The Death Of The Alpha Leader
By Randy Elrod
We now live in an automagical world. A world that is composed of not one future, but multiple futures. A world of self-chosen communities or tribes that are nodes in large, complex networks of such groups. A world in which hierarchal pyramids of control are crumbling and the Taylorism world of precise affluence has become a Web 2.0 world of mystical influence and social networks.
Viral loops, not manifestos, provide the opportunity for unparalleled influence. This is a world in which documents handed down by well-meaning alpha males result in a stifled yawn. However, this same world moves to the edge of their seat upon realizing that the responsibility to change the world need not be their legacy or burden. On the contrary, the creation of culture is the calling from which history speaks. . . .
Here are more links from Randy’s blog about the Evangelical Manifesto:
Jim Wallis is glad to be a “charter signatory.” I’m glad he feels good about being in the “in” crowd.
More entertaining is from Cathleen Falsani at the Chicago Sun-Times. It’s entertaining, but also naïve. The whole manifesto’s downfall is the necessity to write about evangelicals with a capital E. She points this out but it doesn’t seem to faze her.
Alan Jacobs also wrote a pithy commentary that should have been longer and more thorough. He notes that the audience is decidedly less international and inclusive as the writers of the manifesto might have hoped.
-
It seems to me that the writers and “official signatories” sensed a twitch of uncertainty in the air, therefore decided that “we” must clarify the terms before “they” do. That’s the tenor of this manifesto, in my opinion. It’s true they include all the necessary clarifiers to say that they do not want to exclude or deny the majority of Christians around the world with a voice. Yet, they continue to define the terms of the conversation without them. Jacobs points this out when he compares this document to the Lausanne Covenant, which is international and inclusive as much as this most recent "manifesto" is more Western and American.
The writers and signers decided to rein in the diversity of the “evangelical” movement before it gets out of hand. I don’t blame them. I’ve been tempted in the same way. I’ve been in situations—practical and theological and cultural—in West Africa where I felt the sharp pang of doubt and then alarm: “Oh no, this is getting out of my control.” Then, there’s a voice saying, “Quick! Temper the flame! Don’t let it go! Maintain control!” Then, usually in a split second moment, I remind myself why I’ve been called to be in that moment. I’ve probably failed as many times as I’ve passed the test.
I’ve learned to recognize that sharp pang—that desire for control—not as my own conscience or some of kind of well-educated theological barometer. It’s not the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit, either. It is Satan’s whisper.
My calling—our calling—is to reject the desire to control. The whole idea of this manifesto misses that key point while at the same time supporting it. Does that make any sense to anyone else?
Could we allow "them" to become theologically astute in their own right without our hand-holding and guidance? I guess our choice is found in words beginning with a capital E--"Exclude" or "Embrace."
No comments:
Post a Comment