Big Boys? Maybe. Real Men? No way.
I hate macho. I hate the message it sends young men — that we should be athletes not scholars, emotionless yet prone to violence, treat women as sex objects and gay men as the enemy. Yet, macho culture is so prevalent I often forget how dastardly it is until something sets me off. Yesterday, that spark was lit by this weekend’s Fargo Big Boys Toys Expo at the Fargodome.
Sam Benshoof may have been just doing his job with he wrote The Forum newspaper promo article April 26, but let the record show that, contrary to the article’s opening lines, this man is not rejoicing that the Expo is in town. And, let’s not kid ourselves: the Big Boys Toys Expo will most definitely not be for all of us.
W
ill there be readings by our local poet laureate, Jamie Parsley?
How about sessions on knitting, art, and dance?
Would a gay couple truly be welcome? (Would that be before, or after, the Hooters contest?!)
Will there be presentations on good parenting, developing communication skills, health and wellness, religion and spirituality?
No. Instead the Expo seems all about perpetuating dangerous gender stereotypes that hurt us all and desensitize us to this drivel. That it does so with such boldness makes it all the more problematic.
According to the article, the Fargo Big Boys Toys Expo is organized by The Forum itself! After the launch of the SheSays section, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised. But, really…a Hooters Pageant? The prospect of that, I hate, even more than macho.
image by Stillsearc
Transforming Divisive Conversation
I have my hands full at the moment with some up-and-coming writing and other projects, but I did want to update the blog and give a quick public thanks to the Public Conversations Project. I attended a workshop in Minneapolis this week entitled, “Transforming Divisive Conversation” and learned a heckuvalot. (By the way, I attended because I recently joined my presbytery’s Committee on Ministry, a committee that, at times, deals with congregations in conflict.) If you work with groups in conflict — or you’re human and may encounter conflict in the future — check out the Public Conversations Project’s approach and workshops here. It’s tricky to sum up a daylong workshop in a post, but here’s three quick takeaways from the workshop led by Robert Stains:
- When dealing with conflicted situations, Stains says up to 80% of the work is prep work. Such work might include pre-meeting conversations, participant prep, communication agreements, visioning structures, and planning questions that elicit fresh full speaking. Prep work considers questions like, “What words relating to the issue do you find hurtful?” “What is it about this community that matters to you?” “What would it take to bring your best self to the meeting?”
- Quality of conversation drives the quality of community. So, quality conversation helps move conflicted situations from reactive speaking to reflective speaking, from listening to find fault to listening to understand, from speaking with slogans to speaking personally, and from defending positions to addressing deep concerns.
- Random group dynamic issue: need an easy way to have everyone in a group respond to a question for two minutes, but actually keep things to two minutes? Use, well, a watch. Here’s how. As the first person shares, the facilitator is holding the watch and quietly times 2 minutes. When the time is up, the facilitator walks the watch over to the sharer who stops talking as the watch is handed over. That person then times the person next to them, simply handing the watch over if the speaker reaches 2 minutes. And so on around the circle. It was the perfect way for 15 people to share in a timely way. (Do note: I’m not suggesting this for a group in conflict, but Bob used it for our workshop and it went amazingly smoothly.)
Many workshop participants attended as part of their preparation to lead conversations in Minnesota concerning the November ballot amendment to ban gay marriage. One program that sounds particularly interesting (though seems to have a low online profile) is the Minnesota Council of Churches Respectful Conversations Project. I hope we can bring it to Moorhead!
Curious about transforming conflict through respectful conversation? PCP has a ton of great resources posted on their website.
Who are we together?
Here I am, Lord. Here you are, Lord. Here we are together.
Who am I, Lord? Who are you, Lord? Who are we together?
These phrases, Brian McLaren suggests to readers of his Naked Spirituality, might be used as a sort of exercise to help us pray and center ourselves in the moment. They’re presented at the end of a chapter entitled “Here: Naming the Mystery” in which McLaren calls readers to acknowledge and name the mystery of God’s presence. The rest of the book takes things further, of course, but “Here” is simply about being, acknowledging, and resting in God who is present.
McLaren writes that the prayer helps him move from “here to who,” to focus on God and what God and he might do and be together.
When I first read the simple statements and questions, I smiled. I underlined. Then I grimaced a bit. Their simplicity and sing-songy nature remind me a bit too much of camp songs.
I’m reading Naked Spirituality for a book group with The Project F-M, so I was sure to ask what group members thought of the prayer. The consensus of group members seemed to be that while folks appreciated McLaren’s efforts, and understood the point, most were also suspicious of “camp theology” and cutesy phrases. The group did not exactly commit to use the phrases in their personal prayer time. In fact, they may not remember them at all now.
I get that. As I say, I had a similar reaction myself. But, even weeks after reading the phrase, I can’t seem to get them out of my head. In their simple, careful way, I find a profound claim and question.
Perhaps what continues to nag at me about the prayer is that in what is disguised as exceedingly simple claims and open-ended questions are really gigantic confessions of faith and questions of call. Hidden in these simple words are the big questions of being, questions about purpose, faithfulness, faith, and community.
The prayer is simple enough to memorize unintentionally, but complex enough to keep you wrestling for weeks. Camp-like or not, maybe I like it after all.
Page rage: Kindle vs. iPad vs. dead tree book reading
You may have heard: technology is changing the way we live, even the way we read. I’m no exception. I read a lot so there’s much for me to like about the transition to ebooks, but while I love my kindle and iPad for some types of reading, don’t stop the presses on my account quite yet. The old school paper technology still has a lot going for it in my book.
Why I prefer the kindle to iPad
Since ebooks are cheaper than dead tree books, I prefer to purchase ebooks when reading fun novels. (I’m a holdout, though, on books for study or higher quality novels. Those I still tend to buy in paper form.) About a year ago I was given an iPad (iPad2, 32GB) . I love it, but I don’t like reading on it much at all.
Well, that’s not strictly true — I enjoy the NY Times app every morning. Even the Fargo newspaper’s new iPad app isn’t bad. I love my iPad for it’s many other uses, but I’ve found reading a chapter book on the iPad a little frustrating. So, with some birthday gift cards I recently purchased a Kindle from Amazon ($79 with ads). It’s pretty rad.
The kindle’s black and white “e-ink” is remarkably readable. Even reading for several hours straight leads to no eye strain whatsoever. The kindle is also much lighter than my iPad. After 20 minutes of reading on the iPad, my arms get tired of holding it. If it’s leaning on a table my arms can rest, but often the glare from the screen obstructs the view. Reading in a bright coffee shop — or outside — can be a really frustrating eye-straining experience.
My kindle, though, can be read easily in full sunlight and has many other advantages over an iPad. For example, since the screen isn’t touch-sensitive it resists accidental page-turning that often happens with my iPad. Also, I really like being able to turn the page by pressing actual buttons, buttons available on both sides of the device. The physical click of the button feels good to the touch, and if your available finger is closer to the left side of the device, the kindle still allows you to turn a page whereas a click on the left side of an iPad ebook page flips the backwards not forward.
And since the kindle is relatively inexpensive, I don’t get a worried using it outside in a park, or putting in my pocket, or leaving it on a coffee shop table when I run to the bathroom. (Hey, I spend a lot of time in coffee shops.) Along those lines, people at our Y workout with their kindles and nooks all the time, but I’ve never seen anyone reading on an iPad while using an elliptical machine.
Areas for improvement
The kindle homepage is somewhat unsatisfying to the eye whereas the home screens of iPad ebook apps (kindle, nook, iTunes bookstore) look much better. I also wish there was an easy way to note how many pages you can left in an ebook chapter — it notes the percentage of total book read, but not in relation to each chapter.
While I love how easy it is to borrow an ebook from someone who already owns it, Amazon currently only allows you to loan it to one person over the life of the book which is frustrating. Also, my local library has a pretty sparse selection of ebooks to borrow.
That said, I’m managing to read all three Hunger Games books on my kindle without purchasing any of them. That they come in instantly after a person loans one out which is pretty darn handy as well, but you only have 14 days in which to read the borrowed book.
Highlighting on both the kindle and iPad is pretty useless. It takes me precious seconds to arrange the cursor correctly, and while you can add notes by typing, it’s a pretty clumsy and time-demanding process. Adding notes is a little better on the iPad kindle app than on the kindle itself, but neither really has a smooth equivalent to my usual check marks and “!”s in the margins of paper books.
Why old-school paper books are still better (mostly)
I have real fears for the publishing industry, especially over how Amazon’s pricing and monopolistic structures treat publishers. On the other hand, the speed at which you can publish a short book and get it out there cheaply is pretty great (e.g. when the Grand Forks Herald published “The Best of the Eat Beat by Marilyn Hagerty” just days after she went viral). E-publishing also makes short stories and essays easily able to be sold for $1 to $2, perhaps recreating a market for short works. I’ve also read several articles by self-published authors extolling the ease at which to distribute their work these days.
That said, there’s several aspects to reading paper books that are hard for me to give up. The ease of highlighting and writing in the margins, plus the ability to quickly flip back and forth between pages several chapters away makes paper books an impressive technology in and of themselves. Paper books are also arguably more sturdy than an e-reader (I’ll throw a book on the couch from a few feet away, but not my iPad).
Interestingly, the physical space a paper book takes up — seeing it on a table, feeling it in my hands, seeing it on a shelf — gives it a meaning that’s difficult to describe except to say that it’s emotional, perhaps related to the tactile experience and memories that comes from slowly paging one’s way through a story. That feeling that comes when seeing it on a shelf or bedside table is hard to give up; ebook readers offer nothing similar.
The unwritten future
As I wrap this up I’d like to keep the door open for the possibility that I’ll later fall in love with ebooks on the iPad. After all, the screen on the new iPad (“iPad 3″) is supposedly nearly printed book quality crisp. While a basic lightweight black and white kindle-type product may remain the best e-experience for reading a linear novel, I do admit the iPad’s other technologies present great possibilities for wholly new reading experiences. Think about adding videos and interactive designs to textbooks, putting in links to further info online, and the ability to update a book slightly after initial publication without enormous costs of reprinting.
I have no idea what reading will look like for the next generation of readers — persons, and reading devices — but at the moment, I’m pretty happy with my kindle for fun reading, my iPad for web browsing and apps, and dead tree books for my most immersive reflective reading.
My context, leadership strategy, & recent discoveries
A lot of my work leading The Project F-M has to do with understanding the context of Fargo-Moorhead, the broad context including young adults, older folks, and the established congregations in town. And then there’s the issue of my leadership, my self-awareness and approach to ministry. I’ve recently made some seemingly simple observations about both that have gone a long way in helping The Project F-M move forward.
First, it can be difficult to launch a new ministry when the status quo of ministry around you is pretty established in its ways. That’s not a slight against any of the wonderful congregations in Fargo-Moorhead; it’s just the case. Many folks who love Fargo and are active in ELCA churches here tend to describe the area’s churches as “traditional,” “conservative,” and “part of Christendom.” (Again: I’m not picking a fight, just reporting a description. It’s cool with me. Really.)
The issue for our more outside-the-box ministry, then, is how to function in this context. I’ve found Ron Heifetz’s work helpful here.
Significant change best (and most easily) comes after some sort of disruption. Broadly speaking, the Project F-M is attempting adaptive change in our community and in the church. Heifetz distinguishes between technical and adaptive change stating that technical change is something an expert can bring about. Adaptive change, on the other hand, requires a community to change its values, behaviors, and attitudes.
I’ve come to understand my work with the Project as attempting adaptive change in a place that would much prefer technical change. We haven’t had the disruption here to warrant adaptive change. That makes it pretty tricky work.
Second, it’s OK — no, it’s great — for congregations to carefully claim what type of person/family/new member they’d most fully be able to welcome into their community. Congregations cannot be all things to all people. I’m totally cool with them focusing their evangelism ministry on particular aspects of the community (as long as it doesn’t intentionally exclude).
If a congregation is great at youth ministry, then claim that and advertise it. Be bold. If you have a wonderful place for retirees then, perfect, claim that. Similarly, if a new family comes and they drove past another church on the way to yours but other other church might fit them well, tell them about it. They can save gas and be faithful disciples.
Yes, I really value diversity, I’d rather not congregations become monocultures. So, again, if a congregation wants diversity then they need to claim that, and reach out and invite diverse folks to their community. Similarly, if a congregation wants to become a neighborhood church again, it needs to visit folks in the neighborhood, knock on doors, host community meals, etc.
My hunch is that new church developments think much more carefully and clearly about the demographics and psychographics of folks they hope will attend their church; established congregations, while they perhaps once emphasized this, have grown to consider this sort of thinking as “market driven.” I’ve come to think it’s just good leadership.
Third: goals, goals, goals. After a few months working with the Project I brought a six-month plan to our Board that included a series of benchmarks for our work going forward. That was helpful to really get us moving from to more task-oriented leadership.
Now in 2012, we have even more fire under our feet because nothing focuses the mind like financial troubles looming in the same calendar year. (No, I’m not worried about buying food next month, but we are doing some good work on our questions of longterm financial sustainability.) The trick with leading our new ministry seems to be setting short-term goals, noting our progress on them, and then flexibly making the next list.
Again, these reflections are nothing brilliant or new, but they are incredibly helpful for me to note as a leader. Recently I’ve been astounded by how just a little clarity on our approach can add up for a much fuller picture.
So, ministry leaders out there: what realizations about your leadership style and/or context has affected your work? What kept you from realizing it sooner?
image by ivanmarn
Secular Sabbath vs. Christian Traditions
Next week the Project F-M will be hosting a Theology Pub (Monday night, 7:30 p.m.) on the topic: Sabbath 2.0: Should We Ever Fully Unplug? These events draw a pretty diverse crowd of 20/30-somethings from those who regularly attend church to atheists, from pastors to the spiritual but not religious. As the convener of these gatherings, next week I’ll be particularly interested in considering how the theological notion of sabbath relates to the 24/7 nature of secular digital life.
In this vein, two recent popular press articles on sabbath (though they didn’t call it that) are well worth reading.
In the NY Times, Pico Iyer 
writes on “The Joy of Quiet,” discussing exclusive resorts that offer the allure of NO Internet or cell phone service. Particularly striking was Iyer’s visit to a Benedictine monastery where he met a MTV employee who brought his son on trips there to get away from it all.
In Slate, Katie Roiphe reflects in “Can We Really Unplug: The illusion of Internet freedom” on the popular Freedom software that locks you off the Internet for the length of your choosing.
(I’ve written on sabbath and technology in previous posts including Sabbath 2.0 and Saturday: Secular Sabbath or Christian Cop-Out?”)
Interestingly, in the church circles I observe, teaching and preaching about sabbath-keeping has gone out of style. The positive read of this is a healthy response to an over-zealous piety that can come with too much emphasis on keeping sabbath. The negative possibility, however, is that in a society where culture is about more-and-more-faster-and-faster, the church has neglected its task of preaching about the joy and benefits of practicing sabbath (and its task to acknowledge the struggles related to it as well).
So does the reflection Iyer and Roiphe’s piece (and Mark Bittman’s [here] before it) mark a cultural shift in which today’s main advocates of sabbath (or “quiet,” “rest,” “time away” whatever you call it) approach it from a spiritual but not religious perspective?
How can Christians — pastors and others alike — add their voice to the conversation in ways that welcome others? Off the top of my head, this process of dialogue comes to mind:
- for Christians, and all, to acknowledge the challenge of today’s fast-paced uber-connected life and with it a desire by many to find periods of shelter from the hubbub
- for Christians to listen to those who seek and find this sabbath rest from non-Christian perspectives including those that are totally secular, and those from other religious traditions
- for Christians to plumb the depths of their own tradition and find a clarity as to what sabbath is all about (from the commandment to Jesus’ nuanced disregard for it)
- for Christians to claim — in humility and while admitting the challenges — how living out their notions of sabbath is both faithful and life-giving for them
My instinct is that, when it comes to finding breaks from digital life — time to realign our lives towards what is good and right — the church has a lot to learn from those who practice “sabbath” without much notion of religion. I hope the conversation starts soon.
image by ivanmarn
Connect Online
An opinion piece of mine went up at MPR News online today. In it, I try to set some ground rules for debating the marriage amendment that will be on Minnesota’s ballot come November. An excerpt of the article is below. I hope you go to the MPR site to read the full piece, share it, comment, lash out at me, praise its brilliance, etc.
Let’s have some ground rules for debating the marriage amendment
Adam J. Copeland
“My parents’ neighbor was confused. Four years ago the citizens of Florida were preparing to vote ona constitutional amendment similar to the marriage amendment slated for Minnesota’s November ballot. My father, a Presbyterian pastor in Florida, put up a yard sign urging citizens to “vote no” on the amendment.
The day after the sign went up, a neighbor came by the house. In his quiet way, the neighbor kindly told my father that he must be confused about what a “yes” or “no” vote meant regarding the amendment. Our neighbor, knowing my father was a pastor, wanted to spare him the embarrassment of having put up the wrong sign.
My father smiled and thanked him even as he explained that the yard sign was no mistake. In fact, it was my family’s Christian convictions that demanded they speak out against the amendment. The ensuing conversation may not have changed any votes, but it certainly deepened the neighbors’ understanding of one another.
The story speaks to some assumptions regarding the marriage amendment debate — that all Christian pastors would support the amendment, for one. As Minnesota nears its own time of yard signs and neighborly banter over a proposed marriage amendment, I suggest the following five ground rules for the debate.
Let all Minnesotans remember that:
There is no one Christian position. Some, like the state’s Catholic bishops, advocate for the amendment on Christian grounds. Others, like the majority of delegates at the recent Minneapolis Synod Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, oppose the amendment. As a Christian pastor myself I would be the last to say that one’s religious convictions should not influence choices at the voting booth — anything but. However, it should be noted that Christians hold varied and complex positions on the amendment. We cannot be seen as one voting bloc…..” [to read the full piece go to MPR News]