It’s about 30 Days until the 2012 Presidential election, and you can really tell.
I’ve tried to not get wound up. I’ve tried to ignore the surround-sound ejeculations of venom. But, it’s hard to not get sucked into all the emotion and survive the cross-fire unscathed.
Big Bird even made the casualty list…Yes, the huge, friendly, yellow character for pre-schoolers on TV. Bear in mind that citizen support will never wane enough to make our feathered friend, or his cohorts, extinct. But, that fact doesn’t cull the madness, does it?
There’s looniness in the air!
It’s a soiling season, so I’ve tried to think of a few way to vitriol-proof myself. Maybe you can share a few tips. Here’s a few I’m using:
1. Unplug.
Short media fasts can reorient me to what’s most important: My regular life, the people nearest to me, and my deepest values that have much to do with Grace.
2. Think long-term.
As much as people “say so-and-so” will ruin everything forever, that’s 95% fear doing the talking. No vote will truly change as much as people say. (Insert which ever name you want to for “so-and-so”, both sides are tooting this horn.) I’m trying to regularly take a few steps back and try to gain wisdom from a more far-sighted perspective. It does help.
3. Feel powerless.
Huh? It may sound ridiculous to say it like that, but seriously, not too much is truly under our control. Admtting this is the first step for me. Changes, for good or for bad, do happen slower than we care to admit. So much is out of our immediate control. Policies, weather, illness, media, cultural hype, and much more. We can control our responses, but not others. We don’t get that much say and the frenzy is proof of that underlying fear.
…which leads me to #4!
4. Be a Duck. A duck is the water foul that has the sort of feathers to make water bead and roll off, not soak in and cause problems. I try to think of this as a way of being. Unflappable. It’s engaged thoughtfulness sandwiched by what’s known in spiritual formation circles, and ancient Christian tradition, as “holy indifference”. That doesn’t mean I’m apathetic, it means I’m centered on the Source of Goodness through faith, and not tossed to and fro by opinions, circumstances, or any perceived impeding doom. (This takes loads of practice for me! I’m passionate, and through practice I’ve started to learn when to let that loose and when to dail it in. Though I fail too much, I continue the effort.)
Have you been effected and affected by these acerbic times?
Are you considered an Exciting Leader or a Consistent one?
It’s hard to balance both.
This is the last post for this week’s topic at the Deeper Leader SyncrhoBlog running September 10-14th. A new topic will be offered up for contributions and discussion later in the month.
Remember, you are invited to add your voice to the greater dialogue too. Go here to get details, a spiffy Badge, and get started. I’ll be sure to check for your link and read your contribution, and others will too.
Once upon a time…
I had a boss. She was a pioneer; she was inspiring.
Back when email accounts were rare, and big companies had to be heartily convinced that a budget for a website wasn’t foolish, she hired me after merely looking at my portfolio and resumé in an email document.
We never met.
There was no on-site interview.
She just called and told me she wanted me after an email exchange. Boom. I was hired.
This was unheard of.
She mentioned this strange and new-fangled hiring fact in a speech to show how fast things were changing through innovations in technology. She was ahead of her time.
I thought working for her would be exciting. We were breaking into new technological territory each day, and she saw a bright future for us. But, she turned out to be capricious and inconsistent. No one knew what she would say or do next. It was hard to follow her or to trust her because she was so unpredictable. Turnover was high and people were often fired as soon as things went wrong.
This is not uncommon in Leadership.
It’s tricky to be a Leader who’s exciting and inspiring and yet one who uses consistent leadership methods that help people follow well.
Leaders, it’s important to be predictable, especially in our character and responses.
If people can’t tell how you’ll react, or if immaturity has you all over the map, your leadership will erode. You’ll lose support. Failure is imminent.
In both of New Gingrich’s recent bids for the White House his team complained that while he had inspiring and innovative ideas, he was hard to follow. He’d bounce from one objective to another and go with his gut without communicating what he was thinking or going to do. At one point a mass exodus happened in all the top positions of his campaign. Poor leadership.
On the other hand, someone like long-time politician Bob Dole was so consistent that he was utterly uninspiring to those he hoped to lead. He failed to generate enough excitement for his ideas. No momentum. Failure.
Inspiring vision beyond current circumstances is vital.
The balance is a tough skill set to master. It comes through trail and error and personal growth.
Check yourself.
Are you both inspiring and consistent?
How could you even this out?
Read the 4 other entries for this Leadership Week series, and please pass along a link to this page so others can tap into the information.
What happens when a Leader imposes a term limit on him or herself?
A few things and they’re all good.
Again today, I’m a Contributor at the Deeper Leader SyncrhoBlog that runs September 10-14th.
You are invited to add your voice to the greater dialogue too. Go here to get details, get your spiffy Badge, and get started! I’ll be sure to check for your link and read your contribution, and others will too.
George Washington had a brilliant idea about his job as a leader: impose term limits
Although George Washington had the character and credibility to be President as long as he desired, he saw the dangers inherent in keeping the same position of leadership for too long.
It’s rare that a leader will have the wisdom to limit his or her position, but it creates some things vital to the long-term success of the organization.
A corruption of power is the most obvious reason leadership needs limits, but some other vital reasons apply.
Freshness A organization is essentially locked into the era in which it was created. Organizations naturally lose momentum. Most Presidents accomplish far less in their second term, and shakeups at companies are sometimes the only thing that truly incite needed positive growth. Apple is a prime example. When Steve Jobs left Apple he gained perspective. It floundered without him, but when he return success was assured. Most leaders grow complacent or uninspired as time goes by, even without knowing it. Having a break is good.
THIS IS CRITICAL to KNOW:
The ability to evolve and adjust to changing times and circumstances decreases the longer that organization exists. The tendency to stay with what has worked works against innovation and growth. Two things that are critical to organizational health, development, and future success.
Authentic Succession
A planned shift in leadership energizes a group and creates opportunities for new vision. Studies, like this one, show that most organizations don’t have any legitimate succession plans, even at places where CEOs only last for 3-5 years.
Churches do the same sort of thing, but far worse. They don’t see that new leaders take over and move into position until a big problem or gap exists. Crisis mode determines succession in most cases. It’s regrettable.
Commitment If you knew that your leadership post, say in a church or in a community organization, would only last 2 years, would it make it easier to accept the position? Would you put in more devotion and energy knowing that you were installed for a set time? I know I would! Sometimes positions of leadership are simply filled by the closest warm body who’s willing to do it, not by the most talented person for the job.
Organizations often find it difficult to get dedicated leaders, but sometimes this is because commitments necessary for the job are vague or appear too long-term to be desirable. The most talented person passes on the offer to lead. But what if the norm was term limits? What if you could tell an upcoming leader, “You’re perfect for this job, and we need a full commitment for a year, and then we’ll let someone else have a turn.”?
Accountability Nothing improves performance more than when a person has boundaries and healthy oversight. It’s said that the Broadway Show Spiderman, which spent over $80 million and nine years in production, was a total flop because creative limits and other typical boundaries weren’t never in place. It failed to open six times. When it didn’t it was plagued with problems.
With free-reign productivity falters and needed decision aren’t made.
Boundaries on time, resources, and other parameters actually help, not hurt, projects and organizations. Creativity and resources focused on solving specific problems that limitations offer. Limitations create tangible possibilities. The result is innovation and progress. A limit on the parameters and length of power is very important too.
So, ask yourself….Where could you limit your power?
misandry |misˈandrē| noun the hatred of men by women
ORIGIN 1940s: from Greek miso- ‘hating’ + anēr, andr- ‘man,’ on the pattern of misogyny.
As promised, I’m covering the female side of misogyny, which is misandry. I call this type of article a “BOOM post”. You have been warned.
I would be remiss to not admit that sectors of feminism are strongholds of misandry. Feminism, though, as many women think of it, is far more general. It has to do with equitable treatment toward women, in business, home life, society in general, and it hinges on the ability, explicitly or implicitly, to have choice (of many kinds) as a basic unalienable right. A wiser person, female or male, will understand, however, that freedom of choice must be balanced with one’s community, not rooted or executed from a selfish starting point.
It seems to me that troubles for either gender will stem from control issues. For men, it may be that they feel somehow impotent in their life, interactions, career path, health, etc. Perhaps the feeling or appearance of weakness is the pivot point.
For women, it may be that they want to be regarded well, and cherished (and I don’t mean in simply an emotional, or fuzzy way. This is more of a cherished at an essential level of being for (female) human flourishing). They want to not feel objectified (which, is disregard), or to relegated to a small box, i.e. a narrow role, a low ceiling limiting personal or career pursuits, an intellectual prejudice.
I find it interesting that body image plays a powerful role for both men and women. Ill-health, lack of fitness, the effects of aging, being fashionable, and certainly other issues influence personal issues of self-worth, emotionally and bodily. They also influence how each gender reacts to the other. Those things hated, or feared in one’s self will be trigger points and irritations all too glaringly visible in the other gender. Spite develops.
I will cover some ways misandry happens among women. Please note I use the word among purposefully, because there seems to be an execution of misandry in a social capacity more than in any other way. For men, they may both take their misogyny on as a personal war, and they may find strength in numbers, but women may tend towards a “team strategy”.
For women, physical aggression with misandry is not normative. Rather, it is mental, social, and tactical. Bullying of other female by female happens this way as well. The tendency may to manipulate, rather than misogynistic tendency to (in some respect) conquer or master (perhaps with resources, people, money, intellectual pursuits, empire, and including areas of competencies and skills). (I’m speaking quite generally, please bear with me.) Women seem more socially powerful, while men seem more dominant. Perhaps a good analogy is to say influential in contrast to jurisdictional.
For some general information, I will note 6 areas ripe for, or given to misandry. (Please note that these same areas are ones of great good, effectuality, and ministry if they are not perverted by selfishness and sin. Yes, the same goes for males.) Steps should be taken to purify and strength these venues through the Holy Spirit, and his Fruit, not disable or disband them.)
1. Gossip as bonding.
2. “Tribal Culture” (if you will) of malcontent.
3. A “sick clique” (more on this is a later post) It has to do with venting, fault finding, griping. For men, the counterpart might be verbal attacks or passive aggression. But, this also can and does happen with females.
4. Platforming (A leader or leaders pumping up/motivating a like-minded group)
5. Subversion of Systems (rather than negotiation)
6. Rebellion (overt or covert/and sometimes unintentionally) to authority, powerful groups, institutions, concepts, norms in question.
Often man-hating patterns are established in the context of a social group norm. There may be a retaliation tenor, as well. A pecking order type of culture may subtly and socially pressure its affiliates to employ a particular attitude. Acceptance in the group will be linked to the propagation and use of this structure, and its attitudes. Bear in mind, unlike many times with males, this all happens as sub-context, and is almost always implied, not vocalized.
(There are others areas. I welcome your additions, or specific ideas or comments on them.)
To expose the flaws and missteps among women is to set myself up as an enemy of women, and undermine some of the great and vital gains women have made societally to achieve appropriate equality. Quite a few people, whether they will admit it, or not, believe a certain amount of misandry seems justifiable because of humanity’s long history of abuse and antipathy toward the female gender. In recent, postmodern times, the female voice (or story), as well as many other historically-marginalized groups, has been given new validity and attention.
It is not my intent, of course to sabotage any positive and rightful gains for females. I do believe these rectifications have been sorely overdue, and really have not yet been accomplished. And what a sad commentary on the Christian assimilation of the ministry of Christ, and the human expression of the redemptive nature of the gospel.
To women, I say, we can be secure and mature enough to take on and strength whatever weaknesses we may have that are causing injury of harm to the body of Christ. We can work toward a better way, healing, and unity. As for you males, please read this all compassionately, and let it help you understand women’s weaknesses and strengths better. There is responsibility that comes with know more, so I trust you to use this new knowledge for good not evil.
I mention all of this, not to divide any of us from each other, or to give us weapons to beat each other with, but rather to call out areas of potential growth. Then, we can call them into question ourselves (men and women), confess before God, humble ourselves to each other in love and service, and work toward unity, reconciliation, and enacting God’s glorious Kingdom Come. God transcends gender, and our petty hang ups and weaknesses. It is in God’s strength and grace that we may be fashioned as new creatures that reflect God’s good character and nature.
I would have loved to make this whole article somehow more jocose (or humorous at all), because that’s usually how I roll, but I couldn’t switch gears, adapt and integrate that writing style on this one. Don’t expect such seriousness in any following installments on this, or any topic. (There’s only so much of this trajectory I can take, before I have to insert more cheer.) :)
This Sunday is my final lesson in the Route 66 Series (Adventures in Spiritual Formation). I will be reviewing the last 11 weeks (briefly), and then capping it off with an examination of the passage of what has come to be called, The Lord’s Prayer. And we will pray it communally as well. It’s a Christian unity thing.
Do you have any questions or concerns about the Lord’s Prayer?
Here’s a tiny excerpt from a seminary research paper I did of the theology, literary structure, and message of The Lord’s Prayer.
…The Lord’s Prayer comes as the centerpiece in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7:29) in which Jesus lays out what is vital for citizens in the Kingdom of God. Early in the Christian movement, the practice of saying the Lord’s Prayer before Communion (weekly) and [typically] praying it three times per day is documented. It formed a “token of their identity as Christians,” and was also called, the “prayer of believers”.1
The elements of adoration in The Lord’s Prayer propel us to appreciate God’s immanence and transcendence: a theological fundamental. God is hallowed, his kingdom heavenly, his earthly kingdom is both current and imminent. His kingdom will be forevermore.
The worship and adoration of God is crucial in prayer, and in this Prayer, not just because God is most worthy of it, but because we are spiritually formed by our saying, believing, and embracing those truths. We commune with God, and know him more fully as this reality is further congealed in our minds each time this is lived out.
Theologian Kevin Vanhoover contends that in praying the Lord’s Prayer we together experience our Father, our common sonship, and common our inheritance with Jesus. It is precisely the communal aspect of adoring that helps us to be ordered rightly. Furthermore, Vanhoozer states that when praying in this manner with Jesus, we participate in the family of God, and acknowledge God as Lord, while acknowledging oneself as contingent in the filial relationship made possible by the Son of God and the Spirit of adoption.2
1 Jeremias Joachim, The Prayers of Jesus. Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series 6 (Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, Inc., 1967), 63, 78.
2 Kevin J. Vanhoozer The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 225.
Literary Structure of the Sermon on the Mount (proposal) Literary structure/pattern and use of the Lord's Prayer Matt. 6:9-15. (proposal)
Ranker, hype, and vitriol.
