You can either take action,
or you can hang back
and hope for a miracle.
Miracles are great,
but they are
so unpredictable.
- Peter F. Drucker
The people who get on
in this world
are the people who
get up and look for the
circumstances they want,
and if they can't find them,
make them.
- George Bernard Shaw
Reading an article sent to me today, I was struck again by the simple idea that people need to be needed. The article talks about missions and relating to each other across economic divides but this applies across social, religious and really any other boundaries that we create.
excerpt from the article
Poor people are people. Those who live and die in want of basic needs are just as smart, beautiful, creative, motivated, holy, and wise as you and I. They are also just as dumb, ugly, dull, lazy, sinful, and foolish as you and I.
This serves as a lead in to the story that talks about transforming the way short term missions works in one specific area. The gist of it is that the local population drives the activity and serves in a leadership role, rather than being simply recipients of charity. The fundamental shift comes when we recognize that you do not have to come from a wealthy country, have a Harvard MBA, be the right skin color or come with any other credentials to be an effective leader, teacher or mentor. It is arrogant at best to try and swoop in, determining the needs and providing a solution without the guidance of those being helped.
To be in a recipient only role dis-empowers the recipients and robs those providing the aid of the opportunity to really know those they are working with.
While living in Africa as a child, I saw both sides of this approach. I saw missionaries who were so full of their goodness that they would not deign to eat off of a plate that a Chadian had used. I saw the opposite side of that in my home, with my fathers best friend being a Chadian whom I called my uncle. The people we worked with were my family, the relationships we had were relationships of equals in my experience. What a contrast and what a gift from my parents to me - I never have been able to fully reconcile the two sides of the coin but I am now beginning to understand it more, though I am saddened by the lost opportunity on both sides all those years ago and continuing all over the world even today.
The title is shamelessly stolen from Peter Norvig, Director of Research at Google. This guy is the consumate hacker, IMHO. Check out this paper he put out on the topic. http://www.norvig.com/21-days.html
What's the difference between a programmer and a developer, or even a hacker? A question no real hacker or even a developer would ask, but one I still hear from co-workers or friends in one form or another.
I've met and managed a lot of programmers, I've even worked with a bunch. It is not a bundle of fun. Programmers tend to be people who write code of some type in A language that they are comfortable with, for a paycheck. They are not known for independent thinking and are not known for passion about their work.
Developers on the other hand usually tend to be people who write in several languages, with a passion for whatever language is cool to them for whatever reason they have, rational or otherwise. They tend to look at the world as a problem to be solved and will argue, sometimes passionately, over their brand of right for the solution. They work well independently and sometimes with others. I have worked with a number of these types and I enjoy it a lot more. These are some of the more fun people to hang out with. They usually have a good sense of humor and are fairly well read.
Hackers are another breed. A really good dev may desire to attain true hacker status, but not be willing to make the time required due to a personal life. I have worked with and also managed a couple of real hackers. Of the three types, this is my favorite. Not because of the impressive social skills attained by 20 out of 24 hours at the keyboard, rather because they are generally so incredibly intelligent. I wish I could say I have attained hacker status, but it would be untrue. I have been called one, and while flattered, I have to say that at best I was an aspiring hacker. With the time I spend on dev work at this point in my life, true hacker status is a long way off for me. It has become a term loosely thrown around anymore and misused as bad as the word Diva in pop culture.
I was thinking last night, while I should have been sleeping, about this country in which I live. How we have been sliding slowly from a culture of strength and sacrifice to a culture of immediate gratification and one that demands quick fix, no cost remedies. This brought to mind some wise words that I will leave with you, spoken by greater men than I.
Philippians 1:27-29
(27) Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel
(28) without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved--and that by God.
(29) For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him,
To get a little more insight into this, I suppose looking at some examples of what the Gospels say about conduct would be a good starter. In Galations 5, I found a pretty concise summary of this idea. In one word, it can all be summed up as Love.
Galatians 5:13-26
(13) You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.
(14) The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
(15) If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.
(16) So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.
(17) For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.
(18) But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
(19) The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;
(20) idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions
(21) and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
(22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
(23) gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
(24) Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.
(25) Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.
(26) Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
Reading through this passage, clearly the predominate thought is that love is the foundation of it all. All the other other things can be considered manifestations of that love. One of the real dangers that the previous passage represents is the interpretation of what it means to conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel
Looking at the passage in Galations, we get an idea - the trick is to not then create our own law structure around these ideas.
I recently read a book titled Epic, suggested by a friend of mine. The book was written by John Eldredge and was a very quick read with an interesting message. The basic idea of the book is that life is a story that God is telling and the story of creation and the universe is imprinted in every person. The essential elements of hero, struggle and redemption are being reflected in popular culture and stories.
After reflecting on the ideas for a while, I like the image that it provides me. The question of, is there something more? is answered in the story. We have to identify our part in the story and what role we play. I had another friend recently ask me what my role was in life. He had watched the movie, "The Lady in the Water" and was caught up in the idea of the story and roles we play. I think the ideas are directly related and worth working through.
What is your role?
What is mine?
In a recent series at the church we are attending the focus has been in 2 Peter. I have been bumping these verses around in my head, trying to figure out what they mean. I think in the end, I have had a pretty good idea the whole time; I just have been hesitant in picking up on it. My fear of being a part of the “old guard” has built a resistance to frameworks of rules. I believe that the key is in balance and understanding the basis for the directives outlined in this passage. If we follow the first and greatest command - to love - we will desire a changed life. These guildlines / directives are simple a manifestation of this changed life growing out of the new creation.
So - While stumbling around the net today, I came across something that made me laugh out loud. I have to issue a warning here, if you are easily offended by questions of religion STOP READING now. Ok, consider yourself warned.
The story goes like this...
I looked this up on Snopes (urband legend debunking central) and it had this to say: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp
I laughed all the way through the letter, despite this being a serious topic. The truth of the whole thing was too much. I have always struggled with the whole picking and choosing from the Bible and the Old Testament in particular so when I read this piece, it really made me laugh while at the same time, feeling sad for all the people who think in terms of black and white, cherry picking their way through the Bible and life, believing what fits their world view and ignoring all else.
The issue with Don Imus serves to illustrate a good point. We tend to turn a blind eye to divisive issues until they hit critical mass, and then we express "outrage!" over the straw that served to break the camels back.
"From the outset, I believe all of us have been deeply upset and revulsed by the statements that were made on our air about the young women who represented Rutgers University in the NCAA Women's Basketball Championship with such class, energy and talent," said CBS President and Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves, in announcing the decision.
What about all the other comments made over the years? What about the comments made by Rush L. on a regular basis? Why does it have to come to this before we express our outrage. At this point, it seems a little false and frankly, a little silly. When it is common place for "shock jocks" to make a living insulting and demeaning others, why do we have to wait until someone finally says - Hey, it's not right, before we take action? And why, when it finally happens, do we act so surprised that it happened? Really, you do not have to look far to hear this same kind of vitriolic diatribe. It is commonplace on drivetime radio in the big markets.
I am all about freedom of speech, don't get me wrong. And I know where the dial is on my radio and I control (to some degree) what I listen to. What I am really pointing out more than anything is the absurdity of the advertisers response on this. They watch the ratings and public response, and when and if they deem it a PR issue, they suddenly become aghast. How silly does that sound when said that way? But that is exactly what is happening in front of our eyes on this very issue. If it was so very bad, they would have come out against it immediately and the firing would have been over and done by now. They would not have to wait until they see the economic effect. But then, that's what it's really about, isn't it?
Looking at the headlines every day, sometimes I can't help but wonder, why do they (insert your headline source here) feel that it's ok to do that.
Here is one that I really struggle with. Why did the captors of a US news reporter feel it was ok to kidnap, torture, and then behead someone, but then the same people who cheered at that caused a huge uproar over a cartoon that could be considered disrespectful to Islam?
What about the rights of the man kidnapped?
Measure the response of the world to the kidnapping and beheading (pick your instance, there have been many), then think for a bit about the response of the radical Islamic world to a simple cartoon. It seems a little out of balance, does it not? Especially when other religions are parodied on a regular basis.
Since the response of the radical Islam world was so violent over a cartoon, would not it be appropriate in their book to have a similar, if appropriately escalated, response to their actions? Why is it that the world seems in such a hurry to apologize when cities are being torn apart in the violence of the response? What about the response? Is that not something to be upset over? Where does it end?
Why is it ok to act like that?
Please note: I am Not advocating a violent response on any course. I am questioning the logic, or extreme lack thereof, that has been demonstrated here, and time and time again. I do not believe that violence is the answer to this. I do not profess to have the answer, hence, the question Why?
How, I wonder, do all the millions of followers of Islam who are not radical fundamentalists, but rather peace loving people who respect their fellow persons feel about this? I suppose a little like I feel when I hear about some Christian Fundamentalist doing something crazy in the name of God... What God do they serve I wonder?
