A friend of mine alerted me to a rather alarming section of a recent sermon given in Phoenix where the speaker gave a rather sarcastic commentary, laced with invective, against those who would depart from human traditions based on supposedly new understandings from the Bible. In every generation there is a struggle between the Word of God, and its sharply worded commands, and the wishes of entrenched hierarchies who wish to pass down received traditions that supposedly spring from apostles and prophets but are mediated through priests or pastors according to their own biases, seeking to defend their positions rather than the truth entrusted to them from above. It is for that reason that true believers must continually come out of Babylon because of the corruption that constantly assails all human organizations and societies.
If we are to refresh our spirits in these dark times, we must drink from the living waters of Christ, and every generation anew must find in those Words of precious truth the sword of the spirit to cut down the arguments of those who oppose God's way in practice, however much they may claim to support Him in theory. The Bible, far from being obsolete, speaks to the very concerns we deal with in life, though we do not often see it because few people are willing and able to face the harsh light of truth that the scripture has to say about human relationships and obedience to God's laws. One must remember there are two great commandments: to love God with all our heart and all our mind, and to love our neighbor as ourselves.
These two great commandments lead into two essential and difficult elements of true religion. True religion must be in conformity to God's ways. If we are truly called, and truly a part of God's church (that is, the spiritual organism), we will behave in accordance with God's law, or at least have that as our target, and admit when we (often) fall short of it. When someone, no matter what their title or position, or whatever their claim of obedience to God, mocks divine commands and calls those who point out scriptures previously neglected (though never new, for what is true has always been true, and therefore there is really no such thing as a "new truth") as rebels and blasphemers, followers of the doctrines of demons, such a person does not speak with God's Holy Spirit, but rather slanders God's servants and holds himself as a judge of souls, only to find himself condemned.
The second obligation of true religion is no easier to accomplish, loving our neighbor (which means everyone else we happen to come across) as we regard ourselves. If we have an accurate knowledge of ourselves, we will see that we have dignity in that we are children of the Most High God, and we will see the depravity that all of us share as fallen sons of Adam. Such mixtures of dignity and depravity we see in ourselves (if we are honest) are also present, in varying quantities and qualities, in everyone else as well. No one is above the curse of sin and the suffering that results from a fallen nature, and no one is below the dignity of being a child of God. We are all struggling humans alike, whether we realize it or not. None of us has any place for shame, for all of us were put here for His purposes, and none of us has any place for glorying in ourselves, for God alone has the glory--solo gloria Dei.
We can only know these things, though, from a knowledge of the scriptures. It was the scriptures that the wise Bereans searched to prove whether Paul was truly speaking correctly in his messages. It was the scriptures (probably Deuteronomy) that Josiah the righteous king of Judah looked in to see the harrowing judgment about to fall upon his idolatrous nation that God mercifully allowed him not to see. It was the scriptures that inspired men like William Tyndale to risk their lives to translate these good words for the spiritual building up of their fellow human beings trapped in ignorance to vain and corrupt priests who claimed that the church was infallible and that only they had the right to read the scriptures and interpret it. They were wrong--no human church is, ever has been, or ever can be infallible. So long as we are human beings serving other human beings, there will be some area we fall short in, some way to improve, some aspect of our knowledge that is incomplete, or that we give too much credence to human traditions and false interpretations taught by well-meaning people that were nonetheless just as flawed (and hopefully just as sincere) as we are.
It is for that reason that we must ever be willing to look to the Word of God for reproof and instruction, for we are never too wise to learn something new or so knowledgeable that we have no need of further instruction, nor so good that we have no need of further correction. The more a wise person knows, the more they are aware of their ignorance, and the more aware they are of their fallen and sinful nature that they must struggle with constantly. It is only an errant fool that considers themselves all-knowing and all-good, and above any accountability to others or to the scriptures. It is not merely a matter of seeking a private word to God that makes us superior to others, but rather a matter of letting ourselves remember that we are all to be held accountable to the standard of God's word.
It is, incidentally, for this very reason that God commands us to fellowship with other people. We all have, by virtue of our experiences and personalities, and differing quantities and usage of different talents and gifts, some areas where we excel and some where we struggle. Without a close awareness of where our gifts can help someone else with a shortfall in a given area, and a close awareness of our shortfalls that need help from other people who are blessed in that particular area (let none of us suppose we are without them), we fall into the trap that says that we are blessed and others have to follow our example, but we have nothing to learn from them, and no use for them except as followers of us. There is no believer, no matter how old or how young, how intellectual or how unlearned, how patient or how much in a hurry, how fast or slow, how wealthy or how poor, how healthy or how frail, that we cannot learn from and that we cannot teach.
What we lack, more than anything, is that spiritual sight that looks beyond the superficial and physical things, the pretty titles and vain use of power and the bully pulpit, and that examines the spiritual heart within ourselves and others. Let us be less proud of our own thoughts--all of us--and more interested in learning what God has to tell us, and maybe then we could fight less about stupid things, spend less time on what is not remotely important, and get to the hard work that is helping improve the world one life and one relationship at a time, whether that means forgiving wrongs, not being easily offended, changing our ways that lead to our unhappiness and trouble, taking our pride a few notches down so that we can listen to what other people tell us without becoming angry, and facing ourselves and others as the mixture of good and evil that all of us possess. We cannot, though, reach these heights unless we realize that we have not finished climbing the mountain yet, and are still struggling to find a place for our feet and hands to latch onto on the sheer cliff we have made it our goal to climb. Until we reach the top, we have no cause to think ourselves or our organizations to be without flaw and blemish, for if we were without blemish, we would not need to crow about it, or insult others who pointed out our flaws for good motive or bad, but would rather be living testaments to God's goodness even without speaking a word at all. I wish I were at that point. Perhaps someday.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Biblical Re-enactment Society: A Case Study In Collaborative Leadership
Four years ago, as students at the Ambassador Bible Center, a fellow named Tyler and I co-write a skit for the Lifenets (www.lifenets.org) Charity Auction called "Biblical Re-Enactment Society." The short work (only about ten pages or so) remains the funniest play, by a fairly substantial margin, in my largely serious body of work. My thoughts were directed to this particular skit by an excellent video I recently watched (on http://abc.ucg.org under "Gaining Godly Wisdom, Building Godly Character"), where I saw a humorous skit called "Real Biblical Heroes" that reminded me of my own collaborative script in its use of biblical stories as the fodder for lighthearted humor about human nature and human experience.
Two thoughts came to mind as I reflected upon the "Biblical Re-Enactment Society" skit. The first was about how much fun it was to work on the script with other people. Usually, when I am writing, I sit alone at a computer and type about some melancholy subject or another, often without trying intentionally to be melancholy. However, in writing collaborative works, without trying the works are usually much more light-hearted and funny, much less overwelmingly serious and dark, and are often much more enjoyable in performance with other people. For whatever reason, collaborating brings out a much happier side of my personality than my usual solo writing works. Perhaps this should be a sign that I should write collaboratively more often, though it has been a very unusual practice for me to do so.
The second thought that came to mind is more extended, and is the subject of this paper at large. In life and in my recreational activities (be they writing or playing roleplaying games and so on), I often have serious difficulties with the way in which other people lead. While some people are comforted by strong leadership, as it reminds them of order, for whatever reason (and there are plenty of reasons), the exercise of a strong arm of leadership tends to be taken as a hostile act of war on my part, with serious consequences for my relationships with said authority figures, as well as those others who support them. It is not enough, though, merely to be in opposition to power. Power, like it or not, is something that has to be dealt with, and someone must possess it and use it. The question is not, therefore, whether there is to be power or not, but how it is to be used correctly.
And, as odd as it may seem, the Biblical Re-Enactment Society project has a fair amount to say about the correct uses of power, and how power becomes almost invisible when it is used in a genuinely collaborative effort of shared ownership. Let me explain, in case this seems a bit too unusual. As the lead writer of the skit, I worked at the beginning with a co-writer whose sense of humor was similar to my own, and we created ten pages of written material that followed a group of young people through two scenes (and one "mother" character at the end of each scene) who were attempting to re-enact the scene where Jesus answers the Sadducees concerning a story about a woman who married seven brothers who each died. Even the forms of death were comical, ranging from being shot with an arrow by Roman auxilleries to being stoned to death with stones, which is quite unusual in my body of work (in which death, usually of a tragic nature, is quite prominent).
At the same time Tyler and I were writing this script, another classmate of mine was working on a script for a skit for the same show, about the Robin Hood cycle of tales. In contrast to the collegial working enviornment of my co-author and I, though, he did not seek the interaction of other people with the script. He had a vision for the script and did not desire anyone else to share ownership in it. Needless to say, this created difficulties with the actors and actresses he wished to fill the roles of Maid Marian, Friar Tuck, Little John, and so on. On the contrary, when our script was handed out to the classmates we wished to take on various roles, several of them made suggestions about how they thought they could change their roles to better suit themselves--including some changes in wording, and the addition, in one case, of some very stellar physical comedy. My co-writer and I had no difficulty with these changes, which made the work an even better one (and certainly gave the other students involved a sense of ownership in the project that made it work much more smoothly).
Without realizing it (as I had never been in a position of authority as profound as directing and producing a skit), I had hit upon a handy technique for collaborative leadership. Since it was a charity show skit, I had no money to offer the students I was directing (nor did I receive any myself). What I could offer, though, was the ability of my fellow students to make their roles their own, and that ownership in the roles, and hence in the work itself, was all that was necessary to make the show a success. The other show never even got performed because no one would agree to work alongside a petty dictator who refused to share "creative control." This was a powerful lesson to me.
Since then, there have been a few, but not many, opportunities for me to be in charge of something, but I have not forgotten the importance of allowing other people to own projects. I know for myself that I like to own the projects I work on with other people, at least owning a part that is important to me. Those that present me with plans fully made and partially implemented who seek my support without seeking my input gain neither, but only gain my opposition. Being so intent on owning projects before I can support them, perhaps my inclination to treat others as I wished to be treated (by allowing them to own a project I had originated) was a more profound lesson in how to lead than I had originally thought.
It is somewhat sad, though, that this experience is rare from what I have seen. Far too often people are in a hurry to get something done and fail to ask other people for input on ways to improve the project or its implementation, and so the projects fail for lack of support from those who are affected by the change. I have seen quite a few such projects fail, either through outright revolt against the change, or through the quiet and effective sabatoge of the change by those who were not consulted before the attempted change. It is a shame they were not so wise as to realize that the desire to create and own is present in all of us, and that it if one desires to succeed, it is far better to be open and collaborative about it than to be secretive and proud about owning something all by one's lonesome. Those who do not share their toys play in the sandbox alone.
Two thoughts came to mind as I reflected upon the "Biblical Re-Enactment Society" skit. The first was about how much fun it was to work on the script with other people. Usually, when I am writing, I sit alone at a computer and type about some melancholy subject or another, often without trying intentionally to be melancholy. However, in writing collaborative works, without trying the works are usually much more light-hearted and funny, much less overwelmingly serious and dark, and are often much more enjoyable in performance with other people. For whatever reason, collaborating brings out a much happier side of my personality than my usual solo writing works. Perhaps this should be a sign that I should write collaboratively more often, though it has been a very unusual practice for me to do so.
The second thought that came to mind is more extended, and is the subject of this paper at large. In life and in my recreational activities (be they writing or playing roleplaying games and so on), I often have serious difficulties with the way in which other people lead. While some people are comforted by strong leadership, as it reminds them of order, for whatever reason (and there are plenty of reasons), the exercise of a strong arm of leadership tends to be taken as a hostile act of war on my part, with serious consequences for my relationships with said authority figures, as well as those others who support them. It is not enough, though, merely to be in opposition to power. Power, like it or not, is something that has to be dealt with, and someone must possess it and use it. The question is not, therefore, whether there is to be power or not, but how it is to be used correctly.
And, as odd as it may seem, the Biblical Re-Enactment Society project has a fair amount to say about the correct uses of power, and how power becomes almost invisible when it is used in a genuinely collaborative effort of shared ownership. Let me explain, in case this seems a bit too unusual. As the lead writer of the skit, I worked at the beginning with a co-writer whose sense of humor was similar to my own, and we created ten pages of written material that followed a group of young people through two scenes (and one "mother" character at the end of each scene) who were attempting to re-enact the scene where Jesus answers the Sadducees concerning a story about a woman who married seven brothers who each died. Even the forms of death were comical, ranging from being shot with an arrow by Roman auxilleries to being stoned to death with stones, which is quite unusual in my body of work (in which death, usually of a tragic nature, is quite prominent).
At the same time Tyler and I were writing this script, another classmate of mine was working on a script for a skit for the same show, about the Robin Hood cycle of tales. In contrast to the collegial working enviornment of my co-author and I, though, he did not seek the interaction of other people with the script. He had a vision for the script and did not desire anyone else to share ownership in it. Needless to say, this created difficulties with the actors and actresses he wished to fill the roles of Maid Marian, Friar Tuck, Little John, and so on. On the contrary, when our script was handed out to the classmates we wished to take on various roles, several of them made suggestions about how they thought they could change their roles to better suit themselves--including some changes in wording, and the addition, in one case, of some very stellar physical comedy. My co-writer and I had no difficulty with these changes, which made the work an even better one (and certainly gave the other students involved a sense of ownership in the project that made it work much more smoothly).
Without realizing it (as I had never been in a position of authority as profound as directing and producing a skit), I had hit upon a handy technique for collaborative leadership. Since it was a charity show skit, I had no money to offer the students I was directing (nor did I receive any myself). What I could offer, though, was the ability of my fellow students to make their roles their own, and that ownership in the roles, and hence in the work itself, was all that was necessary to make the show a success. The other show never even got performed because no one would agree to work alongside a petty dictator who refused to share "creative control." This was a powerful lesson to me.
Since then, there have been a few, but not many, opportunities for me to be in charge of something, but I have not forgotten the importance of allowing other people to own projects. I know for myself that I like to own the projects I work on with other people, at least owning a part that is important to me. Those that present me with plans fully made and partially implemented who seek my support without seeking my input gain neither, but only gain my opposition. Being so intent on owning projects before I can support them, perhaps my inclination to treat others as I wished to be treated (by allowing them to own a project I had originated) was a more profound lesson in how to lead than I had originally thought.
It is somewhat sad, though, that this experience is rare from what I have seen. Far too often people are in a hurry to get something done and fail to ask other people for input on ways to improve the project or its implementation, and so the projects fail for lack of support from those who are affected by the change. I have seen quite a few such projects fail, either through outright revolt against the change, or through the quiet and effective sabatoge of the change by those who were not consulted before the attempted change. It is a shame they were not so wise as to realize that the desire to create and own is present in all of us, and that it if one desires to succeed, it is far better to be open and collaborative about it than to be secretive and proud about owning something all by one's lonesome. Those who do not share their toys play in the sandbox alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
