Compromise

Jeremiah 34:8-16 Zedekiah had proclaimed liberty to the slaves, according to the law of God that sets everyone free every 7 years, but then the people of Israel had turned around and taken them back into slavery. So Jeremiah condemns them for it. I was just thinking about how does God intervene into cultures and I realized that even though his perfect ideal is a world without slavery, he compromised with the economic culture of that time which relied on slavery, to make the best out of a bad situation.He puts laws in place to deal with a sinful culture to drag it out of the worst it could be and at least afford some hope and protection for the oppressed. My study has been a lot lately about how do Christians try to change our world, or intervene in our culture. In America, it basically comes down to you either believe that the US is going into moral decline and Christians need to take over the government (Christian right/republican), that we need to be relevant to the culture and the Christian right has represented Christianity wrongly, (Christian left/democrat) or that the whole system is evil and we should have nothing to do with it (neo-anabaptist). Instead, in the book i am reading by James Davidson Hunter, he proposes a theory of ' faithful presence' which actually sounds an awful lot like basic Christianity. And so I was thinking of how would God react to our culture,and frankly when you look at how he deals with the Hebrews, he makes laws to try to point towards a better way of living, but he doesn't deny their current culture. He recognizes that their current system is based on slavery, and he makes the best of it, with the final view being that in the kingdom of God all men are brothers. In fact, freedom has tended to break out where the gospel is in history because eventually we realize that we can't enslave one another when Jesus has set us all free. And so how do we deal with our cultures? Firstly, stuff may be wrong in our culture, but rather than jumping ship and creating our own Christian bubbles of safety which we're very good at or embracing it without criticism,we need to acknowledge the wrong and then try to make the best of it, alleviate it however we can, with the understanding that it may not change instantly, but it could over time. And we need to protect the oppressed.

Why must we be apart?

So today I had to say goodbye to people who are very near and very dear to me. This is something that has been recurring over and over on furlough, because inevitably I must return to Thailand. I know that is where I am called and where I will be for a very long time, but it causes me grief to know I have to live apart from those I love and I find myself asking God "why?" Why is it that to serve You I have to leave people behind when it feels so much more natural that we should be living life together? Why must I leave them when I feel like they need me? And I am afraid of this: At the end of my life I just don't want to find myself wishing that I had lived it more with them! And so I come to these few answers, and I don't know if any other missionary has found better ones. I give people up to God knowing that He loves them so much more than even I do, even if it feels like my heart will burst. He can also take care of them so much better than I could, even if I stayed. We also have all eternity to live together, and our short time of separation on earth is going to seem trivial to that and I must do the work that is set before me. Finally in the end, there is only this: My Lord is worth the sacrifice, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt.

Reasons for furlough

As I came through customs into the US, the usual suspicious officer asked, "What kind of job do you have that let's you have 3 months off?"

"It's my furlough", I said. 

"What is that?"

"I'm a missionary and they give us a long break so that we don't burn out."

While that was a very succinct was of putting it, it is part of the truth. As I write this I am on a mini-furlough in the US, road-tripping around it. I already miss Thailand terribly, and in some ways wish to be back constantly, even though it is incredibly hot and smoggy there right now. I guess the first realisation I had then, was that Thailand has truly become home in the last 4 years, as I am homesick.

So I am reminding myself of my reasons for furlough. The Dahlfreds have a great article written up on their blog if you would like to read the overall reasons for furlough, but I'll just process through my own reasons here since so many people have asked me what I am doing in the US.

Reasons for this furlough:

• Reconnecting with friends. Over the years in study and in missions, my friendships have spread all over the world and now I have deep friends I have not seen for years in the US, so I thought it was time. Being in Thailand can occasionally leave me feeling isolated because so many people come and go, but very few stay for the long term, so I average losing at least 5 good friends per year.
• Renewal. While I do take breaks in Thailand, I have come to slowly realize that being out of the Thai context is leaving me time to reflect on experiences and think through bigger picture issues that I just don't even get around to considering usually. Hopefully at the end of this process my head is in better shape to return to Thailand. I am also doing my version of resting, which is just having plain 'ol fun and adventures. On the other hand, being in America is somewhat stressful because I don't know how to do things here (it took me half an hour to figure out how to pump gas the first time) and I have to drive on the right. And it is cold.
• Deputation. As I prepare to step into a new role setting up a field co-ordination team with Project Video, I have been travelling thanking churches for their support, connecting with new churches and people, networking with other mission agencies, and trying to raise the profile of the field co-ordination team. 
• Training. In Thailand, I will the first and currently, the only Field Co-ordinator for Asia. My boss is US based and has been travelling back and forth to pioneer this ministry. When I begin, I will assume some of his Asia-side responsibilities so I will b spending time training with him.

So the overall goal is always longevity. While I don't feel like I'm burning out, I have had very stressful times in the last four years (think of when the car was breaking down in the middle of the Bangkok floods and it looked like my team could be stranded!).  I am there to stay in Thailand and if coming away means that I don't burn out or have a break down further down the track, then I have to keep reminding myself, it is worth it.

You duped me...

In Jeremiah 20:7, the prophet wails,

You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived
you overpowered me and prevailed
I am ridiculed all day long;
everyone mocks me. (NIV) 

Pretty strong words to accuse God of deception. That word used for deceived could also be translated as persuaded, duped or enticed. So other versions will say,

O Lord, you misled me,
    and I allowed myself to be misled.
You are stronger than I am,
    and you overpowered me.
Now I am mocked every day;
    everyone laughs at me. (NLT)

In that chapter, it seems that the prophet is sick of being mocked by the people he's proclaiming destruction towards, yet he can't stop because the message is like a fire in his heart. He's been doing God's work for a while now, and there has been no repentance from the people, no fruit from his ministry.
So he hits this point in his mission where he feels as if the work is so much harder than God had promised, he has been misled, and perhaps like God has hung him out to dry even though he's been faithful. Jeremiah has just been whipped and put in stocks after all.
I know that his accusation could even sound like blasphemy, since it is accusing God of wrong, yet God has recorded it in His Bible, and there is no verses after to say that God punished Jeremiah for saying it.
Now I will reveal a not very well kept secret of the mission field. At a guess, I would have to say that most long term missionaries hit this point, where in their heart they may be disillusioned in their work and wondering if God has given them a vision, promised to go with them and then left them high and dry.
I know there's certainly been times where I have despaired and asked God, 'If you wanted this done, why is it so hard?' As missionaries we already forfeit our comfort zones and normal support networks of having friends and family nearby. Then we do expect that the going will be hard and that this unreached people will not respond quickly - after all, there's a reason why they are still unreached, right? Then on top of that we may deal with financial woes, sudden car breakdowns, deaths or illness in family far away and finally, other Christians or missionaries who do not share the same vision, or perhaps even actively oppose us.
What was the prophet's conclusion? It was looking ahead to see that God is mighty to save.
Jeremiah 20:11 says,

But the Lord stands beside me like a great warrior.
Before him my persecutors will stumble.
They cannot defeat me. (NLT)

So the two things to remember in a time like this are a) God can handle it if you tell him your true feelings and b) He always comes through in the end.

Taking the Lord's name in vain

When I was little, I was never allowed to 'take the Lord's name in vain.' This meant any sort of utterances like 'Oh my God!' when surprised etc. On a sidenote, I realised that it must just a be natural human reaction to do that because Muslims will say 'Oh Allah!' when they're shocked or surprised, it was a funny thing to hear in a different culture.
Today I was reading Jeremiah 12, and I reached verse 16, where it says 'If these nations quickly learn the ways of my people, and if they learn to swear by my name saying "As surely as the Lord lives" (just as they taught my people to swear by the name of Baal) then they will be given a place among my people.' (NLT)

What? They will get rewarded by God for swearing by his name?! What happened to not taking it in vain?!

So I looked up the Strongs Concordance (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7650&t=KJV) on the word 'swear' which turns out to be 'shaba' in Hebrew. It seems to mean to promise to do something in God's name. Reading through a couple of commentaries, it seems that to swear oaths in the name of the Lord is a verbal symbol for being totally committed to the worship of the Lord. So it is a good thing to swear in the name of the Lord, and it explains why He gets so angry about swearing to Baal - it's tantamount to expressing worship of Baal.

So how would be take it in vain then if it is a good thing to swear by God's name? Well, it seems that to 'take' is to bear or exalt the 'name' (the identity or reputation) of God in 'vain' (emptiness). To bear the reputation of God in emptiness. To have the form of godliness without substance. My closest understanding of this verse then would be that God does not want us to have the outward semblances of religious worship while our hearts are far from Him. At the very least, He would not want us to make promises in his name, saying 'As surely as the Lord lives I will do it' and then not go through with it.
He only wants us fully committed to taking his name and living it out. The issue was never that we were taking it, that seems to be a good thing to have the Lord constantly on our lips, but the real problem was when it was in vain, only on our lips and not in our heart.

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.