![\"images\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/images2.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nIn many ways, Charlene Li suggests something similar with social technology for businesses\/organizations in her book Open Leadership<\/em>. Run towards social media rather than away from it. Instead of holding onto more control when it comes to what employees\/customers\/shareholders\/executives share on social media, she encourages them to open up to the possibilities of transparency, openness to learning, and creativity through social media.[1]<\/a> This seemingly counter-intuitive approach actually brings about buy-in, commitment, and faster responses from employees and customers.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n However, the key to the value of the social technology comes with a needed \u201cguardrail.\u201d[3]<\/a> By having covenants with what is expected, allowed, and a \u201cbe smart\u201d mentality[4]<\/a> for being open on social media, the environment can thrive through the communication and support that comes alive in social technology. With Gordon\u2019s hand wave of welcome, he knew what he was doing by providing a way for the kids to express their youthful delight. He was suggesting a run towards what seemed inappropriate, yet this counter-intuitive move actually demonstrated a greater wisdom by relinquishing control. Working through a covenant of agreement on what is \u201copen\u201d for that particular organization\/business, there is an element of control that as Li suggests is the \u201ccontrol for openness.\u201d[5]<\/a><\/p>\n How does \u201ccontrol for openness\u201d work in the church? Years ago, when I first read Donald Miller\u2019s Blue Like Jazz<\/em>, I experienced a paradigm shift in understanding the term \u201cAll Truth is God\u2019s Truth (Justin Martyr).\u201d Prior to this season, I held onto God\u2019s truth is the only truth. Semantics? Or a whole other way of thinking? In Miller\u2019s book and others to which I was exposed, I experienced the same feeling as those young boys on bicycles. I was being shown a driveway with fresh cement\u2026drawn in curiosity and excitement yet not sure if I could. I desperately wanted to explore this new kind of thinking and understanding of God. Could it be that in my everyday world, the truth I encountered was actually God\u2019s truth? Books like Li\u2019s, laws of physics, principles of leadership \u2013 these truths were part of God\u2019s truth. And pushing it even further, what about tenets in Hinduism? Buddhism? What about those truths? Or is it heretical to even suggest that another religion would have any truth?<\/p>\n As a leader, I feared what others would think should I express these thoughts in my church. As a result, I read many of the books clandestinely. Is it heresy to consider another way of thinking? Part of me longed for conversation; the other part wanted to run the other way in my confusion. This \u201copen\u201d idea disoriented me with something I had never considered before. Fearing the idea of leading someone astray in what he\/she would believe about God, I didn\u2019t know how to lead anymore. I closed down.<\/p>\n Now, with a few years of experience (and in light of Li\u2019s encouragement), I hear these words for leadership: \u201cAllow for the conversation; don\u2019t be afraid of it; you may not agree, but you can listen; create a sandbox of what can be shared publically versus privately, and above all, make sure you\u2019ve been developing relationships, not proclamations.\u201d[6]<\/a> To provide a safe place to share thoughts, ideas, questions, doubts, and mysteries can be one of the church\u2019s greatest gifts. At the same time, there is great wisdom in knowing what needs to be said and when to say it.<\/p>\n Reflecting on Li\u2019s research, my personal experience, and Gordon\u2019s call for welcoming the risk of what could happen, I see the church\u2019s role in a new perspective. What if the bride of Christ provides a conversation around discernment to determine God\u2019s truth in the midst of a pluralistic world? Rather than proclaiming \u201ctruth\u201d that comes contextualized from a particular culture, could the strength of the church be in allowing the conversation to take place, even with conflict, disagreement, and frustration? There\u2019s a risk. People make actually make imprints in the cement. People may go astray. Yet, for \u201ccontrol of openness\u201d within a church, conversation around both the ideas and how to live it out offer a safe place to live into God\u2019s truth.<\/p>\n For \u201copen-driven\u201d objectives, it requires listening to those with whom you disagree. If there is graciousness in conversation, we can welcome one another, even when it seems counter-intuitive. For me, I try to listen to those who aren\u2019t on my A-list (even though I think he may be on some of your lists), because he\/she may actually have something wise to say, such as:<\/p>\n Alongside \u201cAll truth is God\u2019s truth,\u201d we need to say, \u201cAll truth exists to display more of God and awaken more love for God.\u201d This means that knowing truth and knowing it as God\u2019s truth is not a virtue until it awakens desire and delight in us for the God of truth.<\/em> (John Piper)[7]<\/a><\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Charlene Li, Open Leadership: How Social Technology Can Transform the Way You Lead<\/em> (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010), 52-53.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Ibid, 77.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Ibid, 110.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Ibid, 109.<\/p>\n