“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.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
Pragmatism and Belief
My comments today are related to the Gifford Lectures of Stanley Hauerwas which were printed in book form under the title of “With the Grain of the Universe.” (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2001) What particularly strikes me in the lectures is the juxtaposition of the three individuals Hauerwas focuses upon in the lectures: William James, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Karl Barth.
These three thinkers, I believe, are representative of the point that Hauerwas wants to make in the lectures concerning the outcome of the debate over modernity. He begins with William James, for James, the pragmatist, follows the path of “experience.” That is, pragmatists apply the “scientific model” to their thinking process, which in a more general form can be referred to as Inductive Inference.
Inductive Inference is a process of “model” testing that always ends up comparing the predictions of a particular model against the outcomes of the decisions an individual has actually pursued. Thus, “experience” is an important part of the process.
I use the term model here as a “catch all” term that includes not only formal models used in making forecasts but also the less formal or less explicit means people use in decision making or problem solving like stories, rules of thumb, or other narrative forms.
If the outcomes are consistent with the predictions then an individual can continue to use the model in its current form. However, if the outcomes are not consistent with the predictions, then the model needs to be modified in order to make better predictions the next time the individual needs to use the model.
Note that not all models directly need to result in a “decision” or an “action”. Models are use to “explain” things, like historical events or how things fit together. Models are also the tools that humans use to try and make sense of things, to present a worldview, or to justify an action.
Models, whether formal or informal in nature, begin with assumptions. That is, assumptions must be made that serve as the foundational material for the construction of the model. The assumptions may be realistic…or they may not be realistic. And, this is where problems come into the picture.
Milton Friedman, the well-known Nobel prize winning economist, wrote, in a very famous essay on “positive economics”, that the reality of the assumptions of a model were really not the issue concerning the value or usefulness of a model. The usefulness of the model was determined by how well the model forecast or how well the model was able to explain events. Just to change a model on the basis that the assumptions of the model were unrealistic was not sufficient.
The Catholic theologian David Tracy has written that the deciding factor about models is their “relative adequacy.” By “relative adequacy” Tracy meant that a model was logically consistent and predicted at least as well as did any other logically consistent theory. The choice of assumptions has a lot to do with whether or not the model is logically consistent. The real “test” of the mode was its ability to predict.
Pragmatism, however, can get caught up in a concern about reality, about a person’s “experience”. The essence of pragmatism is that it works, it helps people solve more and more difficult problems, make better decisions, and it helps people understand history better. The primary focus, therefore, needs to be on the results.
On the other hand, people can transfer their focus to the assumptions of a model. People can look at the assumptions and say that the assumptions don’t conform to reality…to “experience.” Thus, even though the models may be helpful and contribute to successful decision making and problem solving, people may try to change the assumptions because they are not “realistic.” This is where trouble can creep in.
Once people begin focusing upon the assumptions of a model, generally the questioning of the reality of the assumptions will continue. The only place this process can end up is where all the assumptions are “realistic” and that usually leaves you with a model that predicts little or nothing.
This, to me, is what Hauerwas is getting at in his criticisms of modernity. The thinkers of modernity have focused upon the realism of the assumptions of models because they do not conform to their “experience” and so “water-down” models regardless of whether or not they make good predictions. And, this has very significant consequences for their thinking. All models turn out to be deficient. That is, there is no “truth”.
Hauerwas contends that Protestant liberals attempt to ground their knowledge of God in experience…in reality. (page 158) This grounding has led to their questioning the assumptions of the more “orthodox” Reformation model of Christian thinking. True to modernity, once the questioning of assumptions begins, the questioning continues and the model begins to deteriorate. Oh, yes, the “realism” brought into the discussion seems to be called for and, at least in the short run, seems to make the model more consistent with reality. However, once the challenge to the model becomes paramount the result is a kind of nihilism.
The problem is that the focus on the model has shifted from the ability of the model to help solve more and more difficult problems or allow for better decisions to be made. The focus of the model is now on the realism of the model.
This leads Hauerwas to conclude that “the difference between Niebuhr and Barth is exactly the difference between a theology that has given up on its ability to tell us the way the world is and a theology that confidently and unapologetically proclaims the way things are.” (page 21)
Within this context, the Protestant liberal bets all his/her cards on “reason” or the following of “humanistic” ends, and loses the skill to make known to themselves and to make known to others exactly what they believe about how the world works and how things are.
Barth, Hauerwas contends, “did not try to ‘explain’ the truth of what Christians believe about God and God’s creation. He understood that such an explanation could not help but give the impression that the explanation is more important than the witness.” (page 146)
To Hauerwas, “Barth’s convictions were tested by their ability to sustain service to God.” (page 40) That is, the test of any set of convictions, the test of any model is “does it work in practice.” In this case, the test of the convictions is in witness!
“Christians can be no more than witnesses.” (page 16)
Thus, the models people rely on must work. Focus must not be upon the assumptions or the reality behind the assumptions…focus must be upon the consequences of having faith in the model.
It is easy to destroy people’s belief by challenging the reality behind that belief. Modernity has been very good at this. In fact, that is the one thing that modernity excels in.
But, this does not make all models of equal value. Some models predict better than other models. Some models, as David Tracy contend, are relatively adequate. Some of these models are integral to the Christian story and Christian history. We need to have faith in these models if we are to solve more and more difficult problems and to make better decisions. That is the experience that really counts.
These three thinkers, I believe, are representative of the point that Hauerwas wants to make in the lectures concerning the outcome of the debate over modernity. He begins with William James, for James, the pragmatist, follows the path of “experience.” That is, pragmatists apply the “scientific model” to their thinking process, which in a more general form can be referred to as Inductive Inference.
Inductive Inference is a process of “model” testing that always ends up comparing the predictions of a particular model against the outcomes of the decisions an individual has actually pursued. Thus, “experience” is an important part of the process.
I use the term model here as a “catch all” term that includes not only formal models used in making forecasts but also the less formal or less explicit means people use in decision making or problem solving like stories, rules of thumb, or other narrative forms.
If the outcomes are consistent with the predictions then an individual can continue to use the model in its current form. However, if the outcomes are not consistent with the predictions, then the model needs to be modified in order to make better predictions the next time the individual needs to use the model.
Note that not all models directly need to result in a “decision” or an “action”. Models are use to “explain” things, like historical events or how things fit together. Models are also the tools that humans use to try and make sense of things, to present a worldview, or to justify an action.
Models, whether formal or informal in nature, begin with assumptions. That is, assumptions must be made that serve as the foundational material for the construction of the model. The assumptions may be realistic…or they may not be realistic. And, this is where problems come into the picture.
Milton Friedman, the well-known Nobel prize winning economist, wrote, in a very famous essay on “positive economics”, that the reality of the assumptions of a model were really not the issue concerning the value or usefulness of a model. The usefulness of the model was determined by how well the model forecast or how well the model was able to explain events. Just to change a model on the basis that the assumptions of the model were unrealistic was not sufficient.
The Catholic theologian David Tracy has written that the deciding factor about models is their “relative adequacy.” By “relative adequacy” Tracy meant that a model was logically consistent and predicted at least as well as did any other logically consistent theory. The choice of assumptions has a lot to do with whether or not the model is logically consistent. The real “test” of the mode was its ability to predict.
Pragmatism, however, can get caught up in a concern about reality, about a person’s “experience”. The essence of pragmatism is that it works, it helps people solve more and more difficult problems, make better decisions, and it helps people understand history better. The primary focus, therefore, needs to be on the results.
On the other hand, people can transfer their focus to the assumptions of a model. People can look at the assumptions and say that the assumptions don’t conform to reality…to “experience.” Thus, even though the models may be helpful and contribute to successful decision making and problem solving, people may try to change the assumptions because they are not “realistic.” This is where trouble can creep in.
Once people begin focusing upon the assumptions of a model, generally the questioning of the reality of the assumptions will continue. The only place this process can end up is where all the assumptions are “realistic” and that usually leaves you with a model that predicts little or nothing.
This, to me, is what Hauerwas is getting at in his criticisms of modernity. The thinkers of modernity have focused upon the realism of the assumptions of models because they do not conform to their “experience” and so “water-down” models regardless of whether or not they make good predictions. And, this has very significant consequences for their thinking. All models turn out to be deficient. That is, there is no “truth”.
Hauerwas contends that Protestant liberals attempt to ground their knowledge of God in experience…in reality. (page 158) This grounding has led to their questioning the assumptions of the more “orthodox” Reformation model of Christian thinking. True to modernity, once the questioning of assumptions begins, the questioning continues and the model begins to deteriorate. Oh, yes, the “realism” brought into the discussion seems to be called for and, at least in the short run, seems to make the model more consistent with reality. However, once the challenge to the model becomes paramount the result is a kind of nihilism.
The problem is that the focus on the model has shifted from the ability of the model to help solve more and more difficult problems or allow for better decisions to be made. The focus of the model is now on the realism of the model.
This leads Hauerwas to conclude that “the difference between Niebuhr and Barth is exactly the difference between a theology that has given up on its ability to tell us the way the world is and a theology that confidently and unapologetically proclaims the way things are.” (page 21)
Within this context, the Protestant liberal bets all his/her cards on “reason” or the following of “humanistic” ends, and loses the skill to make known to themselves and to make known to others exactly what they believe about how the world works and how things are.
Barth, Hauerwas contends, “did not try to ‘explain’ the truth of what Christians believe about God and God’s creation. He understood that such an explanation could not help but give the impression that the explanation is more important than the witness.” (page 146)
To Hauerwas, “Barth’s convictions were tested by their ability to sustain service to God.” (page 40) That is, the test of any set of convictions, the test of any model is “does it work in practice.” In this case, the test of the convictions is in witness!
“Christians can be no more than witnesses.” (page 16)
Thus, the models people rely on must work. Focus must not be upon the assumptions or the reality behind the assumptions…focus must be upon the consequences of having faith in the model.
It is easy to destroy people’s belief by challenging the reality behind that belief. Modernity has been very good at this. In fact, that is the one thing that modernity excels in.
But, this does not make all models of equal value. Some models predict better than other models. Some models, as David Tracy contend, are relatively adequate. Some of these models are integral to the Christian story and Christian history. We need to have faith in these models if we are to solve more and more difficult problems and to make better decisions. That is the experience that really counts.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Barth on Dogmatics--Commentary 1
Karl Barth begins his “Dogmatics in Outline” by writing, “Dogmatics is a science.”
Whoa! What does he mean by this?
“In every science an object is involved and a sphere of activity. In no science is it a matter of pure theory or pure practice; on the one hand, theory comes in, but also, on the other hand, practice is guided by this theory.”
Perhaps we get all tied up in knots because he uses the term “science” and then attempts to relate dogmatics to the well-known perception of science that we are all familiar with involving experiments and tests and other “hands on” things.
But, he says here that science is not just theory but it is also practice as well. That is, we cannot focus on just one or the other. These two components of a “science” are “combined at the hip” in his view and cannot be separated.
Maybe we have a problem with this comparison because of the time that Barth gave the original lectures, in 1947. At that time, science was considered by many people to be a field of its own, something separate and distinct from theology or the humanities or “soft” stuff. At that time, many believed that a field could be only one or the other and science was the one field that could provide “proofs”.
I believe that the times have changed and what Barth says is more acceptable to more people now than it was way back then. First of all, however, I would change his emphasis on trying to claim that dogmatics is a science. In my view, dogmatics or theology has arisen because of the basic human capacity to solve problems, to make decisions.
In this respect, dogmatics, like physics or chemistry or biology, is an effort by humans to solve more and more difficult problems or to make better decisions. In all of this, humans begin with a question. For example, “Why do apples fall to the ground when they drop from trees?” Or, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
To answer this, humans build models, formal or information, or other systematic ways of trying to explain what happens. In building these models humans are looking for ways to predict outcomes. They want to predict outcomes so that they can solve a problem or make a decision. Practice or action is in the picture.
Of course, a science like physics can be very abstract, mathematically based, and logically consistent. But, models can be very common place and ordinary. Rules of thumb may result from human model building. Stories or narratives can result from human model building. Models and schema can take all kinds of different forms and still be exceedingly useful to human beings.
When Barth was writing these lectures, the general feeling was that science was abstract, mathematically based, and logically consistent. If a model did not fit this criterion then it was not considered a part of a science.
Now, however, we consider that narratives can be just as helpful to humans in problem solving or decision making as can formal, logically consistent mathematical models. In fact, it is clear that humans use models constructed around stories or narratives far more in their lives than they do these other kinds of models. We know now that the same process is involved in either approach. We give this approach another fancy name: we call this process of model building inductive inference and it is something that people use constantly in all the things they are doing in their lives.
In more formal situations, people can this approach the scientific method. In other situations people just call this problem solving. It is the process a question is ask, information that is hopefully relevant is collected, and then an effort is made to induce, from the information, so kind of model that can make predictions. The model is then used to make forecasts in specific situations. If the model builder does not feel very confident about the model at this point, more information can be collected. Then an action is taken, given the model.
The final step in this iteration of the process is to compare the predictions the model has produced with the outcome of the action. If the outcome is relatively close to the predictions, then the model-builder will go ahead and use the model again in the future. If the outcome is significantly different from the prediction then the model-builder will make alterations to the model so that a better forecast can be forthcoming next time the model is used.
This process is continued, iteration after iteration, until the model ceases to be useful or until other questions are asked. Then the model-building process begins again.
The crucial thing is that this process of inductive inference is a normal human process that has been a major part of the evolution of the species. Human’s problem solving capabilities separate this species from all the others. These capabilities apply to physics and to dogmatics. Therefore, what Barth claims for dogmatics, I believe, is true.
There are other parts to what Barth writes, however. For one, the models human beings construct are fallible. “No act of man can claim to be more than an attempt (at comprehension and exposition, at investigation and instruction), not even science.”
And, Barth states that “By describing it as an attempt, we are simply stating its nature as preliminary and limited.” He goes on: “we are under no illusion that anything man can do can ever be an undertaking of supreme wisdom and final art.”
“Christian dogmatics is an attempt—an attempt to understand and an attempt to expound, an attempt to see, to hear, and to state definite facts, to survey and co-ordinate these facts, to present them in the form of a doctrine (a model).”
Our models are incomplete and fallible…in physics, in economics, in theology, in whatever. The test of our models is practice…we must act using the predictions or forecasts we derive from our models. Theory, just believing in your model is in not enough. This is the “pure theory” that Barth talks about “on the one hand.”
The models must allow us to solve more and more difficult or make better decisions. The models must be put into practice “on the other hand.” Theory (dogma) is not useful unless it works in practice, but practice without theory (dogma) is meaningless. The final test of the model and the theory is whether or not it works when one acts on it.
David Tracy, the Roman Catholic theologian, defines a model as relatively adequate when it is logically consistent and can predict at least as well an any other logically consistent model that is relevant for the situation at hand. Our dogmatics must be relatively adequate.
Theology, dogmatics, is a human activity. In this respect it is like physics and chemistry and biology. Barth then concludes, “So by dogmatics we understand this twofold activity of investigation and doctrine in relation to an object and a sphere of activity.” Barth continues by defining the object of dogmatics and the sphere of activity. A discussion of this will follow.
Whoa! What does he mean by this?
“In every science an object is involved and a sphere of activity. In no science is it a matter of pure theory or pure practice; on the one hand, theory comes in, but also, on the other hand, practice is guided by this theory.”
Perhaps we get all tied up in knots because he uses the term “science” and then attempts to relate dogmatics to the well-known perception of science that we are all familiar with involving experiments and tests and other “hands on” things.
But, he says here that science is not just theory but it is also practice as well. That is, we cannot focus on just one or the other. These two components of a “science” are “combined at the hip” in his view and cannot be separated.
Maybe we have a problem with this comparison because of the time that Barth gave the original lectures, in 1947. At that time, science was considered by many people to be a field of its own, something separate and distinct from theology or the humanities or “soft” stuff. At that time, many believed that a field could be only one or the other and science was the one field that could provide “proofs”.
I believe that the times have changed and what Barth says is more acceptable to more people now than it was way back then. First of all, however, I would change his emphasis on trying to claim that dogmatics is a science. In my view, dogmatics or theology has arisen because of the basic human capacity to solve problems, to make decisions.
In this respect, dogmatics, like physics or chemistry or biology, is an effort by humans to solve more and more difficult problems or to make better decisions. In all of this, humans begin with a question. For example, “Why do apples fall to the ground when they drop from trees?” Or, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
To answer this, humans build models, formal or information, or other systematic ways of trying to explain what happens. In building these models humans are looking for ways to predict outcomes. They want to predict outcomes so that they can solve a problem or make a decision. Practice or action is in the picture.
Of course, a science like physics can be very abstract, mathematically based, and logically consistent. But, models can be very common place and ordinary. Rules of thumb may result from human model building. Stories or narratives can result from human model building. Models and schema can take all kinds of different forms and still be exceedingly useful to human beings.
When Barth was writing these lectures, the general feeling was that science was abstract, mathematically based, and logically consistent. If a model did not fit this criterion then it was not considered a part of a science.
Now, however, we consider that narratives can be just as helpful to humans in problem solving or decision making as can formal, logically consistent mathematical models. In fact, it is clear that humans use models constructed around stories or narratives far more in their lives than they do these other kinds of models. We know now that the same process is involved in either approach. We give this approach another fancy name: we call this process of model building inductive inference and it is something that people use constantly in all the things they are doing in their lives.
In more formal situations, people can this approach the scientific method. In other situations people just call this problem solving. It is the process a question is ask, information that is hopefully relevant is collected, and then an effort is made to induce, from the information, so kind of model that can make predictions. The model is then used to make forecasts in specific situations. If the model builder does not feel very confident about the model at this point, more information can be collected. Then an action is taken, given the model.
The final step in this iteration of the process is to compare the predictions the model has produced with the outcome of the action. If the outcome is relatively close to the predictions, then the model-builder will go ahead and use the model again in the future. If the outcome is significantly different from the prediction then the model-builder will make alterations to the model so that a better forecast can be forthcoming next time the model is used.
This process is continued, iteration after iteration, until the model ceases to be useful or until other questions are asked. Then the model-building process begins again.
The crucial thing is that this process of inductive inference is a normal human process that has been a major part of the evolution of the species. Human’s problem solving capabilities separate this species from all the others. These capabilities apply to physics and to dogmatics. Therefore, what Barth claims for dogmatics, I believe, is true.
There are other parts to what Barth writes, however. For one, the models human beings construct are fallible. “No act of man can claim to be more than an attempt (at comprehension and exposition, at investigation and instruction), not even science.”
And, Barth states that “By describing it as an attempt, we are simply stating its nature as preliminary and limited.” He goes on: “we are under no illusion that anything man can do can ever be an undertaking of supreme wisdom and final art.”
“Christian dogmatics is an attempt—an attempt to understand and an attempt to expound, an attempt to see, to hear, and to state definite facts, to survey and co-ordinate these facts, to present them in the form of a doctrine (a model).”
Our models are incomplete and fallible…in physics, in economics, in theology, in whatever. The test of our models is practice…we must act using the predictions or forecasts we derive from our models. Theory, just believing in your model is in not enough. This is the “pure theory” that Barth talks about “on the one hand.”
The models must allow us to solve more and more difficult or make better decisions. The models must be put into practice “on the other hand.” Theory (dogma) is not useful unless it works in practice, but practice without theory (dogma) is meaningless. The final test of the model and the theory is whether or not it works when one acts on it.
David Tracy, the Roman Catholic theologian, defines a model as relatively adequate when it is logically consistent and can predict at least as well an any other logically consistent model that is relevant for the situation at hand. Our dogmatics must be relatively adequate.
Theology, dogmatics, is a human activity. In this respect it is like physics and chemistry and biology. Barth then concludes, “So by dogmatics we understand this twofold activity of investigation and doctrine in relation to an object and a sphere of activity.” Barth continues by defining the object of dogmatics and the sphere of activity. A discussion of this will follow.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Missional Leadership
In my post of February 6, 2009 on “Ministry and Leadership” I argued that there were people who were called out from the rest of us to be ministers, pastors, and priests and these people had “a special responsibility to others to teach, facilitate, and to show others what it means to be missional in their lives.” An example of this kind of missional leadership is…of course…Jesus.
Many who follow the teachings of Jesus contend that the Gospel of Matthew in the new testament portion of the bible is a manual of missional leadership. In this writing, we are presented with stories of Jesus teaching others, facilitating their efforts, and, perhaps most important, showing others what it means to be missional with their lives. So, we can look on these stories as a guide to how we might lead others into being missional in their lives.
Let me say right up front, however, that one of the most important parts of this leadership that Jesus exhibits to us comes when he tells his disciples…”Guys, I am going to go away. You are going to be on your own!”
Why was this so important?
It was important because Jesus understood that the disciples could not grow and mature in their missional calling if…they still had Jesus to directly lean on. Look at what weak individuals the disciples seemed to be when Jesus is still in their physical presence. Look at what a sniveling idiot Peter was when Jesus was around. Peter had to be out on his own…he had to call on the memory of what Jesus taught him, both verbally and by example…before he could truly grow and mature in his missional activity.
Now, Jesus obviously knew this problem existed…and more specifically…he knew Peter was going to have problems. Remember, in loving others, Jesus gave us the example of one who “knew” a lot about those who he was working with…this is a part of showing “love” to the other. So, remember that Jesus called Peter…the “Rock”. At the time Jesus refers to Peter as the “Rock” many readers have to wonder about where Jesus is coming from. How can Jesus call this weak, uncomprehending person, the “Rock”?
Jesus “knew” Peter and knew that as Peter grew and matured that he would turn into the “Rock” that Jesus claimed he would be.
But, Peter could never have become the “Rock” if Jesus had stayed around. The same with all the other disciples: Jesus “knew” who they were and chose them because of this knowledge. Jesus also knew that each of them would never reach their calling unless they were allowed to grow and mature into their own missional person.
So, the first lesson of missional leadership is that the leader must understand that those that they are working with must be released at some to go out on their own. So the leader teaches, facilitates, and shows the one preparing for missional activity what it means to be missional knowing full well that at some time in the future the student, for his or her own good, must be “on their own.” The leader must be able to turn the student loose from his or her power and control…for the student’s own benefit!
Now let’s go back to the other three items mentioned above that have to do with missional leadership: teaching, facilitating, and acting. To me, the most important of these three factors of leadership is the acting part. In fact, this is how we have defined missional activity…acting toward the other…whether it be another person (literally the neighbor)…or creation…or oneself…or God…in a loving way. The best way we can be missional is to show other people what it means to live a life that is consistent with what we believe contributes to wholeness and unity. The leader sends out a message in his or her words…but, unless people see how living in that way can change their lives…and change them for the better…the words are just empty.
In this, missional activity is very pragmatic…the life style we are promoting in our missional activity works! And, because it works, people can see for themselves what results from living in that particular way. And, by seeing it, before their eyes…they have something concrete to latch onto…and hold onto when times are not going their way.
This is where I believe the “spirit” comes into play…whatever the “spirit” is. The person has the memory of what a life lived in this particular way means…the memory of what kind of decisions one should make to live such a life…and the feeling or understanding that has been experienced to know that these kinds of decisions lead to greater wholeness or unity…even in times that are very bad. There is a “spirit” in living in this way…and, we are told, this “spirit” will be available to us in the future when called upon. One knows when one is in unity… and that is a signal that the “spirit” is present in the situation.
Teaching is important. Words, alone, are not enough…for they must be consistent with actions. But, words are important…telling stories…relating facts…inspiring others. Teaching helps us to learn things. Teaching helps us to pull things together and understand relationships. Teaching helps us to comprehend in a way that we have not been able to, up to this point. Teaching can inspire us to want to learn and do more. Teaching can be done in many ways…as different people respond to different types of learning experiences. Of course, we know Jesus applied many different kinds of teaching techniques to his followers…this was the only way that he could possibly reach all the different people he had chosen to be with him. He told parables…he told stories…he told proverbs (like, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount where he was just talking to his followers after he drew them away from the huge crowds.)
However, what is learned must be practiced. This, to me is the facilitation part. Those that have been taught must be given opportunities to experience the “acting” under the watchful eye of the teacher. Jesus did this by asking his followers to pass out the fishes and bread to the entire crowd that had followed him for days…and the followers saw what happened right before their eyes. As they became generous with the little they had…the crowd also became generous with what they had…and much more was collected than the followers had given out. A miracle? Or, was this a lesson in what unconditional giving can bring about?
Jesus sent his followers out on different “day” journeys…and then asked what happened on those journeys. In these, and other, ways, the followers of Jesus got feedback on how to live, the impacts of their decision making on outcomes, and how things might be done differently. It was this process that actually got them started on the road to taking full responsibility for their missional activity…the responsibility they would have once they no longer had their leader.
Then, the followers became the leaders. The followers became the implementers of missional living. These followers could now grow and mature fully into the faith and confidence that would bring them unity and peace in their lives…and a feeling of wholeness. Peter could become the “Rock”.
To me, this is what missional leadership is all about!
Many who follow the teachings of Jesus contend that the Gospel of Matthew in the new testament portion of the bible is a manual of missional leadership. In this writing, we are presented with stories of Jesus teaching others, facilitating their efforts, and, perhaps most important, showing others what it means to be missional with their lives. So, we can look on these stories as a guide to how we might lead others into being missional in their lives.
Let me say right up front, however, that one of the most important parts of this leadership that Jesus exhibits to us comes when he tells his disciples…”Guys, I am going to go away. You are going to be on your own!”
Why was this so important?
It was important because Jesus understood that the disciples could not grow and mature in their missional calling if…they still had Jesus to directly lean on. Look at what weak individuals the disciples seemed to be when Jesus is still in their physical presence. Look at what a sniveling idiot Peter was when Jesus was around. Peter had to be out on his own…he had to call on the memory of what Jesus taught him, both verbally and by example…before he could truly grow and mature in his missional activity.
Now, Jesus obviously knew this problem existed…and more specifically…he knew Peter was going to have problems. Remember, in loving others, Jesus gave us the example of one who “knew” a lot about those who he was working with…this is a part of showing “love” to the other. So, remember that Jesus called Peter…the “Rock”. At the time Jesus refers to Peter as the “Rock” many readers have to wonder about where Jesus is coming from. How can Jesus call this weak, uncomprehending person, the “Rock”?
Jesus “knew” Peter and knew that as Peter grew and matured that he would turn into the “Rock” that Jesus claimed he would be.
But, Peter could never have become the “Rock” if Jesus had stayed around. The same with all the other disciples: Jesus “knew” who they were and chose them because of this knowledge. Jesus also knew that each of them would never reach their calling unless they were allowed to grow and mature into their own missional person.
So, the first lesson of missional leadership is that the leader must understand that those that they are working with must be released at some to go out on their own. So the leader teaches, facilitates, and shows the one preparing for missional activity what it means to be missional knowing full well that at some time in the future the student, for his or her own good, must be “on their own.” The leader must be able to turn the student loose from his or her power and control…for the student’s own benefit!
Now let’s go back to the other three items mentioned above that have to do with missional leadership: teaching, facilitating, and acting. To me, the most important of these three factors of leadership is the acting part. In fact, this is how we have defined missional activity…acting toward the other…whether it be another person (literally the neighbor)…or creation…or oneself…or God…in a loving way. The best way we can be missional is to show other people what it means to live a life that is consistent with what we believe contributes to wholeness and unity. The leader sends out a message in his or her words…but, unless people see how living in that way can change their lives…and change them for the better…the words are just empty.
In this, missional activity is very pragmatic…the life style we are promoting in our missional activity works! And, because it works, people can see for themselves what results from living in that particular way. And, by seeing it, before their eyes…they have something concrete to latch onto…and hold onto when times are not going their way.
This is where I believe the “spirit” comes into play…whatever the “spirit” is. The person has the memory of what a life lived in this particular way means…the memory of what kind of decisions one should make to live such a life…and the feeling or understanding that has been experienced to know that these kinds of decisions lead to greater wholeness or unity…even in times that are very bad. There is a “spirit” in living in this way…and, we are told, this “spirit” will be available to us in the future when called upon. One knows when one is in unity… and that is a signal that the “spirit” is present in the situation.
Teaching is important. Words, alone, are not enough…for they must be consistent with actions. But, words are important…telling stories…relating facts…inspiring others. Teaching helps us to learn things. Teaching helps us to pull things together and understand relationships. Teaching helps us to comprehend in a way that we have not been able to, up to this point. Teaching can inspire us to want to learn and do more. Teaching can be done in many ways…as different people respond to different types of learning experiences. Of course, we know Jesus applied many different kinds of teaching techniques to his followers…this was the only way that he could possibly reach all the different people he had chosen to be with him. He told parables…he told stories…he told proverbs (like, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount where he was just talking to his followers after he drew them away from the huge crowds.)
However, what is learned must be practiced. This, to me is the facilitation part. Those that have been taught must be given opportunities to experience the “acting” under the watchful eye of the teacher. Jesus did this by asking his followers to pass out the fishes and bread to the entire crowd that had followed him for days…and the followers saw what happened right before their eyes. As they became generous with the little they had…the crowd also became generous with what they had…and much more was collected than the followers had given out. A miracle? Or, was this a lesson in what unconditional giving can bring about?
Jesus sent his followers out on different “day” journeys…and then asked what happened on those journeys. In these, and other, ways, the followers of Jesus got feedback on how to live, the impacts of their decision making on outcomes, and how things might be done differently. It was this process that actually got them started on the road to taking full responsibility for their missional activity…the responsibility they would have once they no longer had their leader.
Then, the followers became the leaders. The followers became the implementers of missional living. These followers could now grow and mature fully into the faith and confidence that would bring them unity and peace in their lives…and a feeling of wholeness. Peter could become the “Rock”.
To me, this is what missional leadership is all about!
Friday, February 6, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, February 2, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)