The Sixth Sense

Video conference anyone?!

I’m considering the possibility of hosting a video conference conversation for a maximum of ten people every 4 to 6 weeks.

There are so many good books being read, so many important topics being thought about, and so many issues being mulled over. But all too often this is only happening amongst ourselves as individuals. And that so often results in little action happening as a result.

I’m as guilty as the next person of reading a great, challenging book but then doing nothing about it. But when I read and discuss a book with others, there is much more motivation (and peer pressure!) to actually do something.

So, here’s some ideas:

- We could read a book together and then organise a video conversation to process it and work towards action ideas.

- We could share ideas and issues that we’d like to discuss and perhaps put them to the vote for which one will get discussed during that particular video conference.

Obviously, there’s loads more possibilities and I’d love you to share any you have. And, of course, some conversations will be of more interest to some than others. We’ll pick a topic or a book though, set a date, and the first 10 people who are interested can participate.

What do you think? Anyone interested?

Rhythmic or Repetitious?

I came across this quote today:

“Repetitiousness is the enemy of rhythm”

It was one of those sentences that for some reason set off an explosion of thoughts in my head.

Now, as some of you know, I lead a movement in Sheffield called Mosaic. Within that movement is a core of followers of Jesus Christ. One of the things we have grappled with perhaps more than anything has been finding the right sense of rhythm.

We want to be a community of Christ-followers who engage with God and each other through scripture, prayer, and worship, but we want do that in ways that are natural and integrated with life; not separated from it.

All to often, following Christ becomes nothing more than attending the weekly service on Sunday (and, if you’re super great, a ’small group’ mid-week too).

Sadly, this ends up becoming something very repetitious. It’s the same thing week after week. So the question I’m grappling with is when does something shift from being rhythmic to repetitious? How should any organisation find a healthy sense of rhythm whilst protecting itself from becoming repetitious?

What do you think?

The real difference between liberals and conservatives

I watched this TED video on my iPhone coming back from work today and found it really interesting. It was eye opening and provocative. Definitely worth 18 minutes and 42 seconds of your time.

Have a watch, and share your thoughts!

Social techiquette

Technology isn’t new. Every generation sees new technology emerge. Interestingly, as we progress forward, we stop even seeing things as being technology. They are just part of life.

Today we think of the internet, mobile phones, and iPod’s as technology. But we’re so familiar with the telephone, television, and washing machines that we don’t think of them as anything else but normal.

When something is fully integrated into life, we no longer thing of it as technology.

It is fascinating watching people sometime argue against technology whilst failing to comprehend all the technology they utilise day in, day out in their life.

Whenever something new comes onto the scene, one of the challenges is working through the appropriate etiquette. Getting the bus into work every day, it amazes me to see the percentage of people who have ear phones in listening to their personal music player.

The dynamics of people flowing to and fro in city life has fundamentally changed. We are now isolated individuals moving about largely insulated from the people around us. We are locked into our own worlds.

Couple this with the rise of social networking sites, and there is less and less personal face-to-face contact with people; particularly people we don’t explicitly know.

The danger this presents is that we become increasingly rude to the strangers who cross our paths. We behave with less and less humanity. People become less personal.

Not that I am anti-technology or think that online social networking is bad. In many ways, some of the richest relationships I have with people have been enhanced with the online, virtual connection.

But the question I was to raise is whether there is - or should be - an appropriate social techiquette for how we interact with other human beings when utilising technology.

Take the iPod. One of the things I made a conscious decision to do was make sure I never speak to someone with my earphones in. When I get on and off the bus and communicate with the driver, I always take the earphones out. I do the same when waiting in line for a sandwich at lunch.

I guess, to me at least, that is just good manners. There’s a time and place for being lost in my own world, enjoying my music. But it’s also still important for me to connect, and engage with the people around me.

That’s just one example. What do you think? What would be appropriate social techiquette for us all to use to make sure we stay connected to the real world around us?

When facts don’t matter

What do you do if you’re a person who values facts, truth, honesty, and integrity but none of that seems to matter?

The ‘best’ singer doesn’t always win X Factor or American Idol. The ‘best’ movie doesn’t get the plaudits or awards that it should do. The ‘best’ political party doesn’t win the election.

Me and my wife Rachel got really into the recent BBC series ‘Last Choir Standing’. We loved a brilliant gospel choir called ‘Revelation’. Every week we hoped that they’d win. They made it to the final but were then knocked out, coming in third behind two welsh choirs.

This really frustrated me. The welsh and scottish performers in shows like these always overachieve. And not because they’re better; but because they’re welsh. (I know, that’s not always the case, but it is often.)

The welsh and scots are a lot more patriotic than the english and will simply vote for their nationality, regardless of how good they are. In other words, how good the person is becomes irrelevant. Whether they are better or not doesn’t matter.

I may feel like I have the moral high ground, but what difference does that matter? My choir/singer/film/party didn’t win.

Something that I am slowly coming to terms with is that, whilst I am someone for whom facts do matter, a larger percentage of people really aren’t that moved by facts. That’s not a criticism necessarily, simply an observation of reality.

And, if I’m honest, I’m not solely moved by facts. We can’t always explain why we like one singer over another or one political candidate over another. It’s a gut thing. We just like them. We may call ourselves rational but we’re actually rationalizing our gut reaction.

Take the American presidential election. John McCain has suddenly wrested control of the agenda and possibly the election. Why? Because people are suddenly buying into his economic or foreign policy? No. Not all all. They just are. It’s a gut thing. Sarah Palin has connected with a core group in America, appealed to their gut, their emotional ties.

Barack Obama did the same thing. He appealed to people on a gut level and not a frontal lobe level. They just liked him. He was a breath of fresh air. And yes, of course, for many it ties in hugely with what he stands for, but the truth of the matter is that people being drawn to Obama wasn’t entirely a rational thing.

For Obama now, if he wants to stay in contention come November, he needs to connect with people on that gut level again. Facts and being right won’t get him elected. It may be sad to have to say that, but it does seem to be the truth.

How should we respond to this reality that facts don’t seem to count for much? What does this say about us? Is it a good or a bad thing that people are moved emotionally rather than rationally? If this is just how it is, how should that reality be used in a positive way?

What do you think?

Why shows like X Factor are a hit

Have you ever wondered why shows like X Factor (think American Idol if you’re from the States) are such a hit? We all reguarly mock them. We only ever admit to ‘catching a bit on an episode’ on the way to doing something more meaningful. But the truth is, here in the UK at least, 1 in 6 people watch X Factor and Saturday night. Why is this?

It hit me this last week as to why I think these shows work. And it all ties into this theme of ‘Story’ that I’ve been endlessly pursuing this last week or so. The truth of the matter is that shows like X Factor aren’t a hit because of the singing, good as some of the people are. The shows are a hit because of the stories attached to the people doing the singing.

At least as much of the show delves into the life stories of the various contestants. We hear about how they got to this point of entering the contest. The obstacles they had to overcome to this point. The other characters that helped or hindered their journey. And suddenly, before we know it, we are no longer just listening to a random individual trying to sing; we are caught up into an unfolding story. 

Its strange, but when you think about it, how much of life makes much sense at all outside of story? The movies we love are the ones with the most moving stories. We come back to work on Monday morning and we share our stories from the weekend. We lose ourselves in the fictional world novelists draw us into. Really, how much of life would make sense - or at least be enjoyable - except for story?

What do you think?

Character - ‘As he chooses, he is’

I’m still thoroughly enjoying ‘Story’ by Robert McKee. I thought it might dry up somewhat as I got further into it, but it is just fascinating to read. I’m am learning so much about - you guessed it - story. As someone who is definitely wanting to become a better story-teller, it is really helpful and insightful.

Today I thought I’d share a few more great quotes on character:

“True character is revealed in the choices a human being makes under pressure - the greater the pressure, the deeper the revelation, the truer the choice to the character’s essential nature.”

“The only way to know the truth (about someone’s character) is to witness him make choices under pressure to take one action or another in the pursuit of his desire. As he chooses, he is.”

“Pressure is essential. Choices made when nothing is at risk mean little. If a character chooses to tell the truth in a situation where telling a lie would gain him nothing, the choice is trivial, the moment expresses nothing. But if the same character insists on telling the truth when a lie would save his life, then we sense that honesty is at the core of his nature.”

The context for these quotes is obviously related to building quality characters into a story. But I think these speak a lot of truth about being people of character too.

What do you think?

Some great quotes from ‘Story’

As I mentioned on Friday, I’m thoroughly enjoying a book called ‘Story’ by Robert McKee. It is filled with some outstanding comments, insights, and observations. Here’s a few more I thought I’d share with you.

“Story isn’t a flight from reality but a vehicle that carries us on in our search for reality, our best effort to make sense out of the anarchy of existence.”

“When society repeatedly experiences glossy, hollowed-out, pseudo-stories, it degenerates. We need true satires and tragedies, dramas and comedies that shine a clean light into the dingy corners of the human psyche and society.”

“Master storytellers know how to squeeze life out of the least of things, while poor storytellers reduce the profound to the banal. You may have the insight of a Buddha, but if you cannot tell story, your ideas turn dry as chalk.”

“The world of a story must be small enough that the mind of a single artist can surround the fictional universe it creates and come to know it in the same depth and detail that God knows the one He created.”

Why we go to the movies

I’m reading a book called ‘Story - Substance, Structure, Style, and the Substance of Screenwriting’ at the moment. It’s by a guy called Robert McKee. I’m only a few pages in, but this quote absoultely leapt out at me. Really powerful.

We go to the movies to enter a new, fascinating world, to inhabit vicariously another human being who at first seems so unlike us and yet at heart is like us, to live in a fictional reality that illuminates our daily reality. We do not wish to escape life but to find life, to use our minds in fresh, experimental ways, to flex our emotions, to enjoy, to learn, to add depth to our days.

This definitely resonates with me deeply.

What about you?

Inclusive vs. Exclusive

Yesterday I got an exclusive invitation to be part of an online tribe at www.triiibes.com. It’s tied in with something Seth Godin is heading up linked with his forthcoming book entitled ‘Tribes: We need you to lead us‘.

This got me thinking about organisations that are inclusive and others that are more exclusive. I guess, to be fair, I’ve veered towards being anti anything exclusive.

This stems from my frustration with churches in particular which seem to take pleasure in keeping people out rather than welcoming them in. Not all churches, but more more than it should be.

Tied in with this, as Mosaic here in Sheffield, we have often talked about the need to be an inclusive community. We don’t want to exclude people. We want to be welcoming, no matter who the person is.

But then yesterday, a big part of the draw to accept this invitation to www.triiibes.com was the very fact that is was exclusive. That was a big part of its appeal. In fact, if it was just an open group, I’m not sure that I’d of been that bothered about it.

What does this tell us though? Does the very nature of the role and function of a church or charitable organisation make this a totally different issue than for businesses? Or is the same?

Is exclusive always bad? Could charities and faith based organisations leverage exclusivity to attract proactive, highly involved people to work them? 

I’m still trying to get my head around this. What do you think?