Necessary, but not sufficient?

Last Sunday, our Pastor Ron said the phrase "necessary, but not sufficient". My ears perked up because it recalled recent conversations in the classroom about ultimate causes.

Of course, looking back at his sermon, he really didn't say the phrase that caught my attention. What he said instead was:

"... The Westminster Confession of Faith on which the Presbyterian Church is based says, "All things in Scripture are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, (They) are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture that not only the learned, but the unlearned may attain a sufficient understanding of them..."

So, while he touched on the concept, "necessary"- he shied away from the term "sufficient" when speaking of Scripture (his use of the term "sufficient" was in reference to us understanding the Scripture).

But what is sufficient? Is the Bible sufficient? Or is it "only" necessary? Necessary to understand God, but not sufficient to understand Him? Following Ron's central idea of his sermon that day- that we should approach the Bible as a group in order to gain a deeper understanding- follows in the tradition of current social science theorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse).

The idea is that one is bounded by one's own experiences and knowledge when approaching a new topic (or even an old one) and thus one is limited in one's potential for understanding. Discourse- talking with others (although that is a shallow definition) can help spur deeper understanding.

Pastor Ron seems to advocate the same for understanding the Bible (and thus, one would presume, God). So, it is necessary to read the Bible- but not sufficient. One needs "discourse" also. Is there anything that is sufficient?

Theoretically one could arrive at ludicrous trains of thought following this exercise. Is God really necessary? Or, is our belief in Him all that is necessary? In other words, is it more important that we believe, or that He exists? If our beliefs affect our actions, belief may be more important in the conceptual sense (at least on Earth). If He exists, but no-one believes that, then as far as Earthly existence His reality would not seem to be that sufficient.

And that is probably the limit of my understanding: it all boils down to context. Universally it is sufficient that God exists. But our understanding of God is bound by our Earthly knowledge. We can't even begin to explain 1/1000th of God's makeup. If that is so, then maybe it is not important that His existence be sufficient. For us, all that is sufficient now (due to our ignorance) is that we believe. Maybe that is all we can shoot for in this life.

Is the Church a Learning Organization?

The one fad in the business world that might be on the verge of becoming more than a fad is "the learning organization". In short, a learning organization empowers its employees down to the lowest level with a passion for education and knowledge, responsibility to make decisions, a team-player attitude, and the acceptance of mistakes- with the idea being if the whole organization learns from everyone's mistakes, they won't be repeated. This contrasts with the traditional organization that hides mistakes, promotes those who consistently show excellence (and thus hide their mistakes), and doesn't trust their employees.

Is the Church a "Learning Organization"? I've been in some churches where most of the responsibility rests with only a few. I've been in others that seem to play a political game- and thus people are unwilling to admit mistakes. I've also been in the proverbial "perfect" church wherein everyone supports one another and the goal is the growth of the congregation, as opposed to the growth of individuals within the congregation.

I guess the answer may be that some churches are more "learning organization" oriented than others. It would, of course, depend on the individual church's culture, history, its present pastor and church elders. But, as a rule- are churches geared towards being learning organizations or are they traditionally more likely to be traditional, hierarchical, and resistant to growth. Do people use the Bible to prohibit "growth" in the church? Can we question paradigms that have been around forever and are no longer seen as dogma as much as they are seen as unquestioned doctrine? Are we passionate about the search for knowledge in everything we do? Are we really concerned with education- education in a more scientific experimentation-style that requires an underlying doubt about dogma?

I'm really not sure. I would like to think the church doesn't stifle a learning organization-type atmosphere. Surely there were periods in the Universal Church's history wherein this wasn't the case. I would encourage church goers to read Peter Senge's book, The Fifth Discipline- which is considered one of the authorities on Learning Organizations, and then give their opinion on this question. Here's a good link: http://www.solonline.org/aboutsol/who/Senge/