Mike has an excellent post on Change vs Transformation
But I think it's worth a post to note that if we really want something new, something better, to finally break free and make it, we need Transformation not Change. And for Transformation to occur, something has to die.
Maybe it's pride that dies, as we choose to admit someone else was right.
Maybe it's a plant or animal as we need food to become energy and keep us alive.
Maybe it's a business decision to sacrifice one exploitable market, to see what new opportunities exist as we include the world.
If we look at everything we do as a zero-sum game, this is terrifying. Because as something dies, there is less to work with and have. Are all our fears tied back to looking at friends, family and life from a perspective of a zero-sum game? If there is really on so much, we have to fight and hoard to get as much as we can.
From my perspective, God is not about a zero-sum game at all. There aren't only X number of seats available on that final train home. He loves us all, there is no special club. We are all welcome. To deal with our separation, we must choose to let go of that which is broken, in order to abide with the Him. But we are free to choose to be a part of the abundance he provides, or to choose what is limited. The transformation that brings us into God's abundance is the death of our hold on hoarding the things around us.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
China vs the Dalai Lama: a battle of integrity?
I found this quote here:
The Dalai Lama is quoted as saying:
"Actually as far as social economy goes, I'm a Marxist. I am more red than the Chinese leaders, who seem to be only concerned with money. In Marxist theory there is a concern with the equal distribution of wealth. So this has a moral principle which capitalist theory doesn't," he said.
"I don't agree with the authoritarian side. Authoritarianism has ruined Marxism," The Australian quoted him, as saying.
I'm not a big fan of the Dalai Lama by any means, but you have to take a moment and be honest here. He has a good point. Is the Chinese government/communist party officials faithful at re-distributing wealth? Are all animals equal? Or are some a little more equal than others? (Thanks Mr. Orwell)
I really wish I knew someone that supported the way the Chinese political system worked, and could ask them about this. Anyone know someone that lives in N. America and supports how things run in China? How can anyone support a government with a stated goal of equality, that isn't equal themselves, personally, first?
I can certainly understand why the leadership may be embarrassed by someone asking questions like that. And what entitles them to be angry and entitled?
The Dalai Lama is quoted as saying:
"Actually as far as social economy goes, I'm a Marxist. I am more red than the Chinese leaders, who seem to be only concerned with money. In Marxist theory there is a concern with the equal distribution of wealth. So this has a moral principle which capitalist theory doesn't," he said.
"I don't agree with the authoritarian side. Authoritarianism has ruined Marxism," The Australian quoted him, as saying.
I'm not a big fan of the Dalai Lama by any means, but you have to take a moment and be honest here. He has a good point. Is the Chinese government/communist party officials faithful at re-distributing wealth? Are all animals equal? Or are some a little more equal than others? (Thanks Mr. Orwell)
I really wish I knew someone that supported the way the Chinese political system worked, and could ask them about this. Anyone know someone that lives in N. America and supports how things run in China? How can anyone support a government with a stated goal of equality, that isn't equal themselves, personally, first?
I can certainly understand why the leadership may be embarrassed by someone asking questions like that. And what entitles them to be angry and entitled?
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Does God trust us? Are we really free?
I put a comment in a friend's blog (http://blog.stevelowe.org) that God trusts us. He doesn't show up and give to-do lists, send emails, write on walls, etc. I guess some say they talk to God conversationally, which of course I cannot judge. But for the most part, I think collectively we can agree there is no direct memos from God.
Yet, some will say that God eiher doesn't exist or does control it all. If you choose either of these you do not believe you are free. You have to decide for yourself in order to be free. And even if God is absent or pulling strings, death camp survivors have taught us that you always have the choice of what you will do and believe. You can never claim to continually be someone's victim.
The fact is that God chooses to trust us, not control us. Even though we are bound to mess up, flounder along, waste time, resources and tons of energy being really busy. Yet he waits, in moments, trusting us to a fault, that we will realize that we want to choose to trust God.
Yet, some will say that God eiher doesn't exist or does control it all. If you choose either of these you do not believe you are free. You have to decide for yourself in order to be free. And even if God is absent or pulling strings, death camp survivors have taught us that you always have the choice of what you will do and believe. You can never claim to continually be someone's victim.
The fact is that God chooses to trust us, not control us. Even though we are bound to mess up, flounder along, waste time, resources and tons of energy being really busy. Yet he waits, in moments, trusting us to a fault, that we will realize that we want to choose to trust God.
Does Hillary Clinton really believe in democracy?
Perhaps I will again show my Canadian ignorance, or worse my bad form,
but I'm shocked that Hillary Clinton is fighting to change the
Democratic National Conventions rules.
but I'm shocked that Hillary Clinton is fighting to change the
Democratic National Conventions rules.
She's a fighter, that is good, and she is even better as an underdog.
And as a fighter you never say 'uncle'. So I expect politicians to be
nasty and cut throat if required.
So it is par for the course that Hillary wants to change the rules, she
agreed to at the start of this process to gain an advantage, since she's down.
What is surprising, is that there is no out pour of disgust at Hillary
trying to change a democratic system. She might say she is fighting
for the democratic votes of FL and MI, but they, failed to follow
the rules. They freely self selected themselves out by not following the rules! It is suspect
that she is anything other than a neutral observer.
How is it that anyone could agree that Hillary can choose to take away
trust in a system to serve her needs? Is someone out there alarmed by
this? Is this what presidents should do?
It is hard to choose when to trust and when to control, but something
here is somehow entitled above the system. Which seems frightening to
me, and even more so when it's understandable to many or not ringing
alarm bells in a country built on democracy and freedom to choose your
representatives.
Http://news.bbc.co.uk/mobile/bbc_news/top_stories/742/74289/story7428909.shtml?
Friday, May 23, 2008
Abundance Model, versus the proprietary one
We are trying to build and launch donor.com with the abundance model. But what is it, and how does it apply?
For us, it's simple. Let's provide non-profits with the best fund raising software and services anywhere, and let's do that at the lowest cost possible so they save their money for their mission.
How is that different from a proprietary model? One could still meet the goal above by hiding the source code, get some MBA's in to look at cash centers and make exclusive agreements to make the software widely available and the best for non-profits everywhere and still make a lot of money that you can then put into the marketing and other 'good works' that one would deem worthy.
Yes that could work. But it includes exclusive deals, controlling source code, building a traditional software and service organization that seeks to make the profit first, and then relies on 'good intentions' to push it out farther. That is good capitalism, but is it really the best model?
What happens if we choose to be inclusive, not exclusive. What happens if we use a foundation as an owner so all the profits go into something that has as it's purpose to push prices down while it improves the product.
Christ didn't make strategic deals, start a denomination, and make an exclusive club that only the approved could belong to. In short, Christ didn't make anything subject to rules, proprietary information or otherwise. For salvation to work, all that is required is trust, expressed as faith in Christ.
We provide a product and service, which we need to charge for in order to make a profit. I think that is good business. But when the profits are used to control our future, secure our position, evaluate who we include and exclude we are in danger of serving ourselves: not our clients.
So is the abundance model workable in business? I think Google says yes. Are we idealistic and headed for trouble? I'd love to hear an argument that says we are. I can't imagine what argument can show how we are entitled to large profits off the donations of non profits. I think anyone in non profit work should be putting the non profits first.
The proprietary model is all about incremental change. Abundance is all about transformation. For transformation to occur, something has to die. For donor.com, the thing that has to die is our control of the profit.
For us, it's simple. Let's provide non-profits with the best fund raising software and services anywhere, and let's do that at the lowest cost possible so they save their money for their mission.
How is that different from a proprietary model? One could still meet the goal above by hiding the source code, get some MBA's in to look at cash centers and make exclusive agreements to make the software widely available and the best for non-profits everywhere and still make a lot of money that you can then put into the marketing and other 'good works' that one would deem worthy.
Yes that could work. But it includes exclusive deals, controlling source code, building a traditional software and service organization that seeks to make the profit first, and then relies on 'good intentions' to push it out farther. That is good capitalism, but is it really the best model?
What happens if we choose to be inclusive, not exclusive. What happens if we use a foundation as an owner so all the profits go into something that has as it's purpose to push prices down while it improves the product.
Christ didn't make strategic deals, start a denomination, and make an exclusive club that only the approved could belong to. In short, Christ didn't make anything subject to rules, proprietary information or otherwise. For salvation to work, all that is required is trust, expressed as faith in Christ.
We provide a product and service, which we need to charge for in order to make a profit. I think that is good business. But when the profits are used to control our future, secure our position, evaluate who we include and exclude we are in danger of serving ourselves: not our clients.
So is the abundance model workable in business? I think Google says yes. Are we idealistic and headed for trouble? I'd love to hear an argument that says we are. I can't imagine what argument can show how we are entitled to large profits off the donations of non profits. I think anyone in non profit work should be putting the non profits first.
The proprietary model is all about incremental change. Abundance is all about transformation. For transformation to occur, something has to die. For donor.com, the thing that has to die is our control of the profit.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
How do you solve the crisis in Zimbabwe?
I don't think *anyone* outside of Zimbabwe would defend Robert Mugabe as 'doing the right thing'. Far too many shady things going on, not to mention people being killed and others starving. I'd be interested to find out if there anyone who wants to try and defend the man. The first question is what do you personally gain?
If you're brave, ask someone if they are evil. The bible says we (the whole world) are. Do you believe that? Do you believe you are as evil as Robert Mugabe?
It's the pivitol perspective that drives everything else we think, act on, understand and governs all that we do. It's foundational to every crisis. The question is not if you're better than him, the question is if you are owning the things you are responsible for.
The Bible starts off will a big wide angle look at where it all started in creation. Then the story starts with a profound picture of the most important thing: brokeness, sin, human evil: whatever you want to call it. From there, it pretty much becomes ways to hide it, avoid it or blame it on someone else.
It's so easy to avoid responsibility. We sometimes don't have to try. Heck, sometimes it's obvious that others are to blame, and we have to work *really* hard to articulate our role in what is broken. Of course, bad things *do* happen to us, and we are victims of other people's pain. But that is never an excuse for us to keep *being* a victim and blaming them. At some point, it's our responsibility to own the pain. Yes, that is not fair that someone can cause pain, that we now have to accept. That is just a fact of life.
Sometimes everything can be broken around us, and we are just stuck there. That is the moment to understand how broken we are too, and reach out in community with those around us to be a part of a better tomorrow. Not judgemental as some kind of self appointed Jesus.
Sometimes the pain is clearly being caused by someone else, and you are 'innocent' as you stand by unscathed. Hmmmmm, can we really call that innocent?
Sometimes we enjoy the bliss of the honeymoon, when we embark on something new because we're gaining something we want. We're in bliss until our own selfishness (aka: evil broken nature) creeps up on us and the honeymoon is over because we are faced with all the things we thought we were entitled to that isn't really working out the way we want.
But perhaps the scariest of all is the notion that 'I'm absolutely right and I need to inflict change on you for you to be happy' as some superior position. As Scott and I talked about, as soon as you think your position is absolutely solid, correct and justifiable, it's certainly going sideways: you just don't know it yet. This is only possible if you think you're really smart, and not as messed up as someone else. Religious conflict (muslim vs christian, war on Iraq, communist vs capitalist) all fall into this category. Sure there are some things better than others, and someone has to lead and choose. And sometimes revolution is required.
The cycle of pain from crisis will continue until responsibility is taken.
If you're brave, ask someone if they are evil. The bible says we (the whole world) are. Do you believe that? Do you believe you are as evil as Robert Mugabe?
It's the pivitol perspective that drives everything else we think, act on, understand and governs all that we do. It's foundational to every crisis. The question is not if you're better than him, the question is if you are owning the things you are responsible for.
The Bible starts off will a big wide angle look at where it all started in creation. Then the story starts with a profound picture of the most important thing: brokeness, sin, human evil: whatever you want to call it. From there, it pretty much becomes ways to hide it, avoid it or blame it on someone else.
It's so easy to avoid responsibility. We sometimes don't have to try. Heck, sometimes it's obvious that others are to blame, and we have to work *really* hard to articulate our role in what is broken. Of course, bad things *do* happen to us, and we are victims of other people's pain. But that is never an excuse for us to keep *being* a victim and blaming them. At some point, it's our responsibility to own the pain. Yes, that is not fair that someone can cause pain, that we now have to accept. That is just a fact of life.
Sometimes everything can be broken around us, and we are just stuck there. That is the moment to understand how broken we are too, and reach out in community with those around us to be a part of a better tomorrow. Not judgemental as some kind of self appointed Jesus.
Sometimes the pain is clearly being caused by someone else, and you are 'innocent' as you stand by unscathed. Hmmmmm, can we really call that innocent?
Sometimes we enjoy the bliss of the honeymoon, when we embark on something new because we're gaining something we want. We're in bliss until our own selfishness (aka: evil broken nature) creeps up on us and the honeymoon is over because we are faced with all the things we thought we were entitled to that isn't really working out the way we want.
But perhaps the scariest of all is the notion that 'I'm absolutely right and I need to inflict change on you for you to be happy' as some superior position. As Scott and I talked about, as soon as you think your position is absolutely solid, correct and justifiable, it's certainly going sideways: you just don't know it yet. This is only possible if you think you're really smart, and not as messed up as someone else. Religious conflict (muslim vs christian, war on Iraq, communist vs capitalist) all fall into this category. Sure there are some things better than others, and someone has to lead and choose. And sometimes revolution is required.
The cycle of pain from crisis will continue until responsibility is taken.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
My homage to 'Eat Local Food'
Alan did a whole series on eating local in Hawaii, where he lives. Day 6 was quite tasty, although it cost considerably more and a bit of a trick finding bamboo in Olds or Didsbury Alberta.
The local farmers around here have what amounts to a similar problem, in that we rely on food from everywhere else too. We're further ahead I guess in that Hawaii has such a dependence on goods shipped from the mainland and we don't. But recent border closures due to Mad Cow disease have clearly demonstrated how fragile things can be for us as well here in Alberta.
I was over visiting my lamb farmer friend, and it's getting harder and harder to make a profit raising lamb for market. The cost of barley rising, bales of hay doubling, transportation, cutting costs, it's difficult for everyone.
I for one will proudly support my local farmer! In fact, this little guy is making me hungry now! I can't wait for the fall and some fresh lamb. Mmmmmmmmmmm I'm happy to pay whatever Craig needs to be 'on the list'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)