Wiki leaks- Fake mythical king touches only gold, but people still more concerned about wikileaks

King Midas was granted a wish that everything he touched would turn to gold.

Once he touched a river, his food, his beloved daughter and a few other things, he realized somethings are better off untouched. Or some things are more valuable than gold.

King Sadim, Midas' little known twin brother, had a slightly different approach.

He only touched golden things.

He only spoke to the share holders about the good things that his workers were producing.

He only shared about the selflessness of his leadership in such a way that emphasized the importance of it.

When others put in hours of agonizing over just the right approach for the presentation to the assembled masses, he diffused the significance of the moment by making an off hand joke.

He got to the right answer that was best for him without ever allowing for much discussion.

In the end Midas, learned that giving up gold makes one richer.

I suppose the twist for Sadim might be that in touching only gold he never got to feel faith.

In giving up his power to touch only gold, what do you suppose a Sadim might gain?

What you might have to give up if you want to be a faith based ministry

When you consider being in the faith development business, it's important to consider what faith is.

It's not certainty.  It's not being sure as a default.

It seems to be more about surrender and letting go.

But is your value proposition more about certainty?

Surety about what happens if you believe the right stuff and discount the wrong ideas will probably get lots of traction.

But how in the world did a mustard seed become the mascot of our ministry?

What could a mustard seed be certain about?

It seems to do OK once it's in the sand without drawing any lines in it.

Even Jesus' Gospel Had Gooey On It

Computer operating systems have user interfaces (UI) unique to each manufacturer that at the same time make the OS easier to use, but also limited.  This UI is known, I have learned, in some circles as gooey.

I asked a salesman about a certain smartphone the other day and whether or not it was "pure google" or if the manufacturer had gooey on top of it.

Even the pure google phones have their own internal phone address book and other UI considerations.  Even they have gooey on it.

It helped me to understand a basic tenet about religion and the Gospel we are often feel compelled to boil things down to from time to time.

We as manufacturers of the Gospel have our own unique user interfaces we overlay our understanding of the basic message of God's relationship to and desires for us.

Let's face it our Gospel has gooey on it.

When we consider the most pure Gospel of them all, there are some user interface limitations.

Jesus was subject to the culture in which he lived.  He was limited by the understanding and belief systems of the time into which he was born.

He wouldn't (according to my gooey) have had it any other way.

To be fully human is to be in some way or another constrained.

And so, maybe our lives would be somewhat more connected and our OS more bug and crash free if we embraced one another's gooey instead of trying to seek out pure Gospel or boil it all down to something.

Jesus had his gooey.

We all have our gooey.

I believe the faithful communities of discipleship embrace gooey rather than attempt to eliminate, ignore, or tolerate it.

Even I have gooey on my Gospel.

Why should I expect anything different from you?

Insularity- the silent killer of ministry

At the conclusion of a recent program we asked for some feedback from participants.

"The presenter seemed a little insular at times.  She should probably watch that," caught my attention.

I had noticed the same quality in the presenter, but I wasn't sure what to call it.

As I read the feedback comment, I also wasn't sure what insular meant.

Insular- ignorant of or uninterested in cultures, ideas, or peoples outside one's own experience : a stubbornly insular farming people.

The comment then took on new meaning because I came to understand exactly what the participant had hit upon with his feedback.

All through the planning of the program, the presenter seemed incapable of implementing any ideas about the program other than her own.

The general thought was that the program was about "us" and how we could get more people who weren't "us" to be "us".

And that unspoken yet prevalent theme was what was in danger of killing the program if we "didn't watch it."

It gave me pause for the insular nature of my own ministry.

We would all seem to be at risk of insularity to one degree or another.  We are after all, "us".

Maybe there is an insularity test that would show whether or not I am at dangerous levels of insularity.

Maybe question one would be:

Given a choice, when was the last time you successfully implemented an idea that wasn't your own?

Hummm. I'll have to think about that one.