DMIN 547 Distilling a Dream for Leadership: The Nature and Art of Global Leadership / Jason Clark

Russ Pierson

The Not-So-Sleeping Giant
A Review of Collapse by Jared Diamond
#dminlgp #diamond #collapse #china

You think you've got commuting problems, consider this -- in northern China, there has been a mega traffic jam for the past 11 days. At one point traffic was stuck for 60 miles along a highway northwest of Beijing.

—NPR’s Melissa Block, reporting on a Chinese traffic jam on August 25, 2010

*  *  *

Maybe it was the largely-perceived success of the 2008 Olympics, but China has been on everyone’s minds for the past several years. We all know the country is vast, both in terms of population (at least 1.3 billion people, though one source suggested there are at least another 200 million people in rural parts of China that are under-represented in the Chinese census)^[1] and likewise in area. Its economy has been chugging along with double-digit growth for several years in a row as this formerly “sleeping giant” wakens with a start and is sprinting from decades as the world’s backwater toward First World status.

Jared Diamond, author of Guns, Germs and Steel, adds more astonishing facts to our picture of China’s rush to the top in his recent book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed:

It has the world’s highest production rate of steel, cement, aquacultured food, and television sets; both the highest production and the highest consumption of coal, fertilizers, and tobacco; it stands near the top in production of electricity and (soon) motor vehicles, and in consumption of timber; and it is now building the world’s largest dam and largest water-diversion project.^[2]

Early on in Collapse, Diamond notes his methodology (a comparative study) and his conclusion: that there are five basic factors contributing to the downfall of any given society: environmental change (and here he generally means localized conditions), climate change (often combining with environmental change); hostile neighbors; decreased support from friendly neighbors; and a society’s own institutional response.

While Diamond “had me at hello” with his inclusion of two environmental factors, it is worth noting he is far from a darling of left-wing environmentalists who believe his business connections make his conclusions suspect. But I found his arguments compelling--and at the end of the day, if we can’t find a way for “green” to make business sense, chances are we really are doomed since all of the worst offenders around the globe are the capitalist societies for whom the profit motive is essential.

The Costs of Doing Business^[3]

Speaking of business sense, the photo just above is a good pollution day in Shenzhen, China, which is, globally-speaking, the low-rent district of Silicon Valley. This is where American jobs have gone, and what American consumers receive in return is a gaggle of electronic gadgets.

The old adage “out of sight, out of mind” almost applies to our iPods, iPhones, iPads and Macs. We can ignore the awful reports of labor conditions coming out of the plants Apple uses in China since many economists and labor experts suggest that conditions in the iPlants are, slowly but surely, improving in the wake of several high-profile and horrible suicides as workers at the Foxconn plant (which employs nearly half a million workers in this one location) jumped from several floors above ground level to certain death.

But we ignore the cost to the planet at our own peril.

Daniel K. Gardner, Dwight W. Morrow Professor of Chinese History and Director of the Program in East Asian Studies at Smith College, in Northhampton, MA, notes:

Here’s what you probably didn’t take in account: that the coal that powered the Foxconn plant in the south likely was mined in the far northern province of Shanxi, transported by lorry or rail to coal terminals on the coast (e.g., the port city of Tianjin), and from there shipped by freighter to Shenzhen in the far south. Nor did you likely consider that the air above the Foxconn factory in Shenzhen moves eastward, making its way to Los Angeles in about three weeks’ time.  Scientists have calculated that roughly 30% of the air pollution in Los Angeles originates in China.^[4]

Globalization

Diamond, like Gardner, clearly sees this connection between China and the rest of the planet, in some ways the “unintended consequences” of globalization. The factories that produce our gadgets run largely on coal, and it is the glut of coal-laden trucks that are responsible for those muiti-day traffic jams in Northern China. All the carbon dioxide, sulfur and other particulates have made the capital city, Beijing, one of the world’s unhealthiest environments:

 Average blood lead levels in Chinese city-dwellers are nearly double the levels considered elsewhere in the world to be dangerously high and to put at risk the mental development of children. About 300,000 deaths per year, and $54 billion of health costs (8% of the GNP), are attributed to air pollution.^[5] 

Diamond uses the term “lurching” to describe the socio-political result of China’s unique geography and history. Throughout her history, the country has generally been ruled en toto by a succession of dynasties, “lurching” back and forth between good decisions and bad decisions made by strong centralized governments.

The author himself seems to “lurch” between hope and despair as he considers China’s (and in some ways the world’s) future. In the end, he lands on hope.

I pray Diamond is right. A man well-educated, well-positioned and well-suited to understanding China is Gordon Chang, author of the controversial book, The Coming Collapse of China. Written in 2001, Chang predicts the imminent demise of the present Communist regime due to the rising foment of the underclass in this massive nation.

Writing in Foreign Policy magazine this past December, Change updates his take on China’s future, and he stands by his prediction of collapse:

… we will witness either a crash or, more probably, a Japanese-style multi-decade decline. Either way, economic troubles are occurring just as Chinese society is becoming extremely restless. It is not only that protests have spiked upwards -- there were 280,000 "mass incidents" last year according to one count -- but that they are also increasingly violent as the recent wave of uprisings, insurrections, rampages and bombings suggest. The Communist Party, unable to mediate social discontent, has chosen to step-up repression to levels not seen in two decades.... That tough approach has kept the regime secure up to now, but the stability it creates can only be short-term in China's increasingly modernized society, where most people appear to believe a one-party state is no longer appropriate. The regime has clearly lost the battle of ideas.^[6]

Diamond’s hopeful wish for China seems dependent on the regime using its authority and unilateral power to make quick, wholesale changes to damaging ecological practices. If this massive nation crumbles in an “Arab Spring” style uprising, it could spell the end of mitigation in China and--ultimately--the world.

* * *

DMIN 547 Distilling a Dream for Leadership: The Nature and Art of Global Leadership / Jason Clark

Russ Pierson

Right Place, Right Time
A Review of Twelve Books that Changed the World
#dminlgp #bragg #12books

*  *  *

If you had to pick a dozen books that had most shaped the world as you know it, what would you include?

British news personality Melyn Bragg (and yes, elements of the British press does find that last name ironic) has made his selections:

1. Principia Mathematica (1687) by Isaac Newton
2. Married Love (1918) by Marie Stopes
3. Magna Carta (1215) by members of the English ruling classes
4. Book of Rules of Association Football (1863) by a group of former English public-school men
5. On the Origin of Species (1859) by Charles Darwin
6. On the Abolition of the Slave Trade (1789) by William Wilberforce in Parliament, immediately printed in several versions
7. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) by Mary Wollstonecraft
8. Experimental Researches in Electricity (three volumes, 1839, 1844, 1855) by Michael Faraday
9. Patent Specification for Arkwright’s Spinning Machine (1769) by Richard Arkwright
10. The King James Bible (1611) by William Tyndale and 54 scholars appointed by the king
11. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) by Adam Smith
12. The First Folio (1623) by William Shakespeare

One of Bragg’s best insights is how each of these books was somehow both a product and agent of the times in which it was written--the “right place, right time” I am referring to in the title. He notes that if any of these had been written 50 years earlier or 50 years later, they would have been very different books with very different outcomes in terms of their influence.

The book has been criticized from several quarters for a variety of reasons: first, it is clearly Anglo-centric. But Bragg himself is convincing on this point. He quickly realized that if his perspective were truly global, “I thought, well, obviously the Koran, obviously Confucius, and I looked all over the world, and I thought it's going to end up with religious books and the Greeks; you'd perhaps throw in a Darwin, and that would be it, and I don't really want to do that.”^[1]

Others take issue with the not-so-bookish nature of several these “books,” including a patent and the transcript of a four-hour long speech (Wilberforce). As one reporter asks, “Melvyn Bragg set himself a hard task - to come up with a dozen British books that have changed the world. So why does his list include the Football Association Rule Book, advice about conjugal bliss and not a single novel?”^[2] 

Again, Bragg has a reasonable if arguable point:

The great thing about narrowing it down to the British Isles was that I could then broaden it out. I thought I could introduce things like the women's movement, like leisure, which is why I brought football in, what happened in industry and manufacturing - the industrial revolution was arguably more important than the French revolution, and it started here, so what documents are there? Is there a book? Is a long patent an inventor's book? Well, I think it is.^[3]

It is clear from both the book and Bragg’s public comments that he had little interest in books that had anything other than a quantifiable effect--the only work of fiction on the list is Shakespeare. On this point, Bragg notes in his introduction:

You could walk into a pub or an airport, go on an outing or just stay in your house, and be aware of what these books had delivered to the lives you daily led and saw. Newton took us to the moon; Faraday gave us electricity; Darwin took away God and the gods who had been there since civilization began; Mary Wollstonecraft started the struggle for the equality of women and Marie Stopes for the right to control and enjoy their sex and family lives. After Wilberforce the equality of the races was on the march and Magna Carta is the keystone of opposition to the exercise of tyrannical power. Our markets operate through the laws of Adam Smith, our imaginations are most exercised by Shakespeare, our work organized by Arkwright, our language and religious thought by the King James Bible and our world-dominating sport (soccer, for us Americans) by the FA Book of Rules.^[4]

A final criticism is best expressed by doctoral colleague, Anderson Campbell, in his cranky post, “12 (British) Books that Changed the (Secular Humanist) World.” Campbell sees a strong undercurrent of Bragg’s incessant secular humanist philosophical base. He may well be correct; while Bragg includes the King James Bible, the emphasis is as much on its language as its religious value, and he clearly suggests (even in the quote from the introduction above) that Darwin “... took away God and the gods who had been there since civilization began,” a notion that is certainly worth arguing, as Charles Taylor has done so well in A Secular Age.

In the end, this is largely a book by a Brit for the British market. What would it look like if an American wrote a book like this, Twelve American Books that Changed the World? What do you think?

* * *

DMIN 547 Distilling a Dream for Leadership: The Nature and Art of Global Leadership / Jason Clark

Russ Pierson

Roots
A Review of A Secular Age
#dminlgp #taylor #asecularage

It is impossible to kill an enemy. You may end a man's life, but his son becomes your new enemy. A warrior respects another warrior, even if he is his enemy.

—Kintango, Roots by Alex Haley

*  *  *

The mini-series as we know it was a television programming accident.

Alex Haley’s Roots aired on ABC for eight consecutive nights in January of 1977. The story was all about the lineage of a proud African-American family whose “roots” were found in West Africa before the slave trade brought the story’s protagonist, Kunta Kinte, to America. While there had been special serial dramas before--Rich Man, Poor Man had been a recent ratings success--these had always been aired on a weekly basis, never on consecutive nights. What made Roots different? Never before had a television series featured such a large and prominent cast of black actors. And so:

ABC programming chief Fred Silverman hoped that the unusual schedule would cut his network's imminent losses--and get Roots off the air before sweeps week.

Perhaps in this case Silverman really was an “evil (if inadvertent) genius.” To this day, more than 35 years after it aired, all eight episodes remain in the 100 highest-rated television programs of all time. It proved so popular that the network ran the entire series a second time a year and a half later in this era before Netflix, Blockbuster or even the VCR. Roots managed to single-handedly shift the course of television programming on--at least--two levels: both format and content.

And that is how I feel about Charles Taylor’s epic work, A Secular Age.

This book has dogged me for what feels like a very long time now. Weeks fly by in the Leadership in Global Perspectives program at George Fox University. It sometimes seems as though I am living the all-too-brief life of a canine, and the sands of time are moving lickety-split like so many “dog years.” While most of my cohort-mates wrote about Taylor in mid-February, I have stewed till the final seconds of the term, stymied by its length and breadth. I have taken to reading, whenever I can, on my Kindle or iPad, and I could almost feel myself aging as this book crept past, measured not in pages but on these electronic gadgets as a “percentage” of completion. It is surely the War and Peace of our generation, clocking in at 874 pages in the printed edition.

And nary a word is wasted.

Why was it virtually impossible not to believe in God in, say, 1500 in our Western society, while in 2000 many of us find this not only easy, but even inescapable? Part of the answer, no doubt, is that in those days everyone believed, and so the alternatives seemed outlandish. But this just pushes the question further back. We need to understand how things changed. How did the alternatives become thinkable?^[1]

This question is essentially Taylor’s thesis, and as I already intimated, what follows is a long and complicated answer. But what especially interests me is the intersection of religion and science.

The further I explore the crossroads between earth-care and Evangelicalism, the more I see the difficulties that manifest themselves as theological or political are rooted in this basic relationship between science and religion. Strict creationism, young earth theory, visions of earth’s destruction associated with premillennial dispensationalism--all of these are rather uniquely Evangelical responses to that relationship with science. More telling, they are largely modern Evangelical responses: something happened somewhere in the 19th and 20th centuries that gave rise to these theologies intended to give science a good kick in the backside.

There in the sweep and majesty of Taylor’s great work with a broader scope, I think I see the outlines of an answer to my question about the modern Evangelical relationship to science.

It all begins with enchantment.

Taylor makes the point that that the pre-modern world was an enchanted world. This in and of itself is a reasonably common observation; indeed, Taylor himself seems to be building upon and responding to the discussion of enchantment broached by Max Weber in his seminal work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. But for Taylor the sense of disenchantment that is now the accepted norm (though post-modernism may be challenging this--but that is another discussion) is more than what he calls a “subtraction story:”

A common "subtraction" story attributes everything to disenchantment. First, science gave us a "naturalistic" explanation of the world. And then people began to look for alternatives to God. But things didn't work that way. The new mechanistic science of the seventeenth century wasn't seen as necessarily threatening to God. It was to the enchanted universe and magic. It also began to pose a problem for particular providences. But there were important Christian motives for going the route of disenchantment.^[2]

The genius of Taylor here is his cogent observation that through the Enlightenment era, Christianity was largely right in the thick of this move toward disenchantment--not as an unwilling “guardian  of the faith” (though we find ample evidence for this kind of response, too) but more often as a proponent. Indeed, in this era, many of the great scientists were among the faithful.  

In fact, while the Catholic church famously mishandled both Copernicus (in the 16th century) and later Galileo, the Anglican church in England under King James (yes, that King James) made ample room for someone like Galileo’s 17th century contemporary, Francis Bacon. In fact, Bacon was, for much of his career, a darling of the king,^[3] actively encouraged to pursue his scientific inquiries and ultimately develop empiricism, a set of inductive approaches that came to be called the Baconian method.^[4]

It is this basic method that served science through the Enlightenment, both in Europe and across the Atlantic in what would soon become the United States of America. Here in the States this new science found fertile ground.

Without the authority of the Crown (in this Revolutionary era) and with lax and dispersed ecclesial authority as well, the American Church took to this new empiricism as a way to underscore and demonstrate its authority. As Weber points out in his afore-mentioned tome, and as Joel Mokyr underscores below, a new marriage of science and capitalism gave rise to the Industrial Age, as enterprising believers used Baconian principles to mechanize society:

The years 1760-1815 witnessed more than just some lucky breaks in a handful of industries: it was also the period in which people defied gravity through hot-air balloons, began the conquest of smallpox, and learned to can food, to use binary codes for manufacturing purposes, to infer geological strata from fossil evidence, and to burn gas for lighting…. In pottery, one of the oldest techniques known to mankind, Josiah Wedgwood and others introduced new materials, new moulding (sic) techniques, and improved over-firing. ^[5]

Mark Noll, in an essay entitled "Science, Theology, and Society: From Cotton Mather to Williams Jennigs Bryan," suggests how this happy arrangement with religion’s use of science changed with the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859. For centuries, prefigured in the Psalms and stated clearly in the Patristic era,^[6]  religious thinkers had spoken of the “two books” of nature and scripture by which God was revealed. But now, as ethicist Ted Peters notes, science became no longer slave to the scripture but entirely independent—or worse:

Though nature was certainly held to reveal God's handiwork, this "one book" began to gain independence, if not prominence, over against scriptural revelation.^[7] 

Taylor though, offers a subtler explanation, a “change in the air” that not so much starts with Darwin, but ends there:

The transformation in outlook from a limited, fixed cosmos to a vast, evolving universe starts in the early seventeenth century, and is essentially completed in the early nineteenth century, though the final terminus might be fixed with the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859.^[8]

This is a remarkable understanding, prefigured much earlier in A Secular Age, when Taylor notes:

The enchanted world, in contrast to our universe of buffered selves and "minds", shows a perplexing absence of certain boundaries which seem to us essential.^[9]

What does Taylor mean when he speaks of the universe, buffered selves and “minds?” And how is this significant for the relationship between Evangelicalism and science in the 21st century?

Taylor uses “universe” here in a particular way, over and against the Greek notion of “cosmos:”

I use `cosmos' for our forebears' idea of the totality of existence because it contains the sense of ordered whole. It is not that our universe isn't in its own way ordered, but in the cosmos the order of things was a humanly meaningful one. That is, the principle of order in the cosmos was closely related to, often identical with that which gave shape to our lives.... This kind of cosmos is a hierarchy; it has higher and lower levels of being. And it reaches its apex in eternity; it is indeed, held together by what exists on the level of eternity, the Ideas, or God, or both together-Ideas as the thoughts of the creator.^[10]

Taylor is also prescient as he notes the “enchanted” world of the “cosmos” was not only a Christian conception. Greek philosophy, the Roman panetheon--all of these pillars of Western civilization understood the cosmos to be a place of order, in some sense,  on a human scale. There was, to use a Taylorian phrase, some sense of “porousness” between this seen world and the very real unseen world, be that world inhabited by saints, angel and demons or gods, goddesses, fairies and leprachauns. Now we see ourselves somehow “buffered” from outside forces, or at least entirely separate from them; they are not in our “mind.”

Biblical religion, in entering the Graeco-Roman, later Arab, worlds, develops within the cosmos idea. So we come to see ourselves as situated in a defined history, which unfolds within a bounded setting. So the whole sweep of cosmic-divine history can be rendered in the stained glass of a large cathedral. But the universe approaches the limitless, or at any rate its limits are not easily encompassable in time or space. Our planet, our solar system is set in a galaxy, which is one of an as yet uncounted number of galaxies. Our origins go back into the mists of evolutionary time, so that we become unclear as to what could count as the beginning of our human story, many of the features of which are irretrievably lost.^[11]

What a sad state of affairs! Moving into the modern era, humanity in its Western conception is without moorings, “irretrievably lost,” much like Don Draper in those opening credits of the American television program, Mad Men, falling, ever falling, lost in perpetuity.

Taylor seems to locate Evangelicalism’s ultra-conservative base here, suggesting a sort of fear-based response “... where Biblical religion was held prisoner to the cosmos idea. Placing the creation of the world on a certain day in 4004 B.C. is a prime example of this kind of thinking, paradoxically using the modes of exact calculation developed in modernity to entrench oneself in the cosmos bastion. As is the refusal of the very idea of an evolution of species (as against the more implausible aspects of neo-Darwinianism).”^[12]

Is there hope there at the end of the rope, in a disenchanted world? Is there hope for a gracious, large Evangelicalism that moves beyond crippling literalism bound to the Enlightenment era to make peace with the “book of nature?”

In a word, yes. I hope so.

First, Taylor does us a great service by reminding us that the great opponent in the “religion vs. science” battle that plays out in the minds of Evangelicals is a straw man. It is not Darwin, nor Darwinism per se. The earliest Fundamentalists were a group of Evangelicals at Princeton at the turn of the 20th century who championed a high view of scripture --and most of them had no problem with the theory of evolution. Even before Darwin, many Evangelicals were content with either the “day-age theory,” that took the six days of creation to represent vast eons of time, or the “gap theory,” that read the “in the beginning” as separate from the Edenic creation, in essence seeing a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. These Evangelicals saw evolution as a means to explain one or the other of these common theories.^[13]

Extrapolating from other readings and research, I also believe that the “green Evangelicals” of the post-modern era will be able to offer the gift of hope both to those whose theology is rooted in the dualistic belief earth will be destroyed and environmentalists who have their own apocalyptic vision of “Gaia Gone Bad,” an earth that turns on its human inhabitants in a move straight out of Avatar.  Like the earliest Evangelicals--most of whom were post-millennialists--the new green Evangelicals will find deep satisfaction in joining with the Creator in healing and restoring the earth. After all, it is “New Jerusalem” that descends to earth--not a new earth that ascends to heaven.

Finally, I am hopeful that the the post-modern influences so many sociologists, theologians and commentators have noted over the last several years will forge a new relationship between religion and science, a “reenchantment” of a vast and ancient universe initiated at the hands of a loving Creator seen with eyes wide open.

* * *

DMIN 547 Distilling a Dream for Leadership: The Nature and Art of Global Leadership / Jason Clark

Russ Pierson

The Man Behind the Curtain
A Review of Global Warming: A Very Short Introduction
#dminlgp #globalwarming #maslin

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

—The Wizard, The Wizard of Oz

*  *  *

Let’s be blunt: Politics, economics, media, religion and science--all of these come together to form a toxic stew that has resulted in the current state of public discourse around the topic of climate change, particularly in the US and to a lesser degree in other Western countries.^[1] In November of 2009, I posted a simple phrase on Facebook that set off a firestorm in my small circle of Facebook friends--particularly those who are Evangelical Christians. Here’s the phrase:

The global environmental crisis … is an outer manifestation of an inner crisis that is, for lack of a better word, spiritual.

Frankly, that is, by itself, a thoughtful, insightful but for the most part innocuous statement. I am not kidding when I suggest that Billy Graham might have said it or that Rick Warren may have penned those words. But neither of these Evangelicals turned out to be the source I was quoting. If I had it to do over again, I would have posted the message twice--and the first time I would leave the source off completely to see what kind of response I might get. My guess is it might have generated a couple of “Like” notices and perhaps a vague but supportive comment or two. The full quote is from former Vice-President Al Gore’s book, Earth in the Balance: 

The more deeply I search for the roots of the global environmental crisis, the more I am convinced that it is an outer manifestation of an inner crisis that is, for lack of a better word, spiritual.^[2]

I gave full attribution to Gore on Facebook--and that is apparently anathema! Al Gore, Nobel Prize winning author of An Inconvenient Truth, is an absolute lightning-rod in the US. No single cultural icon better represents this nexus I mentioned of politics, economics, media, religion and science.

“Global leadership,” which captures the essential rubric of the Leadership in Global Perspectives program at George Fox University, is broad, and my cohort mates are concentrating on a wide range of important topics, but I find myself alone in specializing in the environment and issues around sustainability. I have been so pleased to read the posts submitted by my deep-thinking doctoral colleagues in this past week or so as each has responded to Mark Maslin’s Oxford Press primer, Global Warming: A Very Short Introduction, though it isn’t all that short, clocking in at 192 fairly dense pages, and though it’s meant to be an “introduction,” is still quite technical, with an emphasis on the science of climate change.

The following graphic, for example, titled, “The Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Balance,” is arguably the friendliest and most understandable of all of Maslin’s many graphics, charts and tables:

^[3]

To further complicate things, in an online chat about Maslin’s book, we began to realize that when Mark Maslin publishes a “revised” edition, he means it! There is apparently more science in the 2009 edition with less philosophical framing than the original 2004 edition, all in an effort to keep the book “a very short introduction.” Some of my colleagues’ posts highlight that difference. Here’s a quick (and admittedly incomplete) sampling:

1. Tim Buechsel offers a scriptural rationale for creation care and highlights the fork in the road that seems to lead either to adaptation or mitigation.
2. Mike Ratliff focuses on an excellent classification system Maslin offered in the 2004 edition that helps us understand the various responses to the issue, based on “four myths of nature” and “four myths of human nature.”
3. Anderson Campbell connects the Big Hair of the 1980s with ozone depletion and worries about climate change and its impact on the world’s poorest. [Author’s note: Indeed, our two African colleagues, David Niyonzima and Joy Mindo, are often unable to participate in web-based discussions in anything close to “real time” due to the fragility and slow speed of their internet connections. Is it any wonder that African environmentalist and Nobel laureate Wangari Mathaii hails from Joy’s native Kenya?]
4. Glenn Williams describes Australian reaction to their national carbon tax and ponders the counsel of the Seuss character, The Lorax: UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.
5. Andrew Bloemker tentatively explores the connection between climate change and poverty and describes what he is doing about it via Feed the Crave.
6. Chris Marshall writes a kind of letter to his children with incredibly wise counsel about the deeper issues behind and underneath the climate change controversy.
7. And Rodger McEachern, the Canadian among us, concludes with these words in his post titled, “Is It Any Wonder We’re Confused?”:

The irony in this is without any coherence amongst the experts, opinion shapers and policy makers ordinary people are left to themselves and their personal beliefs and prejudices in their decisions as to how to respond to climate change and its future impacts; perhaps it is not surprising that many people agree that climate change is occurring whilst not making any changes.^[4]

Indeed. For many of my colleagues, reading Maslin’s excellent book is their first serious introduction to all the issues surrounding climate change. But I fear Maslin is so careful, so thorough and so generally kind to naysayers that my fellows and you, my readers, might well walk away with nothing more than the notion that this is so complex I’ll just keep doing nothing.

That would be a mistake. And a misunderstanding.

For me, the most astute section in Maslin’s book is his discussion of the role the media has played in framing this entire discussion, with real differences in the US as contrasted with other nations:

… in the USA media coverage has been different. First, until recently there has been no pro-global warming media coverage equivalent to that delivered by The Guardian [in the UK]. Second, climate change sceptics have been very strong on using the media in the USA.^[5]

Maslin clarifies:

There are two possible explanations for this extraordinarily media-facilitated public scientific debate. First, political sceptics who do not want to see political action to address climate change may be using this debate about methods and scientific uncertainty as a convenient hook on which to hang their case for delay.... Second, the media’s ethical commitment to balanced reporting may unwittingly provide unwarranted attention to critical views, even if they are marginal and outside the realm of what is normally considered ‘good’ science.... Overall, such exchanges contribute to a public impression that the science of global warming is ‘contested’, despite what many would argue is an overwhelmingly strong scientific case that global warming is occurring and human activity is a main driver of this change.^[6]

^[7]

There is almost no scientist--period--who thinks climate change isn’t occurring. The only “debated” issue is its cause. As you read through Maslin, you come to understand just how phenomenally complex the climate system is, and there are cyclical changes that appear to repeat in everything from deep ocean currents (e.g., the El Nino effect) to the jetstream to global temperature itself, which has certainly moderated within a given range over the course of history. Here Maslin mentions, for example, the “Little Ice Age” in the Middle Ages where we know the River Thames occasionally froze over (though Maslin likewise notes the Port of London hadn’t yet been built so the entire river flowed much slower and was more susceptible to freezing).

If the only issue is whether or not human activity is a significant causative factor, how is it we all talk about the “butterfly effect” and believe a single moth somewhere in, say, Argentina flaps its wings just so and contributes to a hurricane a couple of weeks later on the Atlantic coast, but we doubt whether or not 9 billion humans ripping up the forests and burning all the oil can have an impact on climate?

As Maslin suggests, our media in the States has done us a disservice by suggesting there are two equal sides to climate change story.  Naomi Oreskes, professor of history and science studies at the University of California is co-author (with writer Erik Conway) of the Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.

This book tells the story of the Tobacco Strategy, and how it was used to attack science and scientists, and to confuse us about major, important issues affecting our lives—and the planet we live on. ^[8]

Oreskes goes on to demonstrate how industry--in this case the Oil Lobby--has intentionally funded benign-sounding foundations and associations to pay off scientists willing to join the chorus of nay-sayers in order to confuse and divide the public and ultimately prevent action. In many cases, these scientists are the same scientists who supported the tobacco industry in their misinformation campaign, denying a link between cancer and smoking till the very end of litigation that proved how wrong they were. These scientists are often award-winning scientists--but not in climate science!

In a very current example, US media flooded us with the news that, as FoxNews noted, a “Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming.” Indeed, Dr. Ivar Giaever did win a Nobel Prize in 1973 in physics--a field certainly related to climatology. But in fact, his professional career and his award is entirely related to superconductivity experiments undertaken in the course of working for General Electric. Does that mean he shouldn’t express his opinion on climate change? Certainly not, but perhaps his opinion on the specifics of climate change is no better informed than your run-of-the-mill Hollywood celebrity. Figuring out how electrons tunnel through oxide in metal tubes and huge superconductors is an impressive feat, but bears little on climate science.

What do we have to lose if we move to mitigate against human-influenced climate change? Not much. What do we have to gain? The respect of the impoverished world beyond our borders and--quite possibly--a planet.^[9]

You do the math.

The “man behind the curtain,” flipping all the levers, alternating between benevolence and authoritarianism like some passive-aggressive maniac (but doesn’t want you to know it) is the existing energy sector--Big Oil, Big Coal, etc.--who only stand to gain while we stand still, enchanted by their smokescreen.

* * *

[7] This illustration by UK artist James Fryer appears online here:

DMIN 547 Distilling a Dream for Leadership: The Nature and Art of Global Leadership / Jason Clark

Russ Pierson

No God Like Our God
A Review of The Muslim World
#dminlgp #muslimworld #miroslavvolf

It is a very serious analytic error to say, as is commonly done,
that terrorism is the weapon of the weak.
Like other means of violence, it is primarily a weapon of the strong ….
It is held to be a weapon of the weak because the strong also control the doctrinal systems and their terror does not count as terror.

—Noam Chomsky^[1]

*  *  *

The evil geniuses behind the Leadership in Global Perspectives doctoral program at George Fox University have done it again.

This time they have our cohort reading a journal … an Islamic journal, The Muslim World, that is well-respected in academia but also very specific to Islamic studies. But really, it’s not hard to peer into the thoughts and motivations of those “evil geniuses” this time around. Islam is on the rise throughout the West and global North, even as it continues to grow in the East and South. According to the Pew Research Center,^[2] by 2030 Muslims will make up more than a quarter of the world’s population--and nearly 60% in the Pacific Rim. And much of Africa, in fact--where our cohort visited last year--already have pockets with majority Muslim populations, or where Christian and Muslim numbers are relatively even and the two groups must learn to live in peace if there is to be peace at all.

In short, if we are to be leaders with a “global perspective,” we have to have some understanding of Islam and its adherents.

Like most journals, The Muslim World has a general theme that drives each issue. Volume 101, published in April, 2011, is all about violence--something the Muslim world has unfortunately seen far too much of. The issue is a heady and thoughtful glimpse into the complex interplay of violence and counter-violence shaking our planet these days. It is fair and knowing. As noted in the introduction, “there is no immaculate conception of violence.” Everyone plays a part, from the various sects within Islam to the strong-handed dictators and oligarchs who rule many Islamic states to, of course, the West, with our insistence upon economic development that will always be a game rigged in our favor.

Some of my colleagues have already filed their response to the journal. My friend, Chris Marshall, writes from the heart in an article titled, Islamic Hospitality, that contextualizes his response within recollections of his visit to the West Bank. And Andy Campbell weaves a compelling review and analysis of structural violence into his take on the recent Hollywood blockbuster, The Hunger Games.

My interest in the subject has been piqued at two levels: first, I am a GreenFaith Fellow engaged in a conversation around environmental justice and faith with a brilliant cohort of “believers” from a wide spectrum of faith traditions, including Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Unitarian-Universalists and more, along with Christians of every stripe. Within this collective, one milk-toast approach might be to stick with the “lowest common denominators” in conversation; but instead, we quiz and critique one another, highlighting the best and the worst of each of our traditions and bringing everything they represent to the conversation. Second, I have long had a special interest in Judaism. I have visited Israel a half dozen times and I deeply respect the roots from which Christianity has grown. But I have had a growing, nagging sense that I have neglected development of anything more than a cursory understanding of the other faith tradition that springs from the bosom of Abraham, Islam. I have spent time over the past year or two trying to broaden my understand of this deep, rich, ancient tradition, and I have found Mirolslav Volf’s Allah: A Christian Response to be a wise and faithful guidebook.

Volf,  Director of the Yale Center for Faith and Culture, has a deep understanding and respect for Islam--which may not come easily to the son of a Protestant minister growing up in the midst of the horrific Yugoslavian civil war that was largely divided down religious lines between Christian and Muslim. Indeed, his magnum opus, Exclusion and Embrace, was forged on the anvil of this war. He is one of the prominent voices in “A Common Word,” an initiative that seeks to promote civil discourse between Christians and Muslims ... and which is somewhat controversial in the more conservative corners of both Christianity and Islam, as opaquely implied by Yahya Michot in his analysis of the “New Mardin Fatwa,” an Islamic conference that sought to revisit and correct an ancient fatwa often used to justify violence by extremists. Referring to a particular divisive and conservative Syrian figure within Islam, Michot writes:

Some of those who actually took part in the Conference project and its implementation are actively involved in the Common Word initiative, 9/11 wounds healing, New Age Islam, al-Ash‘ari and al-Ghazali studies, neotraditionalism or neo-Sufism. From such quarters, it is often deliberate disinformation, caricatures and insults that people are used to see coming about the Damascene scholar.^[3]

The conservative Christian blogosphere is much less opaque (or apparently kind or thoughtful):

Grovelling at the feet of Islam isn’t going to win Muslims over – even if it really was the right thing to do. It is sickening and each of the signers to the Yale letter [ed. - the letter is a Christian response to “A Common Word”] - including Robert Schuller, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Leith Anderson, Jim Wallis, Brian McLaren, Richard Mouw and two prominent Assemblies of God bible college presidents - should fall on their knees in shame and beg Jehovah God for forgiveness.^[4]

Reading through the various journal articles in The Muslim World, my first response was how foreign everything seemed. There were names and places and ideas for which I had little context. But the more I read, looked a few things up and acclimated myself, both geographically and culturally, the more familar everything seemed. It was very much like reading an academic Christian journal, with scholars taking civil but certain potshots at one another, describing impenetrable hermeneutic knots and why a particular passage ought to be read this way rather than that. And of course there were the required discussions of what difference all this theology might mean in the “real world.”

Volf boldly suggests in Allah that, not only do Christians and Muslims share similar hopes and dreams (and scholarly journals) with one another, but in fact we ultimately worship the same God. His final admonition:

The claim that Christians and Muslims, notwithstanding their important and ineradicable differences, have a common and similarly understood God (1) delegitimizes religious motivation to violence between them and (2) supplies motivation to care for others and to engage in a vigorous and sustained debate about what constitutes the common good in the one world we share.^[5]

Virtually every B movie and TV show since 9/11 that has used Muslims in the role as antagonist has included a scene where some crazed terrorist shouts,  Allahu Akbar! which simply means, “God is the greatest!” It is Easter in most of the Protestant churches in the United States as I pen these words, and my guess is there is one Christian who is “working” today, raking in the big bucks, casting a wide net around the royalty stream of Christian music--Chris Tomlin. I’m a fan, but two of his current and most popular songs include these phrases:

How great is our God, sing with me
how great is our God and all will see how great
How great, how great is our God^[6]

Our God is greater, our God is stronger, God you are higher than any other
Our God is healer, awesome in power, our God! Our God!^[7]

Should we get Chris Tomlin a bit part on television, shouting his lyrics in Arabic on some ridiculous TV show? He would be shouting, “Allahu akbar!”

Obviously Christians and Muslims have significant theological differences, and each has an essentially exclusivist message. But if we can first recognize our common ground, we can then discuss our very real differences from a place of respect and understanding. The final word is Mirolav Volf’s:

“No god but God”—a fundamental conviction that Christians share with Muslims—is an anti-extremist creed! First, if Muslims and Christians agree that they should love God above all things, then God will matter to them more than anything in the world, including their respective religious communities or political visions. Second, if they believe that the God to whom they owe ultimate allegiance is the God of love and justice who commands people to love their neighbors and do justice, they will reject all causes and forms of struggle incompatible with love and justice. The fear of the one and common God, the beginning of political wisdom, will thus help drive out the demon of extremism^[8]

* * *

DMIN 547 Distilling a Dream for Leadership: The Nature and Art of Global Leadership / Jason Clark

Russ Pierson

What’s Love Got to Do With It?
A Review of The Social Animal
by David Brooks
#dminlgp #socialanimal #brooks

What’s love got to do, got to do with it?
What’s love but a second-hand emotion?

—Tina Turner

*  *  *

I love her dearly, but let’s put Tina Turner on the shelf for just a moment....

Let’s talk instead about Don McLean. McLean is best-known for his song, American Pie. This odd and mysterious ballad, that clocked in at more than eight minutes in length, rocketed to the top of the US charts in late 1971 and early 1972. It remains the opus of a generation, with opaque references to the “day the music died” and “good old boys (who) were drinkin’ whiskey and rye.” But my favorite McLean song was his second number one hit (at least in the UK), Vincent, so-named for its subject, Vincent van Gogh. The melody and the lyrics are, like van Gogh himself, dark and beautiful all at the same time:

And when no hope was left in sight on that starry, starry night
You took your life as lovers often do;
But I could have told you, Vincent,
This world was never meant for one as beautiful as you.^[1]

David Brooks’ most recent book, The Social Animal, purports to tell the tale of “the hidden sources of love, character and achievement,” and--maybe--somewhere between the lines of this book the sad story of Vincent van Gogh is re-told.

There actually is a different story very much in the foreground of The Social Animal. Brooks describes two fictional characters who soon become a fictional couple and then a fictional family as a “plot  device” to work out the research he’s uncovered in a “real world” way. With this writing convention, he somehow manages to be compelling and annoying all at the same time. In fact, if you want to benefit from the best of Brooks’ book (and there really are some interesting insights here) without the parallel narrative and its accompanying fluff, you might catch the author’s TED Talk.

In Brook’s own summary of his book, he mentions three key insights:

1. The first insight is that while the conscious mind writes the autobiography of our species, the unconscious mind does most of the work.

This is an important idea, but I felt it was developed in a much fuller, more helpful and more personal way by Daniel Forrester in his book, Consider.^[2] Still, there is much fodder for thought here, particularly for those interested at a systems-level. Exhibit A:

Poverty ... is an emergent system, too. The people who live in deep poverty are enmeshed in complex ecosystems no one can fully see and understand.^[3]

1. The second insight is that emotions are at the center of our thinking.

Some of Brooks’ most interesting talking points stem from this insight. Speaking, for example, of love, he notes:

… love is not an emotion like happiness or sadness. Love is a motivational state, which leads to various emotions ranging from euphoria to misery. A person in love has the keenest possible ambition to achieve a goal. A person in love is in a state of need.^[4]

1. And the third insight is that we're not primarily self-contained individuals. We're social animals, not rational animals. We emerge out of relationships, and we are deeply interpenetrated, one with another.

On this point, I am reminded of a recent podcast featuring Krista Tippet on her program, On Being, titled “Creativity and the Everyday Brain.” Her guest, Rex Jung, is a researcher at the leading edge of creativity research:

… the definition of creativity is something both novel and useful. And I like that dynamic interplay of novelty and usefulness. If something is just novel, it could be useless.... It has to be something new. It has to be useful. It has to be also within a social context so that novelty and usefulness might be in play, but within a given social context, it might not be recognized at that time. van Gogh is a good example, where his novel and useful paintings were … not within the social context within which he was at that time.^[5]

We may be brilliant at a cognitive level. We may have “emotional intelligence.” But that social aspect of our lives is ultimately a game-changer. We need the support of others, particularly those close to us, but sometimes the “public,” too.

“Starry, starry night ... “ is the opening phrase in McLean’s song, and it is likewise the title of one of van Gogh’s most famous works. Skye Jethani describes the complex relationship van Gogh had with the Church that provided the most significant social framework of his time:

Over a century ago another struggling Christian fled the church to find God in the stars. Vincent van Gogh is remembered for his volatile mental health, severing his ear, and later taking his life. But the tortured artist also had a volatile relationship with Christianity, oscillating between devotion and rejection.... But his struggle was primarily with the institutional church, not Christ. In his final years, as his mental illness became more severe, van Gogh reveals a profound devotion to Jesus while remaining disillusioned with the church. His most celebrated painting from this period, Starry Night, captures this sentiment....

The deep indigo of the sky was used by Vincent to represent the infinite presence of God, and the heavenly bodies are yellow — van Gogh’s color for sacred love. The divine light of the stars is repeated in the village below, every home illuminated with the same yellow warmth. For Vincent, God’s loving presence in the heavens was no less real on the earth.

But there is one building in van Gogh’s imaginary village with no light, no divine presence — the church.^[6]

I think it’s time to answer Tina Turner’s question: What’s love got to do with it?

Everything!

* * *

DMIN 547 Distilling a Dream for Leadership: The Nature and Art of Global Leadership / Jason Clark

Russ Pierson

Alone Again, Naturally
A Review of Isolation: A Place of Transformation in the Life of A Leader
by Shelley Trebesch
#dminlgp #isolation #trebesch

But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch cut me into little pieces
Leaving me to doubt talk about God in His mercy --
Who, if He really does exist, why did He desert me?
In my hour of need I truly am indeed alone again, naturally.

—Gilbert O’Sullivan

*  *  *

In the summer of 1972, I was 14 years old, growing up on the mean streets of Tacoma, Washington, about to start the 9th grade. Like everyone else my age, the radio was my constant companion. And that summer a young Irishman named Gilbert O’Sullivan had an unlikely number one hit in the US; unlikely in that he somehow managed to capture all the angst of the teen years, mix it with a goodly dose of depression and squeeze it out onto the airwaves riding along on a bouncy, happy 4/4 beat. The song has been covered countless times, and heard in television and movies from The Simpsons to Napoleon Dynamite. The song, Alone Again, Naturally, is a schizophrenic mashup of dark, suicidal lyrics coupled to a jolly tune straight from a Disney parade. It feels a bit like the sense you get watching Johnny Cash singing Hurt, the Nine-Inch Nails hit.

At some level, it might just be the theme song for the Shelley Trebesch book, Isolation: The Place of Transformation in the Life of a Leader.^[1]

Isolation is an odd book with which I have immediately developed a love-hate relationship. There is much to hate: Trebesch’s images and illustrations for isolation include stripping furniture with turpentine, being literally whacked upside the head with a brick and nearly dying, and being bed-ridden for several years prior to a slow but sure death. Yet there are also glorious stories of restoration, redemption and, as the subtitle of the book suggests, transformation.

Then, too, the book is thoroughly steeped in a Christian context and is incredibly ministry-centric. I am gripped with anticipation to see what doctoral colleague, Glenn Williams, writes about a book this narrow, with his broad focus on leadership development. Can the notion of enduring hardship for purposes God has in mind beyond our understanding play in Peoria (or maybe in Perth, since Glenn is an Aussie)? Even within its narrow, Christian milieu, the focus is really on pastors and other church and para-church leaders; there is little here that speaks directly to the average person in the pew.

Most annoyingly to me (for reasons I will soon enough explain), the book is in essence an academic analysis of isolation, a term for which Trebesch adopts J. Robert Clinton’s definition:

Isolation is the setting aside of a leader from normal ministry involvement in its natural context usually for an extended time in order to experience God in a new or deeper way.^[2]

This approach makes Isolation a book of lists and charts. Everything seems to be documented with three reasons, six results, a diagram and a table.

This approach isn’t necessarily wrong, but given the subject, it feels very much like someone has once again taken Gilbert O’Sullivan’s suicidal poem and matched it to a song from Barney the Dinosaur. The essential message: “You may feel like crap right now, but if you do these five things you will come to understand there is a grand purpose and out of the compost of your crappy life, a flower may grow.”

In essence, this is a clinical approach, and depending on where you are at in the process, while it may be hopeful it may not be helpful.

So what’s to like about this book?

Well, as it turns out I am both a Christian and a ministry leader, in “full-time ministry” most of my adult life. I have experienced dark periods of isolation that were both voluntary and involuntary.^[3] I left one ministry post serving under a manipulative, abusive leader; I left another because the church closed in the wake of a long history of financial difficulty; and I was terminated from a third position in the midst of a difficult season of depression that was colored by end-of-life issues with my adoptive parents. From the vantage point that time and distance affords, I can tell you that, within its narrow context, Trebesch’ analysis and prescription is spot-on.

Still, dealing with the very real trauma life can throw at you is more complex, more personal than this book suggests. Its prosaic clinicism may make it the perfect tool in the hands of a counselor, but I am not sure I would ever give it to a friend who is finds himself way too familiar with the working end of life’s hammer.

When one finds oneself in a period of isolation, you need support and you need guidance to come to your own understandings, your own answers to those age-old questions: Where is God? Why me? Why now?

You don’t need prose and a stark catalog of prospective lessons you might learn. You need narrative and wonder and mystery. You need opportunity for reflection to find yourself in a greater story. If I’m a counselor, I want Isolation on my shelf; but if I’m the one going through the difficult place in life, I would much prefer something like A Tale of Three Kings by Gene Edwards.

It’s the same message, but the spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down.

* * *

DMIN 547 Distilling a Dream for Leadership: The Nature and Art of Global Leadership / Jason Clark

Russ Pierson

^[1]

All That Jaz
A Review of New Media: 1740-1915
by Lisa Gitelman & Geoffrey B. Pingree
#dminlgp #newmedia #gitelman #pingree #forrester

“WHAT HATH GOD WROUGHT.”
—Samuel Morse’s first message transmitted by telegraph in 1844

*  *  *

Lisa Gitelman and Geoffrey Pingree have edited an anthology of ten scholarly articles titled New Media: 1740-1915 that represents academic musings on the meanings of media. Its particular and effective conceit is to consider “new” media “... during what the editors describe as the era before broadcast, or what we might call the very long nineteenth century.”^[2]

^[3]

In these pages, the reader is introduced to various inventions that often presage later media. The zograscope pictured above, for example, was a very early way to view things in the now-wildly-popular 3D format (think Shrek or the just-released version of Star Wars’ Phantom Menace). The stereoscope looks a lot like a fancier, better-crafted prototype of the Viewmaster I had as a boy. And who knew the physiognotrace, a device for tracing facial profiles, would be popular in colonial America long before CSI and its various spinoffs?

In another intriguing piece, Katherine Stubbs laments the connection moderns make between the telegraph and the Internet, but then seems to reinforce many of those same connections with tales of 19th century gender-bending and identity-shifting that took place in the anonymous, high-tech world of the telegraph operator, with its unusually large representation of females in the workforce (initiated by management as a way to control spiraling labor costs.

The articles touch on countless interesting themes, including of course the big three taboos of “polite conversation:” politics, sex and religion. On this latter topic, Diane Zimmerman Umble offers a fascinating glimpse into the impact of the phone’s introduction to one particular subculture in her article, “Sinful Network or Divine Service: Competing Meanings of the Telephone in Amish Country.” More than once I thought of some of the Fundamentalist inclinations in my own upbringing with occasional sermons I heard from hyped-up youth pastors preaching against rock and roll or decrying the evil backmasked messages that might be decoded by manually moving 45s and LPs backward on the turntable. The author cites the pithy recollection of one Mennonite man whose elderly father noted poles being installed and remarked, “There goes the devil’s wires” … which later might have sponsored the melodic question asked by CCM^[4] pioneer, Larry Norman, “Why should the devil have all the good music?”

Umble seems to raise some of the same issues as  Daniel Forrester’s recent book, Consider, as well. Forrester’s tome notes that for all of its time-saving benefits, technology has in some ways outstripped our ability to reflect and use the flood of data in beneficial ways. So, too, with the telephone in Amish country:

For its proponents, the telephone was associated with profit, comfort and pleasure. It widened the world for rural people , providing potential connections to centers of power, information and culture.... Old Order people were not blind to the practical benefits of the telephone, but they were deeply suspicious of its social and spiritual implications.^[5]

As the old adage goes, sometimes “the medium is the message.”

Liminality and Determinism

Gitelman and Pingree themselves offer the following broad theme that links the ten articles:

Exploring moments of transition when each new medium was not yet fully defined, its significance in flux, these essays aim to clarify our understanding of the specific material and historical environments in which new media emerge and of the ways in which habits and structures of communication are naturalized or normalized.^[6]

In other words, there seem to be two unique features of the “new media” surveyed in these ten scholarly tomes: liminality and technological determinism. They are liminal in that, as they are first introduced--and often in spite of their apparent success--their eventual importance, their “staying power,” is yet to be determined.

And speaking of “determined,” it is Marshall McLuhan who coined the phrase quoted above--”the medium is the message”--and who also advanced the notion of “technological determinism,” the idea that  "technology determines history."^[7] Here “All of the authors argue against technological determinism, rejecting the notion that superior media merely vanquish their predecessors.”^[8]

* * *

Exhibit A: The Jaz Drive

The wild and woolly era of the personal computer offers several examples of technologies that represent the right idea at the wrong time. Consider the Iomega Jaz drive.

In 1995, the world was awash in 3-1/2 inch  floppy disks. Every magazine seemed to include an AOL disk helpfully glued into its pages. While the format had effectively quadrupled the storage capacity of the 5-1/2 inch disks it replaced, there were now hard drives readily available that could hold a whopping 1 gigabyte of data! (I remember buying the first such drive on behalf of the non-profit I served in the mid-90s and we felt we got a steal of a deal at $1000 for such a drive.) Backups for such large drives were a nightmare, even with CD-R technology that was still expensive and just beginning to become popular. Then in early 1995 Iomega introduced the Zip drive, followed shortly thereafter by the Jaz drive. The Zip drive was built on floppy technology but offered 100-MB cartridges that held as much as many typical hard drives. Jaz drives went a step farther, with 1 GB cartridges (later 2GB) that was based on hard drive technology.

It all seemed like the right technology at the right moment, and within what seemed a matter of months, Zip disks were everywhere … until they developed the dreaded “click of death.” In an effort to save a matter of a few cents, Iomega started selling their Zip cartridges without a small internal foam washer. Without this washer, the disks would quickly go out of alignment, often ruining the drives and thereby “infecting” any Zip disk placed in the drive--or anyone else’s Zip drive. Over the next three years, Iomega stonewalled the public and the press, quietly replacing the foam washer back into their production process but refusing to acknowledge the problem.

The Jaz drive, based on different technology, suffered much less except in the case where dust managed to get inside the cartridges themselves, but Iomega kept the price relatively high. This price premium, coupled with the continuing bad Zip saga soured the public on any removable drives with the Iomega brand, especially with CD-RW drives now in plentiful supply that could actually re-use CD media.

Today, Solid State Drives seem to be changing the storage landscape once again, but the external hard drive market has boomed since 1998 when a consumer complaint was filed against Iomega. Virtually all of these external units have featured fully enclosed hard drives with all of the smart components embedded into each one. It seems to me Iomega might have owned this market with “dumb” and less-expensive high-capacity cartridges that relied on the electronics of the host drive.

They got greedy at just the wrong moment and disproved “technological determinism.” But maybe they proved Daniel Forrester’s point yet again!

* * *

DMIN 547 Distilling a Dream for Leadership: The Nature and Art of Global Leadership / Jason Clark

Russ Pierson

^[1]

Too Big to Fail?
A Review of Consider: Harnessing the Power of Reflective Thinking
by Daniel Patrick Forrester
#dminlgp #consider #danielpatrickforrester

Let us not bandy words. We have a new kind of bank.
It is called too big to fail. T.B.T.F., and it is a wonderful bank.^[2]
—Representative Stewart McKinney

*  *  *

“Too big to fail” is a phrase we heard often in the early days of the housing market crash and resulting financial crisis in the United States in 2008 and 2009. Large banks and other financial institutions who had packaged and sold incredibly complex products linked largely to the mortgage industry lost billions of dollars in assets … and threatened collapse.

It isn’t the first time.

Daniel Patrick Forrester offers an uncredited homage to James Surowiecki in his recent book, Consider, when he speaks of “The Wisdom of Reflective Crowds.”^[3] And it is Surowiecki, author of the 2004 book, The Wisdom of Crowds,^[4] who uncovers the original source of the phrase as used widely in the media:

In 1984, Continental Illinois, then one of the country’s largest banks, found itself on the verge of collapse, after billions of dollars’ worth of its loans went bad. To avert a crisis, the government stepped in, purchasing $3.5 billion of the soured loans and effectively taking over the bank. Later that year, at a congressional subcommittee hearing, Representative Stewart McKinney summed up the lesson of the rescue effort …[with the phrase cited above in the epigraph] “too big to fail....”.^[5]

Certainly, in 1984 a bail-out of $3.5 billion USD represented a significant chunk of change. But it pales in comparison to the 2008 bail-out that included TARP, the Troubled Asset Released Program, currently pegged at $34 billion, and over $1 trillion in loans--and only 75% of those loans have been repaid thus far.^[6]

* * *

Our mentor in the George Fox Leadership and Global Perspectives doctoral program, Jason Clark, speaks often of his goal that we might become “reflective practitioners.” He may have found a brother in Daniel Patrick Forrester, author of Consider, whose subtitle is: Harnessing The Power of Reflective Thinking In Your Organization.

Forrester asks a compelling question at the outset of his book:

In the midst of dramatic and extreme change, has decision making devolved into merely informed chaos, or can we imbed reflection and think time into our habits and routines to arrive at better outcomes and understanding? ^[7]

The question is both answered in the affirmative and then well-illustrated with real-world examples of both failures created by a neglect of reflection and of foresighted businesses, entities and individuals who take the time to create space for reflection in an increasingly hectic culture where our technology and its incessant stream of data has perhaps outpaced our ability to commandeer that data and make use of it in the most effective way.

On the topic of those “too big to fail” banks, for example, Forrester tells the stories of Kyle Bass and Brooksley Born, a hedge fund investor and a lawyer who both foresaw the imminent collapse of the bubble that led to the economic crisis. He wonders if certain organizations might believe they are ever “too big to think”--too big to reflect.^[8]

* * *

^[9]

A Bit of Reflection in the Midst of Reflection

As I was reading Forrester’s Consider, I was also attending sessions at the recent Justice Conference in Portland, Oregon. While there, I spent a few “down time” moments, virtually captive in the bowels of the Oregon Convention Center, considering earthkeeping and environmental justice as my odd little slice of social justice.

The sessions that related most specifically to environmental thought and action were singularly unsatisfying to me. In one of the sessions, the most remarkable statement was made by someone in the audience during the Q&A session, essentially, “If God wants the Earth to support 60 billion people, it will.” Scientists and world leaders are all fretting how we might cope in 2050 when the world is projected to pass the 9 billion mark and an Evangelical seriously suggests that 60 billion humans wouldn’t be a problem? While I believe in miracles, this would be a miracle of--literally--biblical proportions. Human life in such a scenario would look much like it does for chickens in factory farms--and I fear our diet would be something straight out of the classic science fiction thriller, Soylent Green.^[10]

It is in this context then, that I stopped dead cold as I re-considered Forrester’s description of the 2010 BP oil spill, as told by Thad Allen, US Coast Guard Admiral and point person for the emergency response to both Katrina (where he relieved the failed Michael Brown) under President George W. Bush and the Gulf spill under President Obama:

“One of the things that made this unique from Katrina was that there was no human access to source of the problem. And all the access to the source of the problem and all the means to solve the problem at the source did not belong to the U.S. government; they belonged to the private sector.” He added, “This caused no small amount of angst with our political leaders as it seemed to question the relevancy of government. The response mechanism that we had been using for the last 20 years didn’t anticipate the crisis that would be brought about by the fact that the means to the solution of a problem of national scale would not be owned by the federal government.”^[11]

Wait a minute! Pause and reflect, dear reader.

Beyond banks and the financial sector, have we now allowed certain corporations to grow far beyond our ability to understand their reach and their breadth? Is BP Oil yet another example of a company “too big too fail?”

A Cautionary Tale

Richard Alley, in his book, Earth: The Operators’ Manual, tells the story of peak oil--peak whale oil:

From a very low level, whale-oil production increased past 2.5 million gallons per year around 1820, quintupled to about 12.5 million gallons per year at about 1850, and fell back to 2.5 million gallons per year by 1875 …. Recovery of whaling following the [Civil] war was damaged by some big disasters in the Arctic: thirty-three ships were crushed in the ice off Alaska in 1871, and 12 more were lost there in 1876. Insuring a vessel that stood a good chance of sinking on the Arctic grounds didn’t seem like a smart bet.^[12]

Alley further clarifies in a parenthetical statement:  The whalers were in the Arctic rather than off Cape Cod because, just as in 2010 the oil-well drillers were in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico rather than up on shore, the easy-to-get resource had been exhausted.^[13]

The whaling industry began as an easy proposition: launch a boat into Cape Cod and kill a whale for its oil capacity. But as intense whaling depleted the stock of “right” whales (so named for the ease of the hunt), whalers had to begin to take risks, to pursue whales to the ends of the earth, into the dangerous realm of the Arctic.

Fortunately, in 1859 the first modern oil well based on fossil fuels was drilled in Pennsylvania. This new technology saved the whales and saved countless lives that would have been lost in the hunt for that eventual last whale on the planet.

Are we there again?

The alternative fuel industry is poised for breakthrough. The BIg Three automakers are rolling out high-profile versions of electric and hybrid cars meant to capitalize on the growing solar sector, while windpower and geothermal technology is making a real-world impact in our reliance on oil.

Meanwhile, we have allowed corporations like BP to chase the last drop of oil deep under  the sea and in fragile ecosystems in Alaska and elsewhere. We argue about building a giant pipeline through nine states in close proximity to major watersheds in the central US and offer all kinds of subsidies and incentives to companies like BP to develop new technologies to extract oil and natural gas from ever-more tenuous locations around our planet.

Forrester suggests BP thought they were “too big to think.” It is clear that they have likewise become, like our huge, multinational banks, “too big to fail.”

At the end of the day, I wonder if, in truth, they aren’t simply “too big.”

* * *

DMIN 547 Distilling a Dream for Leadership: The Nature and Art of Global Leadership / Jason Clark

Russ Pierson

^[1]

Redeeming the M-Word:
A Review of A Brief Guide to Ideas 
by William Raeper & Linda Edwards
#dminlgp #abriefguidetoideas #raeper #edwards

This is gonna hurt.
—Nikki Sixx.

*  *  *

I can hear its siren song. It has been playing at the edges of my mind the past year or two, usually just out of sight, just beyond consciousness.

How many sturdy ships, en route to the safety of their harbor have wrecked there on the rocky shoals of ... liberalism? In these days of the modern witch hunt, in the landscape of American Evangelicalism early in the new millennium, it is heresy to be liberal in politics, liberal in theology, liberal at all.

The halls of faith-based learning--Christian universities and seminaries--are littered with the carcasses of abandoned faith … or at least of faith no longer recognizable from those who remain at the source from which it sprang.

There may be a reason why “seminaries” are popularly called “cemeteries” by many within Evangelicalism. One might wonder if Noll’s Evangelical “scandal” may not be in part because hard-core, Fundamentalist-leaning Evangelicalism and intellectualism often really are incompatible.

* * *

The “M-word”--which, dear reader, I do realize I have yet to reveal--is perhaps not the first thing that would come to mind in a discussion of Raeper and Edwards’magnificent and aptly-titled A Brief Guide to Ideas.^[2] The book is a remarkable, readable romp through the great philosophies and philosophers of Western history. One of my brilliant African doctoral colleagues in the George Fox Leadership and Global Perspectives program noted in conversation that a book like this helps them to understand the Western mind-set that is clearly evident to others and nearly invisible to us.

William Raeper was a Christian and a Scotsman, born, almost to the day, a year after me. He wrote broadly, from well-loved children’s books to philosophy and heady educational books. He died suddenly in a commercial plane crash in 1992, in the remote Himalayas of Nepal, where he was working on a book about the history of the region and the legend of Shangri-La. Like Raeper, Linda Edwards is an Oxford graduate. She is also an author of multiple books and a frequent lecturer at Trinity College in Wales after several years at Kings College in London. It was Edwards who wrote a poignant obituary of her writing colleague when Raeper died. Together here, Raeper and Edwards are prescient, foretelling some two decades ago what have become major fault lines within American Evangelicalism.

I find myself there, in the fault lines.

^[3]

The Problem

Several members of our doctoral cohort picked up on Raeper and Edwards’ “Part 10: What Place Has the Bible? The Question of Interpretation,” and have written admirably about this topic that all have of us have to wrestle with, both personally and professionally, at the doctoral level. Michael Ratliff, a Methodist leader, writes in a post aptly titled “The B-I-B-L-E:”

Throughout Christian history, the church has used and abused scripture - that continues today. The way we understand the Truth of God's written Word varies even as does our definition of descriptors like infallible, inerrant, literal, historical, analogical. What I've been reminded of over the past several weeks is the importance of understanding those definitions, both to enrich my ability to consider scripture from a difference (sic) point of view and more, to embrace those who cojourn with me in the desire to know and be known.^[4]

Meanwhile, my colleague, Anderson Campbell, the artist formerly known as Eddie Dean, wrote a post based in part on our cohort’s conversation on A Brief Guide to Ideas, mixed with his reading of Christian Smith’s The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture:^[5]

The issue is not that evangelicals have a special regard for the Bible, it's that so many of them read it and interpret it in isolation.

I consider myself a 'biblicist' in the [David] Bebbington sense of the term. I believe that the Bible deserves special regard.... I can reasonably expect that within its pages I can find all that is necessary to be reconciled to God.^[6]

I am that kind of biblicist, too … but with a special problem. My doctoral research is focused on a narrow intersection of religion and science--earthkeeping, or environmentalism informed (and informing) religion. Speaking only in terms of geography as metaphor and without all the political implications, I feel like I’m living in Israel, on this tiny hinge point between massive continents (Africa, Europe and Asia) representing very different worldviews.

Religion and Science

Our cosmology and cosmogony matter a great deal when it comes to developing our environmental sensitivity and our ways of viewing environmental issues. After offering a simple definition (“ beliefs about the origin of the universe,”), the website religioustolerance.org offers this handy note, for example, in its glossary for the term “cosmogeny” (more often spelled “cosmosgony”):

While over 95% of scientists and many other North American adults believe that the world and the rest of the universe is billions of years old, many conservative Christians believe in a universe less than 10,000 years of age.^[7]

Similarly, The Pew Forum on Religion in Public Life presented a fascinating study on “Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution” in February of 2009, just ahead of the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin. Their findings, represented in the chart below, offer an enlightening snapshot that suggests a connection between biblical literalism, cosmogony and the acceptance of scientific contributions to matters related to the care of the earth. While roughly 80% of Jews, Hindus and Buddhists accept the theory of evolution, just over half of Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Mainline Protestants take that view. Stunningly though not surprisingly, less than a quarter of Evangelicals accept evolution.

^[8]

There are some issues with the Pew study. For example, an Evangelical might well accept the notion of evolution without fully assenting to the form the question took here: “Do you agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth?” Indeed that description might well include the founders of Protestant Fundamentalism itself:

One of the best-kept secrets in American intellectual history is that B.B. Warfield, the foremost modern defender of the theologically conservative doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible, was also an evolutionist.^[9]

I might also hasten to add that while there is no direct connection between one’s position relative to evolution and environmentalism, the evolution vs. creation debate in the US has taken on such vitriolic proportion that it becomes easy to discount entire fields of science for some people of faith. While I do not think any of my many friends who adhere to a literal seven-day creation are doomed to never care about their impact on our planet, I think it does lead to “scientific suspicion” in general--particularly on matters related to the earth, its age or its destiny. I have yet to run across a scientific survey, but I would guess many of the same people who believe in a young earth and literal week-long creation would also be skeptical of climate science.

Raeper and Edwards enter the fray at this point, too--they have another entire section of their book devoted to “Science and Belief.” In their chapter on creation and evolution, they describe several Christian theologies that find room for both creation and evolution:

The theory of evolution represents a turning-point in human understanding. New findings challenged old philosophies and religion was forced to rethink some aspects of its claims to ‘truth’. But if science appeared to triumph over religion that was not necessarily science’s gain, but humankind’s loss. Understanding the questions posed by existing in the world cannot be reduced to science, though science has clarified many issues. The challenge to science is surely to fight for its truth in the face of prejudice; the challenge for religion is to present its truth afresh to each new generation.^[10]

Later they describe the interesting work of Thomas F. Torrance, who has thought long and hard about this intersection of religion and science: “If Torrance is correct, science and religion are not rivals but twins.”^[11]

The M-Word

What is the “M-Word?”

All of us in America are aware of the “N-word,” a derogatory term for African-Americans with deep roots in slavery and racism. These days it is even on the outer fringes of acceptability for an African-American rap or hip-hop artist to use the word in their song lyrics. Kanye West, for example, experienced a bit of push-back for its use in “Gold Digger,” his massive 2005 chart-topper, but even West has never otherwise used the term in a professional context outside of his music.^[12]

The M-word has had that kind of resonance among Evangelical theologians. Myth is the M-word, a term that can make or break pastoral and theological careers. Over the past half-century, any time you dare to connect the Bible with the term myth, you are in danger of heresy.

Why is that so? And why might we hope to redeem myth for a new generation of thoughtful Evangelicals? Again we turn to Raeper and Edwards for insight.

Germany was the hot-bed of intellectual theological work in the late 19th and early-to-mid 20th century. In response to Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and later, Albert Schweitzer (whose book, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, was published in 1906), Karl Barth (1886-1968) introduced “neo-orthodoxy” to pull the pendulum back toward a more conservative position. His contemporary countryman, Rudolf Bultmann, moderated somewhere between Barth and the earlier liberals:

Rudolf Bultmann (1844-1976) was Professor of Theology at Marburg in Germany from 1921-1951. He believed that most of the sayings of Jesus were created by the early church, and were not spoken by Jesus himself …. Bultmann is best-known for ‘de-mythologizing’ the New Testament. For the first-century world to speak to modern times, the ‘mythical’ world-view of that era has to be stripped away.^[13]

As these German ideas were translated and made their way to England and then across the Atlantic to the US, it became clear to American Evangelicals who were growing increasingly conservative that Bultmann was using this term “myth” in a manner that undermined biblical authority. For Bultmann, these “myths” were really just legends that had sprung up around the person and work of the “historical Jesus.”

While there may be Evangelicals who adhere to some version of Bultmann’s notions today, they are not my tribe. I too react with disdain to the idea that the miraculous ministry of Jesus is little more than the story of an ordinary man riddled with legends.

The New Mythbusters and The “Legends of the Fall”

Even so, I want to redeem the word myth from the trash heap of history. A myth is not the same as a legend! We need the M-word now more than ever to help us with nuances of biblical hermeneutics. We need this word to help us negotiate our faith in an environmentally sensitive era.

Back in what seems like a former life after thirty years away from academia, I had the pleasure of teaching undergrads about hermeneutics. “Hermeneutics” comes to us from the Greek name “Hermes,” better known to us by his Roman name.“Mercury,” depicted above in the FTD™ floral company logo. Hermes was the messenger who moved back and forth between the Greek pantheon and humankind. And so, hermeneutics is the art and science of biblical interpretation.

There is always science involved in biblical interpretation. You may not realize it, but every time you simply pick up and start reading an English translation of the Bible, countless decisions about the way you interpret that text have already been made for you! We  often have difficulty understanding one another in personal communication--even within the context of marriage and family, so imagine trying to understand someone writing in a foreign language in an exotic land some three thousand years ago in an era that looks almost nothing like ours.

Welcome to the dark arts of biblical interpretation.

… in order to communicate his Word to all human conditions, God chose to use almost every available kind of communication: narrative history, genealogies, chronicles, laws of all kinds, poetry of all kinds, proverbs, prophetic oracles, riddles, drama, biographical sketches, parables, letters, sermons, and apocalypses. To interpret properly the "then and there" of the biblical texts, you must not only know some general rules that apply to all the words of the Bible, but you also need to learn the special rules that apply to each of these literary forms (genres). The way God communicates his Word to us in the "here and now" will often differ from one form to another.^[14]

This counsel above from Fee and  Stuart’s classic How to Read the Bible for All its Worth suggests that we approach the Psalms, for example, differently than Romans, and Revelation requires still an additional skill-set and understanding of Jewish apocalyptic literature. And this understanding of genre must come before we start dissecting the text with our historical-grammatical tools. We have to know where the forest is before we can locate the individual tree.

Why did untold generations of Christians not insist on a very wooden, literal six-days of creation--including the early Fundamentalists--in their reading of Genesis 1-3? Why did B.B. Warfield, the father of modern biblical inerrancy, respond favorably to the newfangled notion of evolution in the late 19th century?

It is all about genre. It is all about … myth!

Remember … I am not suggesting the earliest chapters of the Hebrew Bible aren’t true. Nay--they are deeply true. I am certainly not saying they are goofy legends that aren’t worthy of our consideration.

The more I study ancient Israel and the more I learn about native peoples in the Americas, the more I connect those dots. Like the ancient Israelite community, Native Americans are agrarian, living close to the land, largely unaffected by Western ways of thinking, by Greek philosophy and modern capitalism and … absolute literalism.

In Native American culture, the deepest truest values, the most revered history, is passed on through story and song and dance, through art and dress.

This is not unlike ancient Israel.

The truest truths, the most primal archetypes expressing their core beliefs and the essence of their relationship to their God are found in those ancient myths.

These are Myths with a capital “M.” Technically speaking, a myth is a story about a god, and this god is The God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This God is too big for prose alone, for bullet point lists of what was created in which 24-hour period. This God demands our highest art, our finest songs, our most passionate dances, our truest stories.

If Rudolf Bultmann was interested in “demythologizing” Scripture, I am interested in “re-mythologizing” Scripture, something akin to that which is suggested by Alister McGrath’s book, The Re-Enchantment of Nature:

Christianity is more than a theory in which one can take intellectual delight, offering a new appreciation of the beauty of the world--to be compared to Newton's optics or laws of motion or Maxwell's electrodynamic equations. It points to something that transcends these, which can be intuitively grasped in the present and which will be fully possessed in the future.... As the great English religious poet George Herbert (1593-1633) put it, we are enabled to catch a glimpse of "heaven in ordinary." ^[15]

When we read the Bible with eyes full of wonder, we encounter a brilliant and mysterious God creating a diverse web of related ecosystems designed to support a miraculous array of life begetting life.

THAT is the power of myth, properly understood.

THAT is good hermeneutics that supports a high view of Scripture and biblical authority.

* * *