Salt as Fertilizer

I was reading through Carson’s commentary on Matthew and found an article I’d poked in there by Alan Kreider in a ‘Think Piece’ from the Macquarie Christian Studies Institute. He was addressing the issue of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:13:
“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.”
The popular explanation of this passage (even by Carson) is that salt is a preservative. But as Kreider questions, why didn’t Jesus say you were the salt of the meat rather than salt of the earth?

He heard a BBC radio gardening program that described wartime farmers in Great Britain using salt as a fertilizer. That was back in the 80’s. Today we have the internet, so I thought I’d google ‘salt as fertilizer’ and guess what? A number of articles on sodium chloride as a fertilizer!

Here’s an example:
“Long before scientists understood the role of sodium or chloride in crop production and plant disease management, farmers routinely applied sodium chloride to salt-tolerant crops to boost vigor and yields. Interestingly, a steady flow of studies over the past half century conclude that when sodium chloride is applied in quantities equal to macronutrients, certain crops fare better. These studies validate the opinions of a number of agriculturalists that touted the value of sodium chloride in crop management.” W. H. Elmer- The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station
http://www.saltinstitute.org/elmer.html

Kreider asks the question- if we are the ‘salt of the earth’ as Jesus says, for what purpose, To preserve the society of first century Palestine, keeping the religious and political systems functioning as honestly as possible? Or to fertilize, finding shoots of kingdom life and helping them grow?

Here’s three of his ideas about salt:
First as a fertilizer it needs scattering. In lumps it poisons the soil.
Second, salt doesn’t exist for itself; it exists for the sake of the shoots of kingdom growth which God has planted.
Thirdly, salt differs from the soil it fertilizes. Jesus is concerned that salt could lose its saltiness and blend in with the rest of the soil.

But here is the take away quote which grabbed me in the context of the Imagine Project and developing ‘Fresh Expressions’ of church:

“Salt as a preservative appeals to Western readers because it helps make sense of a declining Christendom. The world is bad and getting worse (but how comfortably we accept its perquisites). Our calling as salt is to stop the rot. We are called to permeate the structures of society, work hard, do our duty, be evangelistically active, be honest in our dealings, never smutty or sacrilegious.

Imagine another view. The justice, power, and nearness of God’s kingdom are breaking in not to preserve ‘Christian’ society but to make men and women, their churches, and even aspects of society congruent with Christ. This, no less than the preserving view, requires hard work, duty-doing, and the rest. But it also invites us to engage in new thinking. It urges us to commit ourselves to change. It assumes that God through the Spirit is doing new things. Jesus- by his life and teaching- is the one who defines this newness. Our time is a time not of rear-guard action but of mission.”

Now that stirs the heart!

The Magic 150

I’m sure you’ve all come across the sociological studies that argued that 150 is around the maximum number of relationships that one person can handle.

Here is another argument based on brain structure and the neocortex.

It’s interesting to note that in church circles 120 is the size of a church that one pastor on their own can handle. When you have family and friends you can see how that number works out. I’d also venture to say that adding an extra staff member won’t double your potential because there’ll be ‘relational overlap’ that will reduce the connection of members while maximizing the relational limits of each additional staff member. I’d venture to say though, that involving members in ministry will counteract that overlap as they bring their relational links into the formula. Doctoral thesis anyone?!!!

 

 

?ic @TomorrowToday.biz

 

Understand behaviour by understanding the brain Posted: 29 Oct 2008 05:31 AM CDT Do you have problems managing large groups of people?  I have a solution for you.  Read on. There is limited space in our brains.  Our brains are similar to a Tupperware container  - you can only fit in so much.  There is a name for this – in cognitive psychology, they call it ‘Channel Capacity’.   You have different capacities to absorb and process different types of things.  You have an intellectual capacity, feeling capacity and a social capacity.    The part of your brain that deals with complex thought and reasoning is called the neocortex.  Primates (monkeys and apes, including humans), have the biggest brains of all mammals and the neocortex is particularly large.  For years, scientists have wondered what determines the size of the neocortex.  Is it eating habits?  Is it intellectual ability? A British anthropologist called Robert Dunbar discovered the answer – the larger the neocortex, the larger the social group in which the primate is able to operate effectively.  Humans have the biggest neocortex of all primates so we can operate better in larger social groups than say chimps or monkeys. Dunbar’s research determined that the biggest group in which humans can cope effectively is made up of 150 people.  Dunbar researched this in depth.  He studied primitive communities and noticed the average size of villages was 148.4 people.  Military organizations have admitted they cannot operate with more than 150-200 people.  If there are more, formal hierarchies and rules and regulations are essential in order to manage people properly. Below 150 people, it is possible to operate in an informal way because people can regulate behaviour through mutual loyalty and direct contact.  If you have more than 150 people in a group, it changes the dynamics completely.  Relationships are a lot of work and big social groups can create an intellectual burden – you need to manage time and attention and consider personality types and communication abilities of others in order for interactions to be meaningful and mutually beneficial. WL Gore is a highly successful, billion dollar company with thousands of employees.  They have a unique, informal management structure and have retained their small company camaraderie and ethos.  Guess what?  At WL Gore, all factory and office groups never have more than 150 people.  The founder, William Gore said, ‘We found again and again that things get clumsy at 150 so 150 people per plant became the company goal.’ Consider how your company is structured.  Our neocortex is a limited size and can cope with a limited number of interactions.  If you make some small changes, you may notice some big results.   SOURCE:  The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell

 

 

First post

The first post – submitted via email.