Daniel and regime change – A call for perspective

Posted on September 26, 2012 Written by Mark McIntyre 3 Comments

The call to panic

It is tempting to get caught up in the rhetoric because it is presented to us that the outcome of this election is the most important of our lifetime. Talk show hosts, advertisements, commentators, musicians and actors all speak with breathless emotion about what is at stake and how a wrong choice will cause the demise of America.

Call me a cynic, but it seems that every election is presented that same way. Yes, there are important issues, and I have decided for whom I will vote. I do think that it is important to exercise the freedom we have been given to participate in the selection of those who govern us. In America we get the government we deserve because we put them in office.

It is right to be concerned about how our nation is governed and to speak up when things are not as they should be. But as a Christian I know that I must maintain a larger perspective.

The call to perspective

I recently read through the book of Daniel. In Daniel we see a man who was taken by force from his own country and transplanted in an alien land. He survived and thrived under three different regimes: Israel, Babylon and Persia.

I am encouraged by the fact that Daniel did not see any of the these Earthly kingdoms as his ultimate authority. It did not matter which person or country had the upper hand. God still remained in control.

The text does not say, but it is implied that when Daniel was in Judah, he worshipped God. When Daniel was under the King of Babylon, Daniel worshipped God. When the Persians took over, Daniel still worshipped God as the ultimate authority.

God had a plan for Daniel, he had a plan for the nation of Israel and he had a plan for the rest of humanity. Nebuchadnezzar could not derail that plan, and neither could Belshazzar, Darius or Cyrus. Daniel’s God stayed the same throughout Daniel’s lifetime therefore Daniel’s worship of God stayed the same.

No matter how the election turns out, God remains in control and no-one can thwart his plan. God will not change, and our worship of him should not change.

We can learn from Daniel and find comfort in his example of one who was steadfast in his worship, even in the midst of social and political chaos.

The real cost of the win-at-all-costs mentality

Posted on September 21, 2012 Written by Mark McIntyre Leave a Comment

We like winners

In American society, we like people and teams who win. We like those who come out on top. No-one wants to come in second. This is why we have the saying, “second place is first loser.”

In no sport is this truer than in competitive cycling. This is highlighted by the recent controversy over doping allegations against Lance Armstrong. In a recent World Magazine article entitled Lancing Blow, ESPN columnist Rick Reilly is quoted as saying that Lance “cheated in a sport where cheating is as common as eating.” The implication is that Lance had to cheat (if he did) just to keep the playing field level and that it is no big deal. Yet, as the World Magazine article shows, this mentality took its toll on Lance’s personal life, regardless of whether he doped or not.

Other sports have had their cheating controversies as well. Performance enhancing drugs, bounty programs and using electronic means of stealing the other teams signals are just a few ways that teams have tried to get an edge on their competitors. We often turn a blind eye to this behavior because we want our team to win. We like those who focus on winning.

The dark side

Yet this win-at-all-costs mentality has a dark side to it. Large corporations such as Enron were propelled to prominence through this mentality only to come crashing down when the extent of their deception became known. The result was that not only did the leaders of the company suffer, employees lost jobs and investors lost $11 Billion as Enron’s stock crashed down.

A point of reference

The win at all costs mentality is typical of a society that has lost its point of reference. Through all the prophetic books the leaders of Israel are called to account for having “false balances” (Amos 8:5 ESV) and pursuing “dishonest gain” (Ezekiel 22:27). Israel lost sight of the command to love God (Deuteronomy 6:5) and as a result, the law of God was neglected.

In America we are following the same path. We rebel against the Judeo-Christian ethic and have not replaced it with anything sufficient to deter cheating and the me-first, win-at-all-costs mentality. We send future executives to Ivy League schools where they are taught that there is no absolute moral truth and then we throw them in jail after they put this philosophy into practice in the board room.

The only hope

The only hope is that when things get so bad, when people realize that the alternatives to a Biblical ethic are morally bankrupt, then we will be ripe for revival. But in our arrogance and pride we continue to choose our own way. We continue going down the tunnel of self rule.

The problem is that even though the tunnel ends in a rock wall, we are pressing the accelerator harder.

Defending God’s honor? A response to the Islamic riots

Posted on September 19, 2012 Written by Mark McIntyre 3 Comments

Riots for honor?

In a blog post in response to the riots in the Islamic world, Tom Gilson asks the question, “what good is there in defending God’s honor?” In that post, Mr. Gilson highlights some differences between Islam and Christianity with the caveat that he has limited understanding of Islam.

As one who is also of limited knowledge of the Muslim faith, Tom’s article triggered some thoughts in me on how to respond to the rioting.

Take up your cross

Jesus tells us in the Gospels that those who seek to follow Christ are to take up our crosses. Luke 9:23 adds that this cross bearing is to be repeated daily. We are to embrace a symbol of humiliation. The result should be humility in us. We share the same tendency to pride and sin as the rest of humanity. It is only through the work of Jesus on the Cross that we can be other than what we were.

Go the second mile

Jesus also tells us that when asked to go a mile, we are to go two (Matthew 5:41). When we are slapped, we are to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). To the one who demands our shirt, we should also give our coat (Matthew 5:40). Instead of defending our honor, we are called to surrender it for the sake of our relationship with God.

The founder of Christianity then went on to demonstrate how we are to do this by surrendering his own life on our behalf. He did not defend his own honor, but willingly embraced the shame and disgrace that should have been ours. He subjected his glory to the shame of our sin.

Anger doesn’t help

When faced with disgrace or a loss of honor, our natural response it one of anger and retaliation. Religious people of all stripes and colors, be they Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians or Marxists struggle with putting self above others. Some of these creeds actively teach humility, others do not. The actions of the rioters could be used as evidence that Islam falls into the latter category.

The point for Christians is that we are to respond in love, no matter how difficult it may be to do so. As Tom tells us in his post, Christians have wrongly tried to defend God’s honor and have made things worse as a result.

This is not a call to pacifism. Jesus actively resisted evil (remember him overturning the tables in the Temple courts?). Yet, when we see acts of senseless violence, the danger is to respond in pride and the wrong sort of self dignity. These will push us toward responding in unwarranted (but understandable) anger. Our response, if any, is to be measured against our call to love.

Jesus informed us that his teaching would bring a sword among us (Matthew 10:34) but his gave us no indication that it should be our hand that wields it.

A failure to launch: 5 failures to avoid in implementing strategy

Posted on September 17, 2012 Written by Mark McIntyre Leave a Comment

Strategy is not enough

I have been in a lot of meetings which produced strategies geared toward moving the organization closer to its goals. More often than not, the strategies that came from those meetings did not produce the desired result. In a very small percentage of the cases, the failure could be ascribed to a bad strategy, one that was out of touch with reality.

The far larger percentage of the time, the strategy failed, not because it was a poor strategy, but because the strategy was not implemented well.

Compared to implementation, strategy and planning are easy. But when the implementation becomes difficult, or if we encounter those who do not want the new strategy to work, inertia often takes over and the drive for change gets absorbed into the never ending morass of “that’s how we’ve always done it.”

Causes of poor implementation

Here are five causes of poor strategy implementation in an organization:

Failing to define success. What does success look like for the organization and how are we going to measure it?
Failing to understand the cause and effect relationships within the organization. How does work get done and how do the personalities involved see their role in the work?
Failing to determine what training must need to be done so that the individuals involved have the required skills to accomplish the tasks. The gap between what the team needs to do and what they are currently able to do must be assessed. The assessment must be followed up with training to close the gap between required skills and current skills
Failing to understand where the road blocks to implementation will be and how do we remove them or go around them.
Failing to communicate the vision to the group at large so that they are excited about where the organization is going and want to participate in its success.

Strategy in the church

Strategy implementation in churches have often fared no better. A change in strategy that is exciting when it is announced can wind down into the same operational rut with little real change.

Church leaders should not run the church as a business and the method of responding to these five causes should be different in the church. That being said, the five causes do have to be addressed when contemplating a change in strategy.

In response to the five causes of failed strategic change, I would offer these considerations for how church leaders should respond.

The definition of success in the church must be understood in the context of the mission that God has given us to make disciples.
Church leadership must take into consideration the gifting of the people involved in ministry. We must seek God as to how he has gifted the people that he has brought together with the assumption that God will arrange the people and gifts so that they are complementary and fit together in a healthy organization.
In the church setting, it is incumbent upon the leadership to show what skills and training will be required for the strategy to be successful and then provide the required teaching and skill building opportunities.
Too often leaders in the church run over or squelch those who offer a dissenting voice. In some cases, there are those who are trouble makers, but it is more often the case that the “road block” is a well meaning individual who does not understand and is nervous about change. Those in the latter group need to be treated with respect and leaders must work doubly hard to bring them on board in support of the new strategy.
The vision and strategy need to be clearly communicated and must be continually reinforced. If the new strategy is supported by Scripture and is truly the leading of God, then people will get on board and become excited about the strategy. This may take some time so consistency in the message is important.

Good strategy + bad implementation = MESS

Always keep in mind that a good strategy with bad implementation becomes mess. Not only must the vision be clear, it must be communicated and the people who need to implement the strategy must be informed, trained and in agreement for the strategy to move forward.

Does anyone want to share examples of how a good strategy fell flat because of poor implementation? (without naming names if possible)