Metanarrative 2.

Not the first time I have written on this subject. You may have guessed that I think it is important.  What is a “metanarrative” anyway? It means “the big picture”.  Or, to put it another way; “a world view”, how one sees something, how one sees oneself” and others and how one reacts or interacts with the world at large.

I know that you know that what one does, says and or reacts to, all starts in one’s mind. So; thinking is extremely important. It is the brain that guides us, even when we think it isn’t. It is like the many times my car drove me to the wrong office after we had moved to a new address.  Of course, I blame the car. However, the truth is my brain just did what it had done many mornings before and parked me in the old parking place.

So; what we think of the world and our place in it will, of course, affect our actions. My concern is that many do not think that their world view is one that can be detrimental to others because of that view. Of course, others have different metanarratives than me. (See my blog. http://adrianhawkes.co.uk/?s=metanarrative+  this is a good description of an atheist’s world view.

Worldviews that see the world just as some kind of physical, time space only machine, end up treating people like machines. That is not very pleasant.  Then, of course, there are those who see people as just another clever animal, resulting in people that treat people like animals too.

We all live according to our metanarrative. It is in our psyche and thinking. Our thinking directs our actions. Think about the thinking of Eric Harris.  If you do not know who he is/was, let me tell you he was the youngster who shot dead 12 students and a teacher at Columbine High school in Colorado USA. We can see his metanarrative in one of his notebooks which was discovered after the tragic event He wrote, “There’s no such thing as True Good or True evil. It’s all relative to the observer.  It’s just all nature, chemistry, and math. Deal with it!” Now tell me: Does our metanarrative matter?

 

Then there is that metanarrative that says we are all here just by an accident. Now that is somewhat pointless, don’t you think? Richard Peters (1919-2011) puts it best. Again, I add, if you don’t know him, he was a major educationalist in his work place. Peters was Professor of the Philosophy of Education at the Institute of Education (founded 1947) University of London. In 1971 he was Dean of the Institute. Under his guidance the Institute grew fast and considerably influenced the development of the philosophy of education in England. But - what was his metanarrative? His metanarrative of course reflected itself in his metanarrative’s direction for education. He could do no other. With that foundation of thought he tells us, “Our basic predicament in life is to live with its ultimate pointlessness. We are monotonously reminded that education must be for life. Therefore, obviously the most important dimension of education is that in which we learn to come to terms with the pointlessness of life.” Great isn’t it. No wonder we have such an increase in suicide.

 

All “Big Stories” (metanarratives) have consequences – for good or ill – for individuals, communities and wider society.  The current secular big story that is being pushed in our current culture carries particular risks of harm and conflict for everyone. It affects how you will be treated and how, by your metanarrative, you will treat others. Are you just a consumer, a number, a machine, an animal? Are you nothing but an accident? How does your metanarrative make you think, and of course act?

Adrian Hawkes

Adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

w.638

 

PLATFORMING

 Platforming

Let me say right from the start that freedom of speech is a crucial aspect of living in a democracy.

I also am sure that freedom of speech should be limited to freedom that does not incite violence against others.

On the other side of this discussion is the whole issue of the cry that, “the left is doing this”, i.e., limiting freedom of speech. Wherever that is proposed and whoever may be doing the proposing, I am opposed to it. I have to say, however, that it does feel to me that in some regions of our public life, I am not allowed to disagree.  It has almost come to the point where, not only must I agree in my speech with things that I inwardly really disagree with, but I am pressed to think “correctly” and differently in my head.  Who said George Orwell’s Thought Police was a work of fiction?

However, the left is evil and always are the people pulling the whole world down by proclaiming socialist values like Health care, suitable housing, equality in the workplace and respect for the individual. In contrast, the right is so right it would never do such things. It supports freedom of speech.  Really?

Maybe the honest answer is that it is just using a cleverer approach to suppress such freedom. Perhaps the big lie works better and is less transparent. Perhaps if we use personal emails that cannot be checked, freedoms of information can be circumvented.

Then, if we have greater control of the press, what is reported can look like freedom of speech, but it is platforming of a different order in reality.

Listening to recent news discussions on certain politicians who others are accusing of lying is that platforming of a different order, the defending politician with regards to such accusations responded by saying, no, this is not lying its: wishful thinking, it is an exaggeration, it is hope, it is what people want to hear, and lots of other words but of course not of it is a lie, and none of it is closing down real freedom of thought and speech.

Isn't it the fact that both ends of the spectrum are keen to close down any thinking and definitely one of speech that contradicts the current line that is being pushed, usually in the interest of one segment of society whose plan is to push said agenda above all else, no matter what anyone else thinks or wished to say?  In other words, you shall not discuss; you must only agree. And in deciding, you must not only speak as we would have you too, but you must think correctly too, and the thought police will be watching. We will platform you either by not allowing you to speak or by clever, subversive actions that present you being heard anyway. I am against both methods, how about you.

 

Adrian Hawkes

www.adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

W. 491

 

WHAT IF?

I was Thinking through Tyndale's translation of the Greek New Testament word, “ecclesia.” Tyndale translated this word in his translation of the Bible as, “congregation”. An, “ecclesia,” was a political assembly of citizens of ancient Greek states, especially the Athenian. It included the citizen’s periodic meeting for conducting public business and considering the council's affairs.

Noting that Tyndale only uses the word, “church,” twice in his translation and both are in reference to temples for such as Zeus (The Tyndale New Testament (1525) uses the word "church" twice, in the New Testament. Acts 14:13, 19:37. On both verses the word is representing heathen, idolatrous temples.)

Along with Martin Scott, I have been looking at alternative views of people such as Judas and Peter.  I wonder if we should have an alternative idea of what Paul was seeking to do as he went from City to City, establishing, “Ecclesia.”

In our modern times, we think of that word “Ecclesia” as “Church”, whatever we mean by Church! However,, an Ecclesia was the “called out ones” organizing a city. Was Paul thinking in terms of an alternative City organization with particular regards to “The Alternative Kingdom”, which, as I see, it is here and is also coming.

To enlarge on that concept, it seems to me that when Jesus put things right that were wrong, he often implied that, “The Kingdom of God is amongst you”, or, it “has come.”  So, when there is a lack of Justice, we can turn that around and bring in Justice. When that takes place the Kingdom of God has come, perhaps not in its fullest sense, but it has arrived nevertheless. Likewise, when we bring Healing, Rightness, Peace etc., It becomes the Kingdom of God right here and now in our time-space world.

So, my question is: What did Paul see as he planted Ecclesia in the different Cities? Did he also have in mind a political level of change in the City?  This is extremely unlike the “church” model that we now have, which really, it seems to me, is very much made in the image of the synagogue structure with its building and meeting places. Also, we probably need to note that the forms must have changed and become more ridged and religious after 312 and the reign of Constantine the Great.

Before that, it is evident that Christians had a powerful changing effect on the Cities and their culture, practice and habits.  We can see, that by the empty temples and the problems of what to do, as seen by Pliny the Younger, who wrote to Caesar for advice, with some entirely complimentary remarks about the Christians, wanting to know if they should be killed. 

He writes: "…the practices of Christians are that they meet on a certain day before light, where they gather and sing hymns to Christ as to a god. Binding themselves by oath, not to commit some crimes. Rather, they pledge not to commit any crimes such as fraud, theft, or adultery. Subsequently they share a meal of, "ordinary and innocent food". The apparent abandonment of the pagan temples by Christians was a threat to the pax deorum, the harmony or accord between the divine and humans, and political subversion by new religious groups was feared. This was treated as a potential crime.

Pliny ended the letter by saying that Christianity is endangering people of every age and rank and has spread not only through the cities but also through the rural villages as well. He attempted to assure Caesar that he will put it right and that it would be possible to check it. He argues his procedure is working and tells Trajan that the temples and religious festivals, which had been deserted before, are now flourishing again. There is a rising demand for sacrificial animals once more. Is that an economic desire?  Maybe he was right, or perhaps he was positively hopeful.

Recently I watched a short commentary on TV talking about the rise of Methodism in Cornwall, UK. The interviewer asked, "Why, historically was the Methodist religion so acceptable and so followed in Cornwall?" The couple being interviewed said that once Methodism had hit the area and Wesley had preached, things changed.  The Employers started paying better wages, and started treating working people better, as well as with respect. The whole area became more prosperous and settled.  Is that a political implication of the Ecclesia applied to a place or City.?

We have talked ad nauseam in specific areas concerning church structure. Maybe we should look again; but this time with radical questions, in the same manner in which we looked at Judas and Peter differently, what about Paul? What was he thinking and doing?

My thesis is, that even where you have 'bad' Christianity, if you place a Map of the world down, those “bad” places still seem better in treating people, increasing equality and other “good” Kingdom things than areas that lack such influence.

My own little story is this. I was in Africa at the wedding of a couple. I had just married them.  A couple of guys were also at the reception. Seeing me, they came over to chat and started by asking,  “Do you remember us?” I did. They went on; “You changed our lives. We came to hear you the first time you came to this country.”  I laughed, to which they responded, “Don't laugh! Not only did you change us, but you also changed our village/town, and now we have changed the next village and town.”  I was at a loss to understand what they were talking about.

It seems that the first time I was there, I had been to their village, and they were suffering from famine and lack of water. Ladies were walking miles to get some, usually dirty, water.  My response was, “This is terrible. I don't know what to do, but let me send a couple of friends here.”

My friends went, installed water tanks, encouraged them to open businesses, expanded a “Joseph principle” to them of storing their food goods in the times of plenty. It seemed that at the time of this wedding, they were again in a shortage of rain and famine. However, they went on to tell me, “It doesn't matter. We are prospering. We have water. We have grain, and we are feeding the next village as well as our own people.”

Is that a political change? Is it an economic one? It seemed to me that the “ecclesia” were the ones who were leading the town, officially or not.  And it certainly seemed to me to be some of that Kingdom had come.

Adrian Hawkes

www.adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

 W.1115.

20^th February 2021

 

Monogenerational

It is a problem.  It is a problem because it puts us into boxes and the boxes are too small.  In recent forums that I have been party to, I note that people suffer from the syndrome of monogenerational thinking.

That is a pity because it does not allow them a natural breadth of understanding.  It also allows people to make incorrect statements yet hold on to them because of the influence (and dare I say, intimidation) of the sound room of their mono generation.

In many life, work, and family areas, we are not confined to our age group. We interact across ages.  There is nevertheless the danger that we gravitate to what we consider is our generation, as that - maybe - makes us feel safer and more comfortable.  I would suggest that it is not a helpful thing for us to do.

Running an independent school, the “powers that be” complained to me that our age range was far too comprehensive. We had children from 5 to 18 playing and learning together. The establishment take was that young people should be herded into their peer/age grouping. I noted that in the real world, i.e., the playground, older children softened their play to take account of the little ones, and if one of the little ones happened to fall, then along would come to their aid a big brother/sister (not a birth brother-sister) and administer support, help, and comfort.  In the learning centre, it was likewise, more experienced learners helping young or less experienced students.  In fact, for me, the whole “non-peer group” approach had positives all around, and I still do not know what the negatives were.

In my work experience, I watch our younger staff reporting to senior outside agencies, and often their opinions are disregarded.  I then watch an older staff member take up the call, saying the same situation, sometimes almost verbatim and I witness a different, usually positive, response.  I think that ageism monoculture is at fault.

Suppose we want to positively respond to the world with a significant person bringing a contribution to progress. In such a hypothetical case, we must not live in a soundbox, be that one of monoculture, monogenerational, or dare I say it, one of the educational or financial peer groups.

Speaking at a conference not so long ago, I noted all the early morning newspapers on display. I, in my session, asked how many of the conference delegates (all “would be world changers”) had read a morning newspaper. Almost all hands were raised.  Then, I think I asked if they knew which was the best-selling newspaper in the UK. Not one person got the correct answer. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/246077/reach-of-selected-national-newspapers-in-the-uk/)  At this particular conference, the best-selling newspaper was not even on sale. I guess the organiser had assessed their audience correctly.  My arguement was that if you do not know how the world speaks, you will not communicate to the majority effectively.

Monogenerational thinking will lead us astray. We need to mix our age groups. We need to push ourselves to hear those who come from the broadest possible grouping, age wise, work wise, wealth wise gender wise and every other criterion where we don’t fit in or know about. Otherwise, we will be found with wrong views, wrong perceptions and wrong actions.  May I also add that we need to read the papers we do not like and, (horror of horrors!) listen to the music we say, “is not our thing!”

Adrian Hawkes

www.adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

W. 588

How did we get it wrong? How do we get it right?

 

How did we get it wrong? How do we get it right?

Eκκλησία - Ecclesia

Preparing lectures on the subject of Politics and doing a certain amount of research and study on the subject set me questioning and thinking … hopefully pushing further than I have considered before.

The course I have designed with lectures and presentations on politics is all from a Judeo-Christian ethical perspective.

I have also been attending studies in theology (*1), which impacts my political perspective.

The more I look at the New Testament part of the Bible and note both the words of Jesus and the practice of Paul as he goes from City to City, ending up in Rome, I have to ask something significant.  Noting the original Greek language used, I cannot help but wonder if we have got it wrong in the definition and meaning of the word "church".

The language used was highly political in its delivery in the historical times of the New Testament.  I cannot believe that Paul, the clever guy that he was, did not understand the political language that he was using and the political effect that it would have.

So, "King of Kings?" Jesus? As far as people in the Roman world were concerned, of course, Caesar was "King of Kings," and woe betide you if you publicly disagreed. Then, Jesus was apostolically proclaimed as the "Prince of Peace." Indeed, Paul would have known that Caesar was self-proclaimed as "the Prince of Peace" and that he was living in the days of "Pax Romana" (the Peace of Rome). Pax Romana, of course, was brought about by conquest, violence, tyranny and force of arms.

Other political titles and attributes ascribed to Jesus the Christ were officially and infamously attributed to Caesar. Cesar was proclaimed "Lord of Lords". Caesar was the "Saviour". Caesar was also, of course, declared to be a "god," and nowhere was it permissible for this Jesus of Nazareth to say that he is the "I am", i.e. God. Even the resurrection was a political statement. Death is supposed to be the ultimate victor. Jesus was being proclaimed as the conqueror of death.

"Jesus? The Saviour of the world? No! That is Caesar!" Caesar was held as the Saviour.

By Roman Law, all this meant that what Paul taught was blasphemy against Caesar and by roman law was illegal, punishable by death. Paul was teaching that Christ was higher than the emperor. This was interfering with and contradicting much of Roman political norms.

 

Jesus, of course, constantly refers to the Kingdom of God; This certainly was not to be perceived as the Kingdom of Rome or confused with the rulers of the world. Take note; however, the introduction of another Kingdom would definitely be seen as sedition.

 

On top of all this, interestingly, what Paul was planting in the various cities that he visited on his journeys and continued to write letters to, were not "church's", but εκκλησία, i.e., Ecclesia. The thing to note is that every City would already have had an acknowledged "Ecclesia." The Ecclesia was the governing body of the City, the called-out ones, the ones to organise the City. The ultimate town authority was commonly referred to as "the Ecclesia".  

 

It is also interesting to note that William Tyndale (1494 – 1536), the first translator of the Bible into common everyday English, never uses the word "church" in his translation, apart from the reference to the temple of the god Zeus in Acts chapter 14 and verse 13. At all other times, he translates the Greek εκκλησία (Ecclesia) as "congregation", much to the annoyance of King James 70 years later. Hence, the 1611 KJV of the Bible emphasises (i) "Bishops". (ii) "Church," as it is now commonly perceived, and of course, (iii) the "Divine Right of Kings." All big problems to Tyndale.

 

I cannot believe that the intelligent Paul did not understand the political ramifications of his language, using words like Kingdom, Saviour, Lord, Peace, God, and εκκλησία -Ecclesia. So, what was he doing?

It seems to me that what "church" has created is, in many places, a "bless me club", an exclusive, "Meet me in the building," holy huddle; A total opposite to the instruction of Jesus, which is, "Go into the world at large. I am leaving you in the world".  Was Paul planting city-changing leadership, i.e., εκκλησία?

So it often seems that these "church clubs" are simply competing with each other for the most fans, much like a football club?

For a lot of my lifetime, especially in my younger years, people have asked me, "What is it you want to do?" My answer hasn't changed much, even up to today: "I want to change the world." I still do!

So, how could that εκκλησία – ecclesia work in a real-world situation? Or better still, how should it have worked?

I know that people like the ex-vice present of the USA. Mike Pence subscribed to "The seven mountains theory" and perhaps wanted to see the approach put into practice. The Basic thesis is that the church (i.e., Christians) should take Dominion over the seven mountains of society/culture, establishing a Theocracy. "The way to achieve Dominion is … to have kingdom-minded people in every one of the Seven Mountains: 1. Religion, 2. Family, 3. Education, 4. Government,5. Media, 6. Arts & Entertainment, and 7. Business. In this way, they could use their influence to create an environment in which the blessings and prosperity of the Kingdom of God could permeate all areas of society. (*2)

My big problem with the above is a complete understanding (or misunderstanding) of Dominion, which is the idea that Christians rule, dictate and use power to make the culture comply. That seems to me to be counter to the revelation of a servant King, a God who washes people's feet.

I have long believed that we should be persuading, as per The Bible, 2 Corinthians chapter five and verse 11. We (i.e., followers of Jesus) are in the influencing and persuading work. Not the ruling, dominating and strong-arm power people. To do that, we need to affect the cultural leaders, the cultural moulders, politics, Business, Education, and Arts Entertainment areas. (*3)

Yet, it is true that if we want to change the world, we must be responsive and, as Jesus said, be "in the world". "In the world" as salt, protecting that which is good is what salt does. "In the world" also as Light.  Shining a way to new values, the new Kingdom principles, a better way of living – now;  This is not something that happens when you die. We need to be 'in' the world, which means 'in' all of those levers of culture that make the world what it is.

Of course, we need to acknowledge that the early first-century εκκλησία (Ecclesia as referring to followers of Jesus, not members of the Roman Town council) did change the world. We can see this as Pliny the younger (61 AD to 113 Ad) writes to Emperor Trajan, worried that the Temples to the Roman gods were emptying. This phenomenon was caused, he says, because of the Christians.  He then outlines to Trajan the values of these εκκλησία (i.e., the groups of followers of Jesus.).

Here is what Pliny wrote to Trajan: "They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not to falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and assemble again to partake of food and ordinary and innocent food.

Do we need to become the εκκλησία again; Salting and Lighting our culture and changing the world with the new Kingdom values?

We also need to remember that we live in Babylon. The Kingdom of God can be brought down to our time-space world, but we do not live in that Kingdom geographically. That is why we need to know when to compromise with Babylon, and as best we can pray blessings on it. Babylon is where we have to live for now.

 

*1. Martins Scott's studies in Theology

*2 David Woodfield Dissertation Thesis April 2017

*3 Dr Donald Howard Educator

 

Adrian Hawkes

Adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

W. 1418

 

 

Babylon Two

 

Babylon Two

Alternative

 

Many must live in the Empire, that is obvious. There are no alternatives.  We are told that we should pray for a blessing on the Empire and build a house. In other words - live.

It is also true that we must compromise with Empire. We are instructed to do that.  We are aware from history that many from, “the Alternative”, end up being in positions of power, advising Empire, conducting Empire, being Empire supported persons. (See Joseph in Genesis, and Daniel)

The difficulty comes when the choice is made not to compromise and stand against the Empire. That, so it seems to me, is when Empire makes demands that are totally against the values and morals of the Jesus follower and, “the Alternative,” that we should be serving. It is on those occasions that we must take risks and to stand up and be counted even though we may be thrown into the fire, or to the lions. However, knowing that possibility, should we compromise.

Empire will also manipulate and have, “the Alternative,” use its power structures to achieve its ends; much as Empire does. That is a problem, because “the Alternative,” does not have the same value system, morals or ethics. The, “Alternative” should be servant thinking, not power thinking.

At the middle of the compromise, what takes place is an inability to see. The line has been crossed. “The Alternative,” then, has ceased to be, “the alternative.” Then, one starts to see what it is one might lose. And so, we have the famous phrase, “Do you not know that one man should die. If that does not happen, we will lose our nation, our privileges, our temple, our living.  Now, “the Alternative,” has simply become another aspect of Empire.

Empire is extremely attractive. We are so persuaded to believe its propaganda, and we know that it has, or so it seems, looked after us.  Empire also gives the impression that we cannot do without it. “It is our only source. It is the ultimate. It is the Greatest.”  It will also take a position that says, “I will even promote your God.”  The question there though is: Does it?  Possibly, yes. However, it will always be in second place to the god of the Empire.

It is interesting to note that when the Empire for its own reasons, and in other circumstances feels it will benefit, it releases “the Alternative”. In such a case many who would say that they are part of, “the Alternative,” choose to stay. Sometimes they are even permitted to rebuild a temple for their God, one that has been destroyed.

That is an interesting one.  I note that on that particular occasion in the Biblical narrative, the new temple was cheered by some. Others, however, cried because it was not as good as the one that had been destroyed a generation earlier.  A friend of mine noted, nevertheless, the glory of the one that did not seem as good as the first, ended up housing greater glory.  To understand that you must have eyes to see.

Another interesting thing to note about Empire, is that even when it is evident that its time is over, and it has become history, a new Empire (or Empires even) is now in the ascendency. Some hunger so hard after the past that they will still seek to recreate the old one.

Empire also will build its own imposing temples of worship. They will always seek to be bigger and better than anything anyone else has.  Think about the pyramids, Rhodes, The Colosseum, maybe even St Pancras railway station or the Twin Towers.

Recently I listened to an architect being interviewed on Radio. He was the architect in charge of one of the biggest shopping centres in my country. When asked the question, “What are you trying to create?” His answer was very telling.  He said, “All architects want to build Cathedrals. This is my Cathedral to our God.”  Maybe he had a good understanding.

So where are we. Are we having to live in the Empire? Are we part of “the alternative”? Were we part of “the Alternative” but now, recognise that to go against the Empire we will cost us so much? And let us be honest: We like the Empire lifestyle, even though we know that it is a high cost to others.

Adrian Hawkes

www.blogspot.co.uk

W.738

 

Babylon One

There are those that I call ‘the alternative’ and they can be a nuisance to Empire because they have a different value system, and an allegiance to a different Kingdom. Yet they have no choice but to live in the Empire, but they need to see and understand the demands, values, and power that the Empire seeks to exert. So, let us look at Empire.

Empire

·         It demands conformity.

·         It has a materialistic value system.

·         Does not tolerate other powers.

·         Dominant language.

·         If conformity is not achieved, then it becomes aggressive.

·         It takes hold of Religion and uses it for control purposes.

·         Production is more important than human need.

·         Is Arrogant.

·         Is abusive.

·         Is Self-indulgent.

·         Is proud.

·         Is boastful.

·         Is without mercy.

·         It devours smaller powers.

·         Empire demands that it must be accommodated.

·         Empire seeks to have an ideological grip on all.

·         Empire taxes.

·         Empire Exploits.

·         Empire requires conformity.

·         Empire is strong on posturing.

·         Empire makes grandiose claims.

·         Empire seeks grandiose projects.

·         Empire’s fraudulent claims are kept alive only by propaganda.

·         Empire makes theological claims.

·         Empire exploits the oppressed.

·         Empire transfers wealth from the many to the few.

·         Who is it that passively accommodates the Empire?

·         Empire puts God in second place to use for its ends.

·         Many, perhaps the majority, want to always return to Empire rather than an alternative, after all, Empire has an adequate supply of Cucumbers, Leeks and Onions.

·         Empire always seeks to project the fact that it is GREAT.

·         Empire always seems to have one superior ethnic group.

 

It makes us think, I hope, and ask what and where we should be to be “alternative “and how difficult might that be. We need to also ask; “Have we been ‘taken in’ by Empire?”

*With thanks to Walter Brueggemann, and his Babylon.

Adrian Hawkes

www.adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

W. 303

Caleb Versus the Minimum

 

Caleb Versus the Minimum.

I am always puzzled by people who lack vision, people who are content as to what they are and where they are. It is something I find hard to understand. Maybe I was dropped on my head!

Yet, it seems most people are just content with where they are.

“Please do not ask us to stretch further.”

“Please do not ask us to be world changers. We have come this far. Surely that is enough.”

They are, what I call, “Minimum people.”

“What is the least we can do just to get by?”

Maybe it’s that bump on my head why I find it hard to understand.

Yes, of course, there are entrepreneurs out there. Thank God for that! Unfortunately, they are not the majority. 

Many are like the people I started work with when I left school, working in a large company.  Finishing time was five o'clock and boy oh boy at two minutes to five, they were queuing at the clock out, card in hand, ready to punch it the moment that hand on the clock moved to five.  I found the work exciting and often stayed behind because I was in the middle of some company project. Every day they would shout, “Why are you doing that? It's nearly five o'clock!” I am sure they thought I was mad. I thought they were boring and lived in a microscopic world.

The problem is I see it today, and I am still struggling to understand that approach to life.  It irritates me in our school program when I have seen teachers say things like, “That is too hard for them!” or, “Oh dear! That is too much work for them.”

I prefer the words of Dr Donald Howard, also an educator, who used to say, "Most people can do more than they thought they could do because someone else thought they could do it."

It was a privilege to lecture, along with my wife, on the subject of, “Practical Leadership,” to some of the future leaders of our country. What did bother me though, was the personal question afterwards, these high flying youngsters, some with at least two degrees under their belts, said, "Please help me. I don't know what I want to do. I do not seem to have any vision for the future."

No vision for the future? Don't know where you are going? Find someone with vision, who does know where they are going - and join with them.  That is still my today answer.

Throughout most of my life, people have cried, concerning projects, “It cannot be done.” Often, the problem has been that I had already done it because I was too stupid to know it couldn't be done.

The other thing I hear a lot is, “Surely that is enough!”  My reply? “The worst enemy of better is very good. Of course, it is not enough!”

I like the words of Henry Ford, the founder of the Ford motor company in answer to, “It’s impossible!” “I refuse to recognize the existence of impossibilities. I don't know anyone who knows enough about any subject to be able to say that something is or is not impossible. If someone who takes himself for an expert and declares that such and such a thing is impossible, right away there's a horde of nincompoops who sing the chorus: 'It’s impossible…” Henry Ford.

I love the story of Caleb in the Old Testament part of the Bible. He must have been in his eighties when he went to the leaders and said, “I know I am getting on, but I want more. Give me this mountain, and I will take it.”  The leaders understood the vision and said, “Get on with it.” He did and took it.

 

Joshua 14:6-12 The Old Testament part of the Bible

The people of Judah came to Joshua at Gilgal. Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite spoke: "You’ll remember what God said to Moses the man of God concerning you and me back at Kadesh Barnea. I was forty years old when Moses the servant of God sent me from Kadesh Barnea to spy out the land. And I brought back an honest and accurate report. My companions who went with me discouraged the people, but I stuck to my guns, totally with God, my God. That was the day that Moses solemnly promised, ‘The land on which your feet have walked will be your inheritance, you and your children’s, forever. Yes, you have lived totally for God.’ Now look at me: God has kept me alive, as he promised. It is now forty-five years since God spoke this word to Moses, years in which Israel wandered in the wilderness. And here I am today, eighty-five years old! I’m as strong as I was the day Moses sent me out. I’m as strong as ever in battle, whether coming or going. So, give me this hill country that God promised me. You yourself heard the report that the Anakim were there with their great fortress cities. If God goes with me, I will drive them out, just as God said.”

 

Adrian Blog

Words 864

280320