• The Paradox of Flourishing

    Here at Christian Life Church (soon to be IKON CHURCH) our Vision Statement is simple. HUMAN FLOURISHING: people doing well in every area of life. We believe that if we are successful in our work this will be the result.

    In his latest book, Strong and Weak: Embracing a Life of Love, Risk and True Flourishing, Andy Crouch examines what it means to flourish as a human being, he writes.

    “What are we meant to be? We are meant to flourish—not just to survive, but to thrive; not just to exist, but to explore and expand.”

    img_0009In order to actually embody that answer, Crouch believes we have to grasp the underlying “paradox of flourishing.” “Flourishing comes from being both strong and weak,” he writes, requiring us to “embrace both authority and vulnerability, both capacity and frailty – even, at least in this broken world, both life and death.”

    In truth, most of us tend to elevate one to the detriment of the other, relishing in abuse of power or pursuit of poverty.

    Yet as humans created in the image of God, and as citizens of an upside-down Kingdom, we are called to embrace and combine each together. Such is the path to real life and abundance, both in the now and not yet.

    To understand such a paradox, Crouch argues, we have to reexamine our definitions of authority and vulnerability. Using a 2×2 chart (see below) to demonstrate his point, Crouch explains that, when rightly ordered and properly understood, its a mixture that paves the way to an abundant life.

    IMG_0281When we think about authority, for example, we can often fall into traps of exploitation or withdrawal. Rightly understood,

    Godly authority is something quite different: “the capacity for meaningful action.”

    When you have authority, what you do, or do not do, makes a meaningful difference in the world around you…This authority, uniquely ours as the image bearers of God, is a gift in every way. It does not come from our own autonomous selves—it is given by Another. And it is good. The sorrow of the whole human story is not that we have authority, it is the way we have misused and neglected authority. Our drive for authority – our sense of frustration when we are denied it, or our sense of grief when we lose it – comes from its fundamental goodness.

    So authority is meant to characterize every image bearer – even the most vulnerable. As infants, long before we could provide for ourselves in any way, we learned that we were capable of meaningful action. We emerged from the womb and instinctively sought to recognize a human face. We learned that others would give meaning to our cries.

    When we think about vulnerability, on the other hand, we often fall into traps of glorified suffering or (again) withdrawal. A pursuit of vulnerability is not one that idolizes weakness as a good in itself, but one that values “exposure to meaningful risk.”

    The vulnerability that leads to flourishing requires risk, which is the possibility of loss – the chance that when we act, we will lose something we value. Risk, like life, is always about probabilities, never about certainties. To risk is to open ourselves up to the chance that something will go wrong, that something will be taken from us – without knowing for sure whether that loss will come to pass or not.

    To be vulnerable is to be exposed to the possibility of loss – and not just loss of things or possessions, but loss of our own sense of self. Vulnerable at root means woundable – and any wound deeper than the most superficial scratch injures and limits not just our bodies but our very sense of self. Wounded, we are forced to become careful, tender, tentative in the way we move in the world, if we can still move on our own at all. To be vulnerable is to open oneself up to the possibility – though not the certainty – that the result of our action in the world will be a wound, something lost, potentially never to be gained again.

    When we combine each of these together, we’re reminded of the upside-down economics of the Kintron, and it yields plenty of implications for our personal lives. But in telling us something about the needs and dreams of the human person, such a framework offers plenty of hints for how we ought to structure and imagine our society:

    The same psalmist who celebrated human dominion over the creatures also was capable of looking up into the heavens and grasping what they meant for the significance, or insignificance, of our small and transitory lives…I have come to believe that the image of God is not just evident in our authority over creation – it is also evident in our vulnerability in the midst of creation. The psalm speaks of authority and vulnerability in the same breath – because this is what it means to bear the image of God…

    When authority and vulnerability are combined, you find true flourishing. Not just the flourishing of the gifted or affluent, but the needy and limited as well…

    In the end, this is what love longs to be: capable of meaningful action in the life of the beloved, so committed to the beloved that everything meaningful is at risk.

    So how do we structure a society or communities of faith that cultivate the conditions for such flourishing, keeping the underlying paradox in mind? How do we foster institutions of culture and government that recognize human capacity and create room for “meaningful action”? How do we embrace “exposure to risk” as a value, also using our power, authority, and dominion to protect and nurture and disciple the most vulnerable?

    “If we want flourishing, this is what we will have to learn,” Crouch concludes. “What we will have to unlearn, and be saved from, are our failures of authority, vulnerability or both.”

  • Fasting is Becoming Big Business

    BY DANA G. SMITH
    15.03.17
    A friend of mine recently tried the 5:2 Diet—in which you consume 500 calories two days per week but eat normally the other five days. “It sucked,” she says. “I didn’t feel any mental clarity, I felt weak and confused. It was also awkward socially because you can’t really do anything on those days. You just want to go to sleep and have the day be over.”

    But it probably made her healthier. While many diet or body-hacking fads are backed by dubious science at best (see coconut oil pulling), the trend of fasting to improve mental capacity and increase longevity—not to mention lose weight—is grounded in legitimate and fascinating scientific principles. The benefits of intermittent fasting or extreme calorie restriction range from improved insulin sensitivity to reduced inflammation to the growth of new brain cells.

    Fasting is reported to shrink cancerous tumors, delay aging, and stave off the chronic diseases that accompany it, including heart disease, diabetes, and possibly even dementia.

    But fasting is also really really hard. Even aging researcher and fasting expert Eric Verdin admitted that calorie restriction can be challenging and disruptive to domestic life.

    “I never felt better than when I was on it, but it takes a lot of discipline, especially when you’re busy at work,” says Verdin, who is president and CEO of the Buck Institute for Research on Aging. “It’s also totally asocial. Everything is dictated by the diet. Living with a family and saying no to dinner is hard.”

    Fortunately, as with any hot trend, companies have sprung up to make fasting easier or even unnecessary. And it’s becoming big business. Hundreds of diet and recipe books targeting everyone from beginners to body builders are available on Amazon. There’s even a subset of fasting literature aimed at devout Christians.

    The first calorie-restriction meal delivery service also launched last year. Developed by gerontologist Valter Longo at the University of Southern California, the ProLon Fasting Mimicking Diet offers you five days’ worth of soups, teas, and bars totaling 800 daily calories for just $299.

  • THEOLOGY: Two Trees in the Garden

    Have you ever noticed that in the Genesis story of creation there’s a prominent role given to two trees? We have the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil alongside the Tree of Life, both located in the centre of the Garden. (Genesis 2:9; 3:3)

    The Tree of Life

    This tree was God’s provision to meet our needs and to share his life endlessly

    The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

    This was God’s prohibition against humans overstepping our proper authority and domain. A recognition, that although we have been given authority there is a boundary to how far that authority can reach and be exercised. A realisation that all authority comes from God and therefore is submitted to God, we are meant to exercise our authority under God’s authority.  Therefore:

    To have authority one should be under authority

    IMG_0276No Trespassing

    As part of this scene God places a “No Trespassing” sign on the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Here we are to acknowledge that we are not God and that there are some things that God will keep for himself. By the way, the reason that he does this is our good.

    In God’s plan only he would know good and evil. As creator he has the right to define what is good and what is evil and he knew that if we were to share that right things would become very different, as indeed they did and have.

    For God, the defining of good and evil corresponds to whether something is aligned with his will and purpose.

    The Vandalism of Shalom

    We call this state in the Garden ‘Shalom’ – perfect peace. When humans decided that we wanted to be like God, we wanted to know all that God knew (impossible) and we wanted to judge like God alone can judge, rather than leading to life and loving relationship our actions lead to death. Shalom was shattered.

    Sin according to the Genesis account is the transgression of the proper boundary. We are not satisfied being God-like in our capacity to love; we also want to become God-like in our capacity to judge. – Greg Boyd

    “Do not judge.” Said, Jesus and this was the reason for the “no trespassing” sign on this tree.

    When we judge we lose our capacity to love. We cannot like God balance these two things called love and judgement because our judging becomes critical assessments made from our finite and often biased perspectives.

    Adam and Eve put themselves at the centre of everything rather than just receiving the life at the centre which God had provided for them. They overstepped.

    Let God have what is his and what he wants, because true life flows in that place.

  • What Did Jesus Mean When He Said, “DO NOT JUDGE?”

    Nine out of Ten 20 somethings say that Christians are Judgemental

    What did Jesus mean when he said, “Judge not, and you will not be judged.” It’s one of the most commonly quoted verses from the bible (Luke 6:37). Many of us, and not merely politicians, invoke the verse as a first defense when accused of wrong. It is also a favorite stone thrown by those outside the church to accuse Christians of hypocrisy.

    In 2007 a book was published called UnChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity. It’s based on research done among non-Christian 20-somethings. One of their core findings was that nearly nine out of ten young people view Christians as “judgmental.” And given the prohibition against judging issued by Jesus, this would mean most people view Christians as hypocrites.

    Given these findings, it’s pretty important that both Christians and non-Christians understand what Jesus means when he says “judge not.”

    The key is recognizing that the word judge can be used in two different ways in the New Testament.

    Sometimes judge is used to mean “judge between things,” to differentiate, or discern. In this case we judge between right and wrong, good and evil, righteous and unrighteous.

    But this kind of judging-the act of discernment-is not what Jesus is forbidding. In fact throughout the Bible we are commanded to discern. In the same chapter of Luke 6 and in the very same discourse as the famous “judge not” statement, Jesus talks about having the discernment to see the difference between good people and evil people (Luke 6:43-45). He compares them to trees. Good trees, he says, produce good fruit and bad trees produce bad fruit. The call to differentiate good from evil is to judge, to discern, correctly.

    This is often what get’s Christians into hot water in our uber-tolerant and increasingly diverse culture. When a Christian labels something as “wrong” or “evil” they are often pounced upon as being judgmental and out of step with Jesus. Sometimes this is the case, as I will discuss below, but very often the accusation is the result of a culture that no longer understands the difference between discernment and condemnation.

    F.F. Bruce, a New Testament scholar, explains the linguistic dilemma this way:

    “Judgment is an ambiguous word, in Greek as in English: it may mean exercising a proper discernment, or it may mean sitting in judgment on people (or even condemning them).”

    It is this second definition, to condemn, that Jesus forbids and he makes that clear when the whole sentence in Luke 6 is read: “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned.” Jesus is saying the same thing in two ways-a common rabbinical device at the time.

    He’s calling us to not condemn people, to not pass final judgment and declare them irretrievably guilty.

    This is an incredibly important idea if you understand the context in which Jesus was speaking. The entire culture of his day was predicated on the notion that some people were acceptable and others were not. And the way you defined yourself, your identity and place in the world, was by comparing and contrasting yourself with others.

    So, for example, at that time Jews saw themselves as inherently better or more acceptable to God then non-Jews. They commonly referred to gentiles (non-Jews) as “dogs.” And many Romans had equally dismissive views of the Jews. And these judgments continued even within the each community. Rich people were seen as more blessed and acceptable to God than poor people. The healthy were seen as righteous, and those with diseases or disabilities were judged to be sinners receiving their due.

    This is the judgment that Jesus says is absolutely wrong.

    When we judge/condemn someone we are declaring that they have no value; no worth-that they do not matter to us or God. And we do this as a means of elevating ourselves. The more people pushed below us, the higher in value we must be. Greg Boyd captures the problem of judging really well. He says:

    “You can’t love and judge at the same time,” because “It’s impossible to ascribe unsurpassable worth to others when you’re using others to ascribe worth to yourself.”

    This is the problem Jesus is addressing-the idea that our worth requires someone else’s condemnation.

    Of course this wasn’t just a problem in 1st century Judea. Consider what Martin Luther King Jr. said in one of his sermons. He describes why segregation (a form of exclusion and judgment) is so wrong:

    Segregation is not only inconvenient-that isn’t what makes it wrong. Segregation is not only sociologically untenable-that isn’t what makes it wrong. Segregation is not only politically and economically unsound-that is not what makes it wrong. Ultimately, segregation is morally wrong and sinful. … “It’s wrong because it substitutes an ‘I-It’ relationship for the ‘I-Thou’ relationship and relegates persons to the status of things.
    Judgment causes us to see the other not as a person, but as a thing-as less human and therefore less valuable. And once we do that to a person, or a group of people, it opens the door to all kinds of terrible evil-segregation, injustice, abuse, even genocide. Jesus is warning us about excluding anyone, or seeing ourselves or our group as inherently better than any other. We may disagree and discern another person or group to be wrong-but when that discernment causes us to value another person or group less, then we’ve crossed the line into judgment, condemnation, and exclusion.

    Obviously there are, and always will be, people and groups that we disagree with theologically, socially, or politically. But we seem to cross that line between discernment and judgment so easily today. In present political rhetoric, or in descriptions of other faiths and nationalities, we quickly devalue or write off “those people” as less valuable. We exclude them from the status that we feel privileged alone to occupy.

    This seems to be the accepted posture on many political television and radio programs. Sometimes these talk show hosts speak about “liberals” as if they’re demonic. Of course many liberal blogs caricature conservatives in equally disturbing ways. If you have strong political views, that’s just fine. Defend your views, disagree with others, engage on the level of ideas-but when we start to condemn those who disagree with our politics, when we see them as intrinsically interferer, we enter dangerous and decidedly unchristian territory.

    When we see other people as wrong, not just about what they believe, but in their core identity as people-then it’s easy to convince ourselves that we don’t have to love them; we don’t have to serve them; we don’t have to respect them. This exclusion and condemnation of others fuels so much of what’s broken in our world today. It’s what convinces one group to kill another; or one person to abuse another.

    But Jesus says, not so with you. Not among my people. The Christian is never to judge, never condemn, never exclude, never to see anyone as without value or dignity-even the person we disagree with most. To quote Greg Boyd again,

    “The Christian’s job is to agree with God that every person you meet was worth Jesus dying for.”

    We cannot ascribe that kind of value and dignity to a person and condemn them as worthless at the same time. It’s just not possible.

    There is no THEM and US just US…

  • Approval is Overrated

    You don’t get better if you are only trying to prove how good you already are.

    Part of me doesn’t like feedback, be honest, neither does part of you.  “Feedback is the breakfast of champions,” sounds great until someone gives you feedback, critical feedback. Even that word, ‘critical’, send shivers doesn’t it. The word however, along with the practice is not necessarily negative, but can be, when given and received correctly, the catalyst for growth and improvement.

    The following is an article about a writer called  Katrina Costoula who experimented with stand up comedy and in the process discovered. APPROVAL IS OVERRATED. It’s packed with great insights that will be well worth your time.

    _________

    Three years ago I called a stand-up comedy instructor to sign up for one of his classes. “I do not like being on stage, and I am not funny,” I said. “Do you think I can still take the class?” Thankfully, he said yes.

    In every lesson, I would stand up in front of my classmates and share my jokes. Feedback was instantaneous: They would either laugh or they wouldn’t. If they laughed, I’d keep the joke for the final showcase performance. If they didn’t, I’d scrap it. I was thankful for this feedback. I didn’t want to embarrass myself at the showcase.

    Most jokes I wrote didn’t make the cut. But by the end of the 10-week program, I had a five-minute set of solid jokes.

    A lot of people look for feedback in their hobbies, but they seek only approval at their jobs.

    I was asked to be the closing act. And to my delight, the audience laughed! A lot. I took the set to open-mic nights, and it was received just as warmly—not bad for someone who’d never heard the words “you are funny” directed at her in her entire life.

    In comedy, I didn’t want to prove I was good. In fact, I knew I was not good. My goal was to learn to get better.

    I’ve noticed that a lot of people look for feedback in their hobbies, but they seek only approval at their jobs. Could it be that companies themselves make it difficult to learn, and push people to look for approval instead of improvement?

    HOW COMPANIES DISCOURAGE LEARNING

    There was no way I could create a good comedy set without feedback. You can never really know if your own jokes are funny. The only way to find that out is to test them in front of an audience. Professional comedians test their jokes in small gigs before they go on a big stage. Done right, feedback can be as useful at work.

    586a795a-a1a7-4777-a029-ac950d0cc6ae-3856-00000e448de606d0_tmp

    It often isn’t. In most workplaces feedback is part of performance reviews. Everyone hates performance reviews. One recent report estimated that 22% of employees would actually call in sick to avoid facing an appraisal.

    What’s more, other researchers suggest that more than half of a given performance rating doesn’t even have to do with the person being evaluated—it hinges on the traits of the person doing the evaluating. If this sounds intuitively right, it’s something that companies themselves are beginning to affirm. In the past few years, major employers have abandoned the annual review. PwC discontinued annual reviews for all 200,000-plus employees as early as 2013. Deloitte, Accenture, and KPMG followed suit.

    One of the troubles with the traditional performance review—linked as it is with raises, promotions, and training opportunities—is that you need to prove you’re already good to be rewarded. So that’s the mind-set with which many of us approach feedback in these experiences. We look for approval and validation, knowing that negative feedback can be used against us, rather than help us grow.

    One of the troubles with the traditional performance review . . . is that you need to prove you’re already good to be rewarded.
    As a result, a lot of us get triggered into a fixed, defensive approach to our work. We hesitate to take the risks that creativity and innovation depend on. Failure doesn’t look good, so we hide our mistakes and become subtly more antagonistic—trying to find ways to win over the “judges,” rather than experiment with methods to improve our work.

    Stanford researcher Carol Dweck has argued that passion for learning, rather than hunger for approval, is where true success is born and sustained.

    Just scrapping performance reviews doesn’t change the fact that the approval of a few people is directly linked to your livelihood. Even with that particular ritual gone, many of us don’t automatically embrace what Dweck has long called the “growth mind-set” that’s needed to truly learn.

    Is there a better way to kick this addiction to approval? How do you keep learning, rather than just trying to show your employer and the world how good you already are?

    APPROVAL SHOULDN’T BE YOUR DRIVING FORCE

    Sometimes, self-promotion really is necessary—like when you need to land your next job, client, or funding, for example. By all means, try to get your bosses on your side. Just don’t let their approval drive you in the process. Here are some reasons why, which stand-up comedy helped me come to terms with:

    It will reduce your risk-taking. To have an impact and improve, you need to get yourself out there. Stand on that stage. Write that article. Cold-call or -email that person. There’s no learning without doing—or without making yourself vulnerable to other people’s judgment in the process. The more interesting work you do, the more haters you will have. Don’t let that stop you.

    It will diminish the pleasure you take in your work. One of the reasons we enjoy our hobbies so much is that we do them for ourselves. Because we want to. Because we enjoy it. We don’t care so much what people think. Wouldn’t it be great to find the same pleasure at work? Choose the projects you enjoy and give them your authentic self. Get into flow and forget others’ opinions.

    The more interesting work you do, the more haters you will have. Don’t let that stop you.

    Approval can be a misleading measure of success. We believe we’ve made it when we get accepted to a great college or graduate program. When we land a job at a prestigious company. When we close a funding round. When we get a promotion. These achievements are just a stamp of approval. They don’t necessarily represent impact or value added. Did we improve people’s lives? Did we build something useful? What’s worse is that our need for recognition is insatiable. We can never have enough.

    In the new economy, the approval of a few gatekeepers becomes less and less necessary.You can self-publish if you’re a writer, freelance if you have the skills, and crowdfund if you have the ideas. The market decides. You can never predict the market’s reaction to your work. You can only focus on honing your craft and putting your best work out there.

    HOW TO EMBRACE FEEDBACK

    Isn’t the pursuit of approval a basic human need, you might ask? The answer is yes. When we’re children, we learn to seek our parents’ approval as a means of survival. That’s why, as adults, negative feedback can trigger us into fight-or-flight mode.

    But however ingrained it may be, that reaction isn’t universal or unchangeable; it often depends on the context. I was surprised by how painless it was to get feedback in comedy, contrary to feedback at work. What makes learning a hobby easier? If you can put your finger on that, you may be able to better embrace feedback in other areas of your life, too.

    These are a few steps you can try:

    Don’t put all your eggs in the job basket. I cherished feedback in comedy because I didn’t see myself as a comedian. The stakes were low. You need to lower the stakes at work to be able to approach it with a learning attitude. If your sense of self-worth (and income) come just from your job, failure and criticism will hurt a lot. Develop your life outside of work—including other streams of income. You’re not just a marketer. You’re perhaps also a parent, a friend, a cook, and a basketball player.

    Adopt an eternal-novice attitude.

    There’s no shame in being a rookie in a new hobby. Try to separate the quality of your output from your identity. Don’t say to yourself, “I am a good marketer.” Say, “I am a marketer who loves the job and keeps getting better at it.” See the difference? Most people overestimate their skills.If you believe you’re already good, you stop learning. And even if you were good in the first place, you can soon become obsolete.

    Strengthen your relationships. You need some people in your life who accept you regardless of the success of your professional endeavors—people who won’t love you any less if you don’t get that promotion or job offer. Surround yourself with them, and you won’t be looking to fulfill your deepest emotional needs through your work, as though your life depends on it. You can embrace your career with a little more playfulness. You’ll welcome feedback just as you do in your hobbies.

    Accept it if it helps you improve, and discard it if not. It isn’t about proving to the world how good you are. It’s about getting better all the time. Have fun. Have a laugh—preferably with others.

    Caterina Kostoula is an executive coach and a global business leader at Google.

  • The Shack is not as heretical as some think.

    The following is a post from Orthodox theologian and author Brad Jersak (PhD).

    HERESY HUNTERS ARE AT IT AGAIN

    Paul Young’s bestseller finally hits the big screen on March 3. That’s news—great news—as I’ll explain shortly.

    What’s not news is how the so-called ‘discernment ministries’ (a euphemism for heresy-hunters) have begun yelping. They’re recycling ‘ye olde’ objections but, typically, barking up the wrong tree.

    The charge of ‘heresy’ is serious, so it ought to be taken seriously, especially by those wielding it. But as an Orthodox theologian, I confess that its sloppy use as a pejorative, grates on my doctrinal nerves.

    For example, the outcry against Young’s creative portrayal of God’s ‘Threeness’ or his imaging the invisible God as a black woman betrays a crass literalism that the author obviously never intended.

    RUBLEV’S TRINITY AND MODERN MISOGYNY

    Russian painter Andrei Rublev’s famous icon of the Trinity (15th c.) would seem to break the same rules as The Shack, where Abram and Sarai’s three angelic guests were eventually identified with Father, Son and Holy Spirit—one God depicted as three persons. Yet in Eastern iconography, the Father is elsewhere never depicted because the visible image of God is reserved for Jesus Christ alone.

    So how is it, I ask, that Rublev’s icon isn’t tossed onto the book-burning stacks along with The Shack? No doubt it would have been if Orthodox believers were incapable of using limited human expressions (words or pictures) for the divine mysteries.

    Those who miss a point so obvious should recuse themselves from the doctrinal judgement seat and perhaps read John of Damascus’ Exact Exposition of Orthodox Doctrine before rendering further verdicts.

    But isn’t it odd that we should have no such eruption when God is rendered in art or literature as a towering white King? Or a great roaring lion? Or a lowly shepherd? Yes, these are biblical metaphors (only) … as is Jesus’ parabolic description of God the woman, urgently scouring her home for the lost coin.

    I’m obligated to ask the question: is the actual shock of The Shack not rooted in racism and misogyny?

    The Father can be a lion, a lamb, a shepherd or a king, but not a black woman or a native American man? The Spirit can be a dove, a fire or a gust of wind, but not an ethereal Asian woman (the Hebrew pronouns for ‘Spirit’ notwithstanding)?

    UNVEILING THE ‘VIOLENT GOD’ HERESY

    But if we must speak of heresy, The Shack ‘goes there.’ It addresses and debunks the actual heresy that depicts God as an angry, wrathful and violent deity. We might consult the great Church Fathers for their verdict. After all, they gave us the doctrines of the Trinity, the full deity of Jesus Christ and the personhood of the Holy Spirit. They composed the ancient creeds and penned an abundance of still-in-print works Against Heresy. What do they say?

    We have space for one example.

    St. John Cassian, in Institutes 8.4, concedes that speaking of God using anthropomorphisms (attributing human traits to God) is necessary because of our limited perspective and language. But he warns us not to literalize anthropomorphisms or we create an idol. Specifically, speaking of God as if he were actually ‘angry,’ Cassian says,

    … these things cannot without horrible sacrilege be literally understood of him who is declared by the authority of Holy Scripture to be invisible, ineffable, incomprehensible, inestimable, simple, and uncomposite, the disturbance of anger (not to mention wrath) cannot be attributed to that immutable nature without monstrous blasphemy.

    So, says Cassian, St. John the Damascene, St. Antony the Great, Athanasius and the great company of Christianity’s founding theologians. And yes, Paul Young as well.

    It’s true: Scripture uses the language of ‘wrath,’ but where do we get the idea that God actually reacts in violence and vengeance? Cassian explains that God’s anger is in the eye of the beholder: “With whatever mildness and gentleness of spirit it [God’s corrective judgement] may be carried out, this is nonetheless considered high wrath and the cruelest anger by those who are to be deservedly punished” (Inst. 8.4.3).

    In other words, when humanity rebels, sinpunishes us, grace corrects us, but the fearfuland guilty project their fears onto God as ‘wrath’ and retribution. He can’t lift a finger without being libeled as a punisher.

    This is why, even today, a Christianity of repressed moralism identifies with an angry God but find The Shack’s Papa unfamiliar and offensive.

    THE SHACK AS ANTI-VENOM FOR RELIGIOUS POISONED VIEWERS

    And this is the front line of the spiritual battle ensuing in a theatre near you on March 3. The Shack wades headlong into the fray, exposing the heresy and idolatry of god the retributive punisher with the one true God who speaks and acts exactly like Christ! The God of The Shack fails to live down to our militaristic, violent, vengeful, patriarchal expectations and theological presumptions.

    Well, that kind of behavior got Jesus crucified, so we shouldn’t be surprised if it gets Young’s movie a few haters.

    And this is precisely why The Shack is so important right now. It unveils toxic representations of God as an emperor with no clothes. And it displaces them with the cruciform God of the Gospels—the self-giving, radically forgiving, co-suffering God of love revealed in Christ.

    In a year when the Sanhedrin in America were guilty of campaigning for a crueler, condemning and more exclusive deity, The Shack movie will be a welcome anti-venom for religion-poisoned viewers who come to behold the face of Love and say, “If God were like that, I’d give him one more chance.”
    Brad Jersak (PhD) is an Orthodox theologian and editor in chief of CWR (Christianity Without the Religion) Magazine. He explores these themes in his book, A More Christlike God: A More Beautiful Gospel.

  • How to Find Your Creative Genius

    As the story goes, Picasso was walking though the market one day when a woman spotted him. She stopped the artist, pulled out a piece of paper and said, “Mr. Picasso, I am a fan of your work. Please, could you do a little drawing for me?”

    Picasso smiled and quickly drew a small, but beautiful piece of art on the paper. Then, he handed the paper back to her saying, “That will be one million dollars.”

    “But Mr. Picasso,” the woman said. “It only took you thirty seconds to draw this little masterpiece.”

    “My good woman,” Picasso said, “It took me thirty years to draw that masterpiece in thirty seconds.”

    Picasso isn’t the only brilliant creative who worked for decades to master his craft. His journey is typical of many creative geniuses. Even people of considerable talent rarely produce incredible work before decades of practice.

    Let’s talk about why that is, and even more important, how you can reveal your own creative genius.

    The Age of Most Nobel Prize Winners

    image

    A recent study tracked the ages of Nobel Prize winners, great inventors, and scientists. As you can see in the graph below, the researchers found that most groundbreaking work peaked during the late thirties — at least a full decade into any individual career. Even in the fields of science and math, creative breakthroughs often require ten years or more or work.

    These findings match the work done by previous researchers as well.

    For example, a study conducted at Carnegie Mellon University by cognitive psychology professor John Hayes found that out of 500 famous musical pieces, nearly all of them were created after year 10 of the composer’s career. In later studies, Hayes found similar patterns with poets and painters. He began referring to this period hard work and little recognition as the “ten years of silence.”

    Whether you are a composer or a scientist, creativity is not a quality you are born with or without. It is something that is discovered, honed, and improved through real work.

    Which brings us to an important question: How can you do your best work and discover your hidden creative genius?

    Permission to Create Junk

    PEOPLE TEND TO LOOK AT SUCCESSFUL WRITERS, WRITERS WHO ARE GETTING BOOKS PUBLISHED AND MAYBE EVEN DOING WELL FINANCIALLY, AND THINK THAT THEY SIT DOWN AT THEIR DESKS EVERY MORNING FEELING LIKE A MILLION DOLLARS, FEELING GREAT ABOUT WHO THEY ARE AND HOW MUCH TALENT THEY HAVE AND WHAT A GREAT STORY THEY HAVE TO TELL; THAT THEY TAKE A FEW DEEP BREATHS, PUSH BACK THEIR SLEEVES, ROLL THEIR NECKS A FEW TIMES TO GET ALL THE CRICKS OUT, AND DIVE IN, TYPING FULLY FORMED PASSAGES AS FAST AS A COURT REPORTER. BUT THIS IS JUST FANTASY OF THE UNINITIATED. I KNOW SOME VERY GREAT WRITERS, WRITERS YOU LOVE WHO WRITE BEAUTIFULLY AND HAVE MADE A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY, AND NOT ONE OF THEM SITS DOWN ROUTINELY FEELING WILDLY ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT. NOT ONE OF THEM WRITES ELEGANT FIRST DRAFTS… FOR ME AND MOST OTHER WRITERS I KNOW, WRITING IS NOT RAPTUROUS. IF FACT, THE ONLY WAY I CAN GET ANYTHING WRITTEN AT ALL IS TO WRITE REALLY, REALLY BAD FIRST DRAFTS.
    —ANNE LAMOTT, BIRD BY BIRD

    In any creative endeavor you have to give yourself permission to create junk. There is no way around it. Sometimes you have to write 4 terrible pages just to discover that you wrote one good sentence in the second paragraph of the third page.

    Creating something useful and compelling is like being a gold miner. You have to sift through pounds of dirt and rock and silt just to find a speck of gold in the middle of it all. Bits and pieces of genius will find their way to you, if you give yourself permission to let the muse flow.

    Create on a Schedule

    INSPIRATION IS FOR AMATEURS. THE REST OF US JUST SHOW UP AND GET TO WORK.
    —CHUCK CLOSE

    Amateurs create when they feel inspired. Professionals create on a schedule.

    No single act will uncover more creative genius than forcing yourself to create consistently. Practicing your craft over and over is the only way to become decent at it. The person who sits around theorizing about what a best-selling book looks like will never write it. Meanwhile, the writer who shows up every day and puts their butt in the chair and their hands on the keyboard — they are learning how to do the work.

    Ira Glass is the host of the popular radio show This American Life, which is broadcast to 1.7 million listeners each week. This is the advice Glass gives to anyone looking to interesting, creative work: “The most important thing you can do is do a lot of work. Do a huge volume of work. Put yourself on a deadline so that every week or every month you know you’re going to finish one story. It is only by going through a volume of work that … the work you’re making will be as good as your ambitions.”

    If you want to do your best creative work, then don’t leave it up to choice. Don’t wake up in the morning and think, “I hope I feel inspired to create something today.” You need to take the decision-making out of it. Set a schedule for your work. Genius arrives when you show up enough times to get the average ideas out of the way.

    Finish Something

    Steven Pressfield’s most famous work, The Legend of Bagger Vance, was a best-selling novel that became a major motion picture starring Matt Damon, Will Smith, and Charlize Theron. But if you ask Pressfield, he will say that his most important book was one that you never heard of: the first book he finished.

    Here’s how Pressfield describes finishing his first novel…

    I NEVER DID FIND A BUYER FOR THE BOOK. OR THE NEXT ONE, EITHER. IT WAS TEN YEARS BEFORE I GOT THE FIRST CHECK FOR SOMETHING I HAD WRITTEN AND TEN MORE BEFORE A NOVEL, THE LEGEND OF BAGGER VANCE, WAS ACTUALLY PUBLISHED. BUT THAT MOMENT WHEN I FIRST HIT THE KEYS TO SPELL OUT THE END WAS SO EPOCHAL. I REMEMBER ROLLING THE LAST PAGE OUT AND ADDING IT TO THE STACK THAT WAS THE FINISHED MANUSCRIPT. NOBODY KNEW I WAS DONE. NOBODY CARED. BUT I KNEW. I FELT LIKE A DRAGON I’D BEEN FIGHTING ALL MY LIFE HAD JUST DROPPED DEAD AT MY FEET AND GASPED OUT ITS LAST SULFURIC BREATH.” [3]

    Finish something. Anything. Stop researching, planning, and preparing to do the work and just do the work. It doesn’t matter how good or how bad it is. You don’t need to set the world on fire with your first try. You just need to prove to yourself that you have what it takes to produce something.

    There are no artists, athletes, entrepreneurs, or scientists who became great by half-finishing their work. Stop debating what you should make and just make something.

    Practice Self-Compassion

    WHEN I WRITE, I FEEL LIKE AN ARMLESS LEGLESS MAN WITH A CRAYON IN MY MOUTH.
    —KURT VONNEGUT

    Everyone struggles to create great art. Even great artists.

    Anyone who creates something on a consistent basis will begin to judge their own work. I write new articles every Monday and Thursday. After sticking to that publishing schedule for three months, I began to judge everything I created. I was convinced that I had gone through every decent idea I had available. My most popular article came 8 months later.

    It is natural to judge your work. It is natural to feel disappointed that your creation isn’t as wonderful as you hoped it would be, or that you’re not getting any better at your craft. But the key is to not let your discontent prevent you from continuing to do the work.

    You have to practice enough self-compassion to not let self-judgement take over. Sure, you care about your work, but don’t get so serious about it that you can’t laugh off your mistakes and continue to produce the thing you love. Don’t let judgment prevent delivery.

    Share Your Work

    WHEN IT COMES TO IDEAS, MOST PEOPLE OVERESTIMATE THE RISK OF PIRACY, AND UNDERESTIMATE THE PRICE OF OBSCURITY.
    —MIKE TRAP

    Share your work publicly. It will hold you accountable to creating your best work. It will provide feedback for doing better work. And when you see others connect with what you create, it will inspire you and make you care more.

    Sometime sharing your work means you have to deal with haters and critics. But more often than not, the only thing that happens is that you rally the people who believe the same things you believe, are excited about the same things you are excited about, or who support the work that you believe in — who wouldn’t want that? [4]

    The world needs people who put creative work out into the world. What seems simple to you is often brilliant to someone else. But you’ll never know that unless you choose to share.

    How to Find Your Creative Genius

    Finding your creative genius is easy: do the work, finish something, get feedback, find ways to improve, show up again tomorrow. Repeat for ten years. Or twenty. Or thirty.

    Inspiration only reveals itself after perspiration.

  • Encouragement – why and how you should give it.

    There’s plenty of books, websites, and leadership resources that talk about the importance of encouragement. As Goethe said in 1768,

    “Instruction does much, but encouragement everything.”

    The following example comes from Phil Cooke who is a media producer, speaker and writer.

    Some time ago, our team was called into a major, national media ministry because they were struggling with a declining response to their television program. For years, their financial support had dropped, and it had been nearly a decade since they’d been in the black. They had simply not adjusted to a changing culture, and needed a wakeup call on how the digital revolution had changed the world.

    It took months of hard work and consulting with the ministry, but in less than a year – and after nearly a decade in the red – we helped them turn things around. Obviously it was a team effort between us and their in-house media, donor development, and leadership teams that ensured the ministry would continue to impact the world.

    At a meeting shortly after, I made it a point to congratulate the ministry team, and tell them what a great job they had done. I followed up with personal emails to encourage them that they were now on the right track, and it had been a wonderful experience working with them.

    Time went by and our Cooke Pictures team went on to other projects.

    Then, unexpectedly at Christmas a couple of years later, I received a Christmas card with a note from a leader on their donor development team. Here’s an short excerpt from that note:

    “I wanted to thank you in writing for an email you sent to me congratulating our team for helping turn the revenue from the ministry’s long downturn. You were the only person who acknowledged this accomplishment, of which you played a vital part. Our entire team was grateful for your kind words and observations. You added an exclamation on my many years of service! I will always be grateful that God allowed our paths to cross.”

    Think about that. At a major, national media ministry, I was apparently “The only person who acknowledged this accomplishment.” It meant enough that years later, she sent me a note.

    so

    Leaders: When was the last time you congratulated your team? When was the last time you noticed great work? It’s not just an emotional touchy-feely thing. A study by Bersin revealed that companies that “excel at employee recognition” are 12 times more likely to enjoy strong business results.

    It’s time to be grateful for the people around you at every level. Take some time today to “tour the factory floor” and tell people how much they are appreciated. Believe me, I don’t need research to tell me that it makes a difference.

    Be Specific: A few years ago my good friend Dave Gilpin spoke about how praise is often blunt whilst criticism is sharp and more effective. His revelation was that criticism is sharp and effective because it is usually specific. When people want to criticise a pastor they say things like, “Your preaching isn’t deep enough.” Whilst when they feel encouraged and that a message has really helped them they might say, “Good message, Pastor.” Dave, encouraged his listeners to always try to be specific with praise so that it would be sharper and carry greater impact.

    Leaders:  Think about how you can give some specific encouragement to your team this week. Don’t just thank them be specific. Use phrases like:

    “I love it when…”
    “You are so good at…”
    “When you do….”

    Finally:
    Hebrews 10:25 “…Encourage one another daily – and all the more as you see the day approaching.”

    1 Thessalonians 5:11 “Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.”

     

  • Martin Luther King on Flourishing

    Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Is a person whose memory is often presented in a kind of secularised version. It would be no exaggeration to say that Dr. King is presented as one of the heroic crusaders for “truth, justice, and the American way,” with the civil rights movement in view as the specific focus.

    This version of events neglects or omits that King never would have been involved in this struggle that cost him his life if he wasn’t “Reverend” Dr. Martin Luther King.

    He would not have continued to pursue the cause of justice if he did not believe God was with him. His Christian commitment was central to his practice of public faith.

    Second, the complicated aspects of King’s life provide yet another opportunity to consider how to evaluate great causes led by flawed people.

    Though some debate exists around whether King had moral failures, it presents a conundrum many of us face: what do we do when our heroes are imperfect? How do we evaluate their public deeds?

    One of the best things we can do when faced with such questions is to seize the opportunity to examine our own motives when evaluating public figures.

    It is easy to condemn those who are not “on our team” and use their failings as a reason to discredit their public actions, while simultaneously finding it easier to make a separation between the failures and grand projects of “our kind of people.”

    A better path is to recognize that ever since Genesis 3, humans have come with a label that says “prone to breakage,” and to recognize that even the best leaders (i.e., all those not named Jesus) have weaknesses, blind spots, and, in some cases, tremendous flaws in character.

    While recognizing this truth, we can also look at what they have done in spite of their brokenness and do our best to evaluate their public actions on their merits.

    Finally, this evaluation of the public actions of heroic figures can prompt us to take a look at our own hopes for society.

    In 1964, Dr. King gave a speech at Drew University entitled “The American Dream.” It includes these words regarding the Declaration of Independence:

    Now one of the first things we notice about this dream is an amazing universalism. It does not say some men, it says all men. It does not say all white men, but it says all men which includes black men. It doesn’t say all Protestants, but it says all men which includes Catholics. It doesn’t say all Gentiles, it says all men which includes Jews. And that is something else at the center of the American Dream, which is one of the distinguishing points, one of the things that distinguishes it from other forms of government, particularly totalitarian systems.

    King continues, saying:

    It [the Declaration] says that each individual has certain basic rights that are neither derived from nor conferred by the state. They are gifts from the hands of the Almighty God. Very seldom if ever in the history of the world has a socio-political document expressed in such profound, eloquent and unequivocal language the dignity and the worth of human personality.

    Dr. King took language foundational to the essence of the country and held it up as a mirror, urging Americans to live up to its ideals.

    Even those critical of the ways King and others wished to bring about changes in society can ask themselves, “What are my hopes for all of the citizens of our country?”

    If Christians believe that the nations in which  live have, at their core, a view of human flourishing emerging from rights bestowed by God and fundamental dignity rooted in human beings as divine image bearers, how do we consider the myriad ways for this vision to become reality?

    For readers of this blog, perhaps a more specific question is, “How do Christians lead the way in helping all humans flourish in every sphere of life?”

    Dr. King was a man compelled by Christian belief. He was imperfect, but also a model of hope in action. America has a national holiday in his honour that can be the occasion for us to become people who model hope by pursuing strategies for flourishing with great vision and creativity.

    If we do so, what will our legacy be decades from now?