get more information by clicking on the 350 button to the right.

Kludge (klooj): A system which is successful in performing a particular function or solving a particular problem while at the same time being inelegant, inefficient, clumsy or patched together. 

or

Something that works for the wrong reason.

“I’ve kludged around it for now, but I’ll fix it up properly later.”

 “I’ve kluged this routine to get around that weird bug, but there’s probably a better way.”

“Some say that google is a kludge”

For those who follow me on twitter you know that I have been thinking about the above statement for days now. To be honest it is nearly all I can think about. I am mesmerized by the simplicity and elegance of this idea. The product of my fixation are the following three questions:

1. Is this statement true?

I am mostly interested in counter examples here. I cannot come up with any so far in my thinking. What I do find are a lot of instances wherein high levels of command and control are used regardless of the degree of commonality. I believe though that this is the product of something other than necessity. Perhaps weak, fearful or insecure leadership. Perhaps this misapplication of control could flow from a need to insulate one’s organization from a ’surprise’ incident which would reveal a low degree of commonality. However this thought would only speak to the truth of Hock’s assertion. 

2. If it is true how do individuals come to hold such things as purpose and principles in common?

This is likely the $64,000 question. Again, I am looking less for theory here than I am actual experience. In your work with organizations how have you seen people arrive at a point where they share a high degree of commonality relative to purpose and principles? 

3. What is the implication of our use of command and control in our organizations?

Specifically I wonder if this principle holds in reverse. Is it true that if I use command and control in my organization that there is a proportionately lower degree of commonality in principles and purpose. This is likely just another way of asking question 1 though I think considering Hock’s principle from this angle is important in our overall analysis.

In my experience people embrace the tendencies which they refer to as leadership styles. Some leaders are “drivers,’ meaning that they are high directive and task oriented. “Amiables” are people focused and are committed to team involvement in creating the direction. Beyond these types there are many more obviously. What I am considering though is whether or not Hock is correcting in asserting that leadership styles (the degree of command and control exerted) should be predicated upon the degree of commonality within the organization.

Tacit: expressed or carried on without words or speech; implied.

Thus something may be tacitly understood.

Or perhaps they have a partner whose plays a tacit role in their operations.

Better yet one may find as I do that passive aggression is in large part based on one’s ability to communicate tacitly.

I had the chance to hear the founder of charity: water at Q. His story is pretty amazing and I think this video is particularly poignant. Inserting the images of the third world into our daily life conveys something significant to me. Whether it’s water, food, medical care, shelter or safety we must continually be reminded that such issues are knit into the fabric of the existence of entire people groups around the globe.

So while we wrestle with whether or not to eat organic. Whether or not to shop at wal-mart. Whether or not to drink tap water. Whether or not to immunize our children. Remember that such considerations are pure luxury to those who are just trying to eat, be clothed, drink and survive.

This idea has had a radical impact on my thinking. For most of my life I perceived my faith to be at war with it’s enemy, which is ‘this world.’ In this way I had subscribed to the paradigmatic dualism that dominates in modern contexts. However, when I came to the same conclusion (though much less eloquently) as Tillich I found a profound sense of clarity. 

This clarity emanates from the notion that the cosmos is sourced singularly in the logos. The greeks understood this term to express the ultimate underlying reason of things. Thus, if there is only one logos and it is the same logos that is manifest in the person of Christ then we come naturally to Tillich’s coclusion above, which is that there is no contradiction or competition between the logos of the world and the logos of Christ. They are one in the same. 

Because of this one-ness people of faith are free to embrace reality without fear of what we might find, for everything may be understood either as a product of the logos or a deviation. This should keep us from fearing science, culture, economics, poverty and oppression. Instead we can begin to understand all of these kinds of issues as platforms from which we might articulate the truth of the gospel.

Complication then enters the equation not by way of a competing logos but rather by a deviation from the singular logos which holds all things together. In this frame we then understand sin as a simple deviation on the part of creation from the originating reason which is Christ. It is a disobedience. It is a becoming that was not intended.

Is this not the very gospel itself? That in light of this deviation we are separated from the logos but Jesus himself has seen to reconciling us to god.

One may read this post and find it dull by virtue of it’s simplicity but I urge you to consider that your boredom only flows from my weakness as a communicator. For if this remark by Tillich is true then we are made both free and responsible.

Free from the ‘versions’ game wherein we take all the things of ‘the world’ and christianize them.  Free from much of the ‘us’ and ‘them’ that characterizes who we as people of faith are perceived to be. Free to engage this world as if it matters to Jesus. Free to stop holding out for heaven. Free to hope for a bit of redemption today.

Additionally we become responsible. For if we believe that this world is in fact originating in the singular logos then we must engage it as such. Thus we have a responsibility to care for the cosmos. To seek it’s peace and redemption. We have a responsibility to recognize this world as a deviant of a good creation rather than an opposing force to be fought against.

For me, this changes everything. This understanding helps me to grasp why I should not love the world while at the same time God ’so loves the world.’ This gives me a healthy frame for a hope that is both present and future. It motivates me to begin to live now the life everlasting.

I wasn’t familiar with word so I looked it up. Apogee means the farthest or highest point, sort of like culmination. Anyway, that’s the word for the day. Enjoy. listen

Powered by Jott

The following is from Brian McLaren’s book Everything Must Change.

“… we have a jigsaw puzzle in a box, but someone put the wrong lid on the box. We keep trying to use the picture from the wrong lid as a guide to putting the pieces together. With the wrong picture implanted in our imaginations, some of the colors on the pieces don’t seem to belong, and some shapes don’t fit. We may assume they were included by mistake and push them to the side, or maybe let them drop off the table edge altogether. And we keep searching for other colors and shapes that we see in the picture on the lid but which for some reason aren’t included in our box of pieces. What do we do? We push more and more unfitting pieces aside. We take out some scissors and colored markers and “adjust” some of the pieces that remain. We do our best to conform the pieces in the box to the picture on the lid. We do the best we can.

Some people become so disillusioned and frustrated that they throw out the whole thing - pieces, box, and all. They give up puzzling altogether. Others decide that it’s the box lid rather than the pieces that determines “orthodoxy,” and they zealously defend the lid and bestow on all who dare to question it the labels “heretic” and “apostate.”

Others become uncomfortable with the realization that their loyalty is more to the picture outside the box than to the pieces inside the box. They wonder what would happen if they reversed that loyalty and refused to accept a lid that doesn’t do justice to all the pieces in the box. They refuse to cut corners or alter colors. Eventually they decide the problem isn’t with the pieces - they actually fit together: the problem is with the picture on the lid.”

When I lived in Denver I had the opportunity to attend a church before it was planted. In the meetings leading up to the plant the pastor was teaching a series on what the kingdom of God looks like. He challenged us to come to the scripture as if we were Martians, or at least as close as possible. I find this to be similar to the challenge of the passage above wherein we look with new eyes on that which we have been misunderstanding all along. In fact (thanks to Walt) I think we may need to consider what belongs in the box. I immediately jump to the idea that we are only looking a the scripture but it seems reasonable that someone may want to include the revelation or nature, experience or supernatural revelation in the out working of such thoughts.

The problem both McLaren and my pastor were speaking to is the curse of knowledge which I mentioned in tappers. It is the curse of knowledge which will not allow us to approach the scripture as if we were Martians. We simply lack the ability to de-contextualize ourselves since, I would argue, we are necessarily contextualized. This inability eliminates our ability to come to the puzzle or the scripture in a way that is neutral or objective. This being the case I would argue that there is not other way to come to the puzzle above other than working without a lid and letting the pieces fall where they may. Ultimately they will form the only picture we can find to be reliable.

Perhaps you disagree with this assessment and believe that we can be free of our context. If so, I would be anxious to hear about such a process. If however you agree that we are necessarily contextualized I wonder how you deal with the issue of metanarrative or as it is considered above, “the lid.” Is it possible to not have a lid? Do you have a lid? Is it appropriate to have a lid at all? If so, how do you know which is the correct lid? Ultimately how do we engage a story like the one of the puzzle above in a way that leads to hope rather than nihilism?

Ephemeral (i-fem-er-uhl): Lasting a very short time. Transitory, momentary, brief.

Enjoy.