"Calling" to me used to involve me deciding what I would do with my life based on some of my primary motivators: wealth, power, security. Looking at my old essays from applications for colleges and scholarships, I read about how this applicant is going to follow a very detailed plan that will result in having great influence and doing much good in the world.
As I grew in my faith which is inextricably intertwined with my culture, "calling" became a secure framework through which I could view the world. If I knew that what I was contemplating was aligned with the "will of God," then I could have confidence moving forward in it. And if I knew that it wasn't, then the opposite would be true. That paradigm, however, left me second guessing myself depending on the outcomes.
Most recently I am landing on a definition of "calling" partly based in the Biblical book of Ecclesiastes Chapter 9, verses 7 - 10:
"7 Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do. 8 Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil. 9 Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun— all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun. 10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom."
So I've decided not to use the word "calling" anymore as it relates to my vocation or even my day to day decisions about what to do and where to go in life. There are two reasons:
1) I don't know what the will of God is for me or anybody else in any given situation. God does speak and I am indwelled with the Holy Spirit so I do have some inkling, but seldom do I know the entirety of God's will. Unfortunately, however, historically I have acted as if I did see the entire picture.
2) It makes sense that a Father would give his children a lot more freedom than the structure I had previously associated with God and "calling." I try to instill values in my daughters. Beyond that, I'm going to simply encourage them to be whoever they want to be and to do whatever is aligned with the verses in Ecclesiastes: those things that bring them joy, that involve working hard, that include living righteously. I'm not going to present them with some predetermined path that they have to go down for fear of an alternative leading to disaster. That said, I will also try to keep them from disaster, not from failure. So it makes sense that a loving Father God would treat me similarly.
3) "Calling" in the Bible is usually referring to a "calling" to some quality of character or sense of belief as opposed to some function. We have twisted the definition to fit our own lack of faith and need for security.
In just the recent days, I have already found so much freedom in this new view of "calling" and I have seen how much of my everyday language and living was informed by a skewed view of "calling."
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Theology of Sacrifice
When someone asks a Christian, "why did Jesus have to die?" the response is typically one of two things: 1) "because there had to be a sacrifice for sin;" or 2) "because God loved us." Or when you read Chapter 3, verse 16 of the Book of John in the Bible, there are two ways to read it: 1) For God so loved the world that he gave his only son so that whoever believes in Him would not perish, but have eternal life; or 2) For God so loved the world that he gave his only son so that whoever believes in Him would not perish but have eternal life. Why do you think Jesus died? Where do you put the emphasis in the verse, John 3:16?
Imagine being a son who has a very wealthy father and you work your fingers to the bone in hopes of winning his approval. Then you have your younger brother leave the family early with his inheritance and squander it on fast living. But your brother comes back hat-in-hand and your father lavishes more riches on him. How would you feel. Angry? Bitter? Absolutely.
Your father sees your emotion and you tell him about your sacrifice and lack of reward. He responds with, "but I never asked you to sacrifice. You are always with me and everything I have is yours. You could have just asked for whatever you wanted and I would have given it to you; no sacrifice required." Then how sad and frustrated would you be at your "wasted" sacrifice.
The only sacrifice that the Christian God asks of people is a "broken and contrite heart." He wants us to acknowledge that we need Him. He wants us to love Him and know His love. There is no other sacrifice required. As was the elder son with his father, we are always with God and everything He has is ours.
Imagine being a son who has a very wealthy father and you work your fingers to the bone in hopes of winning his approval. Then you have your younger brother leave the family early with his inheritance and squander it on fast living. But your brother comes back hat-in-hand and your father lavishes more riches on him. How would you feel. Angry? Bitter? Absolutely.
Your father sees your emotion and you tell him about your sacrifice and lack of reward. He responds with, "but I never asked you to sacrifice. You are always with me and everything I have is yours. You could have just asked for whatever you wanted and I would have given it to you; no sacrifice required." Then how sad and frustrated would you be at your "wasted" sacrifice.
The only sacrifice that the Christian God asks of people is a "broken and contrite heart." He wants us to acknowledge that we need Him. He wants us to love Him and know His love. There is no other sacrifice required. As was the elder son with his father, we are always with God and everything He has is ours.
Big Three Bailouts
Why the big three? The front page of USA Today on November 17th showed GM canceling its car show and cutting down on office expenses. Let's see, that's approximately two years after the economy started to slow down and it's decades after the last oil shock that would inevitably be repeated and its years after Toyota and Honda were pouring billions of dollars into R&D for more fuel efficient vehicles. In my company, from employees to owners, we started taking pay cuts two years ago to be able to get through the coming tough times. Did we have great foresight? No, as a matter of fact, we were late. How could GM with all its analytical and leadership ability claim that there was a precipitous fall in revenue. Alan Mulally, CEO of Ford, said in the November 27th Seattle Times article, "when you have your sales volume and revenue come down so much, you can't cut costs fast enough to survive." In the car industry, it has been coming for almost forty years, since the last major oil shock. They missed it because of the same reason I missed it for my company (got closer than GM did), because of greed and a hope that things would continue to go up.
Hind sight is 20-20, but what matters is where do we go from here. The big three are too big to disappear, but not too big to fail. They have already failed. Everybody who has anything invested in them should lose every penny that they have invested. Debt holders should get pennies on the dollar for their loans. Management should be sacked and the companies assets (capital and human) should be used as a foundation to rebuild great globally competitive companies. The simple question is what is the best way to execute the above. Is it through the bankruptcy process or through some other government led means. All the hype about "bankruptcy" and "too big too fail" is just political hype. The stark reality is what I've described above. I hope that our government leaders have the wherewithal to execute on it.
Hind sight is 20-20, but what matters is where do we go from here. The big three are too big to disappear, but not too big to fail. They have already failed. Everybody who has anything invested in them should lose every penny that they have invested. Debt holders should get pennies on the dollar for their loans. Management should be sacked and the companies assets (capital and human) should be used as a foundation to rebuild great globally competitive companies. The simple question is what is the best way to execute the above. Is it through the bankruptcy process or through some other government led means. All the hype about "bankruptcy" and "too big too fail" is just political hype. The stark reality is what I've described above. I hope that our government leaders have the wherewithal to execute on it.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Leadership is Love
Sounds warm and fuzzy, but love and warm and fuzzy don't always go together. If you want people to follow you, love them. It's as simple as that. The rub is in the definition of love.
It's the love talked about by the Biblical Apostle Paul in 1st Corinthians, Chapter 13 verses 4 through 8: "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails."
It's amazing how much grace there is among subordinates for a leader who loves them. They pick up the slack, they look out for the leader, they work around his or her failings and incompetence.
I recently led a week long company team building trip in the Canadian Rockies. We created an environment where team mates were able to be vulnerable with one another and share openly and honestly about everything from their secret hopes and dreams to some of their deepest hurts and failures. During this week, these men learned more of what it looks like to love and therefore to lead. They learned about what it looked like to love themselves, their colleagues, their subordinates, their families and their God. Each one of them returned as a stronger leader in every aspect of his life because he had learned more how to love.
The trip changed my entire perspective on leadership training. Leadership training isn't simply about training in how to make good decisions or how to think clearly under stress or how to train people or any of the hundreds of other components of leadership. It is foremost about teaching leaders how to love, starting with themselves.
If you are still questioning this "philosophy" of leadership, consider those incredibly unique teams that have achieved greatness on small and large scales. The one characteristic that each exhibits is a deep love among the individual members of the team, even above the mission of the team itself and certainly above any self interest. The military combat team is the best example. The members don't fight for their country or for their mission. They fight because they love their "buddies" and because their "buddies" love them. If you love somebody with a 1st Corinthians Chapter 13 kind of love, he will be compelled to love you and if someone loves you, by definition he trusts that you have his best interests at heart. That kind of love will follow a leader anywhere he goes.
For more of Dano's thoughts on leadership, see his article in the Wharton Leadership Digest.
It's the love talked about by the Biblical Apostle Paul in 1st Corinthians, Chapter 13 verses 4 through 8: "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails."
It's amazing how much grace there is among subordinates for a leader who loves them. They pick up the slack, they look out for the leader, they work around his or her failings and incompetence.
I recently led a week long company team building trip in the Canadian Rockies. We created an environment where team mates were able to be vulnerable with one another and share openly and honestly about everything from their secret hopes and dreams to some of their deepest hurts and failures. During this week, these men learned more of what it looks like to love and therefore to lead. They learned about what it looked like to love themselves, their colleagues, their subordinates, their families and their God. Each one of them returned as a stronger leader in every aspect of his life because he had learned more how to love.
The trip changed my entire perspective on leadership training. Leadership training isn't simply about training in how to make good decisions or how to think clearly under stress or how to train people or any of the hundreds of other components of leadership. It is foremost about teaching leaders how to love, starting with themselves.
If you are still questioning this "philosophy" of leadership, consider those incredibly unique teams that have achieved greatness on small and large scales. The one characteristic that each exhibits is a deep love among the individual members of the team, even above the mission of the team itself and certainly above any self interest. The military combat team is the best example. The members don't fight for their country or for their mission. They fight because they love their "buddies" and because their "buddies" love them. If you love somebody with a 1st Corinthians Chapter 13 kind of love, he will be compelled to love you and if someone loves you, by definition he trusts that you have his best interests at heart. That kind of love will follow a leader anywhere he goes.
For more of Dano's thoughts on leadership, see his article in the Wharton Leadership Digest.
Travels to Rwanda
On the plane leaving Rwanda after 18 hour whirlwind tour. Regarding this trip, I have spoken with at least three very successful Christian businessmen and one senior political leader regarding the opportunities in Rwanda. To the individual, they have all told me not to focus on serving the poor, that there isn’t a business model that will be sustainable. The government doesn’t have enough resources to do everything so it has to focus on what has the biggest bang for the buck. In some scenarios, that includes razing higher density poorer peoples’ housing in order to build lower density housing for the burgeoning middle class. They each told me in some form or fashion that economic development theory and practicality proves that you have to invest in the country and grow the economy in aggregate in order to increase the tax base. This puts more money into government coffers which can then (maybe generations from now) be poured back into services for the less fortunate.
How do I reconcile that with these Proverbs 22 and 23 verses:
22:16: He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich-both come to poverty. We can claim that it isn’t oppressing the poor to kick them off their land and we can claim that it isn’t for the sake of increasing our own wealth, but I guarantee we wouldn’t be doing it if it wasn’t increasing our wealth.
23:10: Do not move an ancient boundary stone or encroach on the fields of the fatherless, for their Defender is strong; he will take up their case against you. God loves every individual and I don’t believe his model for economic development involves sacrificing one generation for a future generation. But this brings us back to the argument that there are limited resources and they have to be allocated most efficiently in order for a country to develop.
Whose economy are we speaking of? Is it the economy of the allocation of scarce resources or is it the economy of a God who owns the cattle on a thousand hills? What do we believe about God’s miraculous power? We circumvent it when we make choices that put the power in our hands.I believe that there must be a way to honor the poor today, not in the next generation. And as a side note, I’m done using the phrase, “serve the poor,” because God calls us to honor them, not serve them. Does it require creative business models and people who aren’t solely focused on profit maximization as the purpose of business? Absolutely. Does it depend on a belief in a God who isn’t resource constrained? Absolutely. Is it what we are called to do today? Absolutely. If we don’t, “their defender is strong and he will take up their case against us.”
What is the goal of economic development anyway? Do the Rwandans want their country to become like the United States? We had and still have the same mentality we had when we were going through the industrial revolution. As a developer, I see that now, 200 years later, designing and building spaces that honor the poor is merely an afterthought. Don’t believe the lie that we just have to build a middle class and then we’ll figure out how to honor the poor because we won’t. It has to be an integral part of everything we are doing.
But this perspective is lost on most of our world. I speak of the perspective that propels the soldier to run into enemy fire in order to save his wounded friend, knowing that he will likely die in the process, and probably not even save his friend, but doing it anyway because it is the right thing to do. Rwanda doesn’t have enough resources to honor the poor today (nor does the United States), nor will it 200 years from now. There aren’t economically viable models. To use an adolescent phrase, “so what!” It’s not an option. It’s a command.
How do I reconcile that with these Proverbs 22 and 23 verses:
22:16: He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich-both come to poverty. We can claim that it isn’t oppressing the poor to kick them off their land and we can claim that it isn’t for the sake of increasing our own wealth, but I guarantee we wouldn’t be doing it if it wasn’t increasing our wealth.
23:10: Do not move an ancient boundary stone or encroach on the fields of the fatherless, for their Defender is strong; he will take up their case against you. God loves every individual and I don’t believe his model for economic development involves sacrificing one generation for a future generation. But this brings us back to the argument that there are limited resources and they have to be allocated most efficiently in order for a country to develop.
Whose economy are we speaking of? Is it the economy of the allocation of scarce resources or is it the economy of a God who owns the cattle on a thousand hills? What do we believe about God’s miraculous power? We circumvent it when we make choices that put the power in our hands.I believe that there must be a way to honor the poor today, not in the next generation. And as a side note, I’m done using the phrase, “serve the poor,” because God calls us to honor them, not serve them. Does it require creative business models and people who aren’t solely focused on profit maximization as the purpose of business? Absolutely. Does it depend on a belief in a God who isn’t resource constrained? Absolutely. Is it what we are called to do today? Absolutely. If we don’t, “their defender is strong and he will take up their case against us.”
What is the goal of economic development anyway? Do the Rwandans want their country to become like the United States? We had and still have the same mentality we had when we were going through the industrial revolution. As a developer, I see that now, 200 years later, designing and building spaces that honor the poor is merely an afterthought. Don’t believe the lie that we just have to build a middle class and then we’ll figure out how to honor the poor because we won’t. It has to be an integral part of everything we are doing.
But this perspective is lost on most of our world. I speak of the perspective that propels the soldier to run into enemy fire in order to save his wounded friend, knowing that he will likely die in the process, and probably not even save his friend, but doing it anyway because it is the right thing to do. Rwanda doesn’t have enough resources to honor the poor today (nor does the United States), nor will it 200 years from now. There aren’t economically viable models. To use an adolescent phrase, “so what!” It’s not an option. It’s a command.
Sad about our Country
It's the day after a momentous occasion, the election of the first black President of the United States of America. The global and eternal ramifications of this will most likely far outweigh any of the mistakes that Barak Obama might make in the coming years. What's sad to me is that Americans are so disgruntled with the direction of our country that they simply want change, any change in a direction counter to the current one. They don't need to know the details.
But it's just not true. Based on any kind of objective evaluation, the United States is the greatest country on earth, the most generous, the most powerful, and yes even humble given its strength. Maybe most importantly, America is the only country that is willing to do what is right regardless of the consequences to its own peoples' lives and treasure and regardless of what the rest of the world thinks of us. That's the definition of heroism, not imperialism.
But it's just not true. Based on any kind of objective evaluation, the United States is the greatest country on earth, the most generous, the most powerful, and yes even humble given its strength. Maybe most importantly, America is the only country that is willing to do what is right regardless of the consequences to its own peoples' lives and treasure and regardless of what the rest of the world thinks of us. That's the definition of heroism, not imperialism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
