Institutions as emergent real things and what happens when they take on the goal of their own survival

Every organization is made up of humans who make its decisions and are responsible for its success or failure, but these institutions tend to have a suprahuman quality. Although created and staffed by humans, decisions are not made so much by people as for them, out of the logic of institutional life itself...– Walter Wink

Emergent theory teaches that “something emerges from nothing but…” For example: Atoms emerge from nothing but the fundamental particles.

I’m fascinated by the question what emerges from the interactions of humans? I do not think it is at all a stretch to say that something new does emerge from the interactions of humans. In fact I think many new things have emerged from the interactions of humans. We have a telling phrase that we use of “things taking on a life of their own.” I have come to think that things do in fact take on a life of their own. What I want to focus on particularly right now is what happens when things do in fact take on a life of their own, and after taking on a life of their own, also take on as their the primary goal – their own survival. Maybe we could call this the goal of Institutional Survival.

I would say a key in discerning that an institution having taken on a life of its own has made its own survival its primary goal is that the institution becomes indifferent to the humans from which it has emerged, in many cases the very humans which the institution emerged to serve.

For me a central passage in thinking about this is Jesus’ teaching on the Sabbath, “The Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath.” The following could have been said about the Sabbath: The Sabbath was understood as a part of creation – in fact we could go farther with the Sabbath – it was blessed and holy (likely - it is wise to say this also about all of creation). However, the institute of the Sabbath had taken on a life of its own and was bent on its own survival. It is easy to miss what is happening and think this is a problem with religious people (and there is something to this), but I want to argue here that there is more to it than this. I am arguing with Walter Wink in the quote above – that the institution of the Sabbath itself was the driving force in the moves the religious leaders were making. Don’t miss what Jesus is saying: the Sabbath was made (I would say it is fair to say that that the Sabbath emerged) to promote human flourishing, but instead of promoting the flourishing of humans the Sabbath had taken to fighting for its one survival and demanding that it be served. The Sabbath was consuming people in the service of itself. This is the quintessential sign of institutionalism – the will of the institution to survive at the expense of humans.

I have said that things/institutions having taken on a life of their own, may take as a primary goal their own survival. William Stringfellow has a darker view:

the moral principle which governs any institution--a great corporation, a government agency, an ecclesiastical organization, a union, utility, or university--is its own survival. Everything else must finally be sacrificed to the cause of preserving the institution, and it is demanded of everyone who lives within its sphere of influence--officers, executives, employees, members, customers, and students--that they commit themselves to the service of that end, the survival of the institution.

This relentless demand of the institutional power is often presented in benign forms to a person under the guise that the bondage to the institution benefits the person in some way, but that does not make the demand any less dehumanizing...

...In the end, the claim for service which an institution makes upon an individual is an invitation to surrender his or her life in order that the institution be preserved and prosper. It is an invitation to bondage.

I think Stringfellow’s view maybe a little dark – but just a little. If an institution has made its own survival its primary goal I think Stringfellow is dead on. In the days to come I want to look more at the moves that institutions having taken on a life of their own make in the service of their own survival. For now I can not emphasize this enough – I think institutions emerge as real beings that are every bit as real as you and I and they can become very much bent on their own survival. I want to flag this as we dream about a new community: From our interactions in attempting to launch a new community something new will quite possibly emerge, and we must be attuned to the fact that the real newly emerged entity could very easily take on its own survival as its primary goal.

An emergent biological approach to being. Or one angle on the question: Who am I? And how this relates to - what is a market?

Where exactly are you within your body? How would you define you? What makes you, you? What makes me, me? Where exactly am I within my body? Who am I? What type of being am I?

There are of course all sorts of ways to answer these questions, but for now I am most interested in answering the question from a biological/emergent perspective. An emergent perspective would note that I am a real living being made up of trillions upon trillions of atoms. These atoms come and go and yet I continue. It is likely that I am at this moment composed of completely different atoms than I was only seven years ago, and yet I still recognize myself, and I am completely recognizable to all my friends and family.

Of the atoms that make up my body exactly none of them are alive. These not alive atoms in certain combinations become proteins which are also not alive. The proteins can form together and become a part of a cell that is alive. These cells die and are shed from my body all the time, by the millions, and yet I remain myself.

These cells make up different organs, and the different organs make up the different systems of my body. My respiratory system, circulatory, digestive, endocrine … I wouldn’t be me without these systems, and the function of these systems affects how I am, I think especially of how the malfunctioning of my digestive system can ruin my day. So I am profoundly affected by the functioning of my various systems, and yet, I am not any one of these systems.

I emerge from these systems. My systems emerge from my organs. My organs emerge from my cells. My cells emerge from proteins. Proteins emerge from atoms. Atoms emerge from elementary particles. Elementary particles apparently just are. Something new emerges at each level that is more complex than the mere sum of its constituent parts. The new level has an existence of its own, and at the level of the cell on up, we would say that it has a life of its own.

Emergence happens when the interactions between the parts (particles, atoms, proteins, cells etc…) increase in complexity enough that something entirely new emerges. If the something entirely new is composed of living parts (cells, organs,…) the system will have a surprising new self organizing ability that will seem to defy the second law of thermal dynamics (entropy increases in a system). Emergence Biologist Ursula Goodenough, summarizes emergence this way: “Something else emerges from nothing but…” From nothing but particles - atoms emerge. From nothing but atoms -chemicals emerge. From nothing but chemicals proteins emerge. From nothing but proteins - cells emerge. …

So biologically speaking it is entirely correct to say that I am an emergent being that has emerged from the “nothing but…” on down through the various levels. For today there are a couple of things that are especially interesting to me. It seems like I (maybe particularly if I am defining I as my consciousness) as an emergent being relate to the systems that interact to form me, and perhaps visa versa. Here is what I am getting at; different systems at different times emerge in my consciousness. I get hungry – this seems like communication from my digestive system. I am getting almost constant information from my sensory processing systems, particularly the optical and auditory systems. And it seems like I can consciously communicate some things with some of these systems – (I know this is getting a little out there, but I at least think there is something here) – for example I can communicate intentionally with my respiratory system to hold my breath, or I can direct my eyes, or i can start paying particular attention to what I am hearing. With the mutual communication I would say there are mutually beneficial relationships between me and the systems from which I emerge – well, mostly. It seems to me that I have the possibility of preferring one system over another, and possibly mistreating one our more systems for only what I perceive as the benefit of the emergent me. For example when I overeat, most especially when I binge on sugars/carbs, I am, preferring the emergent me (that demands some immediate gratification) to my pancreas and my circulatory system. Or, I am giving preferential treatment to emotional circuitry within in my brain that would serve the emergent me well in the case of famine by prompting me to gorge when there is a ready supply of energy rich calories. Or, of course it could be both/and – with the emergent me that I perceive as my consciousness, being much more influenced by unconscious systems than I care to admit. Either way if this becomes a repeated pattern, it will be possible for me to cause long-term damage to my pancreas and my insulin/blood sugar systems.

This is where I will leave it off for today. I (my consciousness), emerges from the complexity of the interactions of systems. I may live in harmony with the systems that make up me, so that I benefit them and they benefit me, but it is also possible for me to live in a such a way that I abuse or mistreat on or more systems.

I’m in general fascinated by all of this, but what is particularly fascinating to me is the question: What emerges from the interactions of many humans? I want to make the case that just as I am very much a real, living being that has emerged from the complex interactions of less complex systems, that real – and I would want to say – living beings emerge that are more complex than humans from the complexity of human interactions. Here are a few examples to think about – markets – cultures-organizations – churches – schools – I would make the case that these real things are emergent entities that have emerged from the complexity of human interactions.


The question then becomes how do these emergent entities relate to the humans from which they emerge? That is the question that fascinates and haunts me, and that I want to continue to explore into the future.

Mercy not Sacrifice

In Matthew 9, Jesus calls Levi from his tax collecting booth. Levi follows, and then throws a party for Jesus, to which he invites his friends who happen to also be tax-collectors as well as other sinners. Jesus attends the party, and the Pharisees observe Jesus at the party eating with the tax collectors, so they direct an accusatory question towards Jesus’ disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax-collectors and sinners?” Jesus hearing their question answers “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’” To learn (μάθετε) here has the connotation of learning through practice. This type of learning will be an affective learning – it is learning about desire – and in this particular instance learning a desire of God's. Jesus here clearly is saying that God desire's mercy and not sacrifice. He is quoting Hosea 6:6. One of the fascinating things about this passage is that Jesus in quoting Hosea is participating in an ongoing conversation within Israel, about what God really wants. There was certainly ample evidence in the Hebrew Scripture that people could have pointed Jesus to in an effort to demonstrate that God actually really does want sacrifice, and it seems likely to me that Jesus would have already been familiar with those passages and that argument. But, here in this context of eating with those that the "religious" deemed the wrong people. Jesus draws on this passage from Hosea as the better reflection of God's desire.

---

Fuller prof makes the Biblical case for full inclusion within the Church of people in the LGBT community

From my perspective a part of the reason I am in between chapters in my life right now is a talk I gave as pastor of my previous community that was sympathetic to marriage equality at the end of June this year. That talk is still here. I am sure that there are a number of reasons that we did not ultimately thrive as a fellowship beyond this September when we closed our doors, and at some point those may be (or maybe not) worth exploring. I also know that correlation is not causation, so for the moment I will just say that there at least seemed to be a strong correlation between this talk sympathetic to marriage equality and us closing our doors. For today I want to put forward the hypothesis that there was a pretty strong correlation between this talk and us closing our doors, because of how being for marriage equality within the evangelical tradition is seen as condoning sin and being disloyal to the authority of the Bible in defining sin.

With these two evangelical perspective in mind of: condoning sin and undermining Biblical authority, I highly recommend this by J.R. Daniel Kirk that would have been tremendously helpful about  three and a half months ago.

Orthodoxy needs to be more than thinking the right things/ or we need orthopraxy and orthopathy as well

I dream of a future community that is orthodox in the best sense of the word - that is giving our trust or belief to the right things. Ultimately the center of our trust will need to be Jesus. And it would be good to trust in the wisdom of the church over the millenia found in the creeds. This to me would be the content of orthodoxy, which I would fully want to affirm.

But I also dream that we will embrace orthopraxy (right practice), in truly loving God and loving other humans, and what might might be called orthopathy (rightly aligned passions or emotions).

It is easy for me (and I think much of the church) to get caught in thinking that - well thinking is really what matters. We just need to think and believe the right things. It is jarring, if we think this way, to come across Jesus' encounter with a teacher of the law in Luke 10 asking what must I do to inherit eternal life. If we think, thinking/believing is what matters most, we would expect Jesus to say "it is not about doing (practice), it is about believing/thinking." In fact Jesus seems to accept the experts premise and agrees with the experts assessment that the law is fulfilled in loving God and loving neighbor - in fact Jesus agrees heartily and actually doubles down on the practice of this command "do this and you will live." And this leads to the famous question: Who is my neighbor? And, the even more famous story of the man on the road to Jericho. What I want to draw out here is that the teacher of the law does recognize a doing aspect of the law, but still is looking to stay in the realm of thinking and debate - but Jesus seems to push the conversation towards - everybody is your neighbor and worthy of your love and this is the heart of it all.

Jesus is certainly interested in the conversation and is respectful and honors the teachers desire to think the right things about the command, but Jesus is also clearly interested in much more. A danger in our time is to think that thinking  is what matters and to self-congratulate when I think the right things and think that this is ultimately what matters.

One of my favorite writers Richard Beck puts it this way: “When theology and doctrine become separated from emotion we end up with something dysfunctional and even monstrous. A theology or doctrinal system that has become decoupled from emotion is going to look emotionally stunted and even inhuman." Read the rest here.

I think Jesus would agree. In fact a key part of Jesus of the famous story that Jesus tells in Luke 10 is that the Samaritan had compassion. That is the Samaritan had right passion - orthopathy. Technically speaking the both the priest and the Levi were acting according to right belief as they interpreted the law - in other words they were acting according to orthodoxy. But here in this case Jesus gives the nod to  orthopraxy. 

One last thought. The longer the list of things that need to be thought and believed to be orthodox, the more orthodoxy is likely to crowd out orthopathy and orthopraxy.

A song for next chapters

Sometimes it is helpful to have a soundtrack to our life.

Here are lyrics to a new song by my friend Rachel who is also in between chapters...

I see, I know this road has
Led to the unknown and
Fear's trying to get the best of you
Asleep, awake, I'm watching
Your heartache and wanting
To heal, to mend, and to make all things new, all things new

Take My hand, no matter how lost you are
My love will find you
Run, come and play, throw your worries away
My love will guide you, My love will guide you

Patience, Dear Heart, there is still
Life to be lived - a life filled
With all the dreams you've lost along the way
Be brave, be bold, be honest
Unlock the joy of Heaven
Leaving behind the silence of your pain, of your pain

And here is the Song

How the Bible is a clue to hanging together in disagreement

One dream I have for a new community is that we will cultivate the skill of keeping the unity of the Spirit while navigating disagreement over significant theological issues, and first order moral concerns. I think it will be important from the beginning to have a bent towards not being anxious about our disagreements. Instead of anxiety I hope we will be centered on Jesus and the table fellowship to which he invites us and the whole world. So today I want to pitch how I think the Bible can be a huge help in keeping the unity of the Spirit especially when we disagree.

I have spent much of my adult life studying the Bible, and encountering Jesus in the Bible, and I see no sign that I will ever stop. In the future I will talk some more about coming at the Bible from a different angle than that taught at my seminary or within my previous denomination, but for the moment I wanted to focus on how the actual Bible we have may be a really key pointer in keeping the unity of the Spirit. It appears to me that there are points where there are discrepancies and disagreements within scripture. For much of my life these discrepancies and disagreements caused me a whole bunch of anxiety. I thought that these discrepancies and disagreements had to be harmonized or explained away, but now I am hopeful that the actual discrepancies, disagreements and different voices within scripture may actually be key pointers towards unity.

To get at what I am driving at, I would like you for a moment to think about this question. Has anyone ever posted something on social media - that you thought was just simply foolish, or perhaps even dangerous? What is the Biblical way to respond to the person who made the foolish post? Thankfully the Bible has clear teachings on this:


Proverbs 26: 4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,or you yourself will be just like him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,or he will be wise in his own eyes.

Now I'm sure that there are genre specific nuances that could harmonize and explain away the "apparent" contradiction between these two pieces of advice, (as there are harmonizing explanations for: the creation accounts; Jesus' genealogies; how many times and when the rooster crowed; when the fig tree wilted; How many Gaderene demoniacs? Did Satan or Yahweh incited David to take a census? (I would say this is not an insignificant Theological difference - Yahweh or Satan - it seems like it would be really important to be clear on this); when did Jesus cleanse the temple? (or where there two cleansings?); Who killed Goliath? Probably Paul and James were in some actual disagreement on faith and works ... In the past my go to response for any of these apparent contradictions or disagreements would have been to look for the harmonizing explanation, but I wonder if in the midst of my anxiety and harmonizing I missed something pretty important. In Proverbs 26:4 & 5 the author/editor/collector, inspired by the Holy Spirit, put together these two sayings, that seem at least to me to be giving two very different pieces of advice on FB interactions after somebody has made a foolish post, and they have lived together within the Bible with their different advice for over 2500 years.

I think wrestling with the actual text(s) that we actually have, and the actual tensions - in our actual communities, would give us important clues about what unity within diversity might look like. This would mean not rushing to soothe my or others anxiety and waiting long enough with the texts for the non-anxious presence of the Holy Spirit, who inspired the texts to take root in my heart and the heart of our community. As we wrestle with the texts we will trust that the Holy Spirit will hold us together even in disagreement - just as the text of the Bible has been held together with its disagreements over the centuries.

What do you think? Is the actual Bible an important clue to hanging together in disagreement? Am I being foolish? If so what would be the Biblical response to my folly?

The Table

On the night Jesus was betrayed he shared a meal with his earliest followers. At the table was Judas who would betray him, and Peter who would deny him. There were others sharing the meal that night, as for them, they had mostly been concerned about arguing who was the greatest. At this meal Jesus broke bread and told his followers that it was his body, which would be broken for them. And he passed around a cup of wine that he said was his blood that would be spilled for them. He gave them instructions that they were to continue the practice of breaking bread and and sharing a cup as a reminder of his body broken and his blood shed.

I dream about a new community where this table is the center of our life together, because this table more than anything else reminds us that at the center of the universe is unending self-giving love. The table reminds us that Jesus welcomed all to the table and that the primary challenge before his followers is not can we all agree on doctrine, but can we invite and welcome the whole world to the table, because this table is for the whole world. Here whoever will willingly receive the body broken and the blood poured out for them, is welcomed into the community of Jesus. I dream of a community that invites and welcomes the whole world to the table, because Jesus' body was broken and his blood was shed for the whole world. I dream of a table for all people, because I think that was Jesus' dream.

Below is an excerpt of what I thought was an exceptional podcast on Newsworthy with Norsworthy with Richard Beck and Rob Bell. They talk about what  it might mean to center a community on the table and Rob Bell talks about the futility of attempting to center a community on anything else. I'm using the excerpt with Luke's permission.

What do you think? What would it look like to prayerfully center a community on Jesus and invite the whole world to the table? Would love to pray and dream together.

Jesus as the center of our community

As I dream about being a part of a new community. I think it would be essential that from the beginning we embrace Jesus as the perfect revelation of God. I think this would be wise since Jesus sees himself this way.  So we would understand that Jesus alone shows us who God is. He is the point and center of scripture and the lens through which we listen to, read and understand scripture.  Jesus perfectly shows us the Father and the love of the Father.  I dream of a a community centered on Jesus; moving toward Jesus and following where Jesus leads. At the heart of the way of Jesus is loving God and loving our neighbors as ourselves.  Jesus invites us to see our neighbor in all people, and to treat all people as we would desire to be treated.

I would love to dream with a group about a community clear that Jesus is the center from our start. If your interested in dreaming together come on over to our place tonight, October 2 @ 7PM. 

Next Chapters/New Things

A chapter in my life has just ended as the community I was a part of for 20+ years, and which I served in different pastoral roles for 14+ years has closed. So, I am in between chapters with both the uncertainty and excitement of unwritten pages in front of me. In this time when the next chapters our forming I thought it might be fun and useful to prayerfully ponder what I am hoping for in the next chapters and to invite others along for the pondering. I will be attempting this in a variety of ways, none of which will be perfect, but as I have been reminded recently anything worth doing is worth doing poorly. So here is a little audio/video of questions I think it would be helpful to ask in between chapters (which I suppose in and of itself is a chapter).

Soundcloud

One thing, I am feeling is that I would like to enter this new season of forming a new community sooner rather than later. I am excited for what could be, but in between I do know that it is important that we do the soul work of mourning. In the midst of the mourning though, I am longing to dream together of what's next... so truly come on over and share your thoughts and dreams, the coffee will be on, the backyard is open, and if you like we can open a bottle of wine.