The U.S. Army is going more and more towards the concept of "Design" everyday. At the heart of Design is critical thinking, systems thinking, complexity theory, and chaos theory- to name just a few of the concepts. It is fundamentally about a new way of thinking, a new way of approaching problems, life, and how we process information. It has the potential to fundamentally change the way the Army does things- from the top on down.
Some guys resist the new ideas- as many are resistant to change. Design isn't something easily understood or grasped. I probably could attempt another ten pages of explanation and probably wouldn't get it right. Suffice it to say that Design attempts to have people take themselves out of their biased perceptive selves and attempt to redefine things in terms of other peoples' perspectives. This causes a person to suspend his/her own beliefs and assumptions in order to better understand what others may be perceiving things. For one example, in the Yom Kippur War both the Israelis and the Egyptians declared victory. How could that be? Both defined victory differently. Without that fundamental understanding, it would arguably be harder for each to capitalize on their "win".
Regardless of how one views this new "holistic" way of thinking- it is coming, like it or not. Many Charter Schools are turning towards Holistic approaches to math and other problem-solving subjects. The Army officer's Basic courses are starting to throw out the old linear ways of learning and turning to more Design-type approaches. I submit that if people in their 30's, 40's, 50's, and 60's don't educate themselves in Design- they may not be able to communicate much longer with younger people.
Will this effect churches? Some in the Army think so. By forcing people to practice to see things differently, question assumptions, and re-assemble fundamental worldviews, it is hard not to apply the same concepts to one's fundamental beliefs- both in one's country and one's religion. Is that a bad thing? Should church's run and hide from these concepts, or should they welcome the challenge? As with everything there is risk- risk that some believers will lose their faith or stop coming to church. But, the gains could be astronomical. Church's the embrace these concepts and challenge their own parishioners to learn all they can about Design and apply it to their own faith could build a very strong and intelligent church body. It could even have the potential to turn the recent deterioration around for the Protestant faith.
1) Is the church in danger of becoming irrelevant?
2) Is it better for the Christian religion to turn back to its roots- and become the "outcasts" of society?
3) Does Design have the potential to turn some away from the faith?
4) What is the matter with questioning fundamental assumptions- and coming to the conclusion that "Absolute Truth" isn't something that Humans can know?
5) What things MUST Christians accept on faith- regardless of the assumptions behind them?
6) Can Christians KNOW any Absolute Truths? How?
Welcome to The Red Cell!
If this is your first visit here, please take a moment to peruse the posts and comments. Try to see things from the vantage point of someone who does not know God.
The "Red Cell Thoughts" are not to be taken as a position of this blog- they are meant to stir thought. Please feel free to post other thoughts, questions, and possible answers. All posts are anonymous, but feel free to provide your name if you so desire. The Red Cell facilitators reserve the right to edit comments that are rude or offensive. Having said that, a little bit of offensiveness may be allowed- because if we offend no-one, then we might not be working hard enough! Remember, the Christian religion was founded on questioning the prevailing wisdom of the day and the Protestant Reformation continued that tradition. Don't be afraid to question all your assumptions.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good thoughts and questions at the end that look more like a morphed version of what corporations do to remain competitive and what the US Army describes as information operations (IO) and Colonel Hammes (USMC) described as components of 4G warfare. Regardless, any institution that does not and do a little self-reflection and honest evaluation is bound for extinction.
ReplyDelete1) Is the church in danger of becoming irrelevant?
ReplyDeleteOf course, to many people (the atheists or other non-church attendee) the church is and has always been irrelevant. God’s love for man, however, will never be irrelevant. God created us to have a relationship with him. Our actions severed that relationship and keep us separated from Him. His act of grace, through his Son restores that relationship. Jesus and His disciples are the church—so the church will never become irrelevant. Will specific denominations become irrelevant? I believe that absolutely they will. What is their measure of success? Is success measured as strong relationships with God, or is success lots and lots of people walking into a building and supporting an institution with their material resources? If the answer is the latter, I suggest the denomination/congregation has lost its way and is therefore irrelevant to its purpose.
2) Is it better for the Christian religion to turn back to its roots- and become the "outcasts" of society?
No. Neither is it good for us to lose sight of the general principle that our faith is to help us conform to the likeness of Jesus. Don’t conform to the likeness of the world in an ill conceived attempt to be acceptable to everyone, with the end being that they walk in your door and support your institution with their material wealth.
3) Does Design have the potential to turn some away from the faith?
Design is just a tool. It is up to you to use it to help bring people to faith or generally hinder their relationship with God. Ultimately, though, faith is theirs and it is up to them. If they attend your congregation and find that “design” gets in the way, they might respond by going elsewhere, or they might respond by just skipping out. When you ask a question like this I think you run the risk of turning the discussion into one about current military techniques replete with the jargon. I’m not sure this is going to be a conversation generally accessible to those asking questions about their faith and searching for answers, but here goes.
One way to approach discipleship is through programs of study. With a clear goal in mind of the complete and devout Christian, one begins with an inquirer’s study that explains the basics of the gospel. At the end of that study, the prospective disciple is expected to make a profession of faith. If that person does not, then he or she remains at that station taking other introductory studies until “it” clicks. Then the disciple then moves onto increasingly more in depth studies to develop an understanding of the church, its doctrines, perhaps even identify his or her spiritual gift. At the end of the program the church has produced a mature Christian ready for a lifetime of service. If for some reason, that person back slides or lapses (as we all do), then a program of remediation is in order. This is a plan, or a method. It works and has produced many faithful disciples, but it does not work for everybody. Some stagnate, and this can just as readily turn some from their faith as any other tool. Most of the school we have been to works like the program I have described and school had produced many doctors, lawyers, engineers, plumbers, electricians, artists, etc. School, however, isn’t universally revered. Some people just hate it. I know of several adults who were cajoled to attend Sunday School as a child. They view that as a tool for children, even then they didn’t like it, and now that they are adults they have no interest in attending Sunday School, Bible study, or anything that smacks of a classroom and instruction. That is a centralized planning method, rigid, deviation from the plan is wasted effort and avoided.
An alternative is to have a goal in mind and one creates an environment that fosters progress toward that goal while impeding or blocking things from entering the environment that are harmful to the goal.
An example might be creating a garden. Tilling the soil, getting out the weeds, putting in compost and fertilizer, proper drainage, etc. creates an environment that promotes plant growth. Some plants will thrive better than others in that environment depending on the amount of sunlight, climate, available water and all that, so this isn’t an environment that works for all plants, but some will indeed thrive. Other plants will need an environment adjusted for their needs. We don’t grow the plants, they grow themselves. If a plant isn’t growing one idea is to adjust the environment, but if that is harmful to the other plants this isn’t a good idea. It the plant is desirable, and it needs another environment transplanting might be better – put it in an environment where it will thrive. If the plant is undesirable, it harms the plants you do want, then get rid of it—some plants are weeds. The right amount of water is good, so we add water when there isn’t enough. Too much water, i.e. flooding is harmful so we create drainage and divert runoff, etc. to prevent flooding.
In a planned garden, we would know what was good and desired, clearly define that, and build accordingly. The garden will have three maple trees, one there, one there, and one there. The garden will have ground cover; it will be specified and placed according to the plan. If someone shows up with a pear tree and it is not part of the planned garden, then we reject it. Alternatively, if we only have two maple trees, we accept the pear tree temporarily as a place holder until we get the third maple. But when a third maple tree shows up, the pear tree must be displaced. It is not that the pear tree is bad, it is not that the pear tree wouldn’t thrive in this garden if we allowed it, the pear tree just isn’t a part of the vision for that garden—it doesn’t belong. Once the garden in completed, or nearly so, we can begin planning the next phase. The garden might get bigger, but no faster than we can manage it, and no faster than the plan.
But we also don’t know that managed growth will happen. Maybe a maple tree dies and we don’t have another maple to replace it. We already rejected the pear tree so it isn’t available as a place holder either. Someone else planted that in another garden. Now our garden is getting smaller, and weaker. If someone now shows up with a sickly looking maple infested with bugs do we plant it? Will we be able to get the bugs off of it, or will the bugs spread to the other maples? Do we retain the plan for the garden, accepting a smaller and smaller garden to keep the bugs out while waiting for that healthy maple? We have to set priorities. Is health more important, or is having a maple at that spot in the garden more important? Is a weak maple, infested with strong bugs, better than no maple? If we can get rid of the bugs, a weak maple may become a strong maple. The bugs are definitely bad, the maple good, how to proceed with the plan...maybe better to wait. How many strong oak trees will you pass up waiting for a maple? This garden doesn’t include oak trees. This, I think gets to the issue in the RC Facilitator’s question. It seems that the gardeners need to change or risk losing the garden.
In a designed garden we would also know what was good but anything that was good would be planted when it was available. We wouldn’t know what the garden would look like a year or two from now because it would never be finished. Its form would change depending on the plants available, the needs of those tending the garden, and the needs of the plants. If the plants are attacked by bugs, we work to eliminate the bugs, healthy plants can withstand the attack. Our focus is on the health of the garden. In a healthy environment many plants take root and grow strong. Our focus is on the relationship between the plants and their environment. The correct environment promotes the right kind of plants and hinders the growth of weeds and other pests.
A designed garden does not reject planning, it just doesn’t conform to the plan to the exclusion of all else. Good plans thrive where they are wanted and needed but don’t take over the design, they are subordinate to design they have their place without ruling. Yes, we could do this in our church as well, but it might entail giving up on rigid dogmas, systems of governance, clicks, etc. The planners might not be in charge any more.
4) What is the matter with questioning fundamental assumptions- and coming to the conclusion that "Absolute Truth" isn't something that Humans can know?
Is this the goal of worship? Do you seek knowledge or a relationship with your creator? Proverbs 1:7 (NIV) says that “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.” I suggest that we start with a relationship and work on knowing the absolute truth after that. I don’t expect to know the mind of God, but I can know what he reveals to me. He has revealed a great deal in His son, Jesus.
5) What things MUST Christians accept on faith- regardless of the assumptions behind them?
We conclude that there is God based on the evidence we have and how we interpret that evidence. We can also conclude based on testimony that He was always truthful in the past. Our faith tells us that He is to be believed now and in our future. And our faith tells us to accept and trust Him even when we do not understand the purpose or path He sets out.
6) Can Christians KNOW any Absolute Truths? How?
No. I don’t think so. What we can accept on faith is the God knows absolute truth, but we can’t know it.
Good thoughts, all.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of "irrelevance"- if the church loses influence in this country and the world, and ceases to influence people, law, groups, etc.- then I would define that as losing relevance. Arguably what church-goers believe holds some importance today. I was questioning if that went away would it be bad for Christians? It seems to me sometimes that Christians practiced their faith much more during times of persecution- such as during the Early Church. Now that Christians have positions of power (and are encouraged to influence politics, etc.), I wonder sometimes whether our faith is in the right place (with Mammon?)
As far as this being a "military" topic- I would disagree- Design has been incorporated into the business world, science, psychology, and education- to name a few. The military is coming to this late, and I naturally wondered if or when the Church would be exposed to the concepts. Since it is a new way of thinking- I can imagine that many believers exposed to the concepts would use them in all parts of their life- not just at work. I wonder if the Church doesn't get an early jump on all this, it might not be as good as if they did- there could be things within the Design construct that can be used to build stronger believers.
I imagine, however, that many would fight the Design construct as an attempt to undermine faith- as Design encourages questioning all assumptions and attempting to see things from different perspectives.
One example of how Design could affect the church would be that you wouldn't limit yourself to learning about God through the Bible or Sunday School or a Christian perspective. Design would have you learn about God from every conceivable angle- athiesm, other religions, Christianity, agnosticism, etc. Through discourse with others, a common understanding would be developed as to what the concept of "God" is.
I'm afraid too many people believe they "know" God- or at least enough about Him to tell others they are wrong. That would be contradictory to what Design offers.
"...Do you seek knowledge or a relationship with your creator?..."
ReplyDeleteI wonder if there is a difference between knowledge and relationship. Surely a relationship would be predicated on some knowledge. And the relationship then fosters more knowledge. I don't know- I'm wondering if you wouldn't get both as you go towards either.
"...We conclude that there is God based on the evidence ..."
Trying to approach this from a non-believer, I'd have to ask: "what evidence"? I struggle with this- from one standpoint it is all faith. Some say there is evidence- outside of the Bible, the chain of "testimony" through our religion (which could be seen as problematic), and... what else? Some of my friends in faith say they see evidence in Nature, logic, science, etc. That's tough for me too.
My thoughts lately seem to run along these lines:
1- it seems arbitrary that I was born into a faith that is the only right one, and into a country where the majority follow that faith
2- I grew up being taught the Christian religion, and thus it is the most easily accepted one- the traditions, ceremony, songs, culture, etc.- it is very comforting to me and easy for me to stay with
3- My parents taught me the fundamentals of the Christian faith and made sure I was brought up in it. Again- hard to go against that or question that
4- As far as direct evidence of God, Jesus, or even the Bible- I am relying on a chain of believers- much as a Moslem of my situation in Pakistan also is relying on a chain of believers to tell him "the truth". How can I know what is and what isn't?