My bowels! My bowels! Jeremiah 4:19

This morning I felt God say that He was giving me time, not just so I can get ready for my next big trip, but also so that I could spend in depth time with Him like I used to when my life was last uncluttered enough to be able to pour out a couple of hours each day (sadly that was in 2003). So instead of just reading my bible and journaling as usual, I looked up some online commentaries (http://bible.cc/jeremiah/4-19.htm). I like these because they almost cheat for you - they cross-reference already and bring up parellel bible versions.
Now, I have been readying through Jeremiah. Frankly, unless I am severely angry or feel oppressed, it's hard for me to connect with the books of the prophets usually. I have been very slowly reading through the bible, so I began at Jeremiah 4:19:

 "My heart, my heart - I writhe in pain! My heart pounds within me! For I have heard the blast of enemy trumpets and the roar of their battle cries." (NLT)

Actually I am feeling rather serene this morning, so I asked God to show me what he wanted to say with this, because I wasn't really feeling it.  Turning to the bible.cc website, I read:

"My bowels, my bowels! I am pained at my very heart; my heart maketh a noise in me; I cannot hold my peace, because thou hast heard, O my soul, the sound of the trumpet, the alarm of war." (KJV)

My bowels, my bowels! I am pained at the walls of my heart, Make a noise for me doth My heart, I am not silent, For the voice of a trumpet I have heard, O my soul -- a shout of battle! (YLT)

Now I knew that the ancients considered the stomach to be the seat of the emotions but it still sounds funny for Jeremiah to be yelling out "My bowels!"

But then I remembered. A while ago I was told news so bad that when it sunk in, I felt like retching for two days. I was literally 'sick to my stomach'. To protect the people involved, I could not talk to anyone about it, but my grieving came out physically. And when I read this verse of Jeremiah with that experience in mind, I realised that Jeremiah basically detailed a step by step description of the physical stages of grieving.

First, it hits like a punch in the stomach. At first, I wasn't even aware that I was grieving, because I have been hardened by living here in Thailand and hearing terrible things all the time. I actually thought I may have caught a stomach bug and was doubled over in pain.

Secondly, I think when it says the "walls of my heart", that really does describe the way the heart starts beating so hard that it hurts, and I became nervous that it actually might do some permanent damage. The physical pain really does feel like it's the walls, the muscles around the heart straining to contain it. It's similar to the speed of heart rate after really intense exercise, like having run a sprint. You get short of breath. There's also scientific evidence that when your heart beats that fast, it disorientates you and actually throws you into a mental tunnel-vision panic like state, so you are mentally as well as physically suffering.

Lastly, when it says "my heart maketh a noise", the sound of your heartbeat rushing through the blood in your ears does become very loud. 

So I realized that Jeremiah was expressing this most physical form of travailing, grieving over his people. It was a moment of connection to the suffering of a prophet so many thousands of years ago. And recently I have realized that this kind of grieving can only come from love. Stated negatively, if you didn't care you wouldn't grieve. Being able to love so deeply that the pain of another strikes you physically is a strange side-effect of God's gift to the human spirit, but I wouldn't want it otherwise, even though when it is happening I sometimes pray for it to be taken away.

Poor Jeremiah, the weeping prophet who loved his wayward people.

The Diffusion of Innovations

Every so often a book is written by a scientist, for scientists, but it's implications could go so much further. One such book is The Diffusion of Innovations by Rogers.  It's available on Amazon here. I would recommend that every community worker, ministry and missionary read this book. It's almost a manual with guidelines on how to introduce change into a society. However, it is couched in such scientific jargon that it almost needs a dictionary to be understood. Why do scientists like to say the word 'salient' instead of 'important'?
So to combat this, I've decided to write out a layman's summary of the most important points I found.

The Dumbed Down Version of The Diffusion of Innovation
People tend to catch on to a new idea and use it faster if:

• It seems to be significantly better than the old idea.
• It can be tried out in a small form first, so people can see that it works before committing 100%.
• It seems to be a natural continuation of traditional ideas or values.  
• It seems easy to understand.
• It produces visible rewards quickly.

Pretty obvious huh?

Next, when people are going to decide to use a new idea, there's a whole process behind their thinking.

1. They get information about it.
2. They form an attitude about it.
3. They decide to use it (or not).
4. They actually put it into use.
5. They check to get confirmation that it is still a good idea.

This is kind of a good thing to know if you are say, trying to persuade someone to stop a bad health practice like maybe smoking. Not all people are ready to stop the next day, some might just need more information first and you can't rush them really. And some people might have really decided in their heart, but just haven't got around to doing it.

Then, not everyone jumps onto an idea at the same time. Usually a new idea starts off slow until a decent group of people have got it (about a 1/3rd) and then it begins to snowball as the majority catch on, until it finally slows down as the last people get it. 

1. The first few people to use a new idea are called innovators. They're usually high risk takers, wealthier so they can afford a few bad calls, more likely to travel out of their own social clique, but often the majority think they're so risky that they're not really followed. 
2. Then come the opinion leaders. These people are usually highly respected in their own communities, they have more formal education, are literate, have higher social status and are upwardly-mobile. When these people take an idea, the majority begins to pay attention. Personality-wise, they're also more likely to be empathetic, flexible, capable of thinking in abstract (like guessing how things wil turn out), rational, can handle risk, smarter, more favorable to science, change and education. Not fatalistic. They're also more likely to travel outside their own community and meet people who want change, yet be very social in their community, watch mass media and actively research new ideas.
3. The early majority jump on the boat after the opinion leaders have shown them that the idea is good. They're more likely to rely on someone else's opinion rather than trying it for themselves. But when these guys get in on the action they create a critical mass, which means enough people are using it that it seems like everyone needs to get one. From here on the action speeds up rapidly.
4. The late majority join in when it seems tried and true. They usually have the opposite characteristics to the opinion leaders, like they travel less, have less resources, less education, less social, less access to mass media etc.
5. The laggards join at the very end. Often this could be because they're actually at a disadvantage, such as they didn't have the money to buy in on it at the beginning or they were geographically isolated. Sometime's it just because they're more traditional.

So then, if you're a person who wants to introduce change or a new idea, these are the steps you have to take:

1. Get people to see a need for change
2. Share information
3. Diagnose problems
4. Get people to want to change
5. Get people to actually change.
6. Make sure that the change stays and they keep it up
7. Try to end their dependence on you.

Here's some characteristics that would make you more successful at introducing change:

• Put in a lot of effort making contact
• Be focused on the people rather than the idea or sponsor of the idea
• Make sure the way you spread out the idea is compatible with the needs of the people you're changing.
• Be empathetic
• Seem like you're of a similar social background as the people you're working with
• Have credibility (not just a salesman)
• Work with the opinion leaders of that community
• Teach the community how to evaluate future changes e.g. Teaching everyone germs exist helps people adopt better health practices later.

Now there's two ways to look at the flow of ideas.

Centralised: Someone at the top of a hierarchy makes a decision on the new idea and then it gets passed down. This way the idea might be put in place quickly and be better used with higher technology, but sometimes the people lower down don't like it so the idea doesn't really work. Works better is the people in the group are more alike.

De-centralised: Different people, who have less in common with each other, are inventing all over the place and then sharing their information. Usually comes up with better ideas that suit the needs of the people who actually have to use them. However, because it's more informal, sometimes important ideas don't get shared to the people who need to hear them. Aslo because everyone is inventing, this way works better if the idea is a low-tech one where you don't need specialist skills to use it.

What about if you're trying to change an organisation?

There's two stages

Planning

1. Make an agenda. You gather information and figure out the problem.
2. Match a new idea or invention to the problem.

Implementation

1. Reinvent the idea to suit your organisation or re-structure your organisation to suit the idea.
2. Clarify the idea to everyone, make sure everyone understands and is on the same page.
3. Routinize the idea so every gets so used to it, that it doesn't seem like a novelty anymore, but instead becomes part of the organisations normal operations or identity.

And then the aftermath

Most new ideas have consequences, some unforeseen, some bad as well as the good. A lot of innovations actually widen the gap between the rich and the poor, where the rich hear of it first, jump on board with the new idea, have more resources so they can invest, make money faster and get richer, while the poor are less educated, move slower, have less to start off with and so just stay relatively poor.

This can be prevented if there is:

• Focus on developing new ideas for the poor.
• A social organisation so that the poorer people can access the same resources as wealthier people (like a community bank).
• A way that the poorer people have a voice in the planning and execution of an idea, as well as the goals of a program.
• Focus on communicating with the poorer people more, and facilitating change especially for them.
• A more de-centralised way of spreading ideas that also takes into account people's traditional knowledge.

Pretty much, the ways to go wrong and create havoc when introducing an new thing or idea are many. Hopefully this helps.