7.21.2004
here's a nugget from "Primal Leadership" by Daniel Goleman. In the chapter on "The Motivation to Change" where he relates a person's values to their leadership style, he breaks things down into leaders with a pragmatic philosophy, an intellectual philosophy, and a humanistic philosophy. I could not help but notice the correlation between many of the fundy pastors I know and the leader with an intellectual philosophy. Here's what Goleman has to say:
"The central theme of an intellectual philosophy is the desire to understand people, things, and the world by constructing an image of how they work, thereby providing some emotional security in predicting the future. People with this philosophy rely on logic in making decisions, and assess the worth of something against an underlying code or set of guidelines that stresses reason. People with this outlook rely heavily on cognitive competencies, sometimes to the exclusion of social competencies.... They can use a visionary leadership style, if the vision describes a well-reasoned future."
Compare this with evangelicals and fundies who:
1. Desire to *understand* people, things and the world rather than feel them, experience them, know them in an intimate, emotional way.
2. Look for emotional security by being able to predict the future, both macro-future (eschatology) and micro-future (if I do this [or pray this prayer, or live by these rules, etc.] then God is obligated to do that for me).
3. Rely on logic, proof texts, well-reasoned arguments, syllogistic constructs to make decisions rather than seeing the "heart" of a matter. These are people who would have no trouble saying in John 6, "Well, Moses says stone her so I guess we have no choice but to kill her no matter how regrettable that may be."
4. Judge the worth of people and ideas based on a rigid, inflexible black or white grid; not making allowances for nuance or exceptions.
5. Relate to people through reason and intellect rather than their needs as people.
6. Rally people behind a visionary cause rather than leading them to practically minister to others in a spirit of grace.
"The central theme of an intellectual philosophy is the desire to understand people, things, and the world by constructing an image of how they work, thereby providing some emotional security in predicting the future. People with this philosophy rely on logic in making decisions, and assess the worth of something against an underlying code or set of guidelines that stresses reason. People with this outlook rely heavily on cognitive competencies, sometimes to the exclusion of social competencies.... They can use a visionary leadership style, if the vision describes a well-reasoned future."
Compare this with evangelicals and fundies who:
1. Desire to *understand* people, things and the world rather than feel them, experience them, know them in an intimate, emotional way.
2. Look for emotional security by being able to predict the future, both macro-future (eschatology) and micro-future (if I do this [or pray this prayer, or live by these rules, etc.] then God is obligated to do that for me).
3. Rely on logic, proof texts, well-reasoned arguments, syllogistic constructs to make decisions rather than seeing the "heart" of a matter. These are people who would have no trouble saying in John 6, "Well, Moses says stone her so I guess we have no choice but to kill her no matter how regrettable that may be."
4. Judge the worth of people and ideas based on a rigid, inflexible black or white grid; not making allowances for nuance or exceptions.
5. Relate to people through reason and intellect rather than their needs as people.
6. Rally people behind a visionary cause rather than leading them to practically minister to others in a spirit of grace.
7.04.2004
Back in the Saddle
The new job has kept me hopping and I haven't been posting here or at Gamaliel's desk for a while. So here's to getting up & running.
Just read an article at Pastors.com from Josh McDowell on youth not believing in absolute truth. Same ole same ole. Here's the script:
1. Identify the Crisis - in this screed it is that kids don't accept absolute truth. Don't define the crisis or nuance it or examine shades of meaning. Just shout the alarm.
2. Attach Blame - For the breakdown in absolutes it's (you would never have guessed this one in under 3 seconds, would you?) The Popular Media and Public Education. He missed the other two horsemen of the apocalypse - Government and Academia. Pardon me for nodding off to nap while this part of the speech drones on. Been there, done that, SOLD the T-shirts.
3. Assign Guilt - Today it is Fathers. Other parties on the guilt merry-go-round include Mothers and Churches. Do I sound cynical? As a father, I don't mean to take it personally but, hey, what can I say if I'm being made to feel like it's my fault that my children don't believe in absolute truth.
Here's the rub for me on a number of fronts:
- Absolute Truth is poorly defined
- The alternative is not mentioned
- There are no links establishing a cause-effect relationship
- There are no remedies to this tragedy
- There are no established consequences
IOW - what is the big deal? If Josh would listen to what the youth are saying, they are complaining that the oldsters have missed the boat. They say that even if there is absolute truth, we can't know it absolutely, so what's the point? Tis a fair question and one which has been on my mind of late....
The new job has kept me hopping and I haven't been posting here or at Gamaliel's desk for a while. So here's to getting up & running.
Just read an article at Pastors.com from Josh McDowell on youth not believing in absolute truth. Same ole same ole. Here's the script:
1. Identify the Crisis - in this screed it is that kids don't accept absolute truth. Don't define the crisis or nuance it or examine shades of meaning. Just shout the alarm.
2. Attach Blame - For the breakdown in absolutes it's (you would never have guessed this one in under 3 seconds, would you?) The Popular Media and Public Education. He missed the other two horsemen of the apocalypse - Government and Academia. Pardon me for nodding off to nap while this part of the speech drones on. Been there, done that, SOLD the T-shirts.
3. Assign Guilt - Today it is Fathers. Other parties on the guilt merry-go-round include Mothers and Churches. Do I sound cynical? As a father, I don't mean to take it personally but, hey, what can I say if I'm being made to feel like it's my fault that my children don't believe in absolute truth.
Here's the rub for me on a number of fronts:
- Absolute Truth is poorly defined
- The alternative is not mentioned
- There are no links establishing a cause-effect relationship
- There are no remedies to this tragedy
- There are no established consequences
IOW - what is the big deal? If Josh would listen to what the youth are saying, they are complaining that the oldsters have missed the boat. They say that even if there is absolute truth, we can't know it absolutely, so what's the point? Tis a fair question and one which has been on my mind of late....
