I've heard it said that money doesn't really mean anything except as a way of keeping score. It's the point system that helps companies know how they are doing in the world. If the top leaders are driving Mercedez to the airport to get on the private jet, things must be going well, right? Well, not as well as if the leaders aren't driving and the chauffeur is, but you get the point.
Thing is, in all of Jesus' parables and lessons, I don't see Him giving us a clear way to keep score. Which leaves a problem for the church. How do you know you're doing OK without a means of keeping score? Count heads in pews? Postcards stating "re-committment"?
Um, how about measurable goals? When do we cross the line between setting our sights high for God and sounding like an oil company plotting the next quarter?
From a local congregation:
1. EVANGELIZE THE LOST
100% of our membership and 60% of our congregation trained in and actively
engaged in evangelism according to their gifting within 5 years.
100% of GBC members and 60% of our congregation will participate at least
annually in a community outreach or service project.
We will personally communicate the gospel of grace to every resident of B/CS within
a generation.
Within 5 years we will personally communicate the gospel of grace to every student
at xxx and xxx before he or she graduates.
...there's more, but I don't want to go beyond fair use here.
Yep, definitely a way to keep score. So what if these things happen? Or what if they don't? Can we really justify running a church like a business? How exactly does someone measure "evangelism according to their gifting"? By attendance, or my worse fears, the collection plate?
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Measurable Goals for an Immeasurable God
In the on-going pursuit of a Da Vinci Free life (but you have to mention it to get Google time), I have been researching various topics for upcoming projects and have come up with the following conclusion:
If I have to hear about measurable and manageable goals one more time, I'm going to be sick.
I think this may be the downfall of American ingenuity. Americans don't discover and don't innovate any more, because not many things of value come from manageable, measureable goals. Think about it. Schools teach us to set these types of goals, thinking that attaining them will increase our self esteem. Because of the mistaken idea that failure sinks the spirit. But does it? What is really better, to accomplish a mediocre goal, or to fail spectacularly at some impossible task? What ever happened to reaching beyond one's reach, to attempt things unthinkable? A prize just beyond the fingertips, one that demands overreaching, or even the intervention of God Himself?
There are parents around who push their kids to be excellent in all things, but unless the kids are passionate about one of their duties, the parents aren't raising innovators, just nicely trained seals. Even in church, with our manageable measurable "x% of the congregation doing y" goals, I no longer feel the desire to BE better, just the pressure to DO better. Because of course, doing is both manageable and measureable.
Manageable Measurable goals should be banned from the language of God's people, if not the English language. How can we require manageable, measureable results form the people of a decidedly Un-manageable, Immeasureable, God? This makes zero sense, except that as "good" christians, we are supposed to obey, not think. We're supposed to sacrifice the wildness of God for the tameness of duty, passion for balance.
I just can't picture the Father taking His Son to the circus to watch the trained seals. Not matter how many pretty beach balls they can balance.
If I have to hear about measurable and manageable goals one more time, I'm going to be sick.
I think this may be the downfall of American ingenuity. Americans don't discover and don't innovate any more, because not many things of value come from manageable, measureable goals. Think about it. Schools teach us to set these types of goals, thinking that attaining them will increase our self esteem. Because of the mistaken idea that failure sinks the spirit. But does it? What is really better, to accomplish a mediocre goal, or to fail spectacularly at some impossible task? What ever happened to reaching beyond one's reach, to attempt things unthinkable? A prize just beyond the fingertips, one that demands overreaching, or even the intervention of God Himself?
There are parents around who push their kids to be excellent in all things, but unless the kids are passionate about one of their duties, the parents aren't raising innovators, just nicely trained seals. Even in church, with our manageable measurable "x% of the congregation doing y" goals, I no longer feel the desire to BE better, just the pressure to DO better. Because of course, doing is both manageable and measureable.
Manageable Measurable goals should be banned from the language of God's people, if not the English language. How can we require manageable, measureable results form the people of a decidedly Un-manageable, Immeasureable, God? This makes zero sense, except that as "good" christians, we are supposed to obey, not think. We're supposed to sacrifice the wildness of God for the tameness of duty, passion for balance.
I just can't picture the Father taking His Son to the circus to watch the trained seals. Not matter how many pretty beach balls they can balance.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
More on the Cornwall Declaration
This is not something good to think about at night. It leads to nightmares and really bad novel ideas. But if anyone ever starts to seriously consider this as an actual policy, that would keep lots of people up at night.
It's the double speak that bothers me. After stating that God created all things, the writers go on to state a belief:
Cornwall Declaration
2. Many people believe that "nature knows best," or that the earth—untouched by human hands—is the ideal. Such romanticism leads some to deify nature or oppose human dominion over creation. Our position, informed by revelation and confirmed by reason and experience, views human stewardship that unlocks the potential in creation for all the earth's inhabitants as good. Humanity alone of all the created order is capable of developing other resources and can thus enrich creation, so it can properly be said that the human person is the most valuable resource on earth. Human life, therefore, must be cherished and allowed to flourish. The alternative—denying the possibility of beneficial human management of the earth—removes all rationale for environmental stewardship.
So, am I reading that although God created nature, He doesn't control it anymore? I understand it is corrupted by our sin in the Fall and it groans for the redemption (somewhere in 1Corinthians, I believe) but this outright says that the earth without human intervention as the ultimate and that we know better than the creator. That to believe that God knew what He was doing when He created the earth and all that is in it is romanticism?? I pray we would all become incurable romantics, then. I find this a bit arrogant.
Human persons are moral agents for whom freedom is an essential condition of responsible action. Sound environmental stewardship must attend both to the demands of human well being and to a divine call for human beings to exercise caring dominion over the earth. It affirms that human well being and the integrity of creation are not only compatible but also dynamically interdependent realities.
Well, yeah, we are moral agents. And there is definitely independence, at least on our part, on the earth. I know we couldn't survive without our planet. The question is, would our planet survive without us?? This declaration seems to say, no.
Now the aspirations... these are um, interesting.
4. We aspire to a world in which liberty as a condition of moral action is preferred over government-initiated management of the environment as a means to common goals.
5. We aspire to a world in which the relationships between stewardship and private property are fully appreciated, allowing people's natural incentive to care for their own property to reduce the need for collective ownership and control of resources and enterprises, and in which collective action, when deemed necessary, takes place at the most local level possible.
So, what I am reading here, is that people, as moral agents, need freedom to do the right thing and don't need any government initiative. At least when it comes to the environment. As in, we know what is right and wrong and can be trusted to do the right thing. So why is that the case in the environment and not in social issues??? We know abortion is wrong, why can't we trust people not to have them? Why do the anti-abortionists need laws? We know that murder is wrong, why do we need government initiative there? It's wrong for corporations to not pay their workers overtime, why do we need a law about that?
It's the double standard that bothers me. If this group really believes that corporations can be trusted to do the right thing by the environment without government initiated structure, they are sorely wrong. They are willing to trust the natural incentive to stand strong on some forms of sin, but not all.
It's the double speak that bothers me. After stating that God created all things, the writers go on to state a belief:
Cornwall Declaration
2. Many people believe that "nature knows best," or that the earth—untouched by human hands—is the ideal. Such romanticism leads some to deify nature or oppose human dominion over creation. Our position, informed by revelation and confirmed by reason and experience, views human stewardship that unlocks the potential in creation for all the earth's inhabitants as good. Humanity alone of all the created order is capable of developing other resources and can thus enrich creation, so it can properly be said that the human person is the most valuable resource on earth. Human life, therefore, must be cherished and allowed to flourish. The alternative—denying the possibility of beneficial human management of the earth—removes all rationale for environmental stewardship.
So, am I reading that although God created nature, He doesn't control it anymore? I understand it is corrupted by our sin in the Fall and it groans for the redemption (somewhere in 1Corinthians, I believe) but this outright says that the earth without human intervention as the ultimate and that we know better than the creator. That to believe that God knew what He was doing when He created the earth and all that is in it is romanticism?? I pray we would all become incurable romantics, then. I find this a bit arrogant.
Human persons are moral agents for whom freedom is an essential condition of responsible action. Sound environmental stewardship must attend both to the demands of human well being and to a divine call for human beings to exercise caring dominion over the earth. It affirms that human well being and the integrity of creation are not only compatible but also dynamically interdependent realities.
Well, yeah, we are moral agents. And there is definitely independence, at least on our part, on the earth. I know we couldn't survive without our planet. The question is, would our planet survive without us?? This declaration seems to say, no.
Now the aspirations... these are um, interesting.
4. We aspire to a world in which liberty as a condition of moral action is preferred over government-initiated management of the environment as a means to common goals.
5. We aspire to a world in which the relationships between stewardship and private property are fully appreciated, allowing people's natural incentive to care for their own property to reduce the need for collective ownership and control of resources and enterprises, and in which collective action, when deemed necessary, takes place at the most local level possible.
So, what I am reading here, is that people, as moral agents, need freedom to do the right thing and don't need any government initiative. At least when it comes to the environment. As in, we know what is right and wrong and can be trusted to do the right thing. So why is that the case in the environment and not in social issues??? We know abortion is wrong, why can't we trust people not to have them? Why do the anti-abortionists need laws? We know that murder is wrong, why do we need government initiative there? It's wrong for corporations to not pay their workers overtime, why do we need a law about that?
It's the double standard that bothers me. If this group really believes that corporations can be trusted to do the right thing by the environment without government initiated structure, they are sorely wrong. They are willing to trust the natural incentive to stand strong on some forms of sin, but not all.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Brains or Brawn?
The greatest minds are capable of the greatest vices as well as of the
greatest virtues.
-- Rene Descartes, 'Le Discours de la Methode,' 1637
According to this quote, we aren't in that much danger from the current administration. Unless, somewhere, deep in the White House, maybe in the swimming pool under the press room, there are some smart people hiding and plotting their rise to power and the demise of the common folk.
greatest virtues.
-- Rene Descartes, 'Le Discours de la Methode,' 1637
According to this quote, we aren't in that much danger from the current administration. Unless, somewhere, deep in the White House, maybe in the swimming pool under the press room, there are some smart people hiding and plotting their rise to power and the demise of the common folk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)