideas--opportunity and culture--and their impact on our success.
Now we USAmericans really like to believe that everyone has equal advantage. We believe in the concept that people (and their success) is by and large a factor of their work ethic and attitude. Sure, your natural ability may provide some limitation (if you're 5'4" playing in the NBA is probably unrealistic) but we can find ample anecdotal evidence of people who were told they were too short/stupid/poor/etc to succeed at a particular task but overcame all odds and succeeded anyway. And we like to think that is us.
Gladwell points out you might as well be planning to win the lottery, cuz the odds are against you.
In the first section, he deals with opportunity. Does everyone have the same opps for success? Again, we want to say yes, believe yes, but in our honest moments we have to answer no. Did you know that 14 of the 75 wealthiest people in the history of the world were Americans born between 1830 and 1835? Why would that be? Because they were just the right age to take advantage of the post-Civil War boom of economy in the US. How about that the 10 founders of the largest, most successful software firms in the US were born between 1950 and 1955? All of them. The world came together to give them opps that others simply did not have.
Maybe the most intriguing example is elite Canadian hockey. If you examine the birthdates of the best players in the late teen clubs, you will find that about half were born in January, February or March. Luck of the draw? Not a chance. January 1st is the cutoff date for age of being on one year's team vs the previous years. Kids born in the last quarter of the year are nearly a year younger than those born in the first quarter. Now at the age of 18, that's probably not a significant difference. But these kids started playing organized hockey when they were old enough to skate, and when you're 5 on Jan 2nd vs Dec 14th, it makes a HUGE difference. So in the younger years, those born in the first 3 months get identified as the best players. They get put on the best teams with the best coaches, and get more practice and game experience as they grow up. If you were born in the last quarter of the year, your odds of a successful hockey career are significantly reduced.
This has incredible implications for parenting, for education, for sports, for all kinds of leadership development issues. We are subconciously giving better opps to certain kids for no other reason than the month they were born in. Are there exceptions? Of course. But they are exceptions.
One implication I thought about a lot in reading this is how we at Buckner develop solutions for the 145 million orphans in the world. How do we really provide the right kinds of opportunities for these kids to succeed in the world?
In my next post, I'll deal with the second half of the book, the cultural factors of success.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Random Prayer Breakfast thoughts
Here's some quotes and thoughts from last week's National Prayer Breakfast:
"We do not need cheerleaders but partners." Tony Blair, speaking about promoting peace in the world
Greatest obvious truth: "If faith becomes the property of extremists, it creates discord." Tony Blair
Greatest not-so-obvious truth: "There are limits to humanism, and beyond those limits only God can work." Tony Blair
Most obvious statement that may not be true: "There is no religion whose central tenet is hate." President Obama.
"We do not need cheerleaders but partners." Tony Blair, speaking about promoting peace in the world
Greatest obvious truth: "If faith becomes the property of extremists, it creates discord." Tony Blair
Greatest not-so-obvious truth: "There are limits to humanism, and beyond those limits only God can work." Tony Blair
Most obvious statement that may not be true: "There is no religion whose central tenet is hate." President Obama.
Curse the darkness or light the candle or both or what?
Yesterday's "Breakpoint" by Chuck Colson (copied below) challenges President Obama on his statement that "no God condones taking the life of an innocent human being" at the National Prayer Breakfast. Colson rightly argues that for the President to make such a statement and only apply it to war and not to abortion is faulty logic. Just as faulty as the Christians who apply it only to abortion and not to war.
But this post is neither about abortion or about war. It's about some of the incessant whining we hear decrying our "postmodern" world.
I will be the first to admit I live in a postmodern world. Postmodernity has affected my worldview. It's hard for it not to. I also admit I have not jumped deeply into postmodern philosophy like my friend the 7-foot ninja. I have only skimmed the surface of those writers, and probably don't have a grasp of the nuances of postmodern thought.
But here's what I know: today's Christian leaders, like Colson below, bemoan our fall into a world where there is no absolute truth recognized in societal circles. There can be "your truth" and "my truth" and they may contradict each other and that's okay.
Now, is such a philosophy correct? No, of course not. Most 5th graders can point out the illogical nature of such statements at basic levels. Both Christianity and Hinduism cannot be true in their fullest forms.
But is a cultural belief of "no absolute truth" a bad thing for the kingdom of heaven? I say no.
We have moved away from a society that took certain pieces of Christianity (yes, only "certain" pieces, not the whole gospel) and favored a public, outward form of Christian religion as "the truth." The church typically enjoyed this public religion, because it made church attendance at times a given in our society. That's what good Americans did.
But I maintain that the real gospel--life lived in the kingdom of heaven under the effectual reign of God--is better served and promoted by postmodern thought than by the times of watered-down-Christianity-as-public-religion.
Much like the first two centuries after Jesus' life, in many circles the gospel now stands on equal footing (or yes, even looked down upon footing--oh the horror!) with other religious or irreligious beliefs. And like Colson below, we complain about what is, instead of using what is--tailoring our message and more importanly our lifestyle as followers of Jesus--using what is to move the gospel forward in our world.
Are there those who use postmodernity to say that God/religion is dead? Of course there are. Are there those who use postmodernity to say that morality has no place in our world? Yes. But instead of complaining about postmodernity's unabsolute influence on the world, let's start living lives and speaking words that reflect that "effectual reign of God" and embrace postmodernity as what is. The Spirit will help us make disciples that understand truth is not relative. But we have an opportunity for the kingdom of God to spread that we did not have in a "christian" America.
NO GOD CONDONES WHAT?The President and the Innocent Chuck Colson At the national prayer breakfast last week, President Obama seemed to signal that he has seen the light and is abandoning his radically pro-abortion agenda. At least, that's the only reasonable conclusion one could make after hearing the President, who says he's a Christian, also say: "There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know." So I could only surmise that the President now concludes that "no God" would condone the 1.6 million abortions performed each year in America: 1.6 million innocent lives destroyed. But I've checked the White House website, and it's very clear that God's disapproval hasn't changed the administration's agenda one bit. Here's what the White House website says: "President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Administration." Well, in one way I'm glad I wasn't at the breakfast this year - I was speaking instead at Moody - because I'm not sure I would have been able to stay in my seat. How can a president of the United States say that "there is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being," when he himself favors a woman's right to have an abortion under virtually every circumstance? How can he say that when, as an Illinois state senator, he voted against the Illinois Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected the lives of babies who survived late-term abortions? When he even had the audacity to describe the act as "One more burden on a woman . . . I can't support." President Obama is a highly intelligent man with a huge job on his hands. I know what the White House is like, and I pray for him fervently every day. But how does such an intelligent man make a statement like this without understanding its implications for his own pro-abortion policies? The only way to explain it is to understand the intellectual environment, called postmodernism, in which President Obama and his peers have been raised. Generations of Americans have now been taught that truth is subjective. You have your truth, I have mine. And, even worse, I can't "inflict" my version of truth on you. The law of non-contradiction has been suspended. So politicians can tell us over and over that they can't allow their personal faith to affect their views on public policy. Or they can take two completely opposing positions at the same time: like believing that no God condones the taking of innocent life and at the same time, condoning-even promoting-the taking of an innocent life. The problem isn't simply President Obama and his views on life; the problem is a postmodern culture which believes that truth is merely a matter of opinion, and that therefore the sanctity of innocent human life is simply an expression of one viewpoint among many. I have argued for the last 20 years that postmodernism would lead to the unraveling or our society. The fact that so few noticed the contradiction in what the President said and the policies he pursues tells me that we're far along in the unraveling process.
But this post is neither about abortion or about war. It's about some of the incessant whining we hear decrying our "postmodern" world.
I will be the first to admit I live in a postmodern world. Postmodernity has affected my worldview. It's hard for it not to. I also admit I have not jumped deeply into postmodern philosophy like my friend the 7-foot ninja. I have only skimmed the surface of those writers, and probably don't have a grasp of the nuances of postmodern thought.
But here's what I know: today's Christian leaders, like Colson below, bemoan our fall into a world where there is no absolute truth recognized in societal circles. There can be "your truth" and "my truth" and they may contradict each other and that's okay.
Now, is such a philosophy correct? No, of course not. Most 5th graders can point out the illogical nature of such statements at basic levels. Both Christianity and Hinduism cannot be true in their fullest forms.
But is a cultural belief of "no absolute truth" a bad thing for the kingdom of heaven? I say no.
We have moved away from a society that took certain pieces of Christianity (yes, only "certain" pieces, not the whole gospel) and favored a public, outward form of Christian religion as "the truth." The church typically enjoyed this public religion, because it made church attendance at times a given in our society. That's what good Americans did.
But I maintain that the real gospel--life lived in the kingdom of heaven under the effectual reign of God--is better served and promoted by postmodern thought than by the times of watered-down-Christianity-as-public-religion.
Much like the first two centuries after Jesus' life, in many circles the gospel now stands on equal footing (or yes, even looked down upon footing--oh the horror!) with other religious or irreligious beliefs. And like Colson below, we complain about what is, instead of using what is--tailoring our message and more importanly our lifestyle as followers of Jesus--using what is to move the gospel forward in our world.
Are there those who use postmodernity to say that God/religion is dead? Of course there are. Are there those who use postmodernity to say that morality has no place in our world? Yes. But instead of complaining about postmodernity's unabsolute influence on the world, let's start living lives and speaking words that reflect that "effectual reign of God" and embrace postmodernity as what is. The Spirit will help us make disciples that understand truth is not relative. But we have an opportunity for the kingdom of God to spread that we did not have in a "christian" America.
NO GOD CONDONES WHAT?The President and the Innocent Chuck Colson At the national prayer breakfast last week, President Obama seemed to signal that he has seen the light and is abandoning his radically pro-abortion agenda. At least, that's the only reasonable conclusion one could make after hearing the President, who says he's a Christian, also say: "There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know." So I could only surmise that the President now concludes that "no God" would condone the 1.6 million abortions performed each year in America: 1.6 million innocent lives destroyed. But I've checked the White House website, and it's very clear that God's disapproval hasn't changed the administration's agenda one bit. Here's what the White House website says: "President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Administration." Well, in one way I'm glad I wasn't at the breakfast this year - I was speaking instead at Moody - because I'm not sure I would have been able to stay in my seat. How can a president of the United States say that "there is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being," when he himself favors a woman's right to have an abortion under virtually every circumstance? How can he say that when, as an Illinois state senator, he voted against the Illinois Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected the lives of babies who survived late-term abortions? When he even had the audacity to describe the act as "One more burden on a woman . . . I can't support." President Obama is a highly intelligent man with a huge job on his hands. I know what the White House is like, and I pray for him fervently every day. But how does such an intelligent man make a statement like this without understanding its implications for his own pro-abortion policies? The only way to explain it is to understand the intellectual environment, called postmodernism, in which President Obama and his peers have been raised. Generations of Americans have now been taught that truth is subjective. You have your truth, I have mine. And, even worse, I can't "inflict" my version of truth on you. The law of non-contradiction has been suspended. So politicians can tell us over and over that they can't allow their personal faith to affect their views on public policy. Or they can take two completely opposing positions at the same time: like believing that no God condones the taking of innocent life and at the same time, condoning-even promoting-the taking of an innocent life. The problem isn't simply President Obama and his views on life; the problem is a postmodern culture which believes that truth is merely a matter of opinion, and that therefore the sanctity of innocent human life is simply an expression of one viewpoint among many. I have argued for the last 20 years that postmodernism would lead to the unraveling or our society. The fact that so few noticed the contradiction in what the President said and the policies he pursues tells me that we're far along in the unraveling process.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
The post-retreat break up
I have "Stuff Christians Like" on the blog list to the right, but this one was too good to not send you to directly. If you grew up in the church or where a youth minister, you have seen this all too much--laying down your boyfriend/girlfriend for God.
Check it out here.
Check it out here.
Pet Peeve #6
I don't have very many pet peeves, but a couple of weeks ago I was at lunch with some friends and mentioned #6--combovers. I spotted a guy in the restaurant and wondered aloud "doesn't he have friends who love him enough to tell him what he looks like?"
One of the guys at lunch with me sent me this. Just thought I would share.
Praying in the name of Jesus
I've blogged about the National Prayer Breakfast before, so you'll have to search the archives for some background if you want it. It's an amazing event. This year was the 57th annual breakfast. The goal is prayer and fellowship in the name and spirit of Jesus of Nazareth.
Now that's really interesting. Many of the capital "E" Evangelicals I have been around during my 42 years have a pretty narrow view of what it means to pray and fellowship in the name of Jesus. And it has something to do with the words you say at the end of your prayer.
Ultimately it has nothing to do with that. Really, as Mike Breaux says, "in the name of Jesus, amen" really means, "I'm done praying." So he ends his prayers in the voice of Forrest Gump: "that's all I got to say about that."
In the name and spirit of Jesus is more about how our lives reflect on the name of Jesus. Violating the command to not take the Lord's name in vain is less about a cuss word and more about our character reflecting on his character. When our lives are full of words but empty on love and grace, our words invoking God take his name in vain.
It is not about words. It is about loving God and loving neighbor. That is living in the name of Jesus.
More to come about the breakfast...
Now that's really interesting. Many of the capital "E" Evangelicals I have been around during my 42 years have a pretty narrow view of what it means to pray and fellowship in the name of Jesus. And it has something to do with the words you say at the end of your prayer.
Ultimately it has nothing to do with that. Really, as Mike Breaux says, "in the name of Jesus, amen" really means, "I'm done praying." So he ends his prayers in the voice of Forrest Gump: "that's all I got to say about that."
In the name and spirit of Jesus is more about how our lives reflect on the name of Jesus. Violating the command to not take the Lord's name in vain is less about a cuss word and more about our character reflecting on his character. When our lives are full of words but empty on love and grace, our words invoking God take his name in vain.
It is not about words. It is about loving God and loving neighbor. That is living in the name of Jesus.
More to come about the breakfast...
Monday, February 02, 2009
Happy Groundhog Day
If you had to live the same day over and over, what day would you pick?
For years now my wife and I find a way to squeeze watching "Groundhog Day" into every February 2nd. It's a great movie, featuring former Ghostbusters buddies Bill Murray (playing the lead, Phil Conners) and Harold Ramis, who directs and has a cameo in the movie. You've seen it, I'm sure, so I won't go into too much detail. Phil Conners is a prima donna weatherman who is sent to Punxutawney, PA to see if Phil the groundhog sees his shadow. But every morning he wakes up and its groundhog day again (great choice of alarm clock music), and he has to relive the same day again.
Then begins the modern day version of Ecclesiastes. In that book, usually attributed to Solomon, you have the man who has it all--the girls, the money, the great job--but in the end nothing satisfies the itch inside (all is vanity). Phil Conners explores all these and more, but ends up trying to kill himself; more than trying, succeeds in killing himself but can't, still waking up to Sonny and Cher at 6am. He too finds that all is vanity, all this life has to offer is empty if the deeper itch isn't scratched.
People today look to scratch that deeper itch the same way humans have for centuries now: money, sex, and power.
But the truth is that deeper itch is scratched only by authentic relationships. In the movie version, Phil tries hard to seduce Andy McDowell's character, but the manipulation fails. In the end, when he gives himself to serving others, getting to know them and their real dreams and passions and failures, he becomes the kind of man she can fall in love with.
You and I have the same opportunity today. We can seek satisfaction in money, sex and power and forever be disappointed the itch is still there.
Or we can pursue authentic relationships with God and people and find that in serving others out of our own sometimes successful/sometimes failure life, we find satisfaction. We find our itch gets scratched.
Anything else is vanity.
For years now my wife and I find a way to squeeze watching "Groundhog Day" into every February 2nd. It's a great movie, featuring former Ghostbusters buddies Bill Murray (playing the lead, Phil Conners) and Harold Ramis, who directs and has a cameo in the movie. You've seen it, I'm sure, so I won't go into too much detail. Phil Conners is a prima donna weatherman who is sent to Punxutawney, PA to see if Phil the groundhog sees his shadow. But every morning he wakes up and its groundhog day again (great choice of alarm clock music), and he has to relive the same day again.
Then begins the modern day version of Ecclesiastes. In that book, usually attributed to Solomon, you have the man who has it all--the girls, the money, the great job--but in the end nothing satisfies the itch inside (all is vanity). Phil Conners explores all these and more, but ends up trying to kill himself; more than trying, succeeds in killing himself but can't, still waking up to Sonny and Cher at 6am. He too finds that all is vanity, all this life has to offer is empty if the deeper itch isn't scratched.
People today look to scratch that deeper itch the same way humans have for centuries now: money, sex, and power.
But the truth is that deeper itch is scratched only by authentic relationships. In the movie version, Phil tries hard to seduce Andy McDowell's character, but the manipulation fails. In the end, when he gives himself to serving others, getting to know them and their real dreams and passions and failures, he becomes the kind of man she can fall in love with.
You and I have the same opportunity today. We can seek satisfaction in money, sex and power and forever be disappointed the itch is still there.
Or we can pursue authentic relationships with God and people and find that in serving others out of our own sometimes successful/sometimes failure life, we find satisfaction. We find our itch gets scratched.
Anything else is vanity.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Unbelievable
Apparently I missed this the first time around--like I said in my 25 random things on Facebook, I'm really not a huge sports fan. I'm rarely on ESPN, unless they are showing the golf tournament of the weekend.
But this video was posted by a friend on FB today, and I saw it, and I cried like crazy. It is unbelievable.
But this video was posted by a friend on FB today, and I saw it, and I cried like crazy. It is unbelievable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)