The rule is that other rules are respected

There is some anxiety with some folk about the idea of "post-modern" thought.  I am not sure where this anxiety is rooted and I am not that smart to understand all the nuanced philosophical arguments that people can articulate and understand about different "isms".  Recently I came across a bit of a metaphor that helps me understand post-modern a little better which I want to share and keep for later reference.

This metaphor is rooted in the understanding of the "arts" (of which I am not the most informed so hang with me).  

My wife shares with me that Classical music has certain rules that composers had to follow.  So if you were going to do one thing in the musical composition, then you were required to do something else.  Certain harmonies are 'allowed' and others are not.  This is in part why, I think, classical music will not have a chord that you hear in jazz music.  Speaking of jazz, it operates the same way.  If you are working under the rules of jazz, then you have to honor those rules of the art.  

In the world of the visual arts, if you were painting in the modern age, then you also had rules that you followed.  I am not sure what those rules are (thus my lack of knowledge in the arts), but you might be able to see these "rules" applied to impressionist art.  These visual arts, when you were working under these different 'rules', had requirements that you obliged by and honored and everyone followed them.  

I get this feeling when I see Pollock's art and think, "that is just paint dumped on a canvas, that is not art. I could do that!"  My brain is viewing "art" as that which follows a set of rules (which I may not be able to define), and if it violates those rules then I declare it as "not art".  

Post-modernism is that time that is upon us that come to the understanding that respects these different sets of "rules".  It seems to suggest that we are now no longer limited in our scope of expression and understanding of the world.  We now understand that all of these sets of "rules" that exist all have truth in them and no one set of rules has all the truth.  There is no one painting that ends the need to have paintings.  As great as Dylan was, even Bob Dylan did not end the need to create more music.  He did not have exclusive and exhaustive access to music truth.

We live in a time that respects more sets of "rules" in such a way that we no longer require everyone to play by the same set of "rules" in order to paint, compose music or even create theology.  

Post-modernism is the rule that respects all the rules.  

(Which is why many post-moderns will argue with you when you do not respect all sets of rules.)

Ministers are Metaphors

Ministers are metaphors.

This is why when someone steals from a business it is tragic, but when a minister steal from the church it is tragic and horrendous.  

This is why when someone is hospitalized the minister is given access to the patient even when others are restricted.

This is why people will leave their home church and follow ministers who move to another church.

Ministers are metaphors in our culture for something else.  Ministers are metaphors for God.  

This is not saying that ministers are God or even God like.  Not at all.  However, ministers and the world gets into trouble forgetting that ministers are metaphors.

Ministers who forget that we are metaphors will fall into the trap of believing that we are god.  And when we feel like we have "god-like" power and authority we have the potential to do things that are very un-Godly.  

When we forget that ministers are metaphors, we have a potential to allow the minister to act in ways that are not becoming of the office of minister.  

The next time you see a minister, remember that ministers are metaphors of God.  It is not the minister who should be followed but the God they point to.  

Is your minister helping you to follow the metaphor they embody?  Have you ever forgotten that a minister is a metaphor for God?  Do you know of a minister who has forgotten that as well?  

Examples or Metaphors - not both

At most conferences people who are giving speeches take the approach of sharing metaphors or specific examples of what they are talking about.  I have found this to be radically annoying and not helpful.  

Why?  

When someone gives a few examples of how "this thing" works, they give a specific example.  The problem is it is generally too specific and people are curious, but quickly discount the example as "able to work there but that would not work in my setting."  So a couple of specific examples are generally flashes in the pan.  Cool to see, but difficult to cook with.  

Another 'write off' of a few specific examples is that people do not own that idea.  There is some program that works in some area, people are generally not able to sustain that idea in their context because they really do not own the idea.  This 'lack of ownership = unsustainable" idea is on display when someone tells you, "you know we should really be doing ______.  You should make that happen."

If, however, you were to give more that a couple of examples for an idea then you are onto something.  If you were able to give somewhere in the ballpark of 20 examples of where/how this "idea" is working, then you begin to shut down the thoughts of "that will not work in my context" because you give people the ability to see how their context can be navigated to implementation.  If I hear of a prayer program in schools in one location, I will discount it.  If I hear of 20 prayer programs in schools, I am more apt to get excited on how I can implement that in my context.  

On the other end of the spectrum of giving a few examples, a speaker will often give one metaphor.  However, these metaphors are often 'heady' and the fear is getting too heady without giving specific examples of how the idea looks on the ground.  Which is why speakers do not spend much time developing the metaphors too much and jump right to sharing a few examples.  Then we are right back into the problems of sharing just a few specific examples.  

However, if a speaker develops a metaphor deeply and fully then it will capture the imagination of people to problem solve their own context.  When we problem solve ourselves then we have ownership to the idea and thus up the chances of success and sustainability.  

Let me violate my comments above and give just one example.  

Recently I heard the metaphor of the church as an airport.  The speaker went on to say that airports are never destinations in of themselves.  No one takes a vacation at the airport for a week.  The only time the airport as a destination was a good idea it was made into a fictional movie with two big movie stars in order to sell the movie.  

That was all the development the presenter did on this metaphor and the metaphor was dead in the water.  The metaphor was too heady and too abstract and people forgot the metaphor all together.  If however, the presenter had developed the metaphor more it had the chance to capture the imaginations of people.  Perhaps he could have asked:

• Where do people check their baggage?
• Who is responsible for flying the plane?
• Who is designated to work in the lost and found area?
• What does a passport look like in your church?  
• Do you have a security check point?  
• Are you profiling?

And on and on.  This metaphor, when developed, leads to a number of ideas on how to do/be Church.  

When the metaphor is not developed in favor of giving a few examples, then both the metaphor suffers and the people listening discount examples and do not build the metaphor.  

So give me examples or a metaphor.  Don't try to do both.