Analyzing Change to Death

Since reading, Who Moved My Cheese, I've contemplated things that haven't changed, yet still survived. You could say I've been working as Hem & Haw's defense attorney, trying to build their case. Not that I'm opposed to change, I just find it hard to believe that The Creator is the only unchanging thing or being that's survived without changing. Thus far, I haven't come up with much to help my cause.

On the contrary, I just keep coming across stuff for the plaintiff. Take my cousin's recent blog entry (he's worked in Silicon Valley for years for such notable companies as Yahoo! and now Google). His post echoes the mantra in which I'm trying to poke holes: innovate to keep meeting what people expect or die.

Contrast that with this short article from Wired. Yes, the items mentioned have had competition from improved products, but we seem to be content with the originals. Kinda like how I don't bother with the "better mousetraps".

Why the fuss over all this? It's an argument that still in the developmental phase, but the concept I'm pursuing is finding a balance between what a church needs to change in order to stay relevant to the people it's trying to reach, yet, protecting and not changing other aspects of the church. I'm still chewing on how to delineate between the two and define what's changeable and what's not. I picked up several years ago the distinction between preferences and principles, which is a key element, but I think there's more.