Showing posts with label Leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leadership. Show all posts
Sunday, June 18, 2017
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Option C
I've not been a fan of Trump or Hillary from the beginning. With Hillary, it's been the pending trial - I already have one president with "postponed" investigations (approx 783 of them, to be specific) and I don't want a second. With Trump, it's been his character and demeanour - from the get-go, he's struck me as a populist and demagogue, the likes of which I used to see every election in South Africa or a neighbouring country.
Now, courtesy of my South African upbringing, I am not overly close-minded to minor political parties. After all, at least one new party is formed every election back home. In previous years, I had dismissed third parties as a trivial waste of a vote, especially when there was a candidate I didn't mind voting for.
I watched in horror as Dr Carson, Rubio, and Kasich, the three Republican candidates that I, as a conservative-leaning moderate felt able to vote for, fell before the steamroller that was Trump. I admire Kasich for his conviction and unwillingness to step down - his tenacity spoke volumes about his character and, as more came out about him, I continued to be impressed, but I digress.
Seeing the Trump/Hillary split, I began researching third party options. I was only familiar with the Libertarian and Green parties and so, settled on Johnson as my choice for president. Now, yes, I've heard the arguments from Trump/Hillary supporters that "A vote for a third party is a vote for Hillary/Trump," and I happen to disagree wholeheartedly. Yes, electoral college muddies things up, but a third party vote is not a vote in favour of "The Opposition"; it is a vote in favour of that specific third party. Consider the following opinion:
Like the Redditor I've quoted above, I'm of the mindset that too many people vote Republican or Democrat over their personal convictions because they're afraid that everyone else is going to do the same. If everyone who was considering voting for a third party did so, there would be a massive disruption. Would the GOP or Dems probably still win? Perhaps, but it wouldn't be a clean, near 50-50 division. Instead, I wouldn't expect either party to get above 40%, let alone reach 40%. Can you imagine the effect on the political climate if neither Republicans nor Democrats obtained higher than 35%?
Back to my story.
In the last month or so, I became personally convicted over my view towards presidential candidates. My old view was very pragmatic - I didn't care if they were pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-anything-opposing-Christianity. None of that I deemed necessary to run a country, so I simply voted on policy and capability. I looked down sometimes on Christians who would rather vote for a pro-lifer whom I thought was a poorer choice for the country as opposed to a better-qualified pro-choicer. Gary Johnson, in my opinion, was one such choice. I disagreed with his platform on many areas, but I was willing to vote for him as the best of three options.
Then my perspective was changed.
I don't remember what prompted the change, but I had a priority shift. Part of my realisation, you see, was that it was of greater importance to honour God than to pick my choice of what's best for the country. After all, Ahab was an excellent king by the world's standards. He conquered territory, forged treaties, and maintained Israel as a prosperous nation, but because he would not honour God, he is considered a terrible king. Conversely, David was nobody's pick to be king. He was the youngest son of a small shepherding family, but he sought to honour god to the best of his abilities and God gave him what he needed to rule effectively.
That realisation coincided with a post from The Gospel Coalition. The fact that there is a Christian Democratic party in the US that seeks to honour God through the planks in their platform blew my mind. I thought most Christians, like myself, just tried to make do with unpalatable options, but we don't need to. Someone else, fed up with the lack of God-honouring options, decided to make their own party in the mid-late 2000's. Now, do I agree with all aspects of the ASP's platform? I wouldn't say so - I tend to lean a little more fiscally conservative than they do - but I do agree with their overarching goal, vision, and motivation enough that I am willing to throw my lot with a young, small party. I can vote for a candidate whom I trust will seek to honour God and have faith that God will give what is needed to run this country.
This is my Option C. What's yours?
Now, courtesy of my South African upbringing, I am not overly close-minded to minor political parties. After all, at least one new party is formed every election back home. In previous years, I had dismissed third parties as a trivial waste of a vote, especially when there was a candidate I didn't mind voting for.
I watched in horror as Dr Carson, Rubio, and Kasich, the three Republican candidates that I, as a conservative-leaning moderate felt able to vote for, fell before the steamroller that was Trump. I admire Kasich for his conviction and unwillingness to step down - his tenacity spoke volumes about his character and, as more came out about him, I continued to be impressed, but I digress.
Seeing the Trump/Hillary split, I began researching third party options. I was only familiar with the Libertarian and Green parties and so, settled on Johnson as my choice for president. Now, yes, I've heard the arguments from Trump/Hillary supporters that "A vote for a third party is a vote for Hillary/Trump," and I happen to disagree wholeheartedly. Yes, electoral college muddies things up, but a third party vote is not a vote in favour of "The Opposition"; it is a vote in favour of that specific third party. Consider the following opinion:
Like the Redditor I've quoted above, I'm of the mindset that too many people vote Republican or Democrat over their personal convictions because they're afraid that everyone else is going to do the same. If everyone who was considering voting for a third party did so, there would be a massive disruption. Would the GOP or Dems probably still win? Perhaps, but it wouldn't be a clean, near 50-50 division. Instead, I wouldn't expect either party to get above 40%, let alone reach 40%. Can you imagine the effect on the political climate if neither Republicans nor Democrats obtained higher than 35%?
Back to my story.
In the last month or so, I became personally convicted over my view towards presidential candidates. My old view was very pragmatic - I didn't care if they were pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-anything-opposing-Christianity. None of that I deemed necessary to run a country, so I simply voted on policy and capability. I looked down sometimes on Christians who would rather vote for a pro-lifer whom I thought was a poorer choice for the country as opposed to a better-qualified pro-choicer. Gary Johnson, in my opinion, was one such choice. I disagreed with his platform on many areas, but I was willing to vote for him as the best of three options.
Then my perspective was changed.
I don't remember what prompted the change, but I had a priority shift. Part of my realisation, you see, was that it was of greater importance to honour God than to pick my choice of what's best for the country. After all, Ahab was an excellent king by the world's standards. He conquered territory, forged treaties, and maintained Israel as a prosperous nation, but because he would not honour God, he is considered a terrible king. Conversely, David was nobody's pick to be king. He was the youngest son of a small shepherding family, but he sought to honour god to the best of his abilities and God gave him what he needed to rule effectively.
That realisation coincided with a post from The Gospel Coalition. The fact that there is a Christian Democratic party in the US that seeks to honour God through the planks in their platform blew my mind. I thought most Christians, like myself, just tried to make do with unpalatable options, but we don't need to. Someone else, fed up with the lack of God-honouring options, decided to make their own party in the mid-late 2000's. Now, do I agree with all aspects of the ASP's platform? I wouldn't say so - I tend to lean a little more fiscally conservative than they do - but I do agree with their overarching goal, vision, and motivation enough that I am willing to throw my lot with a young, small party. I can vote for a candidate whom I trust will seek to honour God and have faith that God will give what is needed to run this country.
This is my Option C. What's yours?
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Erace
I want to take the time right now to speak on a serious topic that's been particularly heartbreaking for me.
Those of you who've been reading my blog for a while know I grew up in Cape Town and, while I may not currently live there, I have many connections back home and so, I see a large amount of what goes on and what some of the key issues are.
South Africa and the US have a good number of similarities, as far as social dynamics go. One such similarity that's been building in my awareness is the disparity of perception and treatment based on the perception of wealth and degree of whiteness.
And that grieves me.
At the University of Cape Town, a number of events have occurred within the past couple weeks. I won't pretend to know the full thought and intention, but they prompt me to see that many people, students especially, are fed up with the non-progress of social equality in SA.
In the US, I see the federal neglect of water quality in Flint, where ~ 63% of the population is non-white and 42% of the population is below the poverty line. I see awards ceremonies where black artists are awarded in an "urban" category, but don't even really place in the grand running, or where black actors and actresses are only recognised if they make movies and shows appealing to a broader (read: white) audience.
We still live in a society where one's degree of whiteness or affluence affords an individual certain subconscious benefits and, let's be honest, we judge affluence by adhering to a white standard of dress and decorum.
Here's where it hits home for me: my children will not be afforded the same generosity of subconscious treatment that I have received. They will be born into a society in which even a drop of melanin darker than an Italian or body features more akin to Africa than Europe are sufficient to unconsciously define them as "lesser".
For over 50 years in the US and over 20 years in SA, racial equality has been the law, but as many conservatives are quick to point out on issues like gun legislation: you can't legislate behaviour.
White America, white South Africa, open your eyes. Your brothers and sisters, your countrymen are overlooked, underrepresented, and unseen.
When someone with a different background and a little more melanin than you moves into your neighbourhood, how do you respond? Do you act differently if they speak, act, and dress like you?
What about a new hire at your work, do you assume that he earned the position if he's white, but was given a position to help "diversify" the company if he's hispanic, black, or another such marginalised group?
How do you talk about other people groups? Are you "Us" and the others "Them"?
How do you react when you see some white teenagers walking down the street compared to black teenagers?
Church, what about you? Look within your walls. How many different colours can you see?
Are you monoracial or diverse?
Do you have an even spread across racial lines or only a token few not of the majority?
Are you reaching across racial boundaries to show Christ's love?
Are you stepping out in faith where you might be uncomfortable to take on the plight of another?
Take a look at James 1:27. Need I remind you, Church, that we are all one people under Christ, as Paul makes clear that there is no division like Jew or Greek? Why, then, do we allow this disparity of treatment by race to persist?
If these things are troubling you, maybe striking a chord, I urge you to read a couple posts (The Passion of the Chris & Sodomy: A South African Love Story) from a pastor friend, Brett "Fish" Anderson.
Now, all that said, here's the thing: I'm not much better.
I don't want you thinking that I'm giving all my money to the poor or that I go every weekend to the run-down parts of town to do some kind of charity work. I don't.
I don't want you thinking that I am that amazing white man who understands the entirety of the racial struggle and can serve as cultural translator for both parties. Ask my wife - I've earned the right to ask her her thoughts on the modern race dynamics and have come to the point that I recognise I don't understand. And that's okay, because I'm willing to put in the hard work to be humble and ask.
Some of you may be wondering why I'm targeting everything at the white population. After all, there is racism perpetrated by other groups and negative attitudes and behaviours from other sides as well. To put it simply, I am white. I have no right to dictate patterns of behaviour to those not like me, especially when people like me have contributed to the problems currently in place
Those of you who've been reading my blog for a while know I grew up in Cape Town and, while I may not currently live there, I have many connections back home and so, I see a large amount of what goes on and what some of the key issues are.
South Africa and the US have a good number of similarities, as far as social dynamics go. One such similarity that's been building in my awareness is the disparity of perception and treatment based on the perception of wealth and degree of whiteness.
And that grieves me.
At the University of Cape Town, a number of events have occurred within the past couple weeks. I won't pretend to know the full thought and intention, but they prompt me to see that many people, students especially, are fed up with the non-progress of social equality in SA.
In the US, I see the federal neglect of water quality in Flint, where ~ 63% of the population is non-white and 42% of the population is below the poverty line. I see awards ceremonies where black artists are awarded in an "urban" category, but don't even really place in the grand running, or where black actors and actresses are only recognised if they make movies and shows appealing to a broader (read: white) audience.
We still live in a society where one's degree of whiteness or affluence affords an individual certain subconscious benefits and, let's be honest, we judge affluence by adhering to a white standard of dress and decorum.
Here's where it hits home for me: my children will not be afforded the same generosity of subconscious treatment that I have received. They will be born into a society in which even a drop of melanin darker than an Italian or body features more akin to Africa than Europe are sufficient to unconsciously define them as "lesser".
For over 50 years in the US and over 20 years in SA, racial equality has been the law, but as many conservatives are quick to point out on issues like gun legislation: you can't legislate behaviour.
White America, white South Africa, open your eyes. Your brothers and sisters, your countrymen are overlooked, underrepresented, and unseen.
When someone with a different background and a little more melanin than you moves into your neighbourhood, how do you respond? Do you act differently if they speak, act, and dress like you?
What about a new hire at your work, do you assume that he earned the position if he's white, but was given a position to help "diversify" the company if he's hispanic, black, or another such marginalised group?
How do you talk about other people groups? Are you "Us" and the others "Them"?
How do you react when you see some white teenagers walking down the street compared to black teenagers?
Church, what about you? Look within your walls. How many different colours can you see?
Are you monoracial or diverse?
Do you have an even spread across racial lines or only a token few not of the majority?
Are you reaching across racial boundaries to show Christ's love?
Are you stepping out in faith where you might be uncomfortable to take on the plight of another?
Take a look at James 1:27. Need I remind you, Church, that we are all one people under Christ, as Paul makes clear that there is no division like Jew or Greek? Why, then, do we allow this disparity of treatment by race to persist?
If these things are troubling you, maybe striking a chord, I urge you to read a couple posts (The Passion of the Chris & Sodomy: A South African Love Story) from a pastor friend, Brett "Fish" Anderson.
Now, all that said, here's the thing: I'm not much better.
I don't want you thinking that I'm giving all my money to the poor or that I go every weekend to the run-down parts of town to do some kind of charity work. I don't.
I don't want you thinking that I am that amazing white man who understands the entirety of the racial struggle and can serve as cultural translator for both parties. Ask my wife - I've earned the right to ask her her thoughts on the modern race dynamics and have come to the point that I recognise I don't understand. And that's okay, because I'm willing to put in the hard work to be humble and ask.
~ ~ ~
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
On Race, Riots, and Response
It is with heavy heart that I hear the news of what has happened in Baltimore. My heart breaks for the family of the deceased, but my heart breaks even more for the travesty that has emerged following his funeral.
I speak as a white man and a foreigner. I do not claim the right to diagnose and prescribe the correct path of action which needs to be taken to bring about change. I will leave that to men such as Dr Carson, or Marcus Roberts, both of whom have spoken out against the rioting.
Instead, I'm going to offer my perspective and thoughts.
If you're going to react to the killing of your race by another, particularly by someone of another race employed in law enforcement, then rioting is not the answer. Were I in that situation, I would want to change the perception of my race. Peaceful protest, respectfully seeking talks and reconciliation. Encouragement of forgiveness.
Not rioting.
Rioting tells the law enforcement that I am violent. It tells them that I will not consider others in my demands. It tells them that greater force is needed to contain such as myself.
Were I in this position, this image is one I would be loathe to present, especially if I wanted fair and equal treatment. It sounds counter-intuitive, but that's exactly the means encouraged and employed by men such as Dr King. Violence may salve our immediate hurt and thirst for vengeance, but peace and forgiveness will set the bones.
I speak as a white man and a foreigner. I do not claim the right to diagnose and prescribe the correct path of action which needs to be taken to bring about change. I will leave that to men such as Dr Carson, or Marcus Roberts, both of whom have spoken out against the rioting.
Instead, I'm going to offer my perspective and thoughts.
If you're going to react to the killing of your race by another, particularly by someone of another race employed in law enforcement, then rioting is not the answer. Were I in that situation, I would want to change the perception of my race. Peaceful protest, respectfully seeking talks and reconciliation. Encouragement of forgiveness.
Not rioting.
Rioting tells the law enforcement that I am violent. It tells them that I will not consider others in my demands. It tells them that greater force is needed to contain such as myself.
Were I in this position, this image is one I would be loathe to present, especially if I wanted fair and equal treatment. It sounds counter-intuitive, but that's exactly the means encouraged and employed by men such as Dr King. Violence may salve our immediate hurt and thirst for vengeance, but peace and forgiveness will set the bones.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
When a Good Movie Misses an Opportunity
So, a couple of days ago, I had the opportunity to watch Blended for the first time - excellent movie. I thoroughly enjoyed the humour, the story and how it went about handling the issue of blending two families.
You see, it focuses around two families who've lost a parent - one through divorce and one through cancer - and, frankly, it does a very good job showing some of the struggles of the parents and kids adjusting to the difficulties that come with both. It doesn't make light of any of the situations, but handles them with respect, showing and treating them fairly, while maintaining a casual, funny atmosphere. There was just one thing that was mishandled, though.
One issue brought up in the movie is that Drew Barrymore's character's older son (~13 y.o.) has been discovered to be viewing porn and has apparently been deep into it long enough to be superimposing crushes onto the magazines he's reading. When she first discovers it, she freaks, tearing up the centrefold, but later we see her apologetically looking through the magazine section of a drug store for a replacement. Throughout the movie the other characters' issues are shown and resolved, but for this character, his issue with what manhood means is addressed, but never the porn. Throughout the movie it's played off with sideways jokes, nudges, and winks. It's treated as just a normal part of a boy's life, with Sandler's character even admitting to having a couple copies himself and commenting to Barrymore on her son's "old school" tastes.
Yes, we see some of the effects of porn played out in the kid's role, chiefly a stunted ability to interact with women beyond simply as vessels for lust,but never do we see an admonishment from Sandler's character in a fatherly role towards pornography or its effects. Now, I know it's not a religious movie, but you don't have to be religious to see some of the exploitative work and trafficking that is enabled by the porn industry.
It's good to see such an issue brought out into the open on the silver screen. I just wish the producers had done a better job addressing it.
You see, it focuses around two families who've lost a parent - one through divorce and one through cancer - and, frankly, it does a very good job showing some of the struggles of the parents and kids adjusting to the difficulties that come with both. It doesn't make light of any of the situations, but handles them with respect, showing and treating them fairly, while maintaining a casual, funny atmosphere. There was just one thing that was mishandled, though.
One issue brought up in the movie is that Drew Barrymore's character's older son (~13 y.o.) has been discovered to be viewing porn and has apparently been deep into it long enough to be superimposing crushes onto the magazines he's reading. When she first discovers it, she freaks, tearing up the centrefold, but later we see her apologetically looking through the magazine section of a drug store for a replacement. Throughout the movie the other characters' issues are shown and resolved, but for this character, his issue with what manhood means is addressed, but never the porn. Throughout the movie it's played off with sideways jokes, nudges, and winks. It's treated as just a normal part of a boy's life, with Sandler's character even admitting to having a couple copies himself and commenting to Barrymore on her son's "old school" tastes.
Yes, we see some of the effects of porn played out in the kid's role, chiefly a stunted ability to interact with women beyond simply as vessels for lust,but never do we see an admonishment from Sandler's character in a fatherly role towards pornography or its effects. Now, I know it's not a religious movie, but you don't have to be religious to see some of the exploitative work and trafficking that is enabled by the porn industry.
It's good to see such an issue brought out into the open on the silver screen. I just wish the producers had done a better job addressing it.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Modern Major General
"I am the very model of a modern major general,
I've information vegetable, animal, and mineral,
I know the kings of England and I quote the facts historical
From Marathon to Waterloo in order categorical..."
An interesting song, this. Here, we have a man proudly proclaiming his personage a paragon amongst peers. He proceeds to recount numberless feats and abilities, while boasting his vast stores of knowledge. He puts himself on a dais for other major generals and lesser-ranked men to admire.
It's kind of like what we shouldn't be doing as Christian leaders. Paul, the man often held as preeminent pastor (tough he may cringe at the title) wrote to the church at Corinth:
"God has Chosen what is insignificant and despised in the world - what is viewed as noting - to bring to nothing what is viewed as something, so that no one can boast in His presence. But it is from Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became God-given wisdom for us - our righteousness, sanctification and redemption, in order that, as it is written: 'The one who boasts must boast in the Lord.'" 1 Cor 1:28-31 (HCSB)Solomon wrote:
"He mocks those who mock. but gives grace to the humble." Prov 3:34 (HCSB)Paul, also in his first letter to the Corinthians, gave example of the apostles humility in an excerpt slightly too long to transcribe.
I don't know about you, but I'm starting to get the idea that humility, not pride, is the proper mindset for a Christian leader. After all, did Christ not wash the grimy feet of His disciples on the evening of the last supper?
So why, then, is pride something to be avoided?
- Pride turns the focus from God to self.
- Pride corrupts and takes preeminence over other motives. (e.g, bettering the living situation of a poor family becomes a show for acclaim.)
- Pride places others on a subordinate level.
I could continue, but it's late and I think these three highlight my point nicely as counterpoints to Christ and the apostles who:
- Pointed the crowds to God,
- Set aside their desire for praise and acknowledgement for the goal of furthering the Gospel and the salvation of mankind.
- Placed others as equals with, if not higher than, themselves.
"Make your attitude that of Christ Jesus,
Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with god as something to be used for His own advantage. Instead He emptied Himself by assuming the form of a slave, taking on the likeness of men. And when He had come as a man in His eternal form, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death - even to death on a cross..."
Phil 2:5-8 (HCSB)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)