I recall reading the book Father, Son & Co: My Life at IBM and Beyond a number of years ago and the one thing I remember most was a story of the younger Watson learning a life lesson from his dad. They had just used the restroom at a hotel and after washing their hands, dad wiped down the splashes on the sink that junior had left. Dad said (near as I can recall), “You always want to leave the place better than you found it.”

Thomas J. Watson Sr., the guy who started it all, built the company on a few core values. From an new book, Making the World Work Better: The Ideas That Shaped a Century and a Company comes this quote: “Since its early days, IBM has been operated based on a set of core beliefs. IBM would distinguish itself with its respect for the individual, its pursuit of excellence in all things and its commitment to providing the best customer service. These values were baked into the core DNA by Thomas Watson Sr., who built the near-failing organization of 1914 into an industrial giant with staying power. And that DNA has taken hold in millions of employees over the course of 100 years.”

IBM has had its ups and downs, made big bets some of which paid off hugely, experienced near-death in the late 1980′s, had a succession of CEO’s, and is still going strong.

IBM seemed to lose its way in the 80′s under John F. Akers. This was their near-death era. They brought in Louis V. Gerstner Jr. who “quickly slashed headcount and spending, and reset the company’s focus on the customer.” Gerstner was not there for too many years. It reminds me a bit of when a church loses its way, is seriously heading downhill, and a turn-around interim comes in and does the necessary surgery. There may be blood on the walls, upset and angry people, but the patient (church) is saved from bleeding to death. Someone has to have the courage to make the hard decisions (and a few enemies), and that takes some character.

Next up was Samuel J. Palmisano, who continues to be the chairman and CEO since his appointment in 2002. He came on board and quickly established several values that have defined IBM for this era: “dedication to every client’s success; innovation that matters-for our company and for the world; and trust and personal responsibility in all relationships.”

My point is that character and values matter. IBM is no church (well, some might beg to differ) but at least some of its leaders led in a principled manner and IBM is still here and still strong.

One of the hardest things for older churches is to have the courage to act on their principles in the face of decline and/or opposition. It kills me to see leaders hesitate to act on what they are convinced is right. We of all people should be fearless. Or maybe we lost sight of the hope we once held. Then, losing our way, we lost our character too.

I watched the movie Becket recently. The story is strong and the acting compelling. Burton and O’Toole were both up for best actor. An amazing story indeed. Thomas Becket, murdered December 29, 1170, was a most unlikely candidate for Archbishop. It was a political appointment that backfired on King Henry II. Becket is portrayed in the movie as finding his purpose in life not in political power and privilege but in defending the glory of God. The movie is a study of the transformation of Becket’s values and character. He became a man willing and able to stand up to the king and paid for his convictions with his life. Four years later the king submitted himself to public humiliation at the demand of the pope, being whipped by the monks of Canterbury as penance for the part he played in the Becket’s murder. Based on a true tail, though retold with a degree of historical liberty, the movie is a reminder that character matters.

Scholar George Forell put it more succinctly: Zinzendorf was “the noble Jesus freak.”¹

Imagine my surprise to find this terminology used and applied to someone from so long ago. I have not been able to find the actual citation even though the quote is often repeated. Since Forell wrote throughout the era of modern day Jesus Freaks, the phrase is not so surprising after all. But why apply it to Zinzendorf? Probably because of his commitment to community and rejection of church as institution. Zinzendorf was more interested in people living together well than people agreeing on how to think.

Zinzendorf was first a nobleman and politician and for a time took up government service. After about a year of this, he decided to abandon the life of the elite and rather build a community where people were free to worship God without the trappings of institutional structure. He hoped that people could live together well without hierarchy and without focusing on doctrinal division. His emphasis on relationships and genuine concern for the well being of others provoked a response to a converted slave’s request that someone go and preach the gospel to slaves in the West Indies. A movement of missionaries was born.

The idea of living well together, as a community, and caring enough about others to go and tell of the good news, were characteristics of many of the Jesus Freaks of the era I grew up in. Of course Zinzendorf was not the first “Jesus Freak” but he does stand in that tradition and leaves us an important testimony about “religion of the heart.”

I’ve been making forays into the culture. It might look a bit wild to those inside the Christian sub culture. See this video of an evening on the terrace at University of Madison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK2ZqPkdh1M

The fellow dancing is one of the professors at the university. He was not a hippie nor was he at all inebriated. He was definatly having a good time. We had a nice chat after the set. I also chatted with another professor, a hair stylist who enjoys hang gliding and sky diving, and a bunch of other people who I’d never meet inside a church. There were about 1500 people out on the terrace that night. I’m thinking more and more about how I must be more missional and must therefore intentionally make forays into the culture. By the way, it was a lovely evening.

If we were to uproot only one vice each year, we should soon become perfect. The contrary, however, is often the case—we feel that we were better and purer in the first fervor of our conversion than we are after many years in the practice of our faith. Our fervor and progress ought to increase day by day; yet it is now considered noteworthy if a man can retain even a part of his first fervor.²

I believe in discipline. I have a morning routine that is such a fundamental part of my life that on the rare occasion that I don’t go through my morning ritual (fodder for another post perhaps), I suffer anxiety about getting my reading done before the day is over, for time is unfortunately unrenewable. Use it or lose it. The above quote is nonetheless disturbing. There’s an old saying that only a fool will continue to do the same thing hoping for different results. Make no mistake, Kempis is no fool. If anything, he seems to be highlighting the fact that personal devotion and discipline is not enough or all there is. Kimball is helping us to see why we shouldn’t isolate ourselves from humanity in general and non-Christians in particular. Kempis is too concerned with avoiding spiritual contamination: “We should enjoy much peace if we did not concern ourselves with what others say and do, for these are no concern of ours.”³ How shall we ever love others if we are more concerned with our own peace than their concerns? Do your devotions and disciplines and then get out in the world and mix it up.

Phyllis Bird has written an article for the Anchor Bible Dictionary ¹ that explores how women are portrayed in the Old Testament. She reminds the reader of the distinctively male perspective that is so characteristic of the bible in general and particularly of the Old Testament. The view of women presented in the Old Testament is shaped by the male authors and conforms to the male dominated values of patriarchal society. Nonetheless, women played important roles in society and had areas of great influence. Sometimes their influence and power were not presented directly and must be inferred by how they were portrayed. Bird’s article helps the reader to be aware of these issues and to look for clues that are hinted at, particularly in the more negative types of characterizations. It is precisely at these points that the potential for female power is likely to be suppressed. This short review highlights some of the key issues that stood out to me as I read Bird’s article.

Women in the Old Testament are generally portrayed as nameless second-class people without a voice in a world ruled by men. Since Scripture comes to us from the hands of men, women never have the opportunity to tell their side of the story. Their words, even considering how seldom direct female dialog appears, is never directly from their lips or writings. This is not surprising since the authors of Scripture are males formed out of a male dominated society guided by male values. Women and their stories become the objects that accomplish the purposes of the male authors. This hardly portrays women fairly or fully. The authors were selective in their purposes and the portrayal of women suffered doubly in that not only do we have a uniquely male perspective, but also what is provided is done in such a way as to further the agendas of the authors.

Modern methods of anthropological study, literary, rhetorical, and structural criticisms all help to read between the lines of Scripture, and reveal the multifaceted and important roles women played in the history of Israel. Women were restricted and dominated in many arenas, as they have been throughout all known history and cultures, yet they had significant roles, exercised authority in their given areas of responsibility, and had a hand in shaping society and ultimately the history of Israel.

Women, with few exceptions, were denied the opportunity to lead men.² This precluded positions of institutional responsibility and leadership. On the contrary, men were expected to exercise authority over women. Legal rights of women were generally secondary and inferior to those of men. Married women were considered to be the property of their husbands.³

Women were given unique roles and responsibilities that only women could fulfill. They found both fulfillment and restriction in these roles.⁴ Such roles were most often played out in the realm of the family unit. A woman was uniquely suited to be a wife and mother, and the fundamental evidence of successful motherhood, having many children, was a means to personal fulfillment. It was also an opportunity to shape a new generation as the role of the mother included the teaching of the children. Failure at this primary role put a woman at great risk. Without children to provide care in later life, the loss of a husband due to death or divorce left a woman without property or means of support. She would be in a very desperate state indeed!

Failure in the role of mother or wife also was treated as a disgrace and viewed as divine punishment.⁵ A woman having lost her family was an outcast of society. She could very easily be viewed as a threat to normal society values and might even be forced to resort to prostitution to survive.⁶ Therefore, women were under great pressure to produce for the good of the family, in providing care, nourishment, material needs such as clothing, and especially children.

Purity was a fundamental religious and social concept in ancient Israel. Foreign women threatened the religious and social fabric and were generally portrayed as dangerous, symbolically representing immorality and embodied evil.⁷ Bird notes that the degree of fear expressed towards foreign women reveal the latent power to influence society they actually possessed.⁸ With few exceptions, foreign women were therefore generally marginalized in Scripture to protect the dominant male values.⁹

There is much more to be learned from Bird’s article. She presents a well-balanced view that brings out more positive characterizations than this review might suggest. This review has highlighted Bird’s observations of the negative portrayal of women in the Old Testament, as it is clear that women do not speak with their own voice and are generally demeaned as a result. Those in power retain the privilege of writing history and this is true of Scripture as well. I am reminded of Leviticus chapter twenty-seven where the monetary value of men and women is spelled out. If a male of age between twenty and sixty years was worth fifty shekels, a woman was worth thirty (Lev 27:3-4). We see here the evidence of sinful human nature at work that claims higher valuation for the self than for the other. We must remember this tendency to present women as lesser second-class citizens lest we succumb to a devalued view of women that would shape our expectations and beliefs in a dishonoring way. We do well to bear in mind that “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27).