• Home
  • About This Blog
  • Contact Me
  • Subscribe
  • Comment Policy

Attempts at Honesty

Reflections on the interplay of the Bible and Culture

  • Westminster Shorter Catechism Series
  • Sermon on the Mount Series
Home Archives for water

Water, chisel or dynamite? Choosing the right tool to drive change

Posted on February 24, 2012 Written by Mark McIntyre Leave a Comment

Rock is a material that is resistant to change and provides a good analogy for an organization or people that need to be lead. Rock likes to stay as it is, it will not change on its own.

Having worked in the mining industry I know what impact explosives can have on rock. Explosives experts can take a large chunk of solid rock and make into very small pieces. This process is fast but the result looks nothing like what you started with. It also cannot be very fun for the rock.

Water is also effective in changing rock. If you have been in a cave or canyon, you can attest to this. Water dissolves minerals and slowly changes the shape and size of the rock. This process is agonizingly slow but the result allows the rock to retain its previous form and often enhances the beauty to the point where we make it a national or state park. This process is not directed by a leader and the result is dictated by the type of rock, quantity of water and other factors beyond the control of a leader.

The chisel falls somewhere in between water and dynamite as a means of changing rock. Under the hand of the sculptor, the chisel can take away the bits of rock that are not contributing to the desired result. The chisel is faster than water and is more selective and controlled than dynamite. Used with skill the chisel shapes the rock in accordance with the sculptor’s vision.

Leaders have to choose whether they want to use dynamite or a chisel to change their organization. Or they can allow the organization to change via natural process like water dissolving rock. All three methods are valid depending on the quantity of change needed, the urgency of the need and the current make-up of the organization.

An organization that is severely dysfunctional may need to be blown up and reassembled. An organization that is basically functioning but has some pieces that are not contributing to the desired result, may need to have some members removed. Some organizations which are functioning should be allowed to change at their own pace. It takes wisdom as a leader to know which method is appropriate.

I have seen leaders who grow impatient with the speed of change and therefore use too much force trying to drive change. Often the result is ugly. In the case of an organization that is largely made up of volunteers, the leader who uses too much force can find himself very alone. Never use dynamite when a chisel will do. Never use the chisel when the process is already taking place but is slower than you would like.

True change in people has to come from the inside. There is a big difference between true change and organizational conformity. As church leaders, we are looking for true change. This is often an agonizingly slow process, therefore patience is required.

Church leaders also have the added dimension of trusting that God is also involved in the process and he is working in the leader and those he leads to bring about his desired result. We, as church leaders, are responsible to follow God’s lead and not try to drive change faster than God is bringing it about.

It is God’s church. In the end, the church is to reflect God’s glory, not the leader’s.

Filed Under: Church Leadership Tagged With: Business, God, leadership, rock, water

Living Water or Broken Cisterns – A Choice for Western Society

Posted on May 4, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre 2 Comments

Broken CisternsNature abhors a vacuum is a proverb that came to me as I contemplated Jeremiah 2:12–13 recently:

12 Be appalled, O heavens, at this; be shocked, be utterly desolate, declares the Lord, 13 for my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns that can hold no water. (ESV)

This prophetic statement was made to the Nation of Israel who had rejected God’s principles for living and had replaced worship of the Living God with the pagan rituals of the surrounding nations.

Anyone who has spent time in an arid climate understands the importance of water. A source of water is the first necessity in choosing a place to live. A spring, creek or river which flows year round would be the first choice. Living (moving) water is fresh and clean, and if it comes from a spring the water is cool.

A cistern, on the other hand, collects the water when it rains and the water becomes stagnant. As the water sits, microbes and insects grow in it and dust collects. It is water, and it will keep you alive, but is not nearly as pleasant as flowing water.

But notice that God makes reference to broken cisterns that can’t even hold water. It is not that the Israelites had chosen a viable alternative source for what they need. They had rejected God and replaced him with empty rituals that provided no benefit.

In 21st Century America, there is a renewed and more vigorous attack on the Judeo/Christian principles upon which this country was founded. The “new” atheists would like to remove thought and speech about God from public discourse. Religion is viewed by them as an old fashioned idea that has outlived its usefulness.

The popularity of books by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins is evidence of how many in our society have adopted this premise. Yet, have the readers of these books thought through the implications of this choice?

Remember, nature abhors a vacuum. If we reject God and exclude him from our society, something will replace him, but what? Where will we find our guiding principles? Who or what will prevent totalitarianism? What will the “new atheists” give people as a means of determining value?

It is my opinion that if the Western culture continues the rejection of the Judeo/Christian God and his principles, society will succumb to one of two types of totalitarianism.

The first option is an atheistic totalitarianism such as fascism or communism. It is no mystery as to why atheism is the religion of the communist states. The communists build upon the concept of Darwinism; the strong dominate the weak. The “state” becomes the guide by which all decision should be made. Choice and freedom are greatly reduced or eliminated and conformity to the state is enforced.

The second option is a religious totalitarianism such as that of Islam and Sharia law. This is probably the more dangerous and likely option because of the devotion that Islam engenders. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world because of its militaristic foundation and its goal of universal conquest.

How will atheism stand up to Islam? I have never been aware of any atheist that was passionate enough about his atheism to strap a bomb on his body and die a martyr. This is commonplace (if misguided) in Islam.

The third and best option is for us to return to the God upon whom our country was founded. It seems to me that the only places where freedom of expression and freedom of belief have been in operation have been places where Christianity once held a dominant position. That freedom is the living water that we crave. Why reject that freedom when bondage is the alternative?

Do we really want to reject the one system that engendered freedom to pursue systems that take it away? I hope not.

What do you think?

Filed Under: Apologetics Tagged With: atheism, Islam, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, water

Follow Attempts at Honesty

Honesty in your Inbox

Post Series

  • Westminster Shorter Catechism Series
  • Sermon on the Mount Series
August 2025
SMTWTFS
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31 
« Jul    

Categories

Archives

Blogger Grid
Follow me on Blogarama

Copyright © 2025 · Focus Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in