How to say nothing
Tom, this is one of my main problems with "leadership training", nothing is said but buzzwords are repeated. Par example, our beloved Dean. (Since I'm getting emails I'm assuming the launch is harder than it used to be).
First off, holding things "in tension" is the biggest buzzword cop-out to have emerged from Duke, and it probably doesn't come from Duke, but boy does it piss me off. The problem with saying we need to hold things in tension is that it is like saying we need to build a house. Saying it has little to do with actually doing it. It may even be negative because people think they have done something when the lot is still empty.
Tradition and innovation mean nothing on their own and holding a tension between generalized understandings of tradition and innovation is like tying air and water together.
Enough of my analogies. On the website, I do appreciate all of the links to Wesley's works, but hopefully this gives you a more concrete understanding of why I dislike leadership stuff. If only old Deano could be more concrete himself (another buzzword, I admit, but a far more useful one).
posted by Unknown at 1:36 PM
2 Comments:
Dear Wilson,
Thanks for bringing our attention back to this. I kept meaning to post the site on our blog again, but other things have just crowded my time lately.
As for your observations about the website:
1. I'd agree that Dean Jones "traditioned innovation" language doesn't say much that is concrete. That may be a fault. Or not (see point 3).
2. Thanks for noticing Wesley on the resources pages. The resources pages are my work (although there are a lot of other voices in there too). But I think Wesley is probably there in large part because of me. But you forgot to mention Chrysostom under money (a suggestion by Dean Jones), Gregory the Great under vocation (another suggestion by the Dean), Moby Dick under vocation (come on, that's pretty creative and it came by way of Dean Toole), The Franciscan Leader "by" Bonaventure under leadership philosophy (my own gem of a find after a day searching in the library!), and more.
3. As to your main critique of "concreteness": I wonder if you're not mistaking the role that the Dean is playing here. Can he really write anything "concrete" in this kind of a setting? It seems to me that the only concrete settings he can really speak to are the ones he's involved with (the Div School, his church, family, etc.). I'd be rather skeptical if he was also telling me concretely how to run details of the church I've been appointed to. I expect of him more the kind of material that will fire my imagination in my own context to come up with concrete applications. And lastly, I think the concrete comes in other places on the site: the articles, reflections, blog, News & Review, etc. The Dean's articles are supposed to be at 10,000 feet.
Wilson (or others), what do you think of this comment by Dean Jones in another reflection (http://faithandleadership.com/content/%E2%80%98the-end%E2%80%99?page=0,0): "Rather, it is the end -- the goal, the purpose, the telos -- that shapes Christian leadership and makes it most distinctively Christian. Our end is to cultivate thriving communities that bear witness to the inbreaking reign of God that Jesus announces and embodies in all that we do and are. This should shape the way we think about our lives, our institutions and the way we lead our institutions."
Now that I've said all of this, here's my disclaimer: these are all my own ideas and impressions of how things run at LE@DD and why they run the way they do. I'm not really in the decision making loop. I'm the "low man" on the totem pole (notice my name's not anywhere on the website!).
Dear Wilson,
Check out Kavin Rowe's article on "Traditioned Innovation." It might be more concrete. I'd be curious about your take on it.
Peace,
Tom
http://www.faithandleadership.com/content/traditioned-innovation-biblical-way-thinking
Post a Comment
<< Home