From the NYTimes:
In the tumult that surrounded NBC’s late-night shake-up last week, one thing was certain: If even a small fraction of the additional younger viewers who flocked to Mr. O’Brien’s show last week had turned up regularly in his earlier ratings results, he would almost surely still be hosting “The Tonight Show.”
I think last week was the first time I’ve watched Conan in forever. What struck me was the sheer drudgery of watching innumerable car commercials from Your Quality Plus Ford Dealer and the boredom of half the show. Ben Stiller? Not funny. Barry Manilow? Oh come on. Robin Williams tore the place apart (of course) and the expensive comedic bits were funny as could be. But the whole premise of late night shows is b-rate actors you’ve never heard of reading scripted “jokes.” The reason I’ve mostly watched these things in ten-minute clips is because there’s only ten minutes of comedy in them. I’d much rather watch Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert’s bits and the interesting guests they often manage to get. I hope Conan’s next gig cuts the slavish Hollywood worship. Let doofus Leno interview the doofus starlets.
"What we are encountering is a panicky, an almost hysterical, attempt to escape from the deadly anonymity of modern life… and the prime cause is not vanity… but the craving of people who feel their personality sinking lower and lower into the whirl of indistinguishable atoms to be lost in a mass civilization."
Gordon points to a Wall Street Journal blog post by Gary Hamel on “Managing the Facebook Generation,” which sounds like a terrible exercise but actually has some good advice about how 20th Century organizations have to adapt if they’re going to be relevant to the online culture. Gordon reflects what this means for churches:
This explains why I often struggle so much with the hierarchical systems I have found myself working within, whether that is a military or denominational context. I think that churches and denominational bodies need to read, reflect and learn from Gary’s thinking. It may well affect how we lead churches and handle church governance. Here below are the main points, with my reflections on what this means for us.
Here are the some of the points Gary Hamel makes in the WSJ:
1. All ideas compete on an equal footing.
2. Contribution counts for more than credentials.
3. Hierarchies are natural, not prescribed.
4. Leaders serve rather than preside.
Read the WSJ blog for the full twelve point annotated list.
Martin’s commentary:
Quakers reading this should be scratching their heads right about now. We actually know about this kind of stuff. We’ve been doing it for 350 years. We’re entering an era when even smart Baptists are asking whether their organizational bodies have to look more Quakerly, an era where some of our most basic cultural values are being taken up by an online generation. How are we responding?
The author is a young Mennonite from Pennsylvania who grew up in the rich cultural traditions but who recently spent a year among U.K. Anabaptists who are a more convinced, less culturally-embedded crowd. This is her reflections on the two approaches and what they mean to each other.
Quote: My time in the UK made me more aware of the ways in which our Mennonite traditions have become empty and have failed to helpfully communicate a Jesus-centred Anabaptist faith. I also became very conscious of the fact that our particular cultural traditions are just that – particular and cultural. The Pennsylvania Mennonite way of being Anabaptist is not the only way of being Anabaptist, and to assume so would be to tragically limit a movement that has the ability to move across and beyond culture and tradition.
