The Renovator


"Is an open system supplied with large amounts of energy from the outside, this leads to an increase of additional fluctuations, which may finally lead the system to a new order on a higher level."

Michael Birkenbihl (yy)


Renald Hennig

Jesus was surrounded by tradition. Tradition fixed the number of steps that were allowed to be taken on a sabbath; had put women in a passive corner of society; but had on the other hand given that small, insignificant people a divine purpose.

There were those diametrically opposed to the order of things, especially as it related to the Roman occupation. They were the revolutionaries, propagating violent overthrow and reestablishment of an independent Jewish nation.

There had been scores of preachers that had tried to either enhance the existing system - or had emphatically denounced it. One of them, in the first century A.D., taught worship of the one, true God and proclaimed that religion consisted not of the sacrifice of animals, but rather in the practice of charity and dignity and the shunning of hatred and enmity. He was told to have performed miracles of grace; to have cast out demons; healed the sick; raised the dead. His exemplary life lead some of his followers to claim that he was a son of God, though he called himself son of men. Charged with rebellion against Rome, he was arrested. After his death his disciples claimed that he had been raised from the dead, had appeared to them alive - and that he had then ascended to heaven.

Well, he wasn't even a Jew. His name was Apollonius of Tyana; he died in about 98 A.D. and can be read about in Philostratus' "Life of Apollonius".

This was Jesus'world.

Jesus knew he had to build on the known and accepted. He didn't want it differently.

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (88)

But he didn't stop there. He went beyond the customary, sometimes it seemed into unchartered territory:

"You have heard that it was said long ago,Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment. But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment." (89)

Wasn't that just a little too far off? How could anyone possibly live up to that kind of moral threshold?

But was it that?

"You have heard that it was said, Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (90)

What happened here? Was this to show that we have no chance whatsoever to ever be considered even good?

Those present will have remembered the original from their ancient texts:

Thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot . . . (91)

It had originally not been intended as a punishment to the offender ("take an eye for an eye . . .") but rather as an admonition to him to make restitution ("give . . .").

Jesus brought the original concept back into focus by changing what had been put on it, layer by layer of interpretation. And at the same time he changed the focus from the offender ("he's evil, let's get after him") to the offended ("turn, do not resist").

Sometimes that approach meant massive action:

Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. (92)

And sometimes he went not only to the original, but went back to illustrate that it had been realized, fulfilled:

He went to Nazareth, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." (93)

He saw himself as someone who had brought back the original meaning, who breathed new life into what had been left without life for centuries. No traditionalist, but no revolutionary, either.

How are modern day leaders approaching this problem? How do they perceive themselves?

I do not have an answer to that question, and there may be as many answers as leaders. But I found it noteworthy that Senge (zz) states as the very first of his "laws of the fifth discipline": "Today's problems come from yesterday's solutions."

Just as Senge proposes systems thinking to avoid focussing on isolated parts, Jesus uses the approach to look beyond the words (and the traditions) to get a better picture.

Whereas Senge goes to the outside of the problem, looking at it in the context of a larger system, Covey goes the other direction, looking at the inside (aaa).

"As a principle-centered person, you try to stand apart from the emotion of the situation and from other factors that would act on you, and evaluate the options." In other words, your innermost core, your deepest identity then decides on the course of action.
Covey's words "taking all factors into consideration" build the bridge to Senge.

It is both the active systems and the innermost principles that affect any given situation and thereby the leader's ability to cope with it. The challenge lies in identifying both:

What systems affect my particular problem?

What reinforcing and balancing feedbacks and delays play a role?

And also:

What are the underlying principles that have lead to this situation - and may continue to do so?

What paradigms should I reassess before jumping into action?

"You have heard that it was said, Do not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman* lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (94)

* woman in the Greek original: gunaika , which stands for both woman and wife. Since adultery preconditions marriage, it would be better translated "who looks at a married woman".


Next: The Self-Motivator