We Can't Build a More Perfect Union... or World: Getting back to Rendering Unto Caesar

Recently I made a comment to several military officers that we should not build our doctrine around the perfect scenario- we should write our doctrine reflecting the current reality or, better yet- the worse-case scenario. Specifically we were talking about how we seem to be operating more and more in cases wherein our strategy is unclear and our objectives are ambiguous. Even more upsetting is the lack of support and/or understanding for what we are doing from our populace. Instead of assuming we will get unambiguous guidance and a strategy that is clear and supported by our people, let's figure out, I argued, how we should act when we don't have those things. If we get those positive things- then our effort should be easier. In fact, we often train that way at the tactical level- the thought being that if you train for the worse, then if things are not as bad- then we should be fine.

Why don't we do the same for religion? Many religious folk talk a lot about how we need to make the Earth better and we need to work for peace. There are even many who insert their religion into their politics- I heard one lady on the radio say that the reason a bus monitor was abused by kids was that prayer had been taken out of school. Do we really want our nation to be guided by our faith? What about "rendering to Caesar"? If power corrupts, I'd think the last thing we would want is for our religion to hold political influence. Politics is all about compromise- but religion doesn't seem to be conducive to much compromise.

I think establishing a more perfect Earth and working to get our country to support our faith is similar to the military wishing for the perfect environment with which to carry out operations. I submit that no matter how much we fight to get prayer back in schools, abortion banned, and the ten commandments in courtrooms, the U.S.- and the Earth for that matter- will still have the same issues we have today. Why? Because of human nature. Humans seeking power (all of us) will twist whatever "works" to their own ends- whether it be religion or secularism. If an interest group can take a position of advantage- through either the victim mantle, a righteous position, or simple majority rule- then they will use it to their ends and their ends will eventually become corrupted through their ways and means. Religion is no different and, as we have seen over and over again, religious leaders are just as bad as secular ones.

Instead, I would not advocate inserting religion into politics. Practically speaking, there may be a time or a place where Christians are not the majority- and then what? But, philosophically, I think Christianity is at its best when it is the minority. When it is oppressed. Laughed-at. Even persecuted. Christianity starts turning very peculiar when it is the governing authority in an area. It was a religion that started during trying times- people actually faced much more hunger than they did obesity, subsistence living was the experience of most, and most religious folk faced some kind of persecution of one kind or another- to include death. Today the worst thing that can happen to most Christians in the U.S. is not getting to the restaurant on Sunday for lunch quicker than the church down the street.

I would also encourage us to "prepare for the worst" instead of trying to make things better. Because that assumes we can make things better. And I don't really see where God gave us the mission to make the Earth a perfect place. He wanted us to treat each other better, but I don't think that included setting up a theocracy- or even a republic that was conducive to religion. Instead of assuming we can have it perfect one day- let's assume that no matter what we do, the Earth will remain a place full of faults. That way we can turn our efforts towards that reality- instead of praying for things we should know will not take place. For instance, instead of praying for a certain politician to win, maybe pray for both sides to conduct themselves respectfully. Instead of praying for a person to recover from a disease, maybe pray for everyone who loves that person to be comforted. Things in life will continue to be bad- we cannot build a Tower of Babel on this Earth. Let's accept that and move on to the real business Jesus talked about: spiritual growth and development.

Design and questioning assumptions: How relevant is it to Faith?

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?

What is a “Red Cell” and why do we need one?

A “Red Cell” is a military term that is used to describe a small group of people who work on a plan for the enemy in order to test the friendly plan and to allow a reaction capability when our military units run simulations and exercises. It could be as simple as two people describing what the enemy would most likely do once our forces take an action. It could be as complicated as a large group inputting data, troop movements, and decisions into a computer simulation. What it does is to add a thinking element against a friendly force’s plans and insert unanticipated circumstances into exercises- in short, making our units stronger, more effective, and able to adjust to the complexity of real warfare much better.

A “Red Cell” in religious terms would be much the same as it is in military terms. Imagine Satan as an enemy that acts through surrogates- associates who try to get you to cheat, “friends” who encourage you to lie, secularists who articulate their worldview much better than we do. In order to better defeat these surrogates, we must hone our beliefs into a strong weapon, able to make mincemeat out of any attack on our belief system. A believer should not only know what is in scripture, but he or she must understand how “the enemy” can attack those verses. We must stay one step ahead of the opposition, or risk the loss of parts of our team to stronger-sounding ideas.

Our faith is strong as it is backed up by the Word and hundreds of years of practice and belief. But we must anticipate the actions of those who would destroy or slowly erode what we believe. I propose the establishment of a First Pres of Leavenworth “Red Cell” and encourage all who wish for a deeper understanding of our faith to read the monthly posts, think about them, research and have discussions in order to better counter the ideas, and ultimately come away with perhaps a stronger grasp of why we believe what we believe.

The motto of our Red Cell will be, “To Question All Assumptions”, with the idea being that if we don’t, we won’t be prepared when others do. I invite all to join “The Red Cell” of First Pres.