One keeps going back and back to the fundamentals, checking on how things fits, seeing if what new one has learned fits into the world view, and to refresh oneself on what that world view is. So, here we go again.
1. Why is there something rather than nothing? This is the question behind all questions. To me it has to do with the concept of a God. Creation (one universe or multiverse) is here for a reason (something I don’t expect to know, at least given my current state of knowledge).
Creation did not just happen. So, in my view, the reason there is a universe is because there is a God. I argue that God cannot be proven…that there is no “proof” of God. God is an assumption. So this is very personal. But, the assumption has to work. It has to help make things go together, be logically consistent with the whole model, and must not be a superfluous to the model, just a gratuitous appendage.
To me, the Hebrew/Christian captures this in the first sentence of scripture: “In the beginning, God…” This, of course, is from Genesis 1:1. And, it says it all…God exists…God was there before the beginning…and that is all!
The existence of God is assumed! The existence of God does not need to be proven. God’s existence is something we believe…something we trust in. Nothing more needs to be said and we move along.
2. Why is creation ordered? Not only through our own actions but the advancement of science has shown that creation is sufficiently ordered so that we can learn about creation and make better decisions and solve more and more difficult problems. The world is ordered so that we may live and learn within this world and grow and mature though our own actions. That is, because the world is sufficiently ordered and we can learn about it, we are thereby responsible for the development of our problem-solving and decision-making skills.
Where do we learn that creation is ordered? We learn that the world is ordered from Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 1:31. The story presented here is about God creating the world in six days.
This, to me, is not to be taken literally. This is an allegory, a story that carries with it the message that creation did not just come about in a hap-hazard manner, that there was order to creation both in the act of that creation and in its subsequent development. Order was a part of creation.
Thus, God wanted (for whatever reason) creation to exist and God wanted that creation ordered. The assumption is that God got what was wanted because of the proclamation that “God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.” (Genesis 1: 31)
3. All humans are made for community. The basic statement here is “It is not good that the man should be alone.” This is in Genesis 2:18. The story is told in terms of the creation of Eve, but like many of the stories in the scriptures, the meaning is much broader. First, in order to have community, one must have women as well as men so that children are possible. Man needs “helpers” and “partners” (Genesis 2: 20) and so children are desirable and families and neighbors and others are needed. Humans need community.
“When God created humankind, he made them in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them “Humankind” when they were created.” (Genesis 5: 1-2) And, humankind made communities and cities and nations.
4. Humans are not capable of achieving “complete information.” If humans were to know everything, have “complete information” then life would be terribly boring. If you know everything then all decisions are obvious and there is no choice. Humans are also not assigned any responsibility in such a situation for their decision making because there would be no need for decision making…everything would be obvious with only one choice. Who would want to know these beings…how dull…for everything would be decided ahead time…there would be no uncertainty of outcome.
Yet, humans crave from “complete information”, for certainty. And, this craving is the source of many of the problems humans create for themselves. We see this in the story of Adam and Eve and the serpent and the apple. The sneaky serpent claims that if you eat the apple “your eye will be open and you will be like God, knowing good and evil,” in essence, knowing everything. (Genesis 3:1-7) The serpent is that little voice in the back of the minds of humans, the inner drive to attain “complete information” because then they would be in charge, they would control everything, and they would “be like God.” At least, they want to know enough so that they can control others.
But, this desire, this craving to gain “complete information” is a primary source of the unhappiness of humans. It creates “enmity” and “contention” between individuals. This consequence is laid out in the banishment from Eden found in Genesis 3:8-19).
These four fundamental issues relating to the world and how it is created, I contend, are dealt with in the very first part of the scriptures. Let me just add two more “fundamental” issues to the group.
5. In both the Hebrew scriptures and in the Christian scriptures we are told that we should love God and that we should love our neighbors as ourselves. To me, these commandments should accompany point number four above. My reasoning is this: to love God or to love ourselves or to love our neighbors or, by extension, to love creation requires that we know enough about the one we are to love that we can “be where they are and not where we are” when we engage with them. That is we can be more unified with them, more in tune with them, more sympathetic with them, more aligned with them. Rather than being “alchemists” who try and change one substance into another we are “scientists” who learn how things work and then try to work “with” the way things are and not against them or a-cross them. In this we are curious…and not dogmatic.
We assume that God loves his creation and all of the creatures in this creation…and he has said that they are “good.” Thus, like God we should love this creation and all of the creatures in this creation. Therefore, we should study creation, we should learn all we can about creation, and we should be open and keep learning, for the more we know the greater unity we can be in them.
We will never achieve “complete information” yet we are still responsible for constantly seeking more and more information so that we can make better decisions and solve more and more difficult problems. Like God, we are made to love.
6. Community is based upon co-operation and self-discipline. The first has to do with “infinite life”. In game theory we learn that in the case of infinitely repeated, simultaneous games, the best solution is to co-operate with others and not default to selfish, self-serving actions. If we have a time horizon that is shorter than this, we have a greater tendency to opt-out of co-operative solutions, thereby harming the community as a whole. Belief in an “infinite life” therefore encourages behavior that is beneficial to the health and growth of the community.
Teachings about “life-after-death” are helpful in the “here-and-now” as they contribute to strong relationships and interactions within the present body of believers.
Another factor that plays into the health of the community is what is commonly called “conscience.” I Stanley Kauffmann, who writes the column on film for the New Republic magazine, one time wrote a definition of “conscience” in his column. He wrote that conscience is the belief that someone, somewhere is watching you.” That someone, of course, could be God. If, in game theory, you believe that the game is going to be over in the near term because someone is going to “catch-you-out”, you will not default from accepted behavior. Thus, in creating guilt through building up the feeling of the “conscience” is a very effective way of getting people within a community to co-operate and act in a way that is not detrimental to the community.
Both of these factors play a very prominent role in the Christian New Testament.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Barth on Dogmatics--Commentary 4
“Where the gospel is proclaimed, there too of necessity the fact will be proclaimed along with it that there are men who have heard and accepted the gospel.”
“But the fact that we believe can only be a secondary matter, becoming small and unimportant in face of the outstanding and real thing involved in the Christian proclamation—and what the Christian believes…”
“It is noteworthy that, apart from this first expression ‘I believe’, the Confession is silent upon the subjective fact of faith.”
“By the silence of the Confession on the subjective side, by its speaking only of the objective Creed, it also speaks at its best, deepest and completest about what happens to us men, about what we may be, do, and experience.”
The modern world, at least in the western part, emphasizes the subjective. What is “my” model of the world?
Richard Rorty, the philosopher, advises us that if we do not like the predictions that come from a certain model…well, just change the assumptions…until you get a model which produces predictions that you are more comfortable with.
Models or worldviews or stories or schema or anything we use to predict with are abstractions from the world. These “tools” are not the world, itself. Hence, as Barth has stated earlier, they are incomplete and, hence, fallible.
In this sense, all models fall short and we should constantly be on the look-out to modify our models when we do find that they fall short or develop new models as we discover new questions or new problems that must be answered. And, we modify our models or create new models by changing our assumptions.
But, this does not mean that we just willy-nilly change assumptions to meet our own liking.
Our models are not absolutely adequate. The theologian David Tracy argues that our models can only be “relatively adequate.” That is, models can only be supported based upon the fact that it is relatively better than other models.
What makes them better than other models? Tracy states that for a model to be relatively adequate it must be logically consistent for we do not want to get contradictory predictions from our models. And, the model must predict at least as well in a given situation as any other logically consistent model.
This second point is so important. The model must “work”…it must “work” at least as well as other models. It seems to me that Rorty does consider this as a way to judge whether or not a model is successful. All, he seems to consider about a model is its “subjective side”…do we feel comfortable with the predictions that the model makes.
Barth does not see things this way. We must, in choosing a model, be concerned about how successful the model has been. Barth is arguing that individuals need to pay attention to the “objective side” of a model…whether or not the model has been chosen by many people because of its ability to produce predictions that result in good choices, help in making good decisions, and help in solving more and more difficult problems. And, this objective side, the “objective Creed”, speaks “at its best, deepest and completest about what happens to us men, about what we may be, do, and experience.”
That is, the Creed, the Christian model or worldview, works!
The modern approach to this where the emphasis is placed upon the subjective is examined in the latest novel of Jonathan Franken, titled “Freedom”. He follows the breakup of a family that was a part of the “me” generation and pursued their own thoughts and desires. Relationships collapse in this kind of an environment. Only at the end is an effort to rebuild bridges, to re-establish connections, and to live within community. Relying just on subjective models and subjective decision making produces fragmentation.
Another stab at describing this is by John Updike in his novel “In the Beauty of the Lilies.” This story begins with a description of how a Presbyterian minister loses his faith. His Christian model of the world is questioned within the modern community and this questioning raises issues that the minister cannot really answer satisfactorily for himself. The next generation lives a “good” life based on the foundation of the Christian model, but without the “Christian” faith and theology. This is not an uncommon phenomenon and John Stuart Mill speaks about how societies can live off the consequences of the models of an earlier generation without subscribing to the foundational assumptions of that model.
It is the third generation that becomes lost in Updike’s novel. This generation does not have the “why” and so the external values accepted by the second generation do not resonate. Without the “why” the model, the worldview, seems empty. So, this generation begins to search, to try other models, to find something that brings things together. They are looking for a “transcendence” that is absent in the second generation. And, without a foundation, this generation ends up tragically…at least in this work.
Barth emphasizes the objective side of the Creed. The “model”, the worldview, is not mine alone, it is also the “model” of many others.
The emphasis is upon the “in”. I believe “in”… The Creed explains this “in”, this object of faith, by which our subjective faith lives.
If one attempts to preserve just the subjective element of faith, that person will lose it. That is, they shall lose the “human form of existence.” They become a part of “what is” and hence get wrapped up in the “how” when they are really seeking the “why.” Without the “why” all, eventually, becomes empty as in the Updike story.
Still, a word of caution. One totally submit oneself to the “objective.” Emerson’s concern still applies in that the individual must achieve a certain “self-reliance” and not completely lose themselves in the thoughts of others. Remember, all models, worldviews, stories, etc., are incomplete and fallible.
Thus, a balance must be achieved within each individual between the objective and the subjective. Where this balance is struck for each individual is, of course, dependent upon the individual themselves. The best advice on this point, I believe, comes from David Tracy. Tracy writes that a person should “start where they are” but be open. Start with the objective models, the objective Creed, but listen and respond, to build a worldview that not only works for you, but, as Stanley Hauerwas writes, works “with the grain of the universe.”
“But the fact that we believe can only be a secondary matter, becoming small and unimportant in face of the outstanding and real thing involved in the Christian proclamation—and what the Christian believes…”
“It is noteworthy that, apart from this first expression ‘I believe’, the Confession is silent upon the subjective fact of faith.”
“By the silence of the Confession on the subjective side, by its speaking only of the objective Creed, it also speaks at its best, deepest and completest about what happens to us men, about what we may be, do, and experience.”
The modern world, at least in the western part, emphasizes the subjective. What is “my” model of the world?
Richard Rorty, the philosopher, advises us that if we do not like the predictions that come from a certain model…well, just change the assumptions…until you get a model which produces predictions that you are more comfortable with.
Models or worldviews or stories or schema or anything we use to predict with are abstractions from the world. These “tools” are not the world, itself. Hence, as Barth has stated earlier, they are incomplete and, hence, fallible.
In this sense, all models fall short and we should constantly be on the look-out to modify our models when we do find that they fall short or develop new models as we discover new questions or new problems that must be answered. And, we modify our models or create new models by changing our assumptions.
But, this does not mean that we just willy-nilly change assumptions to meet our own liking.
Our models are not absolutely adequate. The theologian David Tracy argues that our models can only be “relatively adequate.” That is, models can only be supported based upon the fact that it is relatively better than other models.
What makes them better than other models? Tracy states that for a model to be relatively adequate it must be logically consistent for we do not want to get contradictory predictions from our models. And, the model must predict at least as well in a given situation as any other logically consistent model.
This second point is so important. The model must “work”…it must “work” at least as well as other models. It seems to me that Rorty does consider this as a way to judge whether or not a model is successful. All, he seems to consider about a model is its “subjective side”…do we feel comfortable with the predictions that the model makes.
Barth does not see things this way. We must, in choosing a model, be concerned about how successful the model has been. Barth is arguing that individuals need to pay attention to the “objective side” of a model…whether or not the model has been chosen by many people because of its ability to produce predictions that result in good choices, help in making good decisions, and help in solving more and more difficult problems. And, this objective side, the “objective Creed”, speaks “at its best, deepest and completest about what happens to us men, about what we may be, do, and experience.”
That is, the Creed, the Christian model or worldview, works!
The modern approach to this where the emphasis is placed upon the subjective is examined in the latest novel of Jonathan Franken, titled “Freedom”. He follows the breakup of a family that was a part of the “me” generation and pursued their own thoughts and desires. Relationships collapse in this kind of an environment. Only at the end is an effort to rebuild bridges, to re-establish connections, and to live within community. Relying just on subjective models and subjective decision making produces fragmentation.
Another stab at describing this is by John Updike in his novel “In the Beauty of the Lilies.” This story begins with a description of how a Presbyterian minister loses his faith. His Christian model of the world is questioned within the modern community and this questioning raises issues that the minister cannot really answer satisfactorily for himself. The next generation lives a “good” life based on the foundation of the Christian model, but without the “Christian” faith and theology. This is not an uncommon phenomenon and John Stuart Mill speaks about how societies can live off the consequences of the models of an earlier generation without subscribing to the foundational assumptions of that model.
It is the third generation that becomes lost in Updike’s novel. This generation does not have the “why” and so the external values accepted by the second generation do not resonate. Without the “why” the model, the worldview, seems empty. So, this generation begins to search, to try other models, to find something that brings things together. They are looking for a “transcendence” that is absent in the second generation. And, without a foundation, this generation ends up tragically…at least in this work.
Barth emphasizes the objective side of the Creed. The “model”, the worldview, is not mine alone, it is also the “model” of many others.
The emphasis is upon the “in”. I believe “in”… The Creed explains this “in”, this object of faith, by which our subjective faith lives.
If one attempts to preserve just the subjective element of faith, that person will lose it. That is, they shall lose the “human form of existence.” They become a part of “what is” and hence get wrapped up in the “how” when they are really seeking the “why.” Without the “why” all, eventually, becomes empty as in the Updike story.
Still, a word of caution. One totally submit oneself to the “objective.” Emerson’s concern still applies in that the individual must achieve a certain “self-reliance” and not completely lose themselves in the thoughts of others. Remember, all models, worldviews, stories, etc., are incomplete and fallible.
Thus, a balance must be achieved within each individual between the objective and the subjective. Where this balance is struck for each individual is, of course, dependent upon the individual themselves. The best advice on this point, I believe, comes from David Tracy. Tracy writes that a person should “start where they are” but be open. Start with the objective models, the objective Creed, but listen and respond, to build a worldview that not only works for you, but, as Stanley Hauerwas writes, works “with the grain of the universe.”
Friday, October 15, 2010
Barth on Dogmatics--Commentary 3
“There would be no dogmatics and there would perhaps be no theology at all, unless the Church’s task consisted centrally in the proclamation of the Gospel in witness to the Word spoken by God.”
“Exactly halfway between exegesis and practical theology stands dogmatics…”
“In dogmatics our question is: What are we to think and say (and do)?”
I add the “and do” to the last quotation because, historically, the Church has gotten so tied up in what it says without backing up what is said by actions. I believe that this is what Barth is after in his work: the answer the question “How is it we should live?”
The initial form of the question fits more into the historical discussion of theology and dogmatics, but I believe this is the reason why we have focused on developing programs within the Church and not with developing missional activity. I define missional activity as living in a way that reveals the “image of God.”
This to me is what “the proclamation of the Gospel in witness” is all about. It is about living…which includes both speaking and acting. And, I believe, that by acting in a way that is more consistent with our speaking is a more powerful message than just telling other people what our message is. I believe that this is what Barth is telling us.
From this, one can interpret the statement that dogmatics is “halfway” between exegesis and practical theology. Exegesis can be defined as “explanation and critical interpretation” of, in this case, “the Word spoken by God.”
Princeton Theological Seminary has a Department of Practical Theology. This is what the Seminary has to say about practical theology and the mission of this department: “The Seminary’s mission is to prepare women and men to serve Jesus Christ in ministries marked by faith, integrity, scholarship, competence, compassion, and joy, equipping them for leadership worldwide in congregations and the larger church, in classrooms and the academy, and in the public arena.” That is, practical theology has to do with “where the rubber hits the road.”
If dogmatics is “exactly halfway” between exegesis and practical theology then one can see dogmatics at taking the model of the Church and transforming it into practice.
I use the term “model” here because “model building” is exactly what people do when they construct a “worldview” and that is what people, pupils or teachers, do when they go about exegesis. These people attempt to “explain” and “critically interpret” the Word of God. That is, they are building a “model”.
This model can, and should, be used in problem solving and decision making. That is what humans do best. A model is something that helps us to solve more and more difficult problems and to make better decisions.
Dogmatics represents an attempt to take a model and turn it into the proclamation of God so that it is used in solving problems and making decisions. Exegesis can become sterile and “other-worldly”. It can become useless in the sense that it bears no relationship to the lives that people have to live.
Dogmatics, as Barth is defines it, seeks to keep the proclamation of God relevant to lives, to make it useful, to change lives.
The proclamation of God has to do with what we do. Therefore, it must be alive and vital and meaningful. If the proclamation of God becomes irrelevant to the needs of people to problem solve and make decisions in the world they live in, they will seek other “models”.
Barth writes, “Outwardly, dogmatics arises from the fact that the Church’s proclamation is in danger of going astray. Dogmatics is the testing of Church doctrine and proclamation.”
We must continually “test” the relationship between exegesis and practical theology.
“The correction, the deepening, the increasing precision of what is taught in our Church can only be God’s own work although not apart from man’s effort. “
Thus, the question must always be, “What is the evidence?”
“Not the evidence of my thoughts, or my heart, but the evidence of the apostles and prophets, as the evidence of God’s self-evidence.”
I like the phrase that Stanley Hauerwas used for the title of his Gifford lectures, “With the Grain of the Universe.” This, to me, gives us the ultimate test of the proclamation of the Gospel. God’s Word should bring us into greater unity with His creation. If our speech and our actions conform with God’s Word then we should be in unity with His creation and we should feel this because our actions are “with the grain of the universe.” We are moving “with” creation and are not acting “across the grain” of the universe.
If our actions are not with the grain of the universe…we become dis-satisfied, and anxious and, sometimes, alienated. Things just don’t feel right.
This is why our “practical theology” must be in line with our exegesis. This is why we must continually test the waters. And, in this sense, this is why “dogmatics” is pragmatic. It must work. It must bring into alignment with the grain of the universe.
Models are abstractions. Yes, we believe that we have received “the Word of God,” but explaining the Word of God and critically interpreting how it can be put into practice depends upon human beings. And, human beings never have the luxury to work with “complete information.” That is, humans never have the whole story.
Thus, our models, which are abstractions, are partial and therefore ultimately fallible. We must continually test our models and test the results of applying our models. This, I believe, is what Barth is teaching us. We must continually bridge the gap between exegesis and our actions. To Barth, dogmatics is the way that we do this.
“Exactly halfway between exegesis and practical theology stands dogmatics…”
“In dogmatics our question is: What are we to think and say (and do)?”
I add the “and do” to the last quotation because, historically, the Church has gotten so tied up in what it says without backing up what is said by actions. I believe that this is what Barth is after in his work: the answer the question “How is it we should live?”
The initial form of the question fits more into the historical discussion of theology and dogmatics, but I believe this is the reason why we have focused on developing programs within the Church and not with developing missional activity. I define missional activity as living in a way that reveals the “image of God.”
This to me is what “the proclamation of the Gospel in witness” is all about. It is about living…which includes both speaking and acting. And, I believe, that by acting in a way that is more consistent with our speaking is a more powerful message than just telling other people what our message is. I believe that this is what Barth is telling us.
From this, one can interpret the statement that dogmatics is “halfway” between exegesis and practical theology. Exegesis can be defined as “explanation and critical interpretation” of, in this case, “the Word spoken by God.”
Princeton Theological Seminary has a Department of Practical Theology. This is what the Seminary has to say about practical theology and the mission of this department: “The Seminary’s mission is to prepare women and men to serve Jesus Christ in ministries marked by faith, integrity, scholarship, competence, compassion, and joy, equipping them for leadership worldwide in congregations and the larger church, in classrooms and the academy, and in the public arena.” That is, practical theology has to do with “where the rubber hits the road.”
If dogmatics is “exactly halfway” between exegesis and practical theology then one can see dogmatics at taking the model of the Church and transforming it into practice.
I use the term “model” here because “model building” is exactly what people do when they construct a “worldview” and that is what people, pupils or teachers, do when they go about exegesis. These people attempt to “explain” and “critically interpret” the Word of God. That is, they are building a “model”.
This model can, and should, be used in problem solving and decision making. That is what humans do best. A model is something that helps us to solve more and more difficult problems and to make better decisions.
Dogmatics represents an attempt to take a model and turn it into the proclamation of God so that it is used in solving problems and making decisions. Exegesis can become sterile and “other-worldly”. It can become useless in the sense that it bears no relationship to the lives that people have to live.
Dogmatics, as Barth is defines it, seeks to keep the proclamation of God relevant to lives, to make it useful, to change lives.
The proclamation of God has to do with what we do. Therefore, it must be alive and vital and meaningful. If the proclamation of God becomes irrelevant to the needs of people to problem solve and make decisions in the world they live in, they will seek other “models”.
Barth writes, “Outwardly, dogmatics arises from the fact that the Church’s proclamation is in danger of going astray. Dogmatics is the testing of Church doctrine and proclamation.”
We must continually “test” the relationship between exegesis and practical theology.
“The correction, the deepening, the increasing precision of what is taught in our Church can only be God’s own work although not apart from man’s effort. “
Thus, the question must always be, “What is the evidence?”
“Not the evidence of my thoughts, or my heart, but the evidence of the apostles and prophets, as the evidence of God’s self-evidence.”
I like the phrase that Stanley Hauerwas used for the title of his Gifford lectures, “With the Grain of the Universe.” This, to me, gives us the ultimate test of the proclamation of the Gospel. God’s Word should bring us into greater unity with His creation. If our speech and our actions conform with God’s Word then we should be in unity with His creation and we should feel this because our actions are “with the grain of the universe.” We are moving “with” creation and are not acting “across the grain” of the universe.
If our actions are not with the grain of the universe…we become dis-satisfied, and anxious and, sometimes, alienated. Things just don’t feel right.
This is why our “practical theology” must be in line with our exegesis. This is why we must continually test the waters. And, in this sense, this is why “dogmatics” is pragmatic. It must work. It must bring into alignment with the grain of the universe.
Models are abstractions. Yes, we believe that we have received “the Word of God,” but explaining the Word of God and critically interpreting how it can be put into practice depends upon human beings. And, human beings never have the luxury to work with “complete information.” That is, humans never have the whole story.
Thus, our models, which are abstractions, are partial and therefore ultimately fallible. We must continually test our models and test the results of applying our models. This, I believe, is what Barth is teaching us. We must continually bridge the gap between exegesis and our actions. To Barth, dogmatics is the way that we do this.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Barth on Dogmatics--Commentary 2
“The subject of dogmatics is the Christian Church.”
Barth tells us, “where dogmatics is pursued, we find ourselves in the sphere of the Church.” This means that to be familiar with dogmatics, one must be familiar “with the life of the Church.”
The Church is embedded in history and the specific environment of each period in history. The Church is dependent upon the “state of knowledge” at a particular time.
But, the history of the Church is a “human, earthly history; and so it is not quite indefensible for Goethe to say of it that in all periods it has been a hotch-potch of error and power.”
In other words, the Church is a human institution, currently framed in the existing “state of knowledge” of the world, “charged with the object and the activity with which dogmatics is concerned—namely, the proclamation of the Gospel.”
To me, the primary thought here is that the Church is “charged” with the “object and activity” of the model or world view that the Church adheres to. That is, it is within and through the Church that the Church’s model is both examined and acted upon.
The Church’s model is examined and subject to thorough study at all times. “Christian dogmatics will always be a thinking, an investigation, and an expositions which are relative and liable to error.” Without constant scrutiny, the Church’s model can become dated and turned into an idol.
“We must use our knowledge as it has been given to us to-day.”
“Even dogmatics with the best knowledge and conscience can do no more than question after the better, and never forget that we are succeeded by other, later men; and he who is faithful in this task will hope that those other, later men may think and say better and more profoundly what we were endeavoring to think and say.”
We do the best we can. We use all the facilities we have. And we try to make the Christian model make sense within the world we live in.
But, dogmatics does not stop there. We are also charged with the responsibility for action. We much represent the model of the Church in what we do. Christian dogmatics is not just an academic subject. Christian dogmatics in not to be used for withdrawing from life. Christian dogmatics is to be applied in a way that the model of the Church, the proclamation of the Gospel, is revealed to others in our actions.
In essence, Christian dogmatics is the foundation for how we think and act in the modern world. It is the foundation of what we reveal to the rest of the world.
Be cautious, however, for, as Barth warns, the Church has also been a "hotch-potch" of error and power. Humans can take the Church in the wrong direction from time-to-time. This is why we do the best we can, why we use all the facilities we have, and why we constantly strive to make the Christian model make sense.
“The subject of dogmatics is the Christian Church.” The subject of dogmatics is what the Christian Church is in the world today. The Christian Church should be living, vital, and meaningful.
If it is not all of these things, then it is not the Christian Church.
Barth tells us, “where dogmatics is pursued, we find ourselves in the sphere of the Church.” This means that to be familiar with dogmatics, one must be familiar “with the life of the Church.”
The Church is embedded in history and the specific environment of each period in history. The Church is dependent upon the “state of knowledge” at a particular time.
But, the history of the Church is a “human, earthly history; and so it is not quite indefensible for Goethe to say of it that in all periods it has been a hotch-potch of error and power.”
In other words, the Church is a human institution, currently framed in the existing “state of knowledge” of the world, “charged with the object and the activity with which dogmatics is concerned—namely, the proclamation of the Gospel.”
To me, the primary thought here is that the Church is “charged” with the “object and activity” of the model or world view that the Church adheres to. That is, it is within and through the Church that the Church’s model is both examined and acted upon.
The Church’s model is examined and subject to thorough study at all times. “Christian dogmatics will always be a thinking, an investigation, and an expositions which are relative and liable to error.” Without constant scrutiny, the Church’s model can become dated and turned into an idol.
“We must use our knowledge as it has been given to us to-day.”
“Even dogmatics with the best knowledge and conscience can do no more than question after the better, and never forget that we are succeeded by other, later men; and he who is faithful in this task will hope that those other, later men may think and say better and more profoundly what we were endeavoring to think and say.”
We do the best we can. We use all the facilities we have. And we try to make the Christian model make sense within the world we live in.
But, dogmatics does not stop there. We are also charged with the responsibility for action. We much represent the model of the Church in what we do. Christian dogmatics is not just an academic subject. Christian dogmatics in not to be used for withdrawing from life. Christian dogmatics is to be applied in a way that the model of the Church, the proclamation of the Gospel, is revealed to others in our actions.
In essence, Christian dogmatics is the foundation for how we think and act in the modern world. It is the foundation of what we reveal to the rest of the world.
Be cautious, however, for, as Barth warns, the Church has also been a "hotch-potch" of error and power. Humans can take the Church in the wrong direction from time-to-time. This is why we do the best we can, why we use all the facilities we have, and why we constantly strive to make the Christian model make sense.
“The subject of dogmatics is the Christian Church.” The subject of dogmatics is what the Christian Church is in the world today. The Christian Church should be living, vital, and meaningful.
If it is not all of these things, then it is not the Christian Church.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Pragmatism and Belief
My comments today are related to the Gifford Lectures of Stanley Hauerwas which were printed in book form under the title of “With the Grain of the Universe.” (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2001) What particularly strikes me in the lectures is the juxtaposition of the three individuals Hauerwas focuses upon in the lectures: William James, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Karl Barth.
These three thinkers, I believe, are representative of the point that Hauerwas wants to make in the lectures concerning the outcome of the debate over modernity. He begins with William James, for James, the pragmatist, follows the path of “experience.” That is, pragmatists apply the “scientific model” to their thinking process, which in a more general form can be referred to as Inductive Inference.
Inductive Inference is a process of “model” testing that always ends up comparing the predictions of a particular model against the outcomes of the decisions an individual has actually pursued. Thus, “experience” is an important part of the process.
I use the term model here as a “catch all” term that includes not only formal models used in making forecasts but also the less formal or less explicit means people use in decision making or problem solving like stories, rules of thumb, or other narrative forms.
If the outcomes are consistent with the predictions then an individual can continue to use the model in its current form. However, if the outcomes are not consistent with the predictions, then the model needs to be modified in order to make better predictions the next time the individual needs to use the model.
Note that not all models directly need to result in a “decision” or an “action”. Models are use to “explain” things, like historical events or how things fit together. Models are also the tools that humans use to try and make sense of things, to present a worldview, or to justify an action.
Models, whether formal or informal in nature, begin with assumptions. That is, assumptions must be made that serve as the foundational material for the construction of the model. The assumptions may be realistic…or they may not be realistic. And, this is where problems come into the picture.
Milton Friedman, the well-known Nobel prize winning economist, wrote, in a very famous essay on “positive economics”, that the reality of the assumptions of a model were really not the issue concerning the value or usefulness of a model. The usefulness of the model was determined by how well the model forecast or how well the model was able to explain events. Just to change a model on the basis that the assumptions of the model were unrealistic was not sufficient.
The Catholic theologian David Tracy has written that the deciding factor about models is their “relative adequacy.” By “relative adequacy” Tracy meant that a model was logically consistent and predicted at least as well as did any other logically consistent theory. The choice of assumptions has a lot to do with whether or not the model is logically consistent. The real “test” of the mode was its ability to predict.
Pragmatism, however, can get caught up in a concern about reality, about a person’s “experience”. The essence of pragmatism is that it works, it helps people solve more and more difficult problems, make better decisions, and it helps people understand history better. The primary focus, therefore, needs to be on the results.
On the other hand, people can transfer their focus to the assumptions of a model. People can look at the assumptions and say that the assumptions don’t conform to reality…to “experience.” Thus, even though the models may be helpful and contribute to successful decision making and problem solving, people may try to change the assumptions because they are not “realistic.” This is where trouble can creep in.
Once people begin focusing upon the assumptions of a model, generally the questioning of the reality of the assumptions will continue. The only place this process can end up is where all the assumptions are “realistic” and that usually leaves you with a model that predicts little or nothing.
This, to me, is what Hauerwas is getting at in his criticisms of modernity. The thinkers of modernity have focused upon the realism of the assumptions of models because they do not conform to their “experience” and so “water-down” models regardless of whether or not they make good predictions. And, this has very significant consequences for their thinking. All models turn out to be deficient. That is, there is no “truth”.
Hauerwas contends that Protestant liberals attempt to ground their knowledge of God in experience…in reality. (page 158) This grounding has led to their questioning the assumptions of the more “orthodox” Reformation model of Christian thinking. True to modernity, once the questioning of assumptions begins, the questioning continues and the model begins to deteriorate. Oh, yes, the “realism” brought into the discussion seems to be called for and, at least in the short run, seems to make the model more consistent with reality. However, once the challenge to the model becomes paramount the result is a kind of nihilism.
The problem is that the focus on the model has shifted from the ability of the model to help solve more and more difficult problems or allow for better decisions to be made. The focus of the model is now on the realism of the model.
This leads Hauerwas to conclude that “the difference between Niebuhr and Barth is exactly the difference between a theology that has given up on its ability to tell us the way the world is and a theology that confidently and unapologetically proclaims the way things are.” (page 21)
Within this context, the Protestant liberal bets all his/her cards on “reason” or the following of “humanistic” ends, and loses the skill to make known to themselves and to make known to others exactly what they believe about how the world works and how things are.
Barth, Hauerwas contends, “did not try to ‘explain’ the truth of what Christians believe about God and God’s creation. He understood that such an explanation could not help but give the impression that the explanation is more important than the witness.” (page 146)
To Hauerwas, “Barth’s convictions were tested by their ability to sustain service to God.” (page 40) That is, the test of any set of convictions, the test of any model is “does it work in practice.” In this case, the test of the convictions is in witness!
“Christians can be no more than witnesses.” (page 16)
Thus, the models people rely on must work. Focus must not be upon the assumptions or the reality behind the assumptions…focus must be upon the consequences of having faith in the model.
It is easy to destroy people’s belief by challenging the reality behind that belief. Modernity has been very good at this. In fact, that is the one thing that modernity excels in.
But, this does not make all models of equal value. Some models predict better than other models. Some models, as David Tracy contend, are relatively adequate. Some of these models are integral to the Christian story and Christian history. We need to have faith in these models if we are to solve more and more difficult problems and to make better decisions. That is the experience that really counts.
These three thinkers, I believe, are representative of the point that Hauerwas wants to make in the lectures concerning the outcome of the debate over modernity. He begins with William James, for James, the pragmatist, follows the path of “experience.” That is, pragmatists apply the “scientific model” to their thinking process, which in a more general form can be referred to as Inductive Inference.
Inductive Inference is a process of “model” testing that always ends up comparing the predictions of a particular model against the outcomes of the decisions an individual has actually pursued. Thus, “experience” is an important part of the process.
I use the term model here as a “catch all” term that includes not only formal models used in making forecasts but also the less formal or less explicit means people use in decision making or problem solving like stories, rules of thumb, or other narrative forms.
If the outcomes are consistent with the predictions then an individual can continue to use the model in its current form. However, if the outcomes are not consistent with the predictions, then the model needs to be modified in order to make better predictions the next time the individual needs to use the model.
Note that not all models directly need to result in a “decision” or an “action”. Models are use to “explain” things, like historical events or how things fit together. Models are also the tools that humans use to try and make sense of things, to present a worldview, or to justify an action.
Models, whether formal or informal in nature, begin with assumptions. That is, assumptions must be made that serve as the foundational material for the construction of the model. The assumptions may be realistic…or they may not be realistic. And, this is where problems come into the picture.
Milton Friedman, the well-known Nobel prize winning economist, wrote, in a very famous essay on “positive economics”, that the reality of the assumptions of a model were really not the issue concerning the value or usefulness of a model. The usefulness of the model was determined by how well the model forecast or how well the model was able to explain events. Just to change a model on the basis that the assumptions of the model were unrealistic was not sufficient.
The Catholic theologian David Tracy has written that the deciding factor about models is their “relative adequacy.” By “relative adequacy” Tracy meant that a model was logically consistent and predicted at least as well as did any other logically consistent theory. The choice of assumptions has a lot to do with whether or not the model is logically consistent. The real “test” of the mode was its ability to predict.
Pragmatism, however, can get caught up in a concern about reality, about a person’s “experience”. The essence of pragmatism is that it works, it helps people solve more and more difficult problems, make better decisions, and it helps people understand history better. The primary focus, therefore, needs to be on the results.
On the other hand, people can transfer their focus to the assumptions of a model. People can look at the assumptions and say that the assumptions don’t conform to reality…to “experience.” Thus, even though the models may be helpful and contribute to successful decision making and problem solving, people may try to change the assumptions because they are not “realistic.” This is where trouble can creep in.
Once people begin focusing upon the assumptions of a model, generally the questioning of the reality of the assumptions will continue. The only place this process can end up is where all the assumptions are “realistic” and that usually leaves you with a model that predicts little or nothing.
This, to me, is what Hauerwas is getting at in his criticisms of modernity. The thinkers of modernity have focused upon the realism of the assumptions of models because they do not conform to their “experience” and so “water-down” models regardless of whether or not they make good predictions. And, this has very significant consequences for their thinking. All models turn out to be deficient. That is, there is no “truth”.
Hauerwas contends that Protestant liberals attempt to ground their knowledge of God in experience…in reality. (page 158) This grounding has led to their questioning the assumptions of the more “orthodox” Reformation model of Christian thinking. True to modernity, once the questioning of assumptions begins, the questioning continues and the model begins to deteriorate. Oh, yes, the “realism” brought into the discussion seems to be called for and, at least in the short run, seems to make the model more consistent with reality. However, once the challenge to the model becomes paramount the result is a kind of nihilism.
The problem is that the focus on the model has shifted from the ability of the model to help solve more and more difficult problems or allow for better decisions to be made. The focus of the model is now on the realism of the model.
This leads Hauerwas to conclude that “the difference between Niebuhr and Barth is exactly the difference between a theology that has given up on its ability to tell us the way the world is and a theology that confidently and unapologetically proclaims the way things are.” (page 21)
Within this context, the Protestant liberal bets all his/her cards on “reason” or the following of “humanistic” ends, and loses the skill to make known to themselves and to make known to others exactly what they believe about how the world works and how things are.
Barth, Hauerwas contends, “did not try to ‘explain’ the truth of what Christians believe about God and God’s creation. He understood that such an explanation could not help but give the impression that the explanation is more important than the witness.” (page 146)
To Hauerwas, “Barth’s convictions were tested by their ability to sustain service to God.” (page 40) That is, the test of any set of convictions, the test of any model is “does it work in practice.” In this case, the test of the convictions is in witness!
“Christians can be no more than witnesses.” (page 16)
Thus, the models people rely on must work. Focus must not be upon the assumptions or the reality behind the assumptions…focus must be upon the consequences of having faith in the model.
It is easy to destroy people’s belief by challenging the reality behind that belief. Modernity has been very good at this. In fact, that is the one thing that modernity excels in.
But, this does not make all models of equal value. Some models predict better than other models. Some models, as David Tracy contend, are relatively adequate. Some of these models are integral to the Christian story and Christian history. We need to have faith in these models if we are to solve more and more difficult problems and to make better decisions. That is the experience that really counts.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Barth on Dogmatics--Commentary 1
Karl Barth begins his “Dogmatics in Outline” by writing, “Dogmatics is a science.”
Whoa! What does he mean by this?
“In every science an object is involved and a sphere of activity. In no science is it a matter of pure theory or pure practice; on the one hand, theory comes in, but also, on the other hand, practice is guided by this theory.”
Perhaps we get all tied up in knots because he uses the term “science” and then attempts to relate dogmatics to the well-known perception of science that we are all familiar with involving experiments and tests and other “hands on” things.
But, he says here that science is not just theory but it is also practice as well. That is, we cannot focus on just one or the other. These two components of a “science” are “combined at the hip” in his view and cannot be separated.
Maybe we have a problem with this comparison because of the time that Barth gave the original lectures, in 1947. At that time, science was considered by many people to be a field of its own, something separate and distinct from theology or the humanities or “soft” stuff. At that time, many believed that a field could be only one or the other and science was the one field that could provide “proofs”.
I believe that the times have changed and what Barth says is more acceptable to more people now than it was way back then. First of all, however, I would change his emphasis on trying to claim that dogmatics is a science. In my view, dogmatics or theology has arisen because of the basic human capacity to solve problems, to make decisions.
In this respect, dogmatics, like physics or chemistry or biology, is an effort by humans to solve more and more difficult problems or to make better decisions. In all of this, humans begin with a question. For example, “Why do apples fall to the ground when they drop from trees?” Or, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
To answer this, humans build models, formal or information, or other systematic ways of trying to explain what happens. In building these models humans are looking for ways to predict outcomes. They want to predict outcomes so that they can solve a problem or make a decision. Practice or action is in the picture.
Of course, a science like physics can be very abstract, mathematically based, and logically consistent. But, models can be very common place and ordinary. Rules of thumb may result from human model building. Stories or narratives can result from human model building. Models and schema can take all kinds of different forms and still be exceedingly useful to human beings.
When Barth was writing these lectures, the general feeling was that science was abstract, mathematically based, and logically consistent. If a model did not fit this criterion then it was not considered a part of a science.
Now, however, we consider that narratives can be just as helpful to humans in problem solving or decision making as can formal, logically consistent mathematical models. In fact, it is clear that humans use models constructed around stories or narratives far more in their lives than they do these other kinds of models. We know now that the same process is involved in either approach. We give this approach another fancy name: we call this process of model building inductive inference and it is something that people use constantly in all the things they are doing in their lives.
In more formal situations, people can this approach the scientific method. In other situations people just call this problem solving. It is the process a question is ask, information that is hopefully relevant is collected, and then an effort is made to induce, from the information, so kind of model that can make predictions. The model is then used to make forecasts in specific situations. If the model builder does not feel very confident about the model at this point, more information can be collected. Then an action is taken, given the model.
The final step in this iteration of the process is to compare the predictions the model has produced with the outcome of the action. If the outcome is relatively close to the predictions, then the model-builder will go ahead and use the model again in the future. If the outcome is significantly different from the prediction then the model-builder will make alterations to the model so that a better forecast can be forthcoming next time the model is used.
This process is continued, iteration after iteration, until the model ceases to be useful or until other questions are asked. Then the model-building process begins again.
The crucial thing is that this process of inductive inference is a normal human process that has been a major part of the evolution of the species. Human’s problem solving capabilities separate this species from all the others. These capabilities apply to physics and to dogmatics. Therefore, what Barth claims for dogmatics, I believe, is true.
There are other parts to what Barth writes, however. For one, the models human beings construct are fallible. “No act of man can claim to be more than an attempt (at comprehension and exposition, at investigation and instruction), not even science.”
And, Barth states that “By describing it as an attempt, we are simply stating its nature as preliminary and limited.” He goes on: “we are under no illusion that anything man can do can ever be an undertaking of supreme wisdom and final art.”
“Christian dogmatics is an attempt—an attempt to understand and an attempt to expound, an attempt to see, to hear, and to state definite facts, to survey and co-ordinate these facts, to present them in the form of a doctrine (a model).”
Our models are incomplete and fallible…in physics, in economics, in theology, in whatever. The test of our models is practice…we must act using the predictions or forecasts we derive from our models. Theory, just believing in your model is in not enough. This is the “pure theory” that Barth talks about “on the one hand.”
The models must allow us to solve more and more difficult or make better decisions. The models must be put into practice “on the other hand.” Theory (dogma) is not useful unless it works in practice, but practice without theory (dogma) is meaningless. The final test of the model and the theory is whether or not it works when one acts on it.
David Tracy, the Roman Catholic theologian, defines a model as relatively adequate when it is logically consistent and can predict at least as well an any other logically consistent model that is relevant for the situation at hand. Our dogmatics must be relatively adequate.
Theology, dogmatics, is a human activity. In this respect it is like physics and chemistry and biology. Barth then concludes, “So by dogmatics we understand this twofold activity of investigation and doctrine in relation to an object and a sphere of activity.” Barth continues by defining the object of dogmatics and the sphere of activity. A discussion of this will follow.
Whoa! What does he mean by this?
“In every science an object is involved and a sphere of activity. In no science is it a matter of pure theory or pure practice; on the one hand, theory comes in, but also, on the other hand, practice is guided by this theory.”
Perhaps we get all tied up in knots because he uses the term “science” and then attempts to relate dogmatics to the well-known perception of science that we are all familiar with involving experiments and tests and other “hands on” things.
But, he says here that science is not just theory but it is also practice as well. That is, we cannot focus on just one or the other. These two components of a “science” are “combined at the hip” in his view and cannot be separated.
Maybe we have a problem with this comparison because of the time that Barth gave the original lectures, in 1947. At that time, science was considered by many people to be a field of its own, something separate and distinct from theology or the humanities or “soft” stuff. At that time, many believed that a field could be only one or the other and science was the one field that could provide “proofs”.
I believe that the times have changed and what Barth says is more acceptable to more people now than it was way back then. First of all, however, I would change his emphasis on trying to claim that dogmatics is a science. In my view, dogmatics or theology has arisen because of the basic human capacity to solve problems, to make decisions.
In this respect, dogmatics, like physics or chemistry or biology, is an effort by humans to solve more and more difficult problems or to make better decisions. In all of this, humans begin with a question. For example, “Why do apples fall to the ground when they drop from trees?” Or, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
To answer this, humans build models, formal or information, or other systematic ways of trying to explain what happens. In building these models humans are looking for ways to predict outcomes. They want to predict outcomes so that they can solve a problem or make a decision. Practice or action is in the picture.
Of course, a science like physics can be very abstract, mathematically based, and logically consistent. But, models can be very common place and ordinary. Rules of thumb may result from human model building. Stories or narratives can result from human model building. Models and schema can take all kinds of different forms and still be exceedingly useful to human beings.
When Barth was writing these lectures, the general feeling was that science was abstract, mathematically based, and logically consistent. If a model did not fit this criterion then it was not considered a part of a science.
Now, however, we consider that narratives can be just as helpful to humans in problem solving or decision making as can formal, logically consistent mathematical models. In fact, it is clear that humans use models constructed around stories or narratives far more in their lives than they do these other kinds of models. We know now that the same process is involved in either approach. We give this approach another fancy name: we call this process of model building inductive inference and it is something that people use constantly in all the things they are doing in their lives.
In more formal situations, people can this approach the scientific method. In other situations people just call this problem solving. It is the process a question is ask, information that is hopefully relevant is collected, and then an effort is made to induce, from the information, so kind of model that can make predictions. The model is then used to make forecasts in specific situations. If the model builder does not feel very confident about the model at this point, more information can be collected. Then an action is taken, given the model.
The final step in this iteration of the process is to compare the predictions the model has produced with the outcome of the action. If the outcome is relatively close to the predictions, then the model-builder will go ahead and use the model again in the future. If the outcome is significantly different from the prediction then the model-builder will make alterations to the model so that a better forecast can be forthcoming next time the model is used.
This process is continued, iteration after iteration, until the model ceases to be useful or until other questions are asked. Then the model-building process begins again.
The crucial thing is that this process of inductive inference is a normal human process that has been a major part of the evolution of the species. Human’s problem solving capabilities separate this species from all the others. These capabilities apply to physics and to dogmatics. Therefore, what Barth claims for dogmatics, I believe, is true.
There are other parts to what Barth writes, however. For one, the models human beings construct are fallible. “No act of man can claim to be more than an attempt (at comprehension and exposition, at investigation and instruction), not even science.”
And, Barth states that “By describing it as an attempt, we are simply stating its nature as preliminary and limited.” He goes on: “we are under no illusion that anything man can do can ever be an undertaking of supreme wisdom and final art.”
“Christian dogmatics is an attempt—an attempt to understand and an attempt to expound, an attempt to see, to hear, and to state definite facts, to survey and co-ordinate these facts, to present them in the form of a doctrine (a model).”
Our models are incomplete and fallible…in physics, in economics, in theology, in whatever. The test of our models is practice…we must act using the predictions or forecasts we derive from our models. Theory, just believing in your model is in not enough. This is the “pure theory” that Barth talks about “on the one hand.”
The models must allow us to solve more and more difficult or make better decisions. The models must be put into practice “on the other hand.” Theory (dogma) is not useful unless it works in practice, but practice without theory (dogma) is meaningless. The final test of the model and the theory is whether or not it works when one acts on it.
David Tracy, the Roman Catholic theologian, defines a model as relatively adequate when it is logically consistent and can predict at least as well an any other logically consistent model that is relevant for the situation at hand. Our dogmatics must be relatively adequate.
Theology, dogmatics, is a human activity. In this respect it is like physics and chemistry and biology. Barth then concludes, “So by dogmatics we understand this twofold activity of investigation and doctrine in relation to an object and a sphere of activity.” Barth continues by defining the object of dogmatics and the sphere of activity. A discussion of this will follow.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Missional Leadership
In my post of February 6, 2009 on “Ministry and Leadership” I argued that there were people who were called out from the rest of us to be ministers, pastors, and priests and these people had “a special responsibility to others to teach, facilitate, and to show others what it means to be missional in their lives.” An example of this kind of missional leadership is…of course…Jesus.
Many who follow the teachings of Jesus contend that the Gospel of Matthew in the new testament portion of the bible is a manual of missional leadership. In this writing, we are presented with stories of Jesus teaching others, facilitating their efforts, and, perhaps most important, showing others what it means to be missional with their lives. So, we can look on these stories as a guide to how we might lead others into being missional in their lives.
Let me say right up front, however, that one of the most important parts of this leadership that Jesus exhibits to us comes when he tells his disciples…”Guys, I am going to go away. You are going to be on your own!”
Why was this so important?
It was important because Jesus understood that the disciples could not grow and mature in their missional calling if…they still had Jesus to directly lean on. Look at what weak individuals the disciples seemed to be when Jesus is still in their physical presence. Look at what a sniveling idiot Peter was when Jesus was around. Peter had to be out on his own…he had to call on the memory of what Jesus taught him, both verbally and by example…before he could truly grow and mature in his missional activity.
Now, Jesus obviously knew this problem existed…and more specifically…he knew Peter was going to have problems. Remember, in loving others, Jesus gave us the example of one who “knew” a lot about those who he was working with…this is a part of showing “love” to the other. So, remember that Jesus called Peter…the “Rock”. At the time Jesus refers to Peter as the “Rock” many readers have to wonder about where Jesus is coming from. How can Jesus call this weak, uncomprehending person, the “Rock”?
Jesus “knew” Peter and knew that as Peter grew and matured that he would turn into the “Rock” that Jesus claimed he would be.
But, Peter could never have become the “Rock” if Jesus had stayed around. The same with all the other disciples: Jesus “knew” who they were and chose them because of this knowledge. Jesus also knew that each of them would never reach their calling unless they were allowed to grow and mature into their own missional person.
So, the first lesson of missional leadership is that the leader must understand that those that they are working with must be released at some to go out on their own. So the leader teaches, facilitates, and shows the one preparing for missional activity what it means to be missional knowing full well that at some time in the future the student, for his or her own good, must be “on their own.” The leader must be able to turn the student loose from his or her power and control…for the student’s own benefit!
Now let’s go back to the other three items mentioned above that have to do with missional leadership: teaching, facilitating, and acting. To me, the most important of these three factors of leadership is the acting part. In fact, this is how we have defined missional activity…acting toward the other…whether it be another person (literally the neighbor)…or creation…or oneself…or God…in a loving way. The best way we can be missional is to show other people what it means to live a life that is consistent with what we believe contributes to wholeness and unity. The leader sends out a message in his or her words…but, unless people see how living in that way can change their lives…and change them for the better…the words are just empty.
In this, missional activity is very pragmatic…the life style we are promoting in our missional activity works! And, because it works, people can see for themselves what results from living in that particular way. And, by seeing it, before their eyes…they have something concrete to latch onto…and hold onto when times are not going their way.
This is where I believe the “spirit” comes into play…whatever the “spirit” is. The person has the memory of what a life lived in this particular way means…the memory of what kind of decisions one should make to live such a life…and the feeling or understanding that has been experienced to know that these kinds of decisions lead to greater wholeness or unity…even in times that are very bad. There is a “spirit” in living in this way…and, we are told, this “spirit” will be available to us in the future when called upon. One knows when one is in unity… and that is a signal that the “spirit” is present in the situation.
Teaching is important. Words, alone, are not enough…for they must be consistent with actions. But, words are important…telling stories…relating facts…inspiring others. Teaching helps us to learn things. Teaching helps us to pull things together and understand relationships. Teaching helps us to comprehend in a way that we have not been able to, up to this point. Teaching can inspire us to want to learn and do more. Teaching can be done in many ways…as different people respond to different types of learning experiences. Of course, we know Jesus applied many different kinds of teaching techniques to his followers…this was the only way that he could possibly reach all the different people he had chosen to be with him. He told parables…he told stories…he told proverbs (like, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount where he was just talking to his followers after he drew them away from the huge crowds.)
However, what is learned must be practiced. This, to me is the facilitation part. Those that have been taught must be given opportunities to experience the “acting” under the watchful eye of the teacher. Jesus did this by asking his followers to pass out the fishes and bread to the entire crowd that had followed him for days…and the followers saw what happened right before their eyes. As they became generous with the little they had…the crowd also became generous with what they had…and much more was collected than the followers had given out. A miracle? Or, was this a lesson in what unconditional giving can bring about?
Jesus sent his followers out on different “day” journeys…and then asked what happened on those journeys. In these, and other, ways, the followers of Jesus got feedback on how to live, the impacts of their decision making on outcomes, and how things might be done differently. It was this process that actually got them started on the road to taking full responsibility for their missional activity…the responsibility they would have once they no longer had their leader.
Then, the followers became the leaders. The followers became the implementers of missional living. These followers could now grow and mature fully into the faith and confidence that would bring them unity and peace in their lives…and a feeling of wholeness. Peter could become the “Rock”.
To me, this is what missional leadership is all about!
Many who follow the teachings of Jesus contend that the Gospel of Matthew in the new testament portion of the bible is a manual of missional leadership. In this writing, we are presented with stories of Jesus teaching others, facilitating their efforts, and, perhaps most important, showing others what it means to be missional with their lives. So, we can look on these stories as a guide to how we might lead others into being missional in their lives.
Let me say right up front, however, that one of the most important parts of this leadership that Jesus exhibits to us comes when he tells his disciples…”Guys, I am going to go away. You are going to be on your own!”
Why was this so important?
It was important because Jesus understood that the disciples could not grow and mature in their missional calling if…they still had Jesus to directly lean on. Look at what weak individuals the disciples seemed to be when Jesus is still in their physical presence. Look at what a sniveling idiot Peter was when Jesus was around. Peter had to be out on his own…he had to call on the memory of what Jesus taught him, both verbally and by example…before he could truly grow and mature in his missional activity.
Now, Jesus obviously knew this problem existed…and more specifically…he knew Peter was going to have problems. Remember, in loving others, Jesus gave us the example of one who “knew” a lot about those who he was working with…this is a part of showing “love” to the other. So, remember that Jesus called Peter…the “Rock”. At the time Jesus refers to Peter as the “Rock” many readers have to wonder about where Jesus is coming from. How can Jesus call this weak, uncomprehending person, the “Rock”?
Jesus “knew” Peter and knew that as Peter grew and matured that he would turn into the “Rock” that Jesus claimed he would be.
But, Peter could never have become the “Rock” if Jesus had stayed around. The same with all the other disciples: Jesus “knew” who they were and chose them because of this knowledge. Jesus also knew that each of them would never reach their calling unless they were allowed to grow and mature into their own missional person.
So, the first lesson of missional leadership is that the leader must understand that those that they are working with must be released at some to go out on their own. So the leader teaches, facilitates, and shows the one preparing for missional activity what it means to be missional knowing full well that at some time in the future the student, for his or her own good, must be “on their own.” The leader must be able to turn the student loose from his or her power and control…for the student’s own benefit!
Now let’s go back to the other three items mentioned above that have to do with missional leadership: teaching, facilitating, and acting. To me, the most important of these three factors of leadership is the acting part. In fact, this is how we have defined missional activity…acting toward the other…whether it be another person (literally the neighbor)…or creation…or oneself…or God…in a loving way. The best way we can be missional is to show other people what it means to live a life that is consistent with what we believe contributes to wholeness and unity. The leader sends out a message in his or her words…but, unless people see how living in that way can change their lives…and change them for the better…the words are just empty.
In this, missional activity is very pragmatic…the life style we are promoting in our missional activity works! And, because it works, people can see for themselves what results from living in that particular way. And, by seeing it, before their eyes…they have something concrete to latch onto…and hold onto when times are not going their way.
This is where I believe the “spirit” comes into play…whatever the “spirit” is. The person has the memory of what a life lived in this particular way means…the memory of what kind of decisions one should make to live such a life…and the feeling or understanding that has been experienced to know that these kinds of decisions lead to greater wholeness or unity…even in times that are very bad. There is a “spirit” in living in this way…and, we are told, this “spirit” will be available to us in the future when called upon. One knows when one is in unity… and that is a signal that the “spirit” is present in the situation.
Teaching is important. Words, alone, are not enough…for they must be consistent with actions. But, words are important…telling stories…relating facts…inspiring others. Teaching helps us to learn things. Teaching helps us to pull things together and understand relationships. Teaching helps us to comprehend in a way that we have not been able to, up to this point. Teaching can inspire us to want to learn and do more. Teaching can be done in many ways…as different people respond to different types of learning experiences. Of course, we know Jesus applied many different kinds of teaching techniques to his followers…this was the only way that he could possibly reach all the different people he had chosen to be with him. He told parables…he told stories…he told proverbs (like, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount where he was just talking to his followers after he drew them away from the huge crowds.)
However, what is learned must be practiced. This, to me is the facilitation part. Those that have been taught must be given opportunities to experience the “acting” under the watchful eye of the teacher. Jesus did this by asking his followers to pass out the fishes and bread to the entire crowd that had followed him for days…and the followers saw what happened right before their eyes. As they became generous with the little they had…the crowd also became generous with what they had…and much more was collected than the followers had given out. A miracle? Or, was this a lesson in what unconditional giving can bring about?
Jesus sent his followers out on different “day” journeys…and then asked what happened on those journeys. In these, and other, ways, the followers of Jesus got feedback on how to live, the impacts of their decision making on outcomes, and how things might be done differently. It was this process that actually got them started on the road to taking full responsibility for their missional activity…the responsibility they would have once they no longer had their leader.
Then, the followers became the leaders. The followers became the implementers of missional living. These followers could now grow and mature fully into the faith and confidence that would bring them unity and peace in their lives…and a feeling of wholeness. Peter could become the “Rock”.
To me, this is what missional leadership is all about!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)