It's a fascinating thing to think about. There are several points to think about in
Megachurch For Sale one is to do with personality and succession, this one I've seen at first hand in a different context: "The difficulty in finding a successor to Robert Schuller has resulted in declining attendance, increasing debt, and now the loss of the church's most valuable (earthly) asset--its property." The problem is when a church is built, in effect, around the drive and personality of a particular (charismatic) individual it is almost impossible for it to continue 'business as usual' once that person moves on or dies. It is just so unlikely that those who have been involved and/or attending because they like the 'star' pastor will all find a replacement just as congenial.
The article goes on to outline the growth of megachurches in the USA and notes that they are largely led by dynamic baby-boomers who over the next decade are going to be retiring, in all probability: "The question looming over the megachurches is--how do they transfer leadership to the next generation in a way that maintains the enormous funds and personnel required to run them?"
Indeed.
I'm wondering whether this question is perhaps a bit like asking: how does the Elvis estate transfer fans to another icon? Which probably frames the issue in terms of how unlikely I think it actually is: if it's personality-dependent then the leadership will have to recognise a likely 'hit' in numbers and support while they establish a new 'brand' which will attract a new fan-base. Does it sound awful to put it in those terms? Probably, but I think we should not baulk from such analogies out of squeamishness which is borne of misplaced religious sensibility. The reason such things happen is that a certain degree of what is happening is hidden behind religious talk and posturing. Some of it is sincerely meant, perhaps a lot of it; but we should be wary of the Elmer Gantry effect sneaking up on ministries. Realistically, fans (religious or otherwise) are not going to transfer allegiances wholesale; they will move to the next items in their hierarchy of needs/desires. That may or may not be the church.
But let's notice too that part of what I've not been talking about is the relationship to God in Christ ... just so ... the success of megachurches is partly to be measured by how far they are able to help re-order the desires of their attenders and participants to 'seek first the Kingdom of God and God's righteousness'.
It may even be that we should question the value of such churches where there is a personality cult at work: do they actually serve the Spirit in Creation and Redemption or hinder?
The article rightly notes that this is not just megachurches, though the stakes are huge in terms of money and debt; frightening, in fact. So, how is succession to be managed? I see a number churches suffering from 'post-big-name' blues and woes. Well, I think that 'grow your own' might be part of the answer and careful and timely apprenticeship of possible successors. Along with the recognition that succession will involve 'churn' and planning for that it a sensible, no blame, sort of way. But I also wonder whether actually limiting church sizes might be a way forward.
I'm presupposing in thinking about this that personality is bound to figure to some degree, and that it can be part of God's design and ministry. It's the response to and deployment of personality that is the issue -including a grown-up recognition that it is a factor and then planning and praying around that. God creates us diverse and with personality, I don't go for that doctrine that seeks to eliminate personality from ministry. That's a recipe for a sneak attack by the unacknowledged. Insetead a sober assessment of the contribution of personality and an organising of a diverse team where personality is sought in a balancing way and where less dominant personalities are built up and publicly appreciated is needed. And if the big personality can't wear that, then isn't that a warning signal?
31 May 2011
29 May 2011
Ora pro me; 9 June
I'd love it if you could pray for me about this new beginning and for us as a family as we adjust to new circumstances and possibilities. In your holding us before God please consider Tracy as she seeks a right way forward in her ministry and vocation and for our children, Jo, Ben and Bex who each in their own ways are making significant transitions this summer (Jo seeking employment after his MA studies; Ben graduates and will be seeking business in graphic design; Bex continues at University into her final year and will be preparing both for marriage and post-graduate study).
I think that this may be the first time I have ever mentioned by name all of my immediate family on this blog. Since they are all now over 18 and have their own web footprint, I guess it may be about time!
26 May 2011
The Americanization of Mental Illness
Here's one of those things where I get that sense of 'I'm not surprised to hear this but I hadn't quite clocked it before'.
The Americanization of Mental Illness - NYTimes.com: "the forms of madness from one place and time often look remarkably different from the forms of madness in another". In other words 'madness' has an element to it of cultural construction. That's not to say it is entirely so, merely that we tend to form the expressions of mental illness according to cultural mores and that in some cases cultural tensions exacerbate different underlying mental or emotional dysfunctions.
To take one comment from the article commenting on a cross-cultural study of anorexia: “Culture shapes the way general psychopathology is going to be translated partially or completely into specific psychopathology. When there is a cultural atmosphere in which professionals, the media, schools, doctors, psychologists all recognize and endorse and talk about and publicize eating disorders, then people can be triggered to consciously or unconsciously pick eating-disorder pathology as a way to express that conflict.”
And it is also to do with the way that mental illness is received in the host community (which, of course, will have a reflexive effect as the ill person will potentially view themselves and their condition through the cultural lens they have to hand). For example, in east Africa in those areas where schizophrenia tends to be understood as a spiritual affliction; "An ill individual enjoying a time of relative mental health could, at least temporarily, retake his or her responsibilities in the kinship group. Since the illness was seen as the work of outside forces, it was understood as an affliction for the sufferer but not as an identity." And surely that kind of attitude must have effects on the health, over time, of the sufferer.
Part of the point is to recognise that we, in the west, are exporting more than medicine with our mental health treatments; "Western mental-health discourse introduces core components of Western culture, including a theory of human nature, a definition of personhood, a sense of time and memory and a source of moral authority. None of this is universal,"
I find this quite intriguing when it comes to the care of people in a multicultural environment like a modern university. Not yet sure how it 'cashes out', but it's a perspective to hold beside what we see unfolding.
The Americanization of Mental Illness - NYTimes.com: "the forms of madness from one place and time often look remarkably different from the forms of madness in another". In other words 'madness' has an element to it of cultural construction. That's not to say it is entirely so, merely that we tend to form the expressions of mental illness according to cultural mores and that in some cases cultural tensions exacerbate different underlying mental or emotional dysfunctions.
To take one comment from the article commenting on a cross-cultural study of anorexia: “Culture shapes the way general psychopathology is going to be translated partially or completely into specific psychopathology. When there is a cultural atmosphere in which professionals, the media, schools, doctors, psychologists all recognize and endorse and talk about and publicize eating disorders, then people can be triggered to consciously or unconsciously pick eating-disorder pathology as a way to express that conflict.”
And it is also to do with the way that mental illness is received in the host community (which, of course, will have a reflexive effect as the ill person will potentially view themselves and their condition through the cultural lens they have to hand). For example, in east Africa in those areas where schizophrenia tends to be understood as a spiritual affliction; "An ill individual enjoying a time of relative mental health could, at least temporarily, retake his or her responsibilities in the kinship group. Since the illness was seen as the work of outside forces, it was understood as an affliction for the sufferer but not as an identity." And surely that kind of attitude must have effects on the health, over time, of the sufferer.
Part of the point is to recognise that we, in the west, are exporting more than medicine with our mental health treatments; "Western mental-health discourse introduces core components of Western culture, including a theory of human nature, a definition of personhood, a sense of time and memory and a source of moral authority. None of this is universal,"
I find this quite intriguing when it comes to the care of people in a multicultural environment like a modern university. Not yet sure how it 'cashes out', but it's a perspective to hold beside what we see unfolding.
An Open Apology for the Church (by Joe Boyd)
I suspect that a number of readers may find a lot in this to make common cause with. See here
TheOOZE beta | evolving spirituality. � An Open Apology for the Church (by Joe Boyd): for the whole thing. Here's a flavour of it "I ask your forgiveness for every sin of every priest, pastor, minister, reverend, teacher, elder, deacon, pope, nun, monk, missionary, Sunday school teacher, worship leader, and for every Christian who has ever come into your life for any other reason than to love you. If any of us came to you and hurt you, we are the ones at fault. On our behalf, let me say that I am very sorry. It’s not who we are supposed to be"
I like the idea that every so often he adds to it...
TheOOZE beta | evolving spirituality. � An Open Apology for the Church (by Joe Boyd): for the whole thing. Here's a flavour of it "I ask your forgiveness for every sin of every priest, pastor, minister, reverend, teacher, elder, deacon, pope, nun, monk, missionary, Sunday school teacher, worship leader, and for every Christian who has ever come into your life for any other reason than to love you. If any of us came to you and hurt you, we are the ones at fault. On our behalf, let me say that I am very sorry. It’s not who we are supposed to be"
I like the idea that every so often he adds to it...
23 May 2011
Mapping, knowing and propaganda
Some readers will know that I enjoy a good map. It's the colour, pattern and promise of new places. I also find myself intrigued by the idea of mapping. The way that a map picks out certain features of reality in relationship to others to guide the reader through a literal, metaphorical or mixed territory. And while the map is not the territory, it shares with language more generally the ability to make us think it is -kind of.
Now the article here: 513 - Then We Take Berlin: When East Ate West | Strange Maps | Big Think: helps shine a light on the way that things that we take as natural, unproblematic or starightforward, are actually freighted with ideological, hegemonic perspectives -just like ideas and other cultural artefacts. See ...
"Take this map of the urban transport network (1) in Berlin. At face value, it is a purely utilitarian map, giving its readers a no-nonsense, schematic overview of the transportational possibilities of the German capital. But context matters: this map was produced by the East German government, for its captive citizenry. It mixes information with propaganda as it tries very hard to ignore an inconvenient truth - too big to hide completely: the existence of another Berlin."
So this is a great idea for cultural studies teaching and learning: a way in to a central idea...
Now the article here: 513 - Then We Take Berlin: When East Ate West | Strange Maps | Big Think: helps shine a light on the way that things that we take as natural, unproblematic or starightforward, are actually freighted with ideological, hegemonic perspectives -just like ideas and other cultural artefacts. See ...
"Take this map of the urban transport network (1) in Berlin. At face value, it is a purely utilitarian map, giving its readers a no-nonsense, schematic overview of the transportational possibilities of the German capital. But context matters: this map was produced by the East German government, for its captive citizenry. It mixes information with propaganda as it tries very hard to ignore an inconvenient truth - too big to hide completely: the existence of another Berlin."
So this is a great idea for cultural studies teaching and learning: a way in to a central idea...
22 May 2011
Language Log � Translated phrase-list jokes
Some of you have no doubt seen the chart of English phrases and how they are heard by Europeans and what is really meant. Well, there's a short one with a handful of French phrases, the same treatment.
Language Log � Translated phrase-list jokes:
| French Phrase | Literal Translation | Idiomatic Translation |
| "je serai clair" | "I will be clear" | "I will be rude" |
| "Il faut la visibilité Européenne" | "We need European visibility" | "The EU must indulge in some pointless, annoying and, with luck, damaging international grand-standing." |
| "Il faut trouver une solution pragmatique" | "We must find a pragmatic solution" | "Warning: I am about to propose a highly complex, theoretical, legalistic and unworkable way forward." |
Language Log � Translated phrase-list jokes:
15 May 2011
Military Social Influence in the Global Information Environment
A short while back, in giving my reactions to Dr Who of that week, I mentioned the Myth of Redemptive Violence. Well, this article brings home to me just why we need to pay increasing attention to the issue: the military are actively seeking to exercise hegemony in global society, that is they are seeking to win acceptance and a perceived 'naturalness' to their agenda.Scholarly commentary invited through December 2010.: Military Social Influence in the Global Information Environment: A Civilian Primer - King - 2010 - Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy - Wiley Online Library: "This ongoing “revolution in military affairs” (Metz & Kievit, 1995, p. iii) has precipitated, among other things, a steady increase in U.S. military capacity to conduct social influence campaigns at every level of the modern world's information environment: in local, national, regional (or “theater”), and global spheres; in domestic and foreign populations; among individuals, groups, organizations, and governments"
Whether or not this is explicitly tied to MoRV, said myth is clearly a 'sleeper meme' in our culture that can be easily activated to mobilise a population to support, fund and give bodies to the war effort. Particularly when the military use phrases like "perception management", we realise that they are after our minds and consent. The article referenced here is written with this end in mind: "it is now possible, if not imperative, for those who study and teach about social influence to understand U.S. information operations, arguably among the largest, most controversial, and most influential social influence campaigns in modern times."
This is more, for the most part, than simply the old propaganda battles, the new realities of weapons and IT mean "Our military's enemies, ... are most likely to be small, rogue groups who attempt to prevail by winning popular support and undermining U.S. political will for war ...The argument here is that in most modern war, physical battles, if they exist, will be for the purpose of defining psychological battlespace ... terrorists are “armed propaganda organizations”" -perhaps that latter remark is at least partly exponented by Al Qaida.
The other factors impinging on this are the greater transparency that IT tends to foster so that atrocities are harder to hide and for those whose soldiery are from democratic regimes this brings a change of role, particularly when combined with heightened awareness of human rights and international law: "the transformation of the role of the individual soldier in the context of the increasing transparency of the global information environment, the decreasing utility of conventional weaponry, and the increasing power of social influence. It has been suggested that the modern soldiers of western democracies are essentially “heavily armed social workers” ... These troops work to change behavior in the glare of a multi-technology-based global media. They are obligated to minimize casualties, manage the perceptions of the global audience, and influence behavior through nonviolent means."
Now, much of that has been stated in terms that sound as if there is a push towards the more ethical and applaudable end of warfare. And not particularly supporting the tone I set when I began the post. However, we should note that all of the above can be used -is used- simply to make the case. What is still going on is the violent and repressive exercise of brute force in furtherance of political goals by non-consensual means. Iraq has shown us that information manipulation and spin are also weapons of war. The mention of the soldiers of western democracies carries with it a certain irony since their most recent deployments have, it seems, been to impose democracy by non-democratic means. I know there is more nuance to it than that, but it is really hard to tell it any other way to ordinary people in Muslim-majority countries -just take a look at the bit and pieces of reportage about the way that Libyans, and others, have viewed NATO involvement there: there is a lot of suspicion around.
Of course, trying to do this in a global environment which has a lot of bottom-up about it is (or can be) like herding cats. It's working in a complex environment and so MI and IO is going to be about trying to find 'strange attactors' in information and opinion terms that allow the forming of opinion round certain perspectives most conducive to the interests they represent. It's always going to be a dicey thing: there is a lot of awareness of power interests and their wiles.
So it is important that we as Christians, following the Prince of Peace and the one who said 'Put away your sword', should continue to 'fight the good fight' (Blake's "mental strife") to demolish strongholds; ie we resist MoRV and other alibis for keeping elites in power and most people in the dark -sometimes violently herded into the dark.
Whether or not this is explicitly tied to MoRV, said myth is clearly a 'sleeper meme' in our culture that can be easily activated to mobilise a population to support, fund and give bodies to the war effort. Particularly when the military use phrases like "perception management", we realise that they are after our minds and consent. The article referenced here is written with this end in mind: "it is now possible, if not imperative, for those who study and teach about social influence to understand U.S. information operations, arguably among the largest, most controversial, and most influential social influence campaigns in modern times."
This is more, for the most part, than simply the old propaganda battles, the new realities of weapons and IT mean "Our military's enemies, ... are most likely to be small, rogue groups who attempt to prevail by winning popular support and undermining U.S. political will for war ...The argument here is that in most modern war, physical battles, if they exist, will be for the purpose of defining psychological battlespace ... terrorists are “armed propaganda organizations”" -perhaps that latter remark is at least partly exponented by Al Qaida.
The other factors impinging on this are the greater transparency that IT tends to foster so that atrocities are harder to hide and for those whose soldiery are from democratic regimes this brings a change of role, particularly when combined with heightened awareness of human rights and international law: "the transformation of the role of the individual soldier in the context of the increasing transparency of the global information environment, the decreasing utility of conventional weaponry, and the increasing power of social influence. It has been suggested that the modern soldiers of western democracies are essentially “heavily armed social workers” ... These troops work to change behavior in the glare of a multi-technology-based global media. They are obligated to minimize casualties, manage the perceptions of the global audience, and influence behavior through nonviolent means."
Now, much of that has been stated in terms that sound as if there is a push towards the more ethical and applaudable end of warfare. And not particularly supporting the tone I set when I began the post. However, we should note that all of the above can be used -is used- simply to make the case. What is still going on is the violent and repressive exercise of brute force in furtherance of political goals by non-consensual means. Iraq has shown us that information manipulation and spin are also weapons of war. The mention of the soldiers of western democracies carries with it a certain irony since their most recent deployments have, it seems, been to impose democracy by non-democratic means. I know there is more nuance to it than that, but it is really hard to tell it any other way to ordinary people in Muslim-majority countries -just take a look at the bit and pieces of reportage about the way that Libyans, and others, have viewed NATO involvement there: there is a lot of suspicion around.
Of course, trying to do this in a global environment which has a lot of bottom-up about it is (or can be) like herding cats. It's working in a complex environment and so MI and IO is going to be about trying to find 'strange attactors' in information and opinion terms that allow the forming of opinion round certain perspectives most conducive to the interests they represent. It's always going to be a dicey thing: there is a lot of awareness of power interests and their wiles.
So it is important that we as Christians, following the Prince of Peace and the one who said 'Put away your sword', should continue to 'fight the good fight' (Blake's "mental strife") to demolish strongholds; ie we resist MoRV and other alibis for keeping elites in power and most people in the dark -sometimes violently herded into the dark.
11 May 2011
08 May 2011
The Curse of the Black Spot
I enjoyed last night's Dr Who, and I've found myself musing over a couple of aspects of it. Check out here (at least for the time being) for some further info or reminders: BBC - BBC One Programmes - Doctor Who, Series 6, The Curse of the Black Spot: "Beset by terror and cabin fever, the pirates have numerous superstitious explanations for the appearance of a mysterious Siren."
So, what I found intriguing having slept on it is the plot structure. A lot of popular viewing, and indeed literature, employs a plot line which is basically 'heroes and others are threatened by some malevolent force (whether a thing, a population or something more amorphous) and the goodies work together using their resources (usually cunningly) deployed to destroy, neutralise or rout the malevolents'.
Of course, that kind of plot arc is basically reinforcing, normally, the myth of redemptive violence (MoRV) which is arguably a key mythic pattern in our culture (I happen to concur with Walter Wink that it actually is). What I enjoyed about this plot is that it opened up the imagination to other ways of plotting the things we face.
In the classic MoRV take, the scenario that the episode opens with would be resolved by either leaving things with the discovery of how the Siren accessed their ship or hiding places and closing it off and getting away or, more usually, discovering something that enabled them to destroy or 'neutralise' the monster. What happened here was the discovery that the 'monster' isn't really but is actually an intelligent programme (an emergency medical hologram -borrowed from Star Trek Voyager?) whose mission is to save the injured and ill by taking them to a life-support unit and keeping them alive albeit comotose pending a visit by real medics. In this case, because the crew of the space vessel the Siren is from, have died from an earth virus (shades of War of the Worlds?), the medics are never going to come and, unlike Voyager, this holographic medic hasn't evolved beyond 'her' programming. So the EHM paramedic simply snatches anyone injured or ill and warehouses them. The resolution here is not from the MoRV script but by understanding the 'enemy', trusting their intelligence and working with their beneficent desires for an outcome of win-win. MoRV, of course is not about win-win but a zero sum 'game'.
I salute the win-win storyline. What this also tells me is that in the struggle for a more peaceful, safer and more just world a big part of it is to expand the moral imagination. Part of our problem as a global society is, I would contend, that our ability to think (collectively) about how to resolve conflict, differing aims and objectives etc is infested by MoRv in such a way that it disables possible win-win plotting. We need to big up stories of win-win plotting (and other kinds of non-MoRV) so that the resources that we have, collectively, to put ourselves into plot-lines-in-life that enable human flourishing for all. So let's have more of these win-win plots and let's celebrate them and encourage them to fill our hearts and minds and so drive from our real-life plotting the automatic recourse to win-lose and MoRV which, I think, made the mistakes of responding to the Twin Towers attack by going into Iraq.
The second thing I've been musing is much less cosmic but nevertheless still intrigues me.
The Siren (whom we discover is an emergency holographic paramedic) looks remarkably like the stowaway lad who we discover to be the captain's son. Maybe this was a co-incidence or merely a resemblance in my own mind, but maybe it has further significance. Within the information from within the story, it could be that the lad was the basis for the programme's choice of form to appear in (the alien skeletons were clearly not human and probably, in our eyes, properly monstrous -big teeth, bony crest on the skull). But then, if this was the case, how did it know (a) to put clothes on and (b) to put female garb on given that all the models it had on the ship were male?
So, what I found intriguing having slept on it is the plot structure. A lot of popular viewing, and indeed literature, employs a plot line which is basically 'heroes and others are threatened by some malevolent force (whether a thing, a population or something more amorphous) and the goodies work together using their resources (usually cunningly) deployed to destroy, neutralise or rout the malevolents'.
Of course, that kind of plot arc is basically reinforcing, normally, the myth of redemptive violence (MoRV) which is arguably a key mythic pattern in our culture (I happen to concur with Walter Wink that it actually is). What I enjoyed about this plot is that it opened up the imagination to other ways of plotting the things we face.
In the classic MoRV take, the scenario that the episode opens with would be resolved by either leaving things with the discovery of how the Siren accessed their ship or hiding places and closing it off and getting away or, more usually, discovering something that enabled them to destroy or 'neutralise' the monster. What happened here was the discovery that the 'monster' isn't really but is actually an intelligent programme (an emergency medical hologram -borrowed from Star Trek Voyager?) whose mission is to save the injured and ill by taking them to a life-support unit and keeping them alive albeit comotose pending a visit by real medics. In this case, because the crew of the space vessel the Siren is from, have died from an earth virus (shades of War of the Worlds?), the medics are never going to come and, unlike Voyager, this holographic medic hasn't evolved beyond 'her' programming. So the EHM paramedic simply snatches anyone injured or ill and warehouses them. The resolution here is not from the MoRV script but by understanding the 'enemy', trusting their intelligence and working with their beneficent desires for an outcome of win-win. MoRV, of course is not about win-win but a zero sum 'game'.
I salute the win-win storyline. What this also tells me is that in the struggle for a more peaceful, safer and more just world a big part of it is to expand the moral imagination. Part of our problem as a global society is, I would contend, that our ability to think (collectively) about how to resolve conflict, differing aims and objectives etc is infested by MoRv in such a way that it disables possible win-win plotting. We need to big up stories of win-win plotting (and other kinds of non-MoRV) so that the resources that we have, collectively, to put ourselves into plot-lines-in-life that enable human flourishing for all. So let's have more of these win-win plots and let's celebrate them and encourage them to fill our hearts and minds and so drive from our real-life plotting the automatic recourse to win-lose and MoRV which, I think, made the mistakes of responding to the Twin Towers attack by going into Iraq.
The second thing I've been musing is much less cosmic but nevertheless still intrigues me.
The Siren (whom we discover is an emergency holographic paramedic) looks remarkably like the stowaway lad who we discover to be the captain's son. Maybe this was a co-incidence or merely a resemblance in my own mind, but maybe it has further significance. Within the information from within the story, it could be that the lad was the basis for the programme's choice of form to appear in (the alien skeletons were clearly not human and probably, in our eyes, properly monstrous -big teeth, bony crest on the skull). But then, if this was the case, how did it know (a) to put clothes on and (b) to put female garb on given that all the models it had on the ship were male?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
I've just had an article published on emergingchurch.info. It's an adaptation of some of my book, but I thought I'd share it and...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg