Back to the Fundamentals--Again

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Ministry and Leadership

In my blog post of February 2, 2009, I discussed what I consider to be the general responsibility of individuals…to be missional. This general responsibility is to live a life that “reveals the image” of the life you think everyone should live. Note, however, this does not mean that you want people to live just like you in the specific things you do or say. That would require people to seek a specific “outcome” and this is where we can get into a tremendous amount of problems.

If we require people to achieve specific “outcomes” then, essentially, we want people to be and act exactly like us. We then have an explicit standard by which we can judge you and hold you strictly accountable for not behaving in exactly the same way we do. The “outcomes” become the “law” which you must be able to recite and the “law” then becomes your judge and jury. Your life is bounded and controlled.

The alternative to this approach is to stress that the image you want to reveal is of a “process”, not one of “outcomes”. By “process” I suggest that we can reveal how one addresses problems or decisions; by stressing “outcomes” one has already determined what the solution to the problem should be or what the decision is that one should make.

I take an example of what I mean by the reported behavior of Jesus. Let us look at what he did when he healed people. One could think that Jesus revealed the image of God by healing people from their infirmities. Certainly, a loving God…and we are told that God is love…would want to heal people and in this way make their lives better.

I don’t believe that this is what Jesus is showing us. The thing that has proven to be so remarkable to me is that after Jesus heals the individual physically, he has a message for that person. To one person, he tells them to go do this. But, to the next person he tells them to go and do something else. And, to a third person he tells them to do something entirely different from the first two people.

I wondered about this for a long time. Why did Jesus do this? And, even more important to me…why is it important that we know that Jesus did this? The answer finally came to me that it was important for us to see that, first, it was not the healing that revealed the image of God to us, and, second, Jesus treated everyone differently in terms of his relationship to them. Maybe…just maybe…it was the “process” of what Jesus was revealing and not the “outcomes” of the actions of Jesus…the healings.

More specifically, if Jesus really loved these individuals, he would want to do the best thing he could for them…that is, he would want to suggest or commend to them the action that would be as helpful to them, in terms of living a better life, that he could. But that action would necessarily be different for every person he talked to…because everyone is different from every other person.

This, to me, is what loving is all about. Jesus is revealing to us what loving our neighbor really is. Jesus is revealing to us what it means to say that God is love. And, it this is the way in which we are to behave.

How can I say this? Look at the encounter that Jesus had with the rich young ruler. The rich young ruler asks Jesus what he could do to inherit eternal life. Jesus responds with the question, “What do the commandments say?” The rich young ruler responds correctly and adds that he has done all this. And then we are told that Jesus looks on the rich young ruler “with love”. Then tells him that he must sell all he has for his riches are getting in the way of his wholeness.
The point here is not that Jesus tells the rich young ruler to get rid of his riches. The important thing is that Jesus looks on the rich young ruler “with love”.

This is all fine and good…but if we are to reach out to each person in the way that is best for them…we have to know an awfully lot about each and every person. Please note…this does not mean that we reach out to the other person is a way that they would like or a way in which they would like us. In the example of the interchange between Jesus and the rich young ruler, Jesus certainly did not give the rich young ruler a pleasant task…for the rich young ruler went away very unhappy…he had many riches.

The focus should be upon the “process” of love. Jesus knew a great deal about everyone. In the Gospel of John we are told that the woman that Jesus talked to by the well reported to her neighbors that Jesus told her all that she had ever done. This was one of the reasons Jesus was special. We are told that he had great insight into others. And this is how he could love. Because he could see what it was that others needed in order to be more whole, more complete, more at peace within themselves.

And this is the image that is revealed to us…that we are to try and become as knowledgeable of “the other”…whether it is another person…another group…or creation…or parts of creation…as we can so that we can be in unity with them in the sense that we, like Jesus, can see what is really needed in a situation and “through love” act or be in a way that serves “the other” in what is needed. This is the “process” of love…and this is what, I believe, we mean when we say we have a responsibility to be missional in our behavior. We are to reveal in our actions this “process” of love because it is the way that we believe that others should lead their lives.

In being missional, we are all asked to be leaders. In being missional we are leading other people, by example, into the way we believe that all people should live their lives. In being missional we, like Jesus, are “revealing the image” of a god we believe to be the ideal of love. In being missional we are showing others what it means when we say that God is love.

In showing this leadership we are being ministers and this is what comes out of some of the New Testament writing. This is called “the priesthood of all believers.” In essence, everyone is, or can be, a minister. And, yet we are told that everyone has different talents…different abilities…different experiences. Everyone is not supposed to do the same thing that everyone else does.

And, in this light, certain of us are separated out to be ministers of the ministers…that is, to be ordained pastors or priests or ministers. And, given what has been written above, this to me means that these ministers that have been separated out have a special responsibility to others to teach, facilitate, to show others what it means to be missional in their lives. This means that these ministers that are separated out have a special responsibility to focus on what I have called “the process” and not emphasize “outcomes.”

I believe that too many of our “separated out” ministers have been taught in seminaries to focus on “outcomes” and been encouraged by their peers to focus on “outcomes” and been charged by their religious organizations and churches and congregations to focus on “outcomes” and this has left us in the state that we are now in. These ministers are not entirely blameless themselves for they like the power and control that comes to them by being the one who is in charge of telling their flocks what “outcomes” they should be pursuing…and their flocks…what they still have of them…blindly follow their shepherd.

Energy and initiative come from the teaching and facilitation of “process”. Energy and initiative come from people that are missional…that study and learn and gain experience in what they do so that they can “love” others…including creation…as they have been commanded to do. Our ministers that have been “separated out” need to step back and discern how they can release all this energy and initiative to the world…even if they lose some of their power and control.

Reveal the Image Of...

Over the past several years I have used the term “Missional” to capture what it is that I think that we should be doing. We all should be “missional” in our lives.

The word “missional” was created to be more meaningful in a modern sense to the worn out terms of “mission” or “missionary.” These terms were used to describe any number of different activities, some of them not so positive, and so people produced the word “missional” to captured a more specific and limited type of behavior. To be “missional” one was to behave in a way that was representational of the way a Christian was supposed to live. To be “missional” was to glorify God in all that one did. Then, to take a Roman meaning of “glorify” where a statue of the current Caesar was put on a cart and drawn around a area where the statue revealed the image of the person who was then Caesar. That is, the image looked like the reigning Caesar and this then brought the populace into closer contact with the Caesar because individuals now knew what Caesar looked like.

In similar fashion we are to glorify God by acting in a way that will reveal the image of our God. We take as an example of this a person, Jesus of Nazareth who was thought to glorify God better than any other person who has lived. That is, Jesus is said to have revealed the image of God to others so that individuals would have a real, concrete image of how one should live ones’ life as God would have him live his life.

But, in what way did Jesus reveal the image of God?

Well, we are told that “God is love.”

But, what does this mean? Do we have any more information about how one should live ones’ life? I mean, if God is love and we are to reveal the image of God…then we must be “love” as well. How do we become “love”…how do we reveal this image?

Perhaps our next clue comes from what we are told we are commanded to do…the “Great Commandments.” These are to love God with all our heart and all our soul and all are mind and the second is like it…it is to love our neighbor as ourselves. So the whole thing about revealing the image of God is about love…about loving God…about loving others…and in the broader sense other people and creation…and about loving ourselves. In this was we reveal what is meant by “God is love.”

How do we “love God”?

First of all we must know God…know about God. That is, we must put ourselves out and learn…gather information about God…review existing knowledge about God…and keep open and search in every way we can for more information about God.

Why do we have to put out this effort?

We have to make this effort because we cannot really love…we cannot really love God…unless we know as much as we can about the one to be loved. We have to know as much as we can because how can love the one to be loved if we don’t know who the loved one is, what the loved one does, what is best for the loved one…where the loved one is.

If we are to love the loved one we need to know where the loved one is and what will make the loved one happy and what will be the optimal things to do in relationship to the loved one. That is, to love God, we need to know where God is and what we can do to be in unity with God.

But, to be able to love God we also must be able to love ourselves. If we don’t love ourselves, how can we love anyone, anything, or whatever. We must have, at a minimum, a certain care or concern for ourselves. Again, in order for us to love ourselves we must learn about ourselves…know ourselves sufficiently so that we can act in our best interests. This does not mean to act selfishly, or greedily, or in a controlling way to get our own way. It means that we must really find out about who we are, what we need to do to really act in our best interest, and to then act in a way that will bring us into greater unity with who we really are. So, knowledge and a long term view is very necessary to love…both self and God.

The same is also true of loving our neighbor as our self. We must again gain as much information as we can about other individuals and about creation. We must make an effort to learn a sufficient amount about others and creation so that we can move to attain greater unity with others and with creation. Study, learning, knowledge…all sorts of efforts like these must go into loving the other…not trying to get our way…but to learn where they are and what is in their best interests. This is how we love our neighbor as our self.

So, this is what it means to love…to study…and to act. To learn about the one to be loved…the part of creation to be loved…and then to act in the best interest of the one that is loved.

This is what God does…we are told. This is what Jesus has revealed to us…in his life and actions. This is what we are supposed to do…this is what it means to be “missional.” We are to live a life that shows to others the example of how we think people should live…how we believe God loves.

We are told that God “created” the world…and that he saw that it was “good.” That is, God saw the world and he loved the world.

When we study physics…when we try and learn the way nature works…so that we can work with nature in a way that raises our standard of living and helps people…and then we work to build this knowledge and act in a way that is beneficial to all. This is seeing God’s creation…it is loving God’s creation…and it is revealing the image of God to others…so that others will emulate this behavior.

The same thing is true of loving another person…let’s take a potential spouse…as the extreme. We date…we do things together…we talk with each other…we learn to become friends…we learn whether or not we can tolerate each other over a long period of time…we learn whether or not we can act in the other’s best interest putting aside our own interests when it is important to the relationship…we learn about each other so that we can be where they are not where we are…and this is love…and this can lead to a great marriage.

This is the foundation of “missional” behavior. If we are to love God and to love our neighbor as ourselves…then let us act in that way…let us be “missional” to one another. It doesn’t mean that we go overseas…or that we go into the cities…or that we make a special effort to reach out. Yes, being “missional” may include all of these…but being “missional” starts with the next person you talk with…the next person you see…the next thing you do. Being “missional” is action…right where you are…right with what you are doing at this very moment.

Being “missional” is revealing the image of what you believe to be the most important way to live.

Practical Living

In recent posts I have been attempting to present a general view of how human beings go about living and go about trying to achieve greater unity in their lives that would make them feel more whole and at peace within themselves. Much of this effort I would argue centers around what could be called “practical living” or “pragmatic living”. This approach is also captured in the field of psychology called “Cognitive Therapy” a practicing branch of the subject, much of it deriving from the work of Aaron T. Beck.

The basic idea of this approach is that human beings are problem solvers and the methodology the use, implicitly or explicitly, is that of inductive inference. Inductive inference is basically a process of problem solving or decision making that assumes that people have models, schema, rules or whatever which they use to make predictions with. The predictions are, of course, to be used in deciding which solution or which decision a person should make in a given situation. All decisions are made on the basis of predictions…we have to have some idea of how things are going to come out…given the different choices of actions that we have…before we can decide which action to take.

Where do these models, schema, rules, etc., come from? They can come from parents, families, friends, groups we belong to, reading, the Internet, almost anyplace you can think of. Any source of information is a place where these operational tools can come from. And, the models we work from can be as simple as that coming from the old fable: “Slow and steady wins the race.” Or, the models can be extremely complex and formal, explicitly stated. Or the models can be held subconsciously thereby being just implicit in our decision making.

The important thing is that we human beings work from all sorts of models and we use these models, in a given situation, to make predictions about what result we can expect if we were to take different actions. First, I have to make sure the model I use is appropriate for the specific situation I am facing. For example, if I use the model “slow and steady wins the race” and apply it to, say, a sprint race…well, I should realize that this model is not really the appropriate one for this given situation. Maybe I should use the model, “the race goes to the swiftest” instead.

Then, I need to determine what possible actions I can take. In something like a sprint race, the situation is not too complex and the model is very simple. Hence, I have very few possible actions that are reasonable for me to take. A more complex situation will generally have more choices of action. Think about the way that you would like to have your children brought up, for example. Lots of different possibilities there…and you have to choose one.

One I have decided on an action plan…I will then go ahead and act. Let it be noted at this stage, however, that one of the actions I can take is to get more information. I may believe that I don’t have sufficient information on which to make a decision…so I bring in parents or friends for advice, I hire a consultant, I go to the library, I surf the Internet, and so on and so on. This is a legitimate action to take. I am then gathering additional information that may cause me to adjust my model…or bring in a new model…or continue to search for new information.

At sometime, I will have to make a decision on the problem I am trying to solve or on the action I need to take. So, decide to choose the action that will give me the result that has the best “possible” outcome. I emphasize the word “possible” because we are acting in a world of incomplete information and, therefore, we realize that we don’t know with certainty what the outcome of a particular decision will be. When we make the decision we believe that the result we will get will be the most favorable result we can obtain. But, we know that things may not work out exactly as we would like them to…we might be wrong…and we have to live with that fact. Our models are only partial…and they are all fallible!

One other thing that can be mentioned here: I write that the purpose of building a model is so that we can make a decision…take an action. This is very important in the evolution of human beings. Human beings have evolved as “good” problem solvers. This is their primary trait and they excel at it more than any other living organism. But, humans have used this ability to solve not only problems of survival…they have also used in to develop brain exercises…I call them entertainments. So, I look at a spectrum of problems that humans set out to solve and these problems are continuous all the way from situations that are life-threatening to those that have no purpose at all except to entertain the species…pure “entertainments.”

One of the interesting things about humans is that they can get so caught up in “entertainments” that they spend an inordinate amount of time emphasizing them relative to the importance of other problems of a more crucial, life-enhancing nature. For example, I look at the effort to determine the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin…as pure entertainment.

Our process continues, however. We take an action…and get receive information about the consequences of that action. Things may work out exactly as we had planned. Or, some things did not work out exactly as projected. Or, things were all wrong. Or…something else…

We must not discard this new information for it is very useful in analyzing the adequacy of the model that we used. If we find that the model made very good predictions, then we probably will not want to alter the model at this time. If the model made lousy predictions, we may want to alter the model, adjust it for the future so that the modified model will make better predictions for us. Or, we may find that the model was not useful at all in such situations and we may want to find or create a new model to use in these situations at some future date.

Thus we have come full circle…we are back to where we started out…with a model, schema, rules, etc., that can be used in decision making and problem solving. The theologian David Tracy argues that the models we use should be “relatively adequate.” That is, our models are not “absolutely” adequate…they are partial and fallible. A relatively adequate model is one that is logically consistent…that is, it does not make contradictory predictions…and it predicts at least as well as any other model that can be used in the given situation.

And this is the point I am trying to make in this post. The models we use in life should work to some degree. That is, they predict at least as well as any other model for this given situation. And, one of our criteria for the models working is that the decisions that we make from these models help us to gain greater unity in our lives and bring us to a more complete wholeness. The process we use in decision making…the process of inductive inference…should help us lead fuller and better lives. If they don’t then we need to look for models, schema, rules, etc., that do achieve this goal.

And, we should not limit ourselves to where we get information about the models we might use. Religion is not off bounds as a source. Two things are important to remember, however, when one is dealing with religious models. First, ALL models are partial and fallible…even religious ones. We must not lock ourselves up in authority or power to the point that we “put-a-lid” on our God-given ability…the ability to problem-solve. Second, we must not get tangled up in religious “entertainments”, problems that have nothing to do with making decisions. We can enjoy them as intellectual exercises, but we must not let them keep us from the reality that we do have to make decisions relating to actions that determine what happens to us in life.

Where does this leave us…with a world of information where we have to pick and choose the models that “work for us”? Again, I go to David Tracy for the answer to this…”Start where you are, but be open.” That is, use the models and schema that you have inherited and been brought on to this point in your life. But…be open to whether or not the models you use are “relatively adequate”. I do not believe, as Richard Rorty seemed to, that we just pick the models that give us the results we want. Some models work better than others; we can’t just be arbitrary.

Synchronicity

Last Tuesday, January 20, I posted a blog that included parts of the following quote from Goethe:

“Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness. Considering all acts of initiative there is one elementary truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then Providence moves too.”

“All sorts of things occur to help one that would otherwise never have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one’s favor all manners of incidents and meetings and material assistance which no person would have believed would have come their way. Whatever you think you can do, begin it. Action has magic, grace and power in it.”

People have referred to this type of occurrence as “synchronicity” which is basically defined as things happening, existing, or arising at precisely the same time. It is my belief that some form of synchronicity takes place when people come into greater unity with God, within oneself, with others, and with creation. It is what happens when one loves God and loves their neighbor (which I define more broadly as including all of creation as well as other people).

Why do I think this way?

It is because if we are not in a high degree of unity, as explained above, things don’t connect, we are separated, alienated, and we, as individuals are uncomfortable, unsettled, and feel discomfort. That is, when we are not in unity…our whole lives suffer…nothing goes together.

If we are really ourselves, if we love God and neighbor…if we know, as much as possible, where we are, where God is, where others are, and where creation is…so that we, in love, can respond to others where they are and not, selfishly, where we are…then things can move together…and they do.

The point is, that being committed to the two major commandments, which means that we also are committed to truly loving ourselves, I believe gets us into Goethe “magic groove”. And, if we do achieve this in some way, “a whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one’s favor all manners of incidents and meetings and material assistance…”

This can be a test…if things seem to be moving together and coincidences and weird things start to run in parallel…then accept the fact that maybe…just maybe…you are doing some things that are bringing greater unity into your lives…greater unity with God, within yourself, with others and with creation.

The times when this happens does not have to be related to “earth-shattering” events…or incredible commitments. Situations can occur within the context of the “little things.” But, these times are times to cherish…to be thankful for…and to possibly learn something from. For it is times like these that we are trying to make more and more a part of our lives. In times like these we see what life can be like. In times like these we feel whole…and at peace.

The difficulty with Goethe’s statement above has to do with what we commit to. I will argue very strongly with the point that it doesn’t matter what one commits to…we just have to commit to something. It is important what we commit to. And, we don’t want to waste commitments.

Note, we are dealing with hesitancy, the chance to draw back, ineffectiveness. There is the reality that we don’t know what action or actions will bring us that greater unity. We deal with the reality that we still have to make decisions, take actions, based on incomplete information. Thus, we are faced with deciding or acting in the wrong way…making the wrong commitments. This, of course, is a real possibility. So, it does matter what we do…which path we take.

Again, we are problem solvers…we use the process of inductive inference…we determine the choices we can make that we believe can contribute to the greater unity we seek. We are not deciding or acting in a vacuum. But, we finally must act…we finally must commit…and…

Our hope is that our commitment will bring us into that greater unity we seek. What Goethe is telling us…I believe…that when we come to making a decision…we make that decision…take that action…with real commitment…with the real giving of oneself to the effort. But, again, we may be wrong…or, at least, not quite correct. We still have learning to do…we still need to incorporate the new information we have gathered and apply it to the effort. That is the process of how human beings go about solving problems.

What we are after, however, is that feeling of unity…that feeling of wholeness. That is really what we are after…not riches, not wins, not sex, not a lot of other things. What we want is our lives to come together. We want the various parts of our lives to fit together. If they don’t, we struggle…we fuss…we drink too much…we argue and fight…we are unhappy with ourselves and our lives. We don’t want the different components of our lives to be separate, disjointed, or out-of-whack. We want things to fit and we want to feel like we are one…we are whole.

Let me try and put this together in summary. We want our lives to be meaningful. I believer that when we are in greater unity…as described above…when we are more whole…when we experience synchronicity…life does seem meaningful to us. We can’t explain it. We can’t write a treatise on it, let alone an essay. But, when things go together and we achieve some of that feeling of unity…we sense meaningfulness in life. Why? Because if things are flowing together…even in very small things…we feel that things must be meaningful because everything is going together…and that is the way life is supposed to be.

Funny…we don’t need a philosophical or theological book to explain life to us or to speculate on the meaningfulness of life. When we sense things flowing together in some sort of synchronistic way…we feel that life is good. God, we are told, looked at his creation and said that it was good. When we feel that life is good…we feel in tune with God…and we feel that life has meaning. We feel that we are what we are supposed to be…we feel we fit within God’s creation…and we feel that we have meaning. This is what we are looking for.

Free to Be Me!

In my last post, I discussed the topic of “Determining Who One Is.” I argued in the post that one must make the effort to love oneself and to love oneself one must follow the learning process that humans use in all other activities. The goal of learning about oneself is unity within self…wholeness of being. And, we are commanded to engage in this process for it is a part of the commandments to love God and to love our neighbor (people and creation) as we love ourselves…to be in unity with God, within ourselves, with others, and with creation.

This last post follows the line of several other posts that I have written for this blog site. The foundation for all my thinking is that human beings are problem solvers. This is the most unique of all the characteristics of human beings and the degree of improvement and the level of sophistication these humans have attained in this skill has separated them from all other life that we know of. I wrote of this in my post “Problem Solving: The Most Human of Activities,” which appeared on February 22, 2008.

The basic goal of problem solving…or in other words, decision making…is to observe the regularities of creation and create models, schema, rules, and so forth to use as a means of prediction when an individual is faced with a situation or a difficulty that requires some form of action. The use of these models is very pragmatic…they must be logically consistent and they must predict at least as well as any other model that can be useful in such a situation or difficulty. I discussed these issues in my post of October 31, 2008 entitled “Models that Work.”

The thing is that we must develop a “trust” in our models. Since we work in a world of incomplete information ALL of our models are going to be partial or fallible. Humans do not have models that predict the future perfectly…that is why “trust” is so important. The question, of course, becomes…what models, schema, rules, and so forth do I “trust”? The basic concept here is that through use, education, example, and so forth, we develop what is called a “warranted belief” in those models, schema, rules, and so forth. Warranted, here is used to mean that the individual has sufficient evidence or proof that the model, etc., is logically consistent and predicts at least as well as any other model that can be applied to the given situation or difficulty. Warranted, in this case, means that a person has, for him- or her-self, sufficient justification to put their “trust” in the model being applied to the situation or difficulty. With new information we improve, modify, or introduce new, logically consistent models that predict better than the old ones. This concept was expanded on in my post of March 14, 2008 entitled “Warranted Belief.”

An important thing to remember, however, is that we do not do all this work alone…we live in the world…we have families…we belong to groups…we are part of communities…and so forth. We are not meant to be alone…to do it all alone…or to be separated…or alienated…or isolated. We learn in communities; communities give us a chance to practice problem solving and decision making; communities allow us to make mistakes and look foolish; and communities help us to grow and develop. They provide us with a (relatively) safe place for us to experiment and try out things without facing the temptations, threats, and disappointments of the “outside” world.

But, groups and communities can present problems. Groups or communities can attempt to impose their ideas on individuals. Groups or communities can try and control individuals. Groups and communities can limit thinking, learning, experimenting, growth, and becoming whole. Groups can be very destructive to becoming who one is.

Thus, the groups and communities we belong to are important. Understanding this and learning and growing are important in how we decide on the groups and communities we join or remain with. This was why I discussed this concern in “The Communities We Belong To” in my post of March 7, 2008. This choice can be a difficult part of life and sometimes the choice separates us from some individuals that are very close and dear to us. Yet, for us to become who we are as fully as possible and to grow into greater unity with God and ourselves and other people and creation, sometimes we must make the difficult choice.

For this reason I say that I can’t approach my religion any differently than I approach other decision or problems in my life. That is, why should I suspend the way I go about decision making or problem solving in all other facets of my life; why should I check these practices at the entrance to anything religious or theological? This doesn’t make sense…yet, it is exactly what is expected of us by many religious groups and organizations around the world. I cannot accept this…at least for me!

I have two points to add to this. First, if you try living differently in one area of your life and try to force that part into the other areas of your life, you will never achieve the greater unity you seek. You will be condemned to being something less than whole. But, this is what is often encouraged in trying to live the religious life. You take the dogma; you take the creeds; and you suspend your approach to living when you enter the religious part of your life. Then you are encouraged to carry this religious approach to life into everything else that you do. It just doesn’t work.

Many people complain that people are only religious for one hour a week…the time that they attend a worship service. The more I have thought about this the more I have come to the conclusion that people don’t extend the “religious” part of their life work…to their home…to the other parts of their life…because the approach to doing things in a “religious” way…just doesn’t work. And, human decision making and problem solving abilities have evolved for one simple, pragmatic reason…they work.

Let me note right away that this does not mean that one does not live an honorable, meaningful life outside the “religious” part of their life. We are still commanded to love God and to love our neighbors as ourselves. The crucial thing in living well is that we keep on trying to discover the models of life that bring us into greater unity with God, etc., and that bring us into greater personal wholeness. But, that gets me into my second point.

My second point is that God wants us to be problem solvers in everything that we do. We, in a real sense, believe that God has given humans this gift…has given us the talent to solve problems and make decisions. God, we believe, has claimed that “this is good!” God, we believe, wants us to practice and develop this capability throughout our lives. It is through the use of this ability that we can grow into greater unity with God, within ourselves, with others, and with creation. Therefore, this talent is to be used in all our activities…including those pertaining to religion and theology.

Therefore, I cannot accept any institution or person telling me that I have to live or believe a certain way. They can suggest certain ways of living or believing for my consideration. But, I have to be free to decide for myself…and that is the only way that I can be me.

Determining Who One Is

How does a person determine who he or she is? How does a person gain that self-confidence that they are comfortable in their own skin? When is a person at peace with themselves?

These are some of the most difficult questions a person ever faces.

These questions go back to the fundamental characteristic of human beings…the ability of human beings to solve problems or to make decisions. But, what is the basis for the use of this capability to provide answers for the above questions?

The basis is what has been called the greatest commandments which Jesus limited to just two. The first was to love God with all you heart, and soul, and mind, and strength. The second was like the first…you should love your neighbor as yourself. Many people have pointed out the fact that one cannot really love your neighbor if you do not love yourself. So, to me, the way to answer the questions posed in the first paragraph is to love God and by loving God coming to love yourself so that you can love others, including all creation, as yourself.

So, the charge becomes knowing God and knowing ones self sufficiently so that you can move into greater unity with God and within yourself. This is how one comes to love ones self. This is how one comes to know who he or she is…it is how a person becomes comfortable in their own skin…it how a person achieves peace within themselves.

Still, the process is one of problem solving or decision making. It is the same as everything else we do…we just turn the focus on other objects. The problems we have to deal with in this instance are concerned with how we solve those problems and how we make the decisions that bring us into greater unity…with God…and within ourselves.

And, what is so extraordinary about this? We are to learn and grow and mature in our lives so that we can make better decisions or solve more difficult problems. We are to take responsible for ourselves and our mental state.

This sounds easy…but as we know it is very, very difficult. We live in a world of incomplete information…including a lot of things we don’t know about ourselves. We have to live with uncertainty and change. We have to learn to live with the fact that our worldviews, our models and schema, our rules of life…are partial and fallible. We can be wrong. And, we don’t like that.

One response to this situation is to crave certainty…to crave rules and creeds and dogma that promise “the truth”. We crave a solution to our disunity…our alienation…our lack of wholeness. And, many of us are willing to give up our minds and lives to rulers who will control our lives so that we, maybe…just maybe…may control the things and people around us.

In the end, however, this is not satisfying…it is giving up yourself to others.

We must live in this world of incomplete information…in this world of uncertainty…and accept the fact that our models and worldviews are partial and fallible. Yet, in a very pragmatic way, we stay with models and worldviews that work…that help us make better decisions and solve more difficult problems.

The crucial thing is that we must desire this greater unity with God and with ourselves and this desire must be met with the effort to gain more and more information about God and about ourselves. We must enter into a lifelong search to strengthen our models and worldviews or to modify them or change them if we find new information that leads us into these changes. Like everything else we do, we must go forward building upon the foundations we have established and work to grow into greater unity…and wholeness…and peace.

We must listen to ourselves…we must be aware of disunities…we must be aware of our alienation…and we must question…and we must seek help…and we must be open to new information.

This effort must be intentional on our part…we must address our issues…we must have confidence that we can achieve what we are setting out to do. We must believe, with Goethe, that if we must commit….for when we commit for “the moment one definitely commits oneself, then Providence moves to.”

“All sorts of things occur to help one that would otherwise never have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one’s favor all manners of incidents and meetings and material assistance which no person would have believed would have come their way. Whatever you think you can do, begin it. Action has magic, grace and power in it.”

Seek peace within oneself…seek wholeness…seek self-confidence in one’s own skin. Use what you have been given…and be open to what is possible…to surprise…to wonder.

Be open to God…

On Not Being Will-Full

The last post (January 12, 2009) argued against any person, group, or organization imposing doctrine, creed, or “truth” upon others. That is, one should be suspicious or stand-offish against anyone that demands 100% allegiance to the rules or laws concerning what they believe.

This position, however, opens up on the other side, the issue which is that individuals have complete freedom to choose whatever they want to, at any time they please. I call a person who takes such a position, a will-full person…a person who imposes their will upon a situation.

I find myself uncomfortable with this extreme position as well. I guess I am just wishy-washy.

There are two aspects to this issue that I believe to be very important. First, people, groups, and organizations do possess beliefs, worldviews, and other content that are helpful to one leading a better, fuller, or, more whole and alive life. These people, groups, and organizations can provide us with models and schema that allow us to make better decisions or solve more difficult problems.

To me, there is no question that this is the case. And, these people, groups, and organizations continue to provide guidance to individuals over time because, in a very pragmatic sense, a large part of what they have to offer succeeds…it truly helps others. The reason that they have “staying power” and are still around is that they do provide people with good models upon which these people make decisions or solve problems.

Where these people, groups, and organizations can go wrong, I believe, is when they either come to believe so strongly that they are “right” in their beliefs that they feel everyone should believe the same way they do, or, when they take a successful way of looking at something and use this success to build power and control for themselves. Of course, you can have situations where both occur and build upon one another over time.

The extreme of the first of these can be seen in the 16th century practice of burning people at the stake for their own good because they did not adhere to a particular form of belief. That is, these people were “going to hell” anyway, they could not be redeemed, and so they might as well get on with it…with the help of good Christians who knew of their depravity.

The extreme side of the second of these is the person who uses his or her charisma to gather followers to themselves, followers who seek certainty in one way or another. These people use their power over these people to enhance their own position and gain more and more control over others even to the point of committing mass suicide as the wish of the leader.

Variations can be found of both of these paths in highly organized clerical situations, political movements, or grass-roots assemblies. The foundation for such happenings is that there is fundamentally something positive that is offered people…whether it is hope, or certainty, or healing, or whatever. It is what happens in the evolution of the idea or ideas that corrupts the effort and turns it into something negative rather than positive.

My objection is that when the ideas, rules, laws, models, or schema start to be imposed upon individuals so that they cannot question or debate or investigate or be open to new information trouble begins. People must be free to ask questions. They must be free and open to new information. They must be at liberty to follow where their own minds lead them.

The problem with this, of course, is that people only have incomplete information about any subject. Thus, whatever questions they have or problems they face, they must go into them knowing that the answers they produce or the solutions they come up with are only uncertain and fallible. People must live with this deficiency…and this is a hard thing to do…for individuals, deep down, crave certainty. Individuals must learn to be strong and accept the fact that this is the reality of life. And some…because of life situations, of experiences, of personal weaknesses…cannot live with such uncertainty. They constantly search out those that offer a kind of shelter from the storm.

This leads into the second major aspect of the situation. There are people, groups, and organizations that do have successful worldviews, models, schema, and so forth and do not impose their ideas and beliefs on other people. These people, groups, and organizations accept the incompleteness and fallibility of their ideas and beliefs yet realize the positive aspects of their worldview, models or schema and want to share this fact with others.

I believe this to be true of those who truly follow Jesus…as argued in my post of January 12, 2009. I also believe that it is the responsibility of those that follow Jesus to share what Jesus has to offer with others. This is called “Missional” behavior and it is what we are supposed to engage in if we support the teachings of Jesus.

To go through the whole argument quickly: we argue that God is Love. Our objective is to love as God loves. First, we are to love God with all our heart and soul and mind and strength. Second, we are to love God’s creation…ourselves, other people, and the rest of creation.

To love God and to love our neighbor…creation…we need to have some idea of what it means to love like God. This is where Jesus comes in. We who follow Jesus believe that he was an example of what it means to love God and to love God’s creation. In this, Jesus glorified God which translates into the statement that Jesus revealed the image of God in all that he did. Thus, Jesus is our model of what it means to love God and to love God’s creation.

This is what it means to be “Missional”. We are to do as Jesus did and that is reveal the image of God to others. That is…we are to “go and do likewise.”

Notice…in no way are we to force our ideas on others…in no way are we to impose on others…in no way are we to try and control the beliefs and actions of other individuals. We are to reveal what kind of life is led by those that follow the teachings of Jesus. No doctrine…no creed…no toeing the line to a specific way of thought.

The idea is, of course, that leading a life in this way will result in us being in greater unity with God, within ourselves, with others, and with creation. It will lead to greater wholeness and more aliveness. It will lead to a life that others will want to imitate.

Thus, there is no forcing…no imposing…no intimidation…no will-full-ness. We believe in a way of life that is our choice. We live that life and are able to reflect on and explain to others why we live the way we do and why, we believe, we get the results we do.

This, to me, is the way we live our lives. We believe in something. Our choices are not arbitrary. And, it is the way we help other individuals.

The Search for Knowledge

Jesus is reported to have said this during his ministry: “you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” This comes from the book of John, chapter 8, verse 32. He prefaces this by saying, “If you continue in my word…”

The question about the meaning of this…and of other sayings attributed to Jesus…is whether or not Jesus wanted us to take his sayings as “law” or as “process.” If we take his sayings as “law” then we must obey exactly what he says. But, this has its own problems.

When Jesus is ask by a Jewish lawyer, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus responds by asking the lawyer “What is written in the law?” The lawyer smartly replies that “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” This comes from the book of Luke, chapter 10, versus 25-28.

This is the law and Jesus commends him: “You have given the right answer…” but then he goes on, “do this, and you will live.”

Whoa! Here is the law. We are told what to do. But…there is a hitch…how do we act? How do we carry out the meaning of the law? Like, for instance, “And who is my neighbor?” the lawyer replies.

Good question.

What does the law mean? How should it be applied? And, to whom should it be applied?

The law is the law, but the application of the law…is interpretation.

I believe that we get some sense of how Jesus sees the law being applied in two incidents that are reported in Mark 2:23-3:6, Matthew 12:1-14, and Luke 6:1-11. The first incident occurs when Jesus and his disciples are going through a grain field. (Mark 2:23) The second takes place in a synagogue on the Sabbath. In both cases the “upholders of the law” take issue with what is being done. In the first case the issue is about doing work on the Sabbath…plucking heads of grain. In the second case the issue concerns Jesus healing the withered hand of a man.

Upon facing the claim that he or his disciples are “doing what is not lawful” (Mark 2:24) Jesus replies citing scripture. “Have you never read…” he responds to the Pharisees. Also, “Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?” (Mark 3:4)

He justifies the actions by saying “The Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath…” (Mark 2:27) and “I desire mercy and not sacrifice…” (Matthew 12:7) In other words, think about what the law is supposed to do. Is the law supposed to constrain man, limit him, and box him in? Or, is the law about freeing up man, opening up his possibilities, and providing liberation.

Did Moses liberate the Hebrews from bondage…or did he impose the law on them to bring them into a different kind of bondage?

I believe that what Jesus is saying is “think rightly.” What is this all about? The law is supposed to build up life…to create greater wholeness…to allow one to live more fully. You shouldn’t use the law to destroy life…or create division…or to smother the living. The law is supposed to help people live with God…to live with themselves…to live with others…and to live with creation.

The law is a guideline…but the law needs interpretation…the law requires knowledge and understanding. And, what does the law say? Well, Jesus says that the lawyer “gave the right answer.” The right answer is…“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”

But, this answer opens up two issues that require definition. The first one, the lawyer goes for…”who is my neighbor?” Jesus doesn’t provide an answer to who the neighbor of the lawyer is. This is the story of the Good Samaritan and when Jesus finishes the story he asks…”Which of the these three was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” And this deals with the second issue…what does it mean to love you neighbor.

Not…who is my neighbor?...but who was a neighbor. And, the lawyer gives Jesus the right answer again, “The one who showed him mercy.” The one who loved.

Note, by providing the other with the response he or she needs…you are being a neighbor. YOU are the only one you can control. YOU are the only one that can carry out the commandment for YOU. And, you respond to the needs of others, which requires that you make the effort to know what the other needs…and this is not what YOU want to give to the other…it is what the other needs!

And, this gets me back to the quote at the beginning…”If you continue in my word…YOU will know the truth…and the truth will make YOU free.” That is, if you take the time and effort to learn what the other needs and give to the other what he or she or it needs then YOU will become free…become whole…become fully alive. It is not the responsibility of the neighbor or who the neighbor is.

So, loving requires knowing…and knowing requires effort on the part of the individual to learn. We don’t know what the answer is until we make the effort to learn. THE LAW DOES NOT GIVE US THE ANSWER…the law only guides us. We must “think rightly.’

To put this in another way, it seems to me that any one or any group or any organization that requires you to subscribe to something that is rigid, dogmatic, or imposed upon you violates the teachings of Jesus. Any one or any group or any organization that tells you what to believe or tells you what to do or tells you who you can associate with violates the teachings of Jesus. We should be immediately suspicious of any one, any group, or any organization that has the final word on things, that will not us allow us to test things out and make our own judgments.

Jesus says that if you open your heart and soul and mind and strength to love…to love God, yourself, others, and all of creation…you will know the truth and the truth will make you free. That is, we have to develop and trust the inherent abilities we have as human beings and problem solvers if we are to be fully human, fully whole, and fully alive. We must oppose those that try and constrain us, who allow us anything less.