Good morning everyone. My name is Bill Burns. I'm the President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and I'm delighted to welcome all of you today. And especially delighted to welcome to Carnegie my friend and former colleague Ambassador Gerardo Rowe, Francis Ambassador to the United States. One of the great myths about diplomacy, at least in my experience, is that there's no such thing as permanent friends, only permanent interests. I've had the good fortune over the course of my career to make a number of enduring friendships with diplomatic counterparts whom I respected and admired and whose company I've enjoyed. And one of them is Gerardo Rowe. Gerard's biography is impressive, as all of you know. Ambassador to Israel before his service in the United States and before his service as Francis Ambassador to the United Nations, political director in the French Foreign Ministry, amongst many other significant positions. Even more impressive, though, I think, is the rare combination of wisdom, wit, and honesty, which Gerard always brings to bear. In my experience, he's always been a straight shooter, especially in dealing with American diplomatic colleagues, even if his weapon of choice is sometimes a bazooka. I've been on the receiving end of his target practice, whether in defending questionable American policy choices or the equally questionable culinary choices in the seventh floor dining rooms of the State Department. But most impressive of all has been Ambassador Rowe's deep commitment to the Transatlantic Alliance. The partnership, which has played such an essential role in our shared success over many years, the partnership which has been at the core, I think, of the success of international order over the course of the last 70 years. And a partnership which is under unprecedented challenge today in the wake of the American decision to pull out of the Paris climate treaty out of the Iran nuclear agreement in the wake of this past weekend's G7 summit. So even as so many eyes are focused quite understandably on the promise of the Singapore summit between President Trump and Kim Jong-un, I think it's critical to focus on the even more fundamental structural challenges before us. And in particular, the future of the Transatlantic Alliance, which as I said before has been so essential to the 70 years of international order that we've tried to build together and so essential to the task before us of trying to adapt that international order to fit changing international circumstances. So I look forward very much to Ambassador Rowe's opening reflections and then I'll join him for a discussion and open up to all of your questions. So thanks again for coming and please join me in a very warm welcome for Ambassador Jirard Rowe. Good morning and thank you Bill for this introduction. First it's a great pleasure to be here. Actually it's a very relevant meeting and I was telling Bill that it's maybe too relevant so it's a bit dangerous for me. No, I wanted to say a few words before having a discussion with you because I know that in this city right now everything which is happening is more or less analyzed, read through the domestic politics, the American domestic politics. In a sense when you analyze what is happening in the Transatlantic relations or what is happening in Singapore, what is less important for most of the commentators is the substance rather than really basically criticizing or supporting the president. You know really and we see it right now after the meeting in Singapore. What I want to say in the beginning is that for a lot of people the impression is that if we have a crisis in the transatlantic relationship it's because of one person, the president. And at the end of his mandate or his mandates actually everything will come back to a sort of happy normalcy in the transatlantic relations. And it's something that actually I don't believe to be true. I do believe that we have an underlying, I don't know if it's a crisis but at least a question mode about the transatlantic relations. Why? First a lot of people forget that the transatlantic relations, a strong transatlantic relationship is actually a recent, is recent. Until 1945 the American diplomacy was very keen on avoiding actually any involvement into the European affairs. It was a sort of a basic tenet of the American foreign policy stemming from the very famous speech Last Address by President George Washington in 1797. You know that the Americans have been involved into the world wars not because of their own decisions but actually under late first it was 1917 and 1941 and it was against their will. In a sense the Americans in 1914 and 1939 had taken the decision to remain neutral and they couldn't because of the First World War, you know the famous Zimmermann Telegram and the submarine war and in 1941 because of Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war of Germany on December 1941. In 1945 you could expect the Americans to withdraw from Europe the way they did in 1919 or 1920 but they didn't do it first because the British and the French were totally enabled in a sense to ensure the security of the continent especially facing the global Soviet threat. So the transatlantic relationship is rooted in a very particular context which was the Cold War and the shape of our relationship was basically a military alliance under American leadership. I was telling Bill that I was at NATO in the late 90s and I do remember that a question that we were raising with my boss I was the DCM at the time was what is the future of NATO considering that actually we don't have any common enemy anymore. And you know usually the human being really avoids to raise difficult questions and I think we were very good at it. There was also the Balkan crisis in the late 90s, there was Afghanistan afterwards and now there is Mr. Putin really which all these elements have allowed us not to raise really not to raise the difficult issue. You know why an alliance without an enemy which is to be frank a very, very, very new concept in foreign relationship. So my conclusion after I don't want to be too long because it will be a long conversation and of course I will have to bring a lot of qualifications and nuances to what I have said. But my basic point is that today that our transatlantic relationship has been for some time now fragile, that its foundation really is not here anymore and that we need to define a common agenda. We don't have a common threat anymore to face. Russia is not USSR. It's a geopolitical problem, I agree, but it's not USSR. So we have a real question which is why a strong really transatlantic relationship and how and to do what. And our very basic questions and I don't believe that we are really able to answer to these questions. But I'm ready of course to answer to all your questions. Well, thanks for very much for provocative way of opening up this conversation. And as you mentioned you and I were speaking a little bit beforehand a little bit about the reality that there are huge changes on the international landscape as we enter into this new era with the rise of new global powers like China, the information revolution or technology revolution changes in the global economic system as well that all of this would have to come to grips with in the transatlantic alliance would have to come to grips with. But it seems to me there's an equally significant set of changes going on in terms of the domestic moods in the United States and in trans and you travel a lot in this country as well. So I wanted to ask you to draw you out a little bit more on your sense of the domestic mood in this country outside of the Beltway outside of Washington because it's pretty obvious that there's a disconnect between those of us in the Washington establishment and lots of people around the country who don't take as a given in the way that was true for decades before the significance of disciplined American leadership in the world in part because they haven't always seen disciplined leadership. So what's your sense of that mood in both our countries and how do you come to grips with the question you ended on which is, you know, how do you sell the significance of the transatlantic partnership to the public's in both of our countries, not just the question of the NATO alliance but the wider question of shared values and interests that binds the transatlantic partnership together. I am a big believer in the common sense of our of our citizens, you know, really, and what is and based on this common belief in the common sense of our citizens. I am really simply raising the question is an alliance and I'm talking about NATO. The credibility and alliances, of course, is based on the commitment of the public opinion to fight if necessary. And I do believe that the city of Washington DC is not asking, you know, itself the question are our citizens ready to fight for Europe. And if you ask this question, I think, you know, the answer is not so obvious. It was the case during the Cold War because fighting for Europe was really fighting USSR fighting an existential threat, which was not only a threat to Europe but to all our international community.  And I do think that President Obama and President Trump, I remember I remind you that the two presidents really in a very different manner, of course, because they were very different. But the two presidents were raising more or less are raising and we're raising more or less this question because I think they were sensitive to the mood of this country in terms of foreign involvement, in terms of fatigue, you know, really after what happened, especially under George W. Bush. So I think it's one of the worries that I'm expressing about the transatlantic relationship is the doubts that I have about the commitment of, on one side, the commitments of the Americans, you know, really for the security of Europe. And the other side, in Europe, we don't have any more unifying threat. I do understand that for the Baltic States and for Poland, for instance, Russia maybe analyze as a real security threat. But to be frank, in Western Europe, it's we are not living with the full gap, you know, really basically. So in Paris, in Madrid, in Rome, certainly you can consider that Russia is a geopolitical problem, but you don't see it anymore as unifying threat. So we have all these elements, which I think are undermining our, or may undermine on the long run, our alliance. What do you think of the wider argument, though, that given all the changes on the international landscape, including China's rise, and looking at the broader basis for the transatlantic partnership, of which NATO is an essential part, but not the only future. What do you think of the argument that, you know, in that kind of a world, transatlantic partnership matters in a way as much as ever. You know, whether it's in dealing with, you know, the challenges posed by China's trade and investment regime, or challenges that emanate, you know, across the other side of the Mediterranean, whether it's insecurity in the Middle East and the refugee flow that, you know, has been produced by that. Is there an argument for a different kind of transatlantic partnership in these changed international circumstances? Of course. You know, really, I am actually, you know, really, I do believe in transatlantic relationship. I'm simply expressing my worry about the present status of them, but I do believe that we have a lot of common policies, common interests to defend. You know, really, but in a sense, beyond the usual spectrum of, I guess, of transatlantic policies, for instance, you know, really trade. You know, a real issue, the President Trump is raising a real issue with trade. What does it mean, fair trade, compared to free trade? You know, we simply, for the last decades, we have simply believed that free trade in itself was good, was globally good. We forgot that globally means that you have pluses, but you have also minuses. So our citizens are sending the message that enough is enough. We are really with these global pluses. They're also minuses. So what does it mean, free trade? What does it mean in terms of protection of intellectual property and market access and so on? So we could really have a discussion about fair trade, because the same question is raised all over our societies throughout the western world. You have ITEC. You know, these ITEC are raising, the ITEC companies at ITEC really are raising a lot, a lot of questions in all our countries. For instance, taxation. You know, basically, you know that it's very difficult to tax an ITEC company, because all the taxation systems that we have are based on brick and mortar installations. The result is that we all have to discuss what does it mean to tax these very strange monsters. But it's also, for instance, access to data, to personal data. We have a real problem in terms of law enforcement. You know, really, I think right now there is a case at the Supreme Court where the Department of Justice is asking access to data to Microsoft, and Microsoft is answering the data are in Ireland. You know, we have the same problem when fighting terrorism. We ask to access to some data to Twitter and they say, sorry, it's in California. You know, and that's an issue. We have also privacy. What does it mean? You know, the European Union has addicted, you know, really very stringent rules about the defense, defending the privacy. That's an issue that we have also to handle together. The cyberspace, for instance. What are the standards, the security? What is the law of the cyberspace? If we don't do it together, it will come from other countries. You know, it really, and China will be able to impose its own rules. Environment. You know, the oceans, for instance.   So they're a bit bored to hear that. But really, I do believe that the question of the plastics in the oceans could be a mobilizing endeavor for the West. The protection of strategic sectors. You know, you have, on the hill, negotiation of a very stringent rule, the sifus. You know, really, but why don't we do it together, the Europeans and the Americans? You know, really to defend our industrial and also technological basis. So I really do believe, you know, I do believe that we have in front of us a positive agenda is possible. But it's necessary. We need a positive agenda. We need to look at what is the future of our societies. What does it mean? And of course, the Europeans and the Americans, we have common interests, common vision, common values in a sense. And we are democracies facing the same challenges. So it's a powerful argument for adapting the transatlantic alliance to fit changing international circumstances and to do it in a way which connects with the public's on both sides of the Atlantic. But their linger, you know, a number of more traditional threats. So Russia is not the Soviet Union, as you said, but you know, especially as the Ukraine crisis has reminded us. There's still a significant threat, a significant challenge that's posed by at least Vladimir Putin's particular form of aggressiveness. So you've got differences sometimes, not just between the United States and some of our principle European allies, which we were reminded of when President Trump called for the readmission of Russia to the G7, formerly known as the G8. But you've also got differences as you were hinting at before amongst, you know, European countries. So what do you think is the right approach to Russia in that context? And how do you bridge, you know, some of those differences of view? Well, the... Nice, easy question. Yes, nice, nice, nice, easy question. Because you can fall very quickly on one, on all the other side. And as a diplomat, I prefer to stay on the wall. And the problem is, in a sense, and here, you know, that I've been a permanent representative to the United Nations for four years. And it's a great place because it's a place to see the world from another angle than from the West, the Western side, you know, really. And I do love when in this city people talk about the liberal order, you know, really the liberal order.  And the reality is that this Western-dominated world is not anymore. That's a fact. The balance of power has really dramatically changed, shifted. And the U.S. remains and will remain by far the most powerful country. But in a sort of more balanced way, the U.S. is not anymore the hyper-power that the French minister of Foreign Affairs was referring to. So we have a world based on the power politics, on the balance of power. So, like it or not like it, we have to take into account their vision of their interest. And to try to accommodate them, to see if we can accommodate them, we find a compromise. So the Russians have a vision of their national interest. It's not to us to say we like it or we don't like it. It's their vision. So we have on each topic, we have to find whether, to see whether there is a compromise, that we can find a compromise between our interest and their interest. And which means that we have to be firm and we have not to accept what they are doing, for instance in the Donbass and in Crimea and the Donbass. But we have also really to draw the conclusion, for instance, about Ukraine membership of NATO. Really to say, obviously it's not acceptable by Russia. So what does it mean? What should we do in these terms? And looking at the situation in a very frank way, really it's easy on one side to say every country has the right to choose its alliance. But what do you do if Russia is reacting brutally to this prospect? So it's not, again, it's a question of realism. You have to find the right balance between firmness but also realism. Really. And you have also to understand that for a lot of countries, the western dominated world was not the perfect world. And that on our side we have been, there are moments where we have forgotten the order and we have ourselves created this order. Nobody is forgetting what happened in Iraq in 2003. Which was a brutal violation of international law with very difficult, very bloody consequences in the Middle East. I'm referring to not only because I'm French but also because when I was at the UN, it was something which was coming all the time. You know, I remember also one day we had a very difficult debate about human rights. We made Cuban counterpart. We were really shouting at each other. And as good diplomats, when leaving the room we went to have a coffee together after having insulted each other. And he told me, he said, you know, really Gira, you know, really about the situation of human rights in Cuba is not perfect. But I didn't hear you talking about another country. And he gave me the name, I'm not going to give you the name, where the situation of human rights is worse than in Cuba. And he was right. I think we have to leave a bit our good, really, this high moral ground that which is so comfortable and to look at the world as it is. It's not a perfect world but we are not perfect either. Let me turn it. One other question for me and then I want to open it up to all of your questions as well. And I have to ask you about sort of the topic of the day which isn't about the transatlantic alliance but the Singapore summit meeting and, you know, an opening at least to a serious negotiation over an extremely thorny problem, one that you worked with when you were at the UN quite a bit on North Korea's nuclear and missile program. So first I just want to ask what are your impressions about, you know, the diplomatic possibilities that have been opened up as someone has looked at a variety of diplomatic challenges and especially nuclear challenges over the year. And second, do you see any logic between the enthusiastic opening on the part of the US administration on the North Korean nuclear problem and the equally enthusiastic closing of the door on another significant nuclear challenge on the Iranian nuclear agreement? You know, on the second question, you know, which is really, I always, I'm not very French because I'm always against any idea of coherence or logic in foreign policy. I think it's really overrated. Exactly, it's largely overrated to be coherent, you know, really on the opposite, you know, you have to treat each topic on its own merit, really, and we are living in a real world so it means on its own merit there is also domestic politics and so on. So really, I think when people say, oh, if you do that on Iran, you can't do that on North Korea, the real answer is say, why not? Why not? You know, really. So I really, again, it's a way, of course, of avoiding to answer your tricky question. But to be really, but I think I don't like coherence. I think it's much overrated and the French are too much prisoners of that. On North Korea, first, we have always supported our American allies and our Japanese and South Korean friends. We are not on the front line for obvious geographic reasons, but we are really behind our friends and allies and we have supported the policy of maximum pressure against North Korea. And we do believe that, you know, President Trump has launched this initiative, so let's wait and see. Really, there is, to be frank, previous policies have not been very effective to handle this issue, so why not to try to find a new approach? And again, going back to what I was saying in the beginning, really, for the people now, the way they're commenting what happened in Singapore is much more a comment about their vision of Donald Trump that really a comment about what really happened. It's really domestic politics is a bit toxic in Washington DC right now. We don't know what really happened. We have to wait to have more information to see what will be the follow-up, what are the plans, I think, and on this basis we'll be able, I think, to draw a conclusion. But in principle, really, I think, France, we are supporting the American March. Setting aside the connection or lack of connection between the two issues, and the Iran nuclear agreement, I know France is working with the sort of remaining parties to the agreement to try to hold it together. What do you think the prospects are for sustaining the agreement in the face of the American administration's declared intent to apply secondary sanctions? We are doing our best. We do believe that the GCPOA is a good agreement. You know, it's not perfect, of course. We on purpose, I think you remember, you were yourself a negotiator on the American side, on purpose we have treated the nuclear issue in isolation from the other because it was such a complicated issue, such a critical issue. We didn't want to exchange Yemen against 1,000 intracent refuges. It didn't make any sense. So it was in isolation and we did it without any naive assumption, as for the French, about the behavior of Iran. Actually, we're expecting the behavior of Iran actually to worsen because we did believe that the Iranian regime would be obliged to show that they didn't cave into the Americans, you know, really. So we were absolutely not surprised and we had been advocating to give the previous administration, with this administration, a policy of balancing against Iran in the Middle East. So that was our policy, so that's why we were ready and we discussed it with this administration, the question of ballistic missiles, the question of what will happen at the end of the agreement, also in terms of the regional activities of Iran. So we do regret that this administration has decided to get out of the agreement. We are trying our best to preserve the agreement but it's difficult and because, as you said, the sanctions, the American sanctions, are more or less leading most of the European companies to leave the Iranian market and which means that for the Iranian regime, it will become very complicated, very difficult to assess that they get any advantage by staying in the agreement. You know, really, the quid pro quo was more or less, you know, really monitoring and limitation, limiting and monitoring the program in exchange to have, you know, really the reopening of trade, of normal trade relationship with Iran. If the Iranians are not getting anything on the trade front, why do they stay in the nuclear agreement? They have also their domestic politics. So there is a risk and, again, we have a lot of consultations with the Iranians, with the Russians, the Chinese, the Europeans, but there is a strong risk that, at the end, the radicals will tell, will tell Iran, will say, let's get out of this agreement. They can do it in very different manners. They can do it in an incremental way or they can do it in a very dramatic way. We'll see. As for our relationship with the United States, we are still waiting for, because we have the speech of Secretary Pompeo, but it was a speech basically saying the objectives, you know, really. So we are still expecting from our American friends a sort of a roadmap what they intend to do in the coming weeks, you know, really, what does it mean in diplomatic terms. And so I do hope that we will have in the future, in the coming weeks, a meeting between the Secretary of State and the free Europeans, which will allow us to have an answer about the next steps. Well, thanks, Sherrod. I don't want to monopolize the conversation any further, so I'm going to open it up to your question. So please raise your hand, wait for the microphone, identify yourself, and please remember to end with a question mark. So, yes, ma'am. The mic's right behind you. Hello, my name is Sonam, and I'm actually a student at Sciences Po. And my question, something that wasn't discussed here, was the G7 summit and the ending of that. What repercussions do you think that will have for the future of the transatlantic relationship and the ensuing criticism from Trump towards its European allies? Thank you. You know, the president, the American president, it's a bit unusual way of managing or of conducting foreign policy. There was, you know, we had this communique, the G7 communique. There was an agreement in principle. What matters now will be whether the Americans are going to stay or to follow the broad lines, you know, the lines of the communique. It will be a mistake, and I'm not sure that we have avoided this mistake on the European side. It will be a mistake to enter into a sort of tweet against tweet, you know, tweet against that, you know, really, what matters at the end of the day is the substance of foreign relations. Thanks. Marvin, come. Mike's right behind you. I was fascinated, sir, by the use of a phrase during your formal talk about what is it that the United States would use its military force for? What would be the purpose? And I'm curious about whether you believe that the United States government today is prepared to use its force, military might, to protect the interests of all of the governments that are part of NATO? Could you answer that, please? Oh, I think, yes, I think I have no reason to believe to doubt about the commitment of the US government to the security of Europe. What I was really, I was raising the question, we are democracies, you know, really. So at the end of the day, there is no policy which holds if there is not behind it a strong commitment of our public opinion. And I was raising the question, but it was a question, really whether we can understand during the Cold War that for the Americans, really defending Europe was part of defending America because it was a global. So now it's not the case anymore. And so I was raising the question, saying whether the little guy in Wisconsin is ready to fight really for Europe right now. How can you explain him that he has to do it? You know, really it was more a question about I was referring to the common sense of our voters. And I was, again, thinking that it was instilling into the NATO system a fragility. But I got the impression, sir, that you're suggesting that what was after World War II is not now. And if it is not now, what is the fundamental difference? The fundamental difference is that we had, at 1945, we were united by a threat. Because people really, people really love to say we are united by values. But I'm really sorry, we had common values in 1939 and you were not here. You know, I'm sorry. And there is countries which are very close to you with which you don't have common values at all. So what is important is common interest. Of course the common values, common friendship really is giving a stronger foundation. You know, really it makes the relationship easier, deeper and more solid. But at the basis, it's the common interest. In 1945, the Americans could consider, the American citizens, because we are democracies, could consider that the security of the U.S. was depending on the security of Western Europe. Today, I'm not sure it's still the case. And so I really, so I said, I don't doubt about the commitment of the U.S. administration, but I said, we have this problem. And it's also a problem in Europe. As I was saying, there is no full DAG app anymore. So really our vision of Russia is certainly not the same between really Western Europe and Eastern Europe. Thanks. Yes, sir. My name is Roger Coachetti and I work with private equity in the technology sector. And I want to first thank you for your insights and sort of the American attitudes because for a lot of reasons I wind up talking with a number of people who are part of the 60 million Americans who voted for Donald Trump. And I think it would be helpful, not only for the video viewers, but for those of us who are talking with other Americans, for you to speak not to a group here in Dupont Circle, but speak to an audience in Allentown or Cleveland. And what would you say to them, or what could we say to them? And I'll give three data points which often come up in these conversations first. American students graduate with $37,000 a year in student debt. European students graduate with no student debt or a couple thousand at most. The number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States is medical bankruptcy. Europeans don't understand what that means. And Americans take one week of your vacation. Europeans take two or three months of your vacation or whatever it is. And all of that gives rise to what I think the president has really focused on, which is not that the Soviet threat is gone, but rather we've been ripped off. But rather these Europeans have outsmarted us and we're paying for their defense and they get two months of vacation and we get a week. So speak to that resentment because it will help us and the video viewers deal with what's really why at least, my guess is at least 40 million of the 60 million people who voted for Trump felt exactly that way. It wasn't that the Soviet Union is gone or something, but it was resentment, not independence. I really do share your point of view 100%. I'm convinced that when people say the President Trump has imposed tariffs on Europeans, really I'm convinced that for a large part of the Americans they don't care or even they approve it. Or the idea of saying why do we keep our troops in rich countries which could defend themselves. Really I'm totally, and I think that's also a very important point, really to try to understand really of course the Americans, but not only Americans, the Europeans also be on the Beltway or the Paris Beltway. When I'm traveling for this country, which is striking its first, nobody is talking about President Trump, really, but in the universities as you can guess, everybody is talking about basically the economic euphoria, really this country, the growth, that really the economic situation is really great. So suddenly you realize that the front page of the Washington Post that you're reading every morning saying that so and so I'd say so and so, basically most of the Americans don't care, really. So I'm totally aware of the system and that's also the reason of what I'm trying to say as a message that after a President through the end of the mandate or mandates of President Trump, really I don't believe a moment that the transatlantic relationship will come back to a sort of abnormalcy. Really it's very easy to impose tariffs, it's very difficult to leave tariffs, you know, really because you have to explain it really when you are lifting tariffs and so on. So no, no, it's a real crisis which is also stemming from the discontent of our citizens and especially the Americans. We get to as many questions as we can. Yes. Thank you, Ambassador, for your comments. Lisa Lino with Northrop Grumman. You mentioned, you termed the relationship as fragile between the U.S. and Europe. Would you apply the same term to the E.U. first? Secondly, second question if I may, with regard to, if I could take you back to NATO, you discussed cyber, you discussed other things which are modern threats. Would you put China in that category? China, which has been so active economically in the world with one belt, one road, it's been very active in Africa, other parts of the world, do you see it as a potential future military threat for NATO? You know, on the second question, to be frank I was a bit, I remember one day I think it was coming from the Department of Defense. I don't remember whether it was under this administration where basically it was the description of the situation in terms of threats, really saying Chinese threat. And I'm very reluctant to enter into this vocabulary. You know, really it's international relationship is based on competition. Every country is defending its interests. And there are some moments where the interests are really bumping into each other. That's normal. And so maybe also because of the geography of Europe but I wouldn't qualify, certainly not China as a threat. Like Russia, for me Russia, you know again, there are really raising a lot of questions, problems but that's foreign policy is for.  You know, that's the normal game. So obviously China is the new big boy on the block. So there are some issues, for instance intellectual property and that's a very good issue where we could work with the Americans how to defend our intellectual property which is a topic on which the behavior of China is certainly raising problems, really substantial problems. But talking in terms of threats, no. I saw the European Union. The European Union is facing a lot of challenges. It's very clear we had Brexit which is really a lose-lose situation which is really a very sad waste of energy and loss for Europe. We have of course the questions raised by our eastern partners. Now we have Italy and more largely we have throughout Europe exactly the same political situation that you have. Here the targets are Wall Street and Washington DC and in Europe the target is Brussels as the horse of Troy of globalism. And so really if you are revolting against free trade you are attacking Brussels because our trade policy is managed, the European trade policy is managed by Brussels. So there are a lot of challenges. President Macron, as you know, has been elected on a very pro-European platform and wants really to respond to these challenges and is working with Germany especially trying to convince our German friends to move forward to improve the sustainability of the eurozone because the basic problem is certainly the sustainability of the eurozone. He has made a lot of proposals on the table. Chancellor Merkel has started to answer to some of these proposals for instance in terms of the management of our external borders. So it's a process. The question is of course on the table is whether what President Macron and the other European countries will do in the coming months will be enough to convince our voters and that's really of course I don't have the answer. No, the European Union is not fragile but it's certainly facing really right now tough challenges. Again, in a sense, the same challenges that in this country that you are facing, really the rebellion of part of our voters, rebellion against the elites because they consider that the elites have not delivered for them. And as I said, here is Washington Wall Street in our European Union. Thanks. Yes, sir. Thank you. Bob Holly retired U.S. Foreign Service. I'd like to go back to your Russia issue again and ask you a kind of philosophical question which I realize doesn't really have an answer but I think deserves thinking about some more at least in the context of the 20th century's history. How do we determine whether or not we're really accommodating legitimate strategic interests of a potential adversary? Or are we appeasing aggressive ambitions when we come to making policy in organizations like NATO? That's a political decision. Really, it's the red line, the famous red line. Really, it's a decision that our political leaders have to take. There is no place where to take it. Really, it's... So what looks... I had this discussion with Senator McCain who at some moment really treated me as Daladier. You remember maybe Daladier was the Prime Minister in Munich on the French, so I didn't take it as entirely a compliment. Really. But again, really, there is no answer. It's really a political decision to say, for instance, if you say, okay Ukraine shouldn't be a member of NATO, there are some people who say it's appeasement. I do believe it's realism. So that's again, that's to our political leaders to tell us how far they're ready to go. But it has to be based on a realistic assessment of what we can or what we are ready to do if we are ready to put our actions behind our words. Really, the problem was really... I read a book which was defending Munich, by the way, in a very lot of arguments, saying really in 1938, the British were not ready to send more than two divisions to France. And so on, nobody was ready, and so it was a way of getting time. So answers are really not easy there, of course. Any time for just two more quick questions, Bob. I feel the need to come to the defense of my fellow countryman.  And that's all you're hearing about and what's in the Washington Post is not particularly important for most Americans. I think you used the word most Americans. I think all of us in this room, to a certain extent, travel around the country as well. I come from Pittsburgh, where we just had a congressional election that had a very different result than it might have had a couple of years ago. I've just been in western Kentucky where I was talking to a woman who's, I would say, a fundamentalist religious person who is disturbed by some of the behavior she sees on the part of the president. You look at the opinion polls more broadly, and you see this president is deeply unpopular. So I wonder whether you want to reconsider your comment that most Americans don't care and whether you feel that this is something that is going to be evident in the next election that's coming up in a short period of time. Thank you. That domestic politics, so I'm not going to enter into it. You are certainly right, saying when I was going to say most of them don't care. I simply wanted to convey the message that this city is the opposite. It's the obsession. It's obsessional. Really, to be frank for an outsider, because I am an outsider, really you can't have a seminar about nuclear physics without 15 minutes after the beginning people starting to talk about President Trump. Really, it's unbearable. So it's simply that when you cross the Beltway, it's not 15 minutes, it's one hour. Really, seriously, there is a big difference. Really, again, I give up most or not most, but it's true that I have a lot of discussions and the political issues in Washington D.C. are very, very rarely raised with me, maybe because I'm a foreign ambassador, but the economic issues are the real issues that most of the people are referring to. Last question. Yes, sir. You've got to wait longest for the microphone. Hello, Ambassador. My name is Krishnamari. I'm a junior at Center Grove High School in Indianapolis, but I'm interning this summer with Benjamin Haddad at the Hudson Institute. At his maiden speech in the European Parliament, President Macron talked about a greater assertion being necessary of European sovereignty as he describes it. So my question to you is, does European sovereignty equate to greater European protectionism, especially against countries like China who are really pioneering foreign direct investment in Europe? Among the questions which are raised by, which are raised in a direct or indirect way by this administration, there is a legitimate one which is about, after all, the Europeans have to take care of themselves. And it's true. And especially when you look at the southern problems that we are facing in terms of migrations and terrorism, it's to the Europeans to handle that. So that's what the message of the president has been also to say, we, the Europeans, we have to act by ourselves. It's not possible anymore to rush to Washington D.C. as soon as there is a shotgun in our environment which was a bit too much the case in the previous decades. What does it mean, European sovereignty? Really, does it mean protectionism? The European Union is the most open market in the world. So really it's the largest market in the world. It's one of the most open markets in the world. We really do know that protectionism is leading to nowhere. We have the experience of the 30s where it led to a disaster. But two things. The first thing is the idea of fair trade. As I've said in the beginning, our citizens are really more and more and everywhere hostile to free trade agreements. Really, we had negotiated a free trade agreement with Canada. Canada is the closest society that the European Union, the closest country that the European Union can have in terms of social and environmental norms. So the agreement for the negotiators was a sort of example of social friendly, citizen friendly, gender friendly agreement. And actually it's raising a lot of upstake or a lot of opposition in all the European parliaments. So in Europe, like here, free trade agreements are not really frankly the meal of the day. So we have to try to figure out what does it mean fair trade? They're asking fair trade. And that's the conversation that we should have with our American friends. And one of the elements of fair trade is obviously the relationship with China. You know, when President Macron was here, he really told President Trump we should work together on some issues. And one of two that I referred already twice is intellectual property. But you have also market access. You have also public procurement. And that will be much more effective and powerful if we go together to Beijing saying, really, you have, really here, we have a problem and we don't accept it anymore. So again, the President said it publicly and we are saying it. We have to work, but again, it will be much better instead of squabbling together to be Europeans and Americans together in our dialogue with Beijing. I hate to bring this conversation to a close, but you are, thank you so much for your thoughtfulness and your candor. Thank you all for coming. Please join me in thanking you all the way. Thanks. It was okay? It was very good. Especially the first part, because I think that's what people do. Thanks for coming.


Okay, welcome back everyone to our second lecture BC 3 1 0 on church and ministry administration So we're going to Get into our next lecture which is on culture, but I see Christopher's hand raised so Christopher. Do you have a question? Please go ahead Yes, thank you faster. Yeah, so this is a question On on the communication subject the topic So when we talk communication, I guess, you know in this in this time and age Communication is I mean a large part of communication is done through social media and You know, there are various tools that are available visits, you know pros and cons and I see that You know, there are I mean, I was just being a little bit of initial sort of you know search on But just to find out what was the kind of adoption of of Twitter in by churches and the use of Twitter, you know as a Sort of a micro micro blog and Be able to facilitate Discussion and communication. So I just wanted to get your views on I guess social media as a tool for communication as well as you know specifically around Twitter and Twitter like a sort of messaging tools, yeah I'm Sure. Thank you Christopher. Yeah, I can share with you just you know my thoughts On this one is I feel, you know churches Christian organizations should be free To use whatever works for them. So Twitter Facebook Instagram whatever whatever else, you know and One of the things we will be looking at when we talk about media and technology is to know What your audience is using, you know, so if example if particular ministry started in the youth and if the Their target audience the youth are engaged on a certain platform Then definitely use that platform, you know, whatever's whatever that is to communicate So in general, that's my opinion that I feel that churches should be free to use whatever platform or platforms that are most useful to engage with the audience that they are serving So I have no issues, you know personally I have no issues of Whatever platform people are comfortable basically your target audience is on that platform So use it to communicate and these days people are on multiple platforms. So use that Now Personally at a personal level I have stayed away from Personal activity on social media just from the point of view of time So I have an Instagram account. I follow only Four people that is the church my wife son and daughter, that's it. So it's just a private account I just use it to just see what they you know, just being touched and see what they post and kind of things like that, but I Don't have a Facebook account I don't keep do my use my Instagram. I don't use Twitter. I mean I stay away from it simply because I don't have the time for it but whereas, you know, obviously there are there are individuals and people use it very well and Of course they have great influence using these platforms, which is good I'm not against it. This is for me personally. I don't have time To do that but instead what we've done is we let the church media team handle it So, you know our Facebook church Facebook account Twitter Instagram We let the church media team handle it and actually a lot of it is automated. So we've got background scripts running that automatically post You know, for example every day there is this daily devotional The daily devotional video the background we have background scripts that run that automatically post on Facebook And I think Twitter also so some of it is automated some of it is manual so Those things happen now, you know How much of an engagement people have again people have various engagements and so on so we Are not pushing so much on the social media. We have the church I mean has Instagram Facebook and Twitter Accounts like I said, some of the posts are automated through background scripts that run every day And some of it is manual like, you know, we have a particular event or whatever the those things are done So my answer is yeah use, you know perfectly fine to use whatever is useful relevant to your audience and use it as As well as you know as well as you can engage with people. Yeah I hope that helps pressure from Actually your question, please Please what do you what can we say about ministers who Allow social media account managers to manage their individual private account for them To engage the public community and your congregation Some some are found it a way to employ account managers. So Looking at the schedule of the minister himself, he may not have the time to Go on to those accounts and to engage his audience So the employee somebody who does that's on their on their behalf What do you think about that also? Mm-hmm. Yeah Yeah, unless again, I'm just sharing my personal thought I I don't find any problem with that I think it's perfectly fine because you know, we have been doing it say in Non-digital forms of communication. So in the past if you look at you know Promotion for a conference promotion for an event lots of other areas The In the Christian leader or the Christian organization would engage People who understand event management to do that for them, you know, they won't do it necessarily themselves They have somebody do they had somebody doing it. So we do it in the context of other events So when it comes to digital media social media, especially sometimes It could be that the lack of skill that is you know, how do you how do you keep? Current with you know, all the things that you need to do good work on social media So lack of skill or lack of time, you know, okay, I don't have the time You may have the knowledge and skill, but don't have the time So then what do you do the other good thing to do is to engage somebody who has the knowledge the skill and the and and then they're dedicated to doing this and And in many cases, you know, it does, you know, given where we are today in the world People who enjoy scrolling and reading these kinds of things and you know seeing the pictures and they feel connected to that ministry or to that preacher or minister And so that's a good thing, you know, so So personally I feel it's perfectly fine as long as the people doing it, you know, the brand managers they Do an honest job, you know, they shouldn't See the tendency is always to exaggerate the tendency is to make the online person bigger than the real-life person, you know, so So brand managers and marketing managers can go off on a tangent and then they make this online person looks so great. So, you know, amazing Which is very different from the real person, you know, so as long as we tell people, hey, keep things real, keep things plain and simple And, you know, if you do that, then I think it's fine because it's just a practical thing to do And there are people who have the skills and knowledge to do that Those are my thoughts. Yeah. Thank you, Pasta. Thank you Thank you, Kennedy. How do you archive your communication at EPC? Any advice, please? Now Are we use some example So example So a lot of our communication happens through email and through WhatsApp In times past we used SMS, but now because of government restrictions in within India, we can't use SMS very much So we've, you know, we've had to move to EPC. I mean, we've been using email and WhatsApp Now for email, we use a mail list, so mail list server It's called it's an open source product. We use PHP list So all every email we send mass email is already is archived right there So it stays there. We can go back and look at all our, you know, whatever we've communicated about email Same thing with WhatsApp. We use an online Web-based service called Vati. It's a very well-known Service Vati.io and again, everything's archived there. It's on the cloud. It's archived So all our emails and WhatsApp messages that we broadcast are archived in these cloud in the cloud Using these systems. The PHP list is something we ourselves manage We run it on Amazon service on Amazon cloud The Vati is a paid subscription and that's a hosted service for us So we do that All our other online Example, for example, all that we have on YouTube is duplicated in All our videos are also not getting are also duplicated on Vimeo So all the videos that we put out Are available are replicated in the background automatically on Vimeo. So they're also stored there and put these Service And Some other things we ourselves archive That's so all videos are on two platforms YouTube and Vimeo They get into more of these things in the other course. Is that okay? Yeah, okay Good. Any other questions before we get into talking about Avni, you have a question. Please go ahead So first of all, while managing a team, you're dealing with some kind of lack of discipline and commitment from the people So you want to communicate it being soft, you know, and being stern Both together. How do you communicate in such a way that you see the change coming or change happening because You know People if they're not responding to your message, they are not willing to give time. They are not understanding the value of punctuality And taking taking the responsibility They as a volunteer, they want to serve but they don't want to take responsibility They just want to do it in their own terms perfectly. So how do to deal with such a situation Hmm Right So every shepherd Has a rod Right. So Like Paul writes to the Corinthians first Corinthians chapter four. He says do you want to come do you want me to come In gentleness Or do you want me to come with a rod and do the exact was I think it's was 21 first Corinthians chapter four And Yeah, what's 21, you know first goodness for chapter four was 21. So he asks the Corinthians. What do you want? Shall I come to you with a rod Or in love and a spirit of gentleness interesting question So Paul is asking them You know, how do you want me to deal with you? Do you want me to be in a loving and gentle Or do you want me to deal with you with the rod which is basically being strict and stern and so on right so Every shepherd Or every leader Of course Should be loving and gentle But the leader also should know when to use the rod which is discipline which is being strict and you know bringing Taking action that that brings correction So So especially dealing with volunteers or dealing with teams or staff or volunteers, you know We're dealing with them with love and gentleness But then Whenever necessary you have to use the rod that is You have to be you have to take disciplinary action. That's what the rod symbolizes So that means Example example If you if you have you know, you're dealing you're leading a team you're telling people hey, we need you to be punctual It's fair to follow the three strike rule, you know, we talked about it. I think in staff man that means Two times I Will tell you lovingly hey, you know You're supposed to be here at example nine o'clock or whatever the time is but you came at 9 15 Or whatever or you didn't come Once feedback loving and gentle Second time loving and gentle feedback Third time say hey, you know, this is happening So we would like to request you to please take a break People give this response responsibility to somebody else and If you want to be involved Please demonstrate, you know, please show us that you can come on time for the next Whatever, you know one month or period you're giving them an opportunity to come back But it has to be after they meet the criteria, right? So what happens is when you do take that disciplinary action Then everybody in the team sees that hey, there is a standard that's being maintained It applies to everybody know there are no exceptions The leader also follows the same standard Everybody but then we have to use the rod Meaning take disciplinary action And then the team sees that We are serious about our work of a ministry There is loving there's loving gentleness But there is also discipline when whenever, you know, somebody doesn't follow the The required standards and so on So that will set an example that everybody understands and then everybody begins to follow But if you don't do the discipline then everybody thinks there's only love and gentleness and there is no rod But that's not biblical, you know, every shepherd has a rod every leader has Been given the authority to bring discipline It's okay All right, good questions I see another question from Roshan In regards to social media communication What is not to exaggerate the online person with the real one? What is it not? So okay, so Roshan is asking the question What does it not exaggerate the online person with the real one? Okay Okay, so I think I understand what you're saying That means we need you see the default tendency in whatever people post online is You're creating an image online And people are relating to the image that you created online the persona Or the person they think you're online As opposed to who this person really is Now on the one hand there is a lot of limitation with online posts You can only post a video or you can only post a picture which is all these are small timeframes of your life You know, maybe a still shot or a 10 second video or whatever They are not So people are just seeing that they're not seeing your whole who you are right So what happens through many small still shots as pictures or many short videos In their minds they are forming a picture of forming an understanding of who this person is And that's the brand image that is the persona that is being communicated through social media online platform Now that is an obvious limitation of social media, right?  They're just seeing bits and pieces of who you are or what you do So now we want to keep that as as real as possible It's very difficult because the tendency is always to project the good side of the person Right, so let's talk about Christian ministry So when a person does a video of let's say, you know Example I'll tell you one example So suppose a preacher went to a particular place and he had a one day meeting Okay, so he had a one day meeting in that place Now the brand manager whoever's handling his online presence creates a two minute video To highlight what happened that day and I've seen and I think all of us have seen these kinds of things So the video, you know makes it look so great. Wow They're showing the whole city coming or the person coming into the city and then they show just snapshots of, you know Him laying hands on the people people are falling on the floor This that you know, so in the two minutes it looks like wow Something great, you know, and and they could you know, they could show pictures of the city this that and they could say the city was changed forever You know many many lives were touched and whatever they could say all these things in that two minute video And so what is the impression that's given the impressions given is oh, this was a powerful meeting that shook the whole city whatever The reality could be very different Right the reality could be he came to a place where there were maybe 50 people sitting in the order in the hall and You know he preached and yeah, they lay hands on a couple of people people may have fallen to the floor But that's what's presented in the video. They're not showing You know you can angle the camera in such a way that you're looking at a section of the crowd It's not showing that they were actually only 50 people in the hall The cameras angle as though it's you know, it's part of a very big crowd whatever And and so on So so what is the impression left with the viewer the viewer thinks whoa the massive meeting happened whatever But it could have been very simple, you know So instead what I like to do is I like to say state the facts Hey, we went to so-and-so city. We had we did four sessions. We taught on these are the four topics we taught on We had an average of 50 people attend. We also prayed and minister to people There were there was one person who was saved there were there were three people who received healing One of the healing was from this condition and there were five people were filled with the Holy Spirit That's that's an accurate report as opposed to that two-minute video That gave an exaggerated picture of what happened that day So what's happening the online has to be as close to the real as possible and there's just one scenario that I've shared So how do you create that two-minute video and what you put in that two-minute video can leave an impression on the viewer Which may be true or may not be true Right The correct way to state that give the report on that days ministry is hey We held a meeting in this place. There were 50 people there. This is what we thought this is what actually happened as opposed to If you create a video with you know wonderful music and showing all these graphics and pictures and they can leave a great wrong impression of what happened Then the online person is very different from the real what happened just example like there's so many things are so many other things you know Can be presented online which are very different Is that okay? All right Go ahead, Elisa or yeah I think what you have just said is very very true that It's it is observed largely across many Christian ministries The online communication we keep Yeah, yeah, it's true With the public It's an area We all must pay attention to Yeah, Elisa Yeah, your voice was breaking a little bit, but I think We got what you were saying That we we need to you know keep things honest. Yeah Christopher you have a question, please Oh, yes. No, so I guess to extend You know in the communication that happens in social media I mean it could be you know informative And it could Provide A view of You know What you know what a church could stand for It could they could also it could I guess extend to also towards You know providing Opinions providing No More I guess Clear sort of message about you know Some things that have maybe happening in the world Some you know events that are taking place And again You know not sure how much of it that is actually done by Please but I mean it could it could also be you know It could be you know In the in the realm of Of morals of Of certain Events that are taking place which are not You know not Right in Right in you know from your Of the Christian faith So I just wanted to understand You know How does your view on Perhaps how you know if this is happening already What do you think You know Where are some of the limits where some of the boundaries possibly that The churches can Keep Providing a more active Presence In providing opinions and also being able to Provide A more realistic view of you know What is right or what is wrong This is a very very big question Let me try to be Concise to the point So First Timothy chapter 3 verse 16 The Bible tells us that the church Is the pillar and upholder of truth So the church is called to uphold Truth In the world in society That's part of our calling Part of our responsibility But We have to be very careful How we go about doing that It will be very careful So The Bible also tells us Ephesians 4 I think verse 15 It tells us to speak the truth In love So we must speak the truth But do it in love So we're not doing it to hurt people Push people away or to say that You know we are better than you No We are upholders of truth We got to speak the truth In love In a way that draws people to the truth Not push them away from the truth That's one thing Secondly We must clearly understand the difference between Spiritual action Social action And political action Right We shouldn't try to do through politics What God called us to do through the spirit And we shouldn't try to do through social action What God called us to do through the spirit So what has happened in the western church Is that God all mixed up And this is my opinion You can agree with me or disagree with me It's fine But I feel And I've been observing what's going on In the western church It's all mixed up The church is called to uphold truth But there's a proper way to do it So in terms of acting politically I think the way to do it Is that we need godly people Who will take their places And do a good job in government You see But not by Letting politics use the church That is very wrong Or not letting politicians use the church The church Is not a tool in the hands of politicians The church is a tool So vehicle, an instrument of God So that's where things have gone wrong In the western church The church has become a tool in the hands of politicians That's the wrong approach What should we do The church must take its place in the government And they must do a good job Of serving people That's the way we be salt and light in the world And the church must express truth But express it in love How you teach the people the truth So that communication of course Could happen through the preaching The teaching the word on Sundays Through the written page But always do it in love Not in a way that hurts people Or drives people away But draws them to Christ Social action Must be taken with the same thing So we engage with society In a meaningful way To draw people to Christ Not to drive them away from Christ So again here Social action Has been misused And the church has gone wrong So we can get into the details of it But at a high level My response to your question is Yes The church is called to speak the truth You're supposed to do it in love And how do we do it? Jesus said Let your light so shine before men That they may see your good works And glorify your fathers in heaven They must see your good works Not they must see your violence Or not they see your good works They must see your violence Or not they see your hate Not that they see your You know Forcing your views on our people No They see your good works And glorify your father Who is in heaven So our communication and what we do Should be towards that I hope I address your question Because it's a very big question Okay Anything else? Good questions Okay Let's move forward We're going to change subjects now We may not be able to finish this But we will get started The next lesson is about culture Which is A very Important part Of a Christian church Or A Christian ministry Okay And we will introduce this topic And let's think through on this together Is this So let me say culture What do we mean by culture?  We are saying that This group of people They share certain values Or they have certain values And practices and standards And traditions which they hold In common Of course We will talk about culture In terms of language they speak The food they eat Certain things they do But we are talking now In terms of an organization Or a community of people And we are looking at it From a spiritual perspective So we are saying that Among these people Within this organization These are the things That the people value This is the way they go about Their day to day life Things they practice These are the standards And these are the traditions That means these are the things They just keep doing it Over and over and over again Traditions Okay So that's what we are talking about When we talk about culture In the context of an organization Your local church organization Or the congregation It's these jointly held beliefs It's these values, practices, rituals It's the way of behaving and thinking And it's the way things are done And this is how we do it here So this form is the culture Of the organization And of course in a very large organization Whenever you have hundreds and thousands Of people there could be subcultures That means there is this overarching culture This is how the whole organization Works together But within departments Or within areas of ministries There could be subcultures Which are aligned of course To the overall culture But they have their own expression Or how they do it could vary A little bit and that's fine Now Culture is also dynamic Which could change over time So it adapts itself over time And sometimes it could be due to external Or internal changes that take place The culture of the community The culture of the organization Can keep changing Depending on how it is formed And shaped over time So what we are interested in Is that in the workplace culture So as an organization People are coming to work In the church In the Christian organization So in that workplace there's got to be A certain culture And also in the congregation To shape the culture You know So we are talking both in the context Of the organization The church, the place where people come to work And also in the congregation So for example if you look at APC You know we have about 30 people Staff who work together here locally We have lots of consultants Who are working remotely But at least in the group of people Are coming together and working There's a certain culture That relates or directs influences How we work with each other And then there is the congregation The people come and worship together And a growing journey together spiritually Amongst us There is a certain culture So we want to talk about this And talk about how to shape this And how to protect The kind of culture that we want to maintain Now Why is this important The culture affects You know we talk about workplace culture It affects overall Employee experience So the church staff When they come to work They should enjoy their work They should have a good experience Day after day When they come together and work And this will of course Determine productivity Are people being productive in their work So on How the congregation is served And It also protects the organization From negative influences So you know if a bad Toxic culture comes in People can get hurt And so on So you can think of The culture, organization culture As the organization's immune system You know Just figuratively speaking It's like As the culture is strengthened And a good culture is developed It's like a good immune system It can keep the bad things The infections Bad things out Or if infections do try to come It can overpower it And get it out So culture is very important You can picture it as the immune system Of the organization So let's think now about What shapes the culture Of the organization We're going to develop this little by little But how is the culture Of the organization shaped This takes place over time But very important To the culture of the organization Is the leadership The leadership has to model The behavior That You want the Model the behavior Which you want to be formed In the culture Of the organization Because people just follow the leaders People follow the leaders They, you know They imitate the leadership So the leadership behavior Must be consistent With the cultural values Of the organization So if the leadership models Servanthood And everybody else on Below the leadership Will choose servanthood As part of their culture Let's serve It's not about status It's not about position No, let's just serve Whatever I need to do to serve I will do So if the leadership models humility People will imbibe humility And will follow that Humility will be part of the culture If the leadership Demonstrates openness, honesty People will say This is the norm Be open, be honest That's the culture we have Now I don't want to put everything on the leadership But this is where it all starts So leadership at all levels Starting from The leader of a department The leader of a ministry area All the way to In the church setting the senior pastor Starting from the senior pastor on Down What the leadership models That's what's going to happen In the organization Or if you want to put it like this You reproduce after your own kind You know That's a law That's what God set in motion In Genesis You reproduce after your own kind So what's in you Will get reproduced In the people who are following you So leadership is very important In Shaping Forming the culture And it's In really expressing What are the values What are the practices What is the behavior Be one people to have Within the organization Now this is a big area This is a big area Because what we have seen And I don't want to sound pessimistic here but In churches If the leader behaves like a celebrity A superstar What happens We have a celebrity culture Within the organization What do you think a celebrity culture looks like Well You know You have to hold This leader and You know like He's a superstar He's way up high on the platform You can never question him You know Everything is there because of him You know in him through him And by him This whole church exists You know all those kinds of things And we have to protect him You know even if he does anything wrong Don't show that to the world Because If he is hurt The whole organization will be hurt He or she The whole organization will be hurt So we have to protect this Leader and the superstar Now the problem is The whole organization Then begins to have a celebrity culture The leader Does whatever he or she wants Says it doesn't The organization is there just to protect the leader Then it trickles down Everyone in the next level From those who are under them They also behave Like celebrities in their own little spheres Of influence And they expect the same kind of treatment That their leader is getting So they act like mini celebrities And so on and goes on now And that's a very very toxic culture It's a very dangerous culture Sadly that's Happening In the Christian church And what we are seeing Or have already seen is In those kinds of organizations There's a lot of mortal failure Mismanagement of funds The leader is not accountable to anybody The leader can say anything He or she wants and gets away with it Ultimately Things collapse Why? There was a celebrity culture And that's not the kind of culture That should be in the church And Jesus made it very clear in Matthew 20 He said The disciples were saying Who's going to sit on your right hand On your left And then Jesus says Look at the world Look at the Gentiles Look at their leaders Their leaders lord it over them But it will not be so among you In other words he's saying Don't follow that pattern Of leadership That you're seeing in the world Which is a celebrity, superstar Dictatorial type In among you In the church Among God's people It's reversed Whoever will be great This is Matthew 20 Whoever will be great among you Let them be your servant Whoever will be first among you Let them be the least So And It's so clear in Matthew 20 That you even wonder why Our Christian leaders have overlooked that Why we as pastors may overlook that Because he's told us very clearly Don't pattern yourself After what you see in the world It's going to be different here And here it's being a servant Here it's putting yourself in the least position And that's the way you lead In The church But The point I want to present here First thing, what shapes the culture Look at the leader Things flow from the leadership Let's pause here And we have a few minutes I want to just give some time To take questions Okay This is a very good question How do you balance Honoring the leader And making him a celebrity Very good question Because it's very difficult To draw the distinction in our minds The Bible teaches us To honor our leaders To honor those in authority To honor those who serve In the Word of God You read about this in Galatians chapter 6 First Timothy chapter 5 First Thessalonians chapter 5 It says, you know, those who minister Labor in the Word and doctrine Be worthy of double honor So the Bible is telling us, you know Those who are preaching, teaching, Ministering the Word Give them double honor, you know So The Bible is teaching us Honor your spiritual leaders Which is very important We cannot let them take the place Of the Lord Jesus in our lives If we need to make it very easy So I think That whole Thing starts with the leader himself The leader Is responsible For how The people Treat him So the leader should communicate To the people Yes, you know, there is honor And respect But don't make me a celebrity Because in the minds of people It's very hard for them to draw the distinction That, yes, I honor my leader But where do I stop? Right? It's difficult for them So therefore I feel that this should come from the leader The leader should tell the people This is where you place me And do not place me like this So There are some intentional things That we can do And I'm not saying I'm just going to share something that I do But I'm not saying You should do this These are things that I just practice I'm not saying everybody should do this I'm saying But the reason I do these things Is because While I understand the importance Of people honoring me I also understand That they should not treat me Like a celebrity In art services We don't have any special place On the platform For any leader to sit So no leader sits on the stage Everybody is on the floor And we did this from the very beginning Why? Because we're all here to worship God It's a very simple thing Basically saying We're all on level ground We're here to worship God Second I don't need an assistant To carry my Bible or my briefcase No I will do it myself Third When I travel I go someplace People will want to Do all these special things I will carry my own baggage I will carry my own luggage I won't let you do it for me Why? I'm just telling them I'm as human as you are As long as God has given me Two hands and two feet I will walk I will carry my own luggage I don't need to be treated In any special way If I need to take the broom And sweep the floor I will do it And I've done it In fact Last Sunday Everybody was doing things I just went I picked the broom People said For me It was demonstrating that look I'm your senior pastor But I can take the broom And sweep the floor It's not a problem for me And I did it last Sunday So What am I communicating? I'm telling Yes, I'm your leader But you don't have to treat me like a celebrity So that I think is the most important thing Then people will honour the leader Without making him into a celebrity Elash, you have a question Thank you pastor I'm not necessarily a question But Something to add up to what you just shared I believe that In our days Christian leaders have Created for themselves More Celebrities More than servants Leaders Because if you look around What is going on In the Christian ministry For example The scenario you gave About the 16 arrangements Okay, sometimes You'll see that The congregation Are sitting on different chairs And the senior pastor Will only be provided A different kind of chair To sit on In the church It kind of Gives a celebrity A celebrity status end It causes the junior pastors To be envoys They keep on slandering one another Because each of them want to Get to that standard Where he will be celebrated So I believe that Christian leaders need to do a lot of work on ourselves For the congregation If you allow them They will celebrate you But they almost lies on you The leader to cut That status from yourself And remain Equal with them A co-servant Of the Lord Thank you very much For your inspiration You've shared with us Thank you So I feel There are a lot of things And I agree with you A lot of things that we as leaders Can correct To keep people From making us celebrities And just honouring us as servants of God Yeah, we need to honour servants of God We need to honour each other But they shouldn't make us celebrities Last question here Kennedy says Then what is the value of a helper In your case So I don't have a personal assistant Or a helper Because for now I'm able to do things And of course we do We do have a lot of church staff People But then They answer this short answer To your question What Kennedy would be Those around us Are helping us Should do things that we are not able to do for ourselves I'm able to carry my own Bible And do things that we are not able to do for ourselves What I cannot do What we need help with Beyond our own abilities That's where people step in Help, do those things But If I have one person carrying my mobile phone One person carrying my Bible One person carrying my water bottle And they walk around me like bodyguards To escort me to the stage That's like over the top The president of a nation Of who he is And importance And for his protection But hey, for a pastor To carry your own Bible Carry your phone and carry your water bottle And go up the stage Those things The pastor can do himself or herself If you don't need Helpers need to do other things That they can't do for themselves That's my thought Anyway I think the bottom line is In order to prevent celebrity culture As leaders We need to let people know that Don't treat us like celebrities Just treat me like a normal human being And of course God has given me a responsibility To be a leader and to serve And that's it Honor that Honor the anointing Honor the call of God Honor the norms We are just plain simple human beings That's it So let's wrap up We will continue this next week As we talk about culture Next Thursday, Friday Just a minute I am going to be in Delhi Let me just look at this very quickly I've got to do this before the class. Yeah, I will. That's fine. So next Thursday Friday, we will do our lectures. Then I after that I travel. It's okay. Good. Let's close in practice. Somebody please pray with us and dismiss us. Please. Thank you for your source of all wisdom and knowledge father. And as we read your word and surrender ourselves, father lead us into an obedient life to your word father. And we thank you for pastor who's taking time to teach us such beautiful things about father. And as we learn them, help us to serve you more faithfully and more joyful in days to come of our father. In all things, we give you glory, honor and praise for who you are and how you're leading us. We thank your holy name. In Jesus's name we ask and pray. Amen. Amen. Thank you everyone. Have a great day and have a wonderful wedding. Say God bless you all. Thank you. Thank you pastor. Thank you.