tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-935126462051064762024-02-20T04:25:57.162-08:00Mere Postmodern ChristianityA journey for truth in a grey world.J.S. LYONShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950162580918151580noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-93512646205106476.post-77441069336081338892009-05-18T23:52:00.000-07:002009-05-29T16:04:04.919-07:00The Choice: Uncommon Sense<div align="left"><span >When asked by his daughter Efrat, what choice he had made that has impacted his life the most, Eli Goldratt decisively states “I wanted to live a full life.” (Goldratt pg.1) So begins a narrative between a father and daughter on the freedom of choice: freedom to think and to understand, a philosophical explanation of Eli Goldratts fundamental system of beliefs as influenced by his theory of constraints. Consistent with his other books, Goldratts simple narrative writing style attempts to convey his erudite thoughts to the layman.<br /></div></span><div align="left"><span >In chapter one: What choice do we have, he lays the foundation for the rest of the book by discussing what he believes it takes to live a full and meaningful life. Most people want to live an easy life, he says, and that is just an excuse. He talks of opportunities and being prepared when faced with choices. “If someone is not prepared, what freedom of choice does he have?” (Goldratt pg.7) The first time I read that statement I passed over it and kept reading. A few sentences later my mind was still wrapping itself around those words. When someone is not prepared for the opportunities that life presents, because of both external and internal obstacles, he is limiting the choices he is able to make in response to those opportunities. He likens freedom of choice to ones ability to recognize situations that can be transformed into opportunities. A perception of reality that is half full. His theoretical meaning of freedom of choice is “….the choice to invest in overcoming these obstacles.” (Goldratt pg.8)<br /></div></span><div align="left"><br /></div><div align="left"><span >Goldratt defines what he believes to be the most profound obstacle to ones understanding of reality as the fallacy that people believe it is complex. (Goldratt pg.8) With this perception of a complex reality, people search for sophisticated explanations for complicated solutions.<br />He says this is devastating because as a scholar of physics, he has observed in the universe complexities that man can only understand, and ultimately explain scientifically, through simplicity. Furthermore, that the attitude of most people is that the more sophisticated something is, the more respectable it is. (Goldratt pg.9) He calls this a “ridiculous fascination” because; it voids the need for people to use their brain power in understanding reality. This is understood in science by the four fundamental forces of nature; strong, weak, gravity, and electromagnetic. These four basic forces, controlled by particle exchange, are used to explain the most complicated relationships between atoms and molecules. I don’t doubt Goldratt, a physicist himself, understands the simplicity of these scientific laws in forming his theories. He emphatically states that “the more complicated the situation seems to be, the simpler the solution must be.” (Goldratt pg.8) This is a shared mindset within the Universities physics department and here in lies a balance between reductionism and Ockhams Razor. Here Goldratt is applying the principle of parsimony recognized in physics, special relativity, and quantum mechanics, past a scientific method to encompass a framework to perceive reality. This framework is contrary to most peoples common thought process and once understood, presents a freedom to think beyond the obvious conclusions and explore outside the box. This is applicable to life in general as much as the business decisions presented in the following case study that frames the next few chapters. </span></div><div align="left"><br /></div><div align="left"><br /><span >The case of BigBrand is a retelling, and subsequent analysis, in which Goldratt relates this distorted view of reality within a large company. The perception in this company is that they are too big and too complex to see changes to their bottom line from changes on the macro level. In reading the chapter on uncommon sense, three things stood out to me. The first is that in their review of the logistics of their supply chain it was evident to even myself, a student of quantitative methods, how the concepts and processes could and should have been applied: specifically various seasonal forecasting methods. In their conversations, Goldratt walks them through various outcomes contrary to what was perceived as the status quo. He explained how “sold out” should not always be regarded as a positive thing because that means they are losing potential revenue by not having the necessary inventory. I was a little surprised by the fact that I sensed within this company a group mindset towards forecasting that they used the uncertainty that accompanies it as an excuse for poor business decisions. Their organizational culture seemed to be one that accepted inconsistencies in supply and demand because that just how business works. I perceived a level of ignorance in their contentment in maintaining the status quo. His suggestions to order smaller quantities instead of ordering for a whole season and hoping you have enough or hoping you don’t have surplus, seemed a real life example of a moving average forecast with a seasonal adjustment or exponential smoothing. The whole case seemed like common sense and Goldratts daughter addresses this in his next chapter - Why is Common Sense Not Common Practice. </span></div><div align="left"><br /></div><div align="left"><br /><span >Efrat, a behavioral psychologist, attempts to unravel her own complex perception of reality in relation to this company’s case. As she delves into it she discovers psychological barriers that previously prevented her from approaching the case from a scientific point of view like her father. She talks of the protective mechanisms we all develop in response to a perceived problem and how those protective mechanisms tend to lower our expectations about life. In the context of this case study, managers had limited their options and expectations by limiting their thought process to merely cutting costs. Once the protective mechanisms are identified they can be taken into consideration when observing and analyzing any situation.<br />“Natura valde simplex est et sibi consona.” Translated this means “nature is exceedingly simple and harmonious within itself.” (Goldratt pg.35) Goldratt supports his phrase, Inherent Simplicity, on this statement from Sir Isaac Newton. To better understand what that means he uses the illustration of Newton’s three Laws of Motion. He points out that Newton did not create these laws, only discovered them. (Goldratt pg.36) Newton revealed the “Inherent Simplicity” that was there by continuing to ask the question why until a clear cause-effect relationship was defined. The point Goldratt is making is that for everything that seems complex, if you ask the why question enough times you will eventually get down to the foundation where the root cause is straightforward and simplicity is universal.<br /></div></span><div align="left"><br /></div><div align="left"><span >With the importance of simplicity acknowledged, he goes a step further and says that “the opposite of simplicity depends on your definition of complexity”. (Goldratt pg.42) He goes on to explain complexity using the follows systems. </span></div><div align="left"><span ></span></div><div align="left"><span ></span></div><span ><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 452px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 133px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://www.constraintmanagement.co.uk/picts/Inherent_Simplicity_Systems.jpg" border="0" /><br /></span><br /><span >With fewer dots and no confusing arrows, system A only has four elements. Upon initial observation system A appears to be simpler. However, Goldratt looks beyond the prevailing definition of complexity. That is, “the more data elements one has to provide in order to fully describe the system, the more complex it is”. (Goldratt pg.40) He looks at it in terms of degrees of freedom. In this case he is looking at the minimum number of points one has to touch in order to impact the whole system. If the answer is one point then the system has one degree of freedom. If the answer is two points then the degrees of freedom is two, and so on. With this in mind system A has four degrees of freedom opposed to system B which only has one. The cause and effect arrows connect all points in system B. So if you impact one data element or point you will impact the whole system indirectly. He proposes that if you are a scientist, or a manager for that matter, you are not interested as much in the description of the system as you are the difficulty of controlling and predicting its behavior. He now defines complexity not as the opposite of simplicity but rather, in terms of degrees of freedom. “The more degrees of freedom the system has the more complex it is.” (Goldratt pg.41) With this in mind complexity and simplicity can coexist independent of each other because they are not mutually exclusive. </span><br /><br /><span >Now that he has laid a logical foundation for system analysis, he addresses the contradictions and conflicts that arise when the human element is introduced into the equation. He makes the interesting statement that “reality doesn’t contain contradictions, but it is full of conflicts.” Further more, that a conflict is “a situation where we want a contradiction.” (Goldratt pg.47) Let me unwrap that, a contradiction is what occurs in the hard sciences. A conflict occurs in the soft sciences. When faced with a contradiction, it is understood that somewhere along the analysis an erroneous assumption was made. Conflict, within this context is detrimental because it adversely leads to compromise. This is dangerous because a compromise can not always be reached that is void of undesirable effects. What Goldratt suggests is to treat conflict like a scientist treats contradiction. In doing so, when conflict arises where an acceptable compromise can not be reached, it is tacit that one of the underlying assumptions is flawed. This flawed assumption, when identified, can be removed from the thought process and in effect removing the cause of the conflict, thereby, eliminating the conflict from the equation. </span><br /><br /><span >To summarize, the second obstacle that prevents people from productively using their brainpower is the faulty perception that conflicts are certain and that at best we can hope to do is seek an adequate compromise. So what Goldratt means by Inherent Simplicity is that “reality, any part of reality, is governed by very few elements, and that any existing conflict can be eliminated.” (Goldratt pg.56) With this in mind let us return for a moment to the Big Brand case and identify how Goldratt approached his analysis with Inherent Simplicity. The first thing he did was focus on what was not working and assumed the reason to be a single root cause. He was not there to fix what was not broken. He concentrated on the undesirable effects and took for granted that they were the result of an undesirable compromise. Efrat states that people generally tend to suppress chronic problems because they have given up on the possibility of those problems being solved. He addressed the root cause rather than a symptom. He was able to do this because he was able to overcome the psychological barrier that is the tendency to conceal the big problems. As a result, when he evaluated the Big Brand case, he identified the root cause to be logistical. Inherent Simplicity allowed Goldratt to think that the shortage and logistics problems could be solved because they were the product of a root conflict that could be removed once identified. Efrat summarizes this when she says that “Part of the belief in Inherent Simplicity is that any conflict, including root conflicts, can be removed by removing one of the underlying false assumptions.” (Goldratt pg.52) </span><br /><br /><span >Next he identified the underlying assumption that the only way to order the right quantity was to know what the demand would be in advance. Their zone of indifference created a blind reliance on the perceived accuracy, or lack thereof, of forecasting. They went wrong because they settled with the margin of error that comes with forecasting. Thereby, compromising even though they knew the forecasted information received was inaccurate. However, the key false assumption, and subsequent compromise they made, was that this large scale demand forecast was the only information they could obtain. This was the faulty assumption in Big Brands business mindset and this was what Goldratt addressed with them. One of the suggestions he posed was ordering more frequently and in smaller quantities based on last value forecasting.<br />In exploring this idea of addressing root causes as related to identifying assumptions within conflicts and contradictions, it is important to clarify what is meant by assumption. An assumption can be defined as a core belief that guides behavior and, consciously or unconsciously, frames how to perceive and think about any given situation. As a behavioral psychologist, Efrat applies Inherent Simplicity in her profession, which is a soft science, by addressing conflict objectively. This can be difficult because human relationships tend to be subjective in nature, especially with individuals whose psychological issues are internal. Nevertheless, when treating a patient she makes use of her father’s priori about addressing conflict. Once she properly articulates the core conflict, she too, reveals the underlying assumptions and attempts to guide a patent to realize alternatives to change those assumptions. She attempts to relate this back to a business setting by suggesting that “Maybe the only difference between individuals and organizations is that in cases of organizations the underlying assumptions are perceived not as assumptions but facts of life.” (Goldratt pg.53) There is a legitimate level of validity in her statement. In referring back to Goldratts thoughts on sophistication, it would not be a stretch to visualize a scenario within an organization in which a zone of indifference existed that when faced with a sophisticated assumption, they merely accepted it as fact without a great deal of thought. This sounds like a destructive and precarious mindset however; I have observed it to be common. </span><br /><br /><span >The remainder of the book, Goldratt talks about the importance of harmony, seeing issues from others perspective, and of organizational relationships, both internal and external, that encourage a win-win situation for all sides. The chapter on Thinking Clearly and Tautologies deserves a research paper in of itself, as I could not do it justice with just a paragraph. Goldratt simply states that “the key to thinking clearly is to avoid circular logic, that’s all.” (Goldratt pg.117) Consistent with his explanations, he draws on the hard sciences to elucidate. When one reaches deep enough where we can no longer use our senses, he states that we have to start using abstract entities. (Goldratt pg.118) He points out that we know entities like atom or enzymes exist not because of direct information from our senses, but rather, through logic. The difficulty, and therein danger, with these entities is that they can not be verified by direct observation. The importance of “abstract entities” in thinking clearing is the risk of ending up in what he calls “la-la land”. (Goldratt pg.117) This is where he says it is easy to fall into the trap of tautologies or circular logic. Here again is the danger with people’s fascination with sophistication. Here, he says, the road to sophisticated nonsense is wide open. </span><br /><br /><span >A definite course in logic, he continues to explain ideas like cause-effect convergence and how people’s comfort zones affect their behavior. Some concern was raised, that will require further thought on my part, by Goldratts statement that a key to thinking clearly is the belief that people are not bad. (Goldratt pg.143) Part of my Judeo-Christian theology is the belief that because of the fall of man we are born into this world with a sinful nature, therefore bad: or in the least flawed and in need of rebirth through reconciliation with our creator. I can go as far as to say that mans intentions are not bad. However, some of the worst acts of human history were birthed with the best of intentions. Maybe what Goldratt is referring to in his belief that people are not bad is the philosophical belief in Natural Law, or as C.S. Lewis referred to it, Universal Morality. That is, an innate sense of right and wrong. In this sense I can follow Goldratts thought process. </span><br /><br /><span >The final chapter concludes the book the way it began; a question between father and daughter. The concluding conversation explores the relationship between emotion, intuition, and logic. Intuition is the fuel that feeds logic and consequently clarity of thought. With clarity of thought comes an ability to apply God given brain power and intuition to reach a full life. This is one of the better books I have read in a long time because it was able to convey ideas into practical quantitative thought processes and mindsets that I can apply in my day to day life. I will conclude with a cause-effect progression that is a by-product and unavoidable result of constantly practicing clear thinking. (Goldratt pg.157) </span><br /><br /><span ><em>“Naturally when we practice thinking clearly…..we tend to concentrate on our areas of interest….The more we succeed in thinking clearly the deeper our emotions in those areas become. The deeper the emotions, the stronger the resulting intuition. The stronger the intuition, the higher the chances to successfully apply logic; the higher the chances to achieve good results. And since these results were achieved in our areas of interest, they are meaningful in our eyes. The more meaningful the results the deeper are the emotions and so on and on.”</em><br /><br /><br />Goldratt, Eliyahu M. (2008). The Choice. Great Barrington, MA: The North River Press.<br />Pgs. 1-173. ISBN 978-0-88427-189-5</span>J.S. LYONShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950162580918151580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-93512646205106476.post-85782815286235685372009-04-18T04:37:00.000-07:002013-05-29T12:14:34.813-07:00What is Truth?"Truth is that which affirms prepositionally the nature of reality as it is, that which corresponds to reality as <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">perceived</span> by God."<br />
<br />
"I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Me."<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dwggbe6knQm4vhin0k7chvsFjgICAgPQavxoY_c3FY22C-kYaxMjs42wP3fi8iMVj15oarZDJuew3DWnxbBsw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe>J.S. LYONShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950162580918151580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-93512646205106476.post-56186395943707594392009-03-18T18:52:00.000-07:002009-04-15T20:01:19.930-07:00Thoughts On The Movie "Amazing Grace"The following is a summary of a recent writing assignment on change management.<br /><br />The first time I saw this movie a few of years ago one line resonated for me. In one of the opening scenes William Wilberforce is hosting a group of abolitionists in his home. His close friend, William Pitt, had invited them there because he knew Wilberforce was at a critical point in his life when he was faced with a career choice, if you will. He felt a calling from the Lord to be a minister, yet at the same time, his passion was in politics. Wilberforce says to his guests that he's caught between doing the work of God and doing the work of government. One of the abolitionists at the dinner table responded, "We respectfully submit that you can do both." Well the rest is history!<br /><br />The implications of their response to him began a change in mindset for me. At the time I was a double major in vocational Missions and engineering physics. I had no idea how those could possibly work together and felt eventually it would be one or the other. Again, the rest is history but my point being this epiphany changed the way i viewed my life and provided much needed clarity in my developing personal theology.<br /><br />God gives each one of us talents, passions and desires and we are called to use them to the best of our ability in whatever career/occupation (not to be confused with calling) we chose.<br /><br />Our calling in life is to advance the Kingdom of God on earth as it is in Heaven. In a practical sense, one way we do this is simply in all things working unto the Lord and not unto men.J.S. LYONShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950162580918151580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-93512646205106476.post-5778695746660066622009-02-18T17:13:00.000-08:002009-05-27T17:37:42.767-07:00Truth MattersThe dangers of Post Modernism within Christianity.<br /><br /><a href="http://bloodtippedears.blogspot.com/2007/11/rc-sproul-al-mohler-and-ravi-zacharias.html">http://bloodtippedears.blogspot.com/2007/11/rc-sproul-al-mohler-and-ravi-zacharias.html</a>J.S. LYONShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950162580918151580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-93512646205106476.post-6426596861157346092008-06-18T02:41:00.000-07:002008-06-20T16:45:50.834-07:00More than a stumble?"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today<br />Is Christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips<br />Then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle.<br />That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable."<br /><br />Is this one for the people? Is this one for the Lord?<br />Or do I simply serenade for things I must afford?<br />You can jumble them together, my conflict still remains<br />Holiness is calling, in the midst of courting fame<br />Cause I see the trust in their eyes, though the sky is falling<br />They need Your love in their lives, compromise is calling<br /><br />What if I stumble, what if I fall?<br />What if I lose my step and I make fools of us all?<br />Will the love continue when my walk becomes a crawl?<br />What if I stumble, and what if I fall?<br />You never turn in the heat of it all<br />What if I stumble, what if I fall?<br /><br />Father please forgive me for I can not compose<br />The fear that lives within me<br />Or the rate at which it grows<br />If struggle has a purpose on the narrow road you've carved<br />Why do I dread my trespasses will leave a deadly scar<br />Do they see the fear in my eyes? Are they so revealing?<br />This time I cannot disguise all the doubt I'm feeling<br /><br />What if I stumble?<br />Everyone's got to crawl when you know that<br />You're up against a wall, it's about to fall<br />Everyone's got to crawl when you know that<br /><br />I hear You whispering my name, you say<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">"My love for You will never change" Never change<br /></span><br />What if I stumble, what if I fall?<br />What if I lose my step and I make fools of us all?<br />Will the love continue when my walk becomes a crawl?<br />What if I stumble, and what if I fall? You never turn in the heat of it all<br />What if I stumble, what if I fall? You are my comfort, and my God<br /><br />Is this one for the people, is this one for the Lord?J.S. LYONShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950162580918151580noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-93512646205106476.post-2384923430014368292008-05-18T19:02:00.000-07:002008-06-05T00:25:36.784-07:00Jesus is who he is, so who is he?Everyone has an opinion about Jesus, it seems. This is not a new phenomenon; it has in fact always been the case. In the first century people formed more than a few groups around their opinions of Jesus of Nazareth. Many believed he was God in the flesh; others believed he was a mere wise man; still others believed him to be some sort of Gnostic incarnation of some sort of secret knowledge. Nonetheless, Jesus was more than a mere historical figure. He seems to naturally bring out the strongest opinions in people. This reaction is especially complicated in this postmodern setting we are all living in presently. Some say Jesus merely offers one of many potential ways to be saved in an age wherein metanarrative has been deemed less than reliable. My generation is going as far as to say that as expansive truth building is concerned, and personal opinion, in some sort of strange philosophical twist, Jesus has been promoted to truth. Over the centuries the idea of Jesus being truth personified has not been traditionally hard to accept; even if one does not put personal faith in Him for their salvation. Today, perhaps more than ever before, followers of Jesus need to be able to properly differentiate between opinion and the basic truths of the Biblical story. Jesus himself said “I am the way the Truth and the Life, no mans comes to the father but by me.” The question than becomes is that an exclusive statement or inclusive? The answer is a personal choice.<br /><br /> The problem isn’t postmodernism, or the philosophical idea that an expansive metanarrative is impossible, or the religious idea that there are in fact many, many paths, by which Jesus’ way stands as an alternative. These concepts are all very realistic. They are as realistic as the idea that an identifiable and relative set of consistent questions remain with us, in spite of the varied contexts of our historic settings, as we universally journey within and through our own contextually-bound and historically evolving communities. I would suggest that such concepts are also beneficial to Christianity in that they celebrate inherent uniqueness and consequently substantiate the basic claims of the Christian faith. No, the problem isn’t postmodernism, pluralism, or the basic Christian message. The problem is ethnological; Christians don’t really know their own story well enough to establish themselves as a unique way within this postmodern culture of daily life and living. We have been reduced to irrelevant within our culture by our own lack of understanding of our present setting and our inability to discern the times. When one is sways in the wind with the latest inspired trend within Christianity it is impossible to properly differentiate between opinion and the basic truths of the Christian story. <br /><br />So, where do we begin the necessary renaissance to regain our balance? Why not start at the basics? Christology - or the Study of Who Jesus is - would be a fine starting point. Many people today have deemed Jesus to be nothing more than a social revolutionary or one of many in a long line of special spiritual gurus. He is both, of course! And he is so much more! A concentration on Jesus’ social and economic message of justice is absolutely necessary, but not at the expense of his message of personal salvation and heart transformation. Jesus holistically preached and pointed towards a way of life that divinely addresses and non-violently subverts the normative social, religious, and political spheres of life and living in this world. Followers of Jesus must proclaim this holistic Gospel of social justice and personal salvation. Jesus is the social prophet and the redeemer of the world. This basic truth of the Christian story elevates Jesus well above and beyond the world’s collection of spiritual gurus and/or teachers.<br /><br />A soft humanism has found its way into many, many churches and it has resulted in the demotion of Jesus to a supporting role in the world’s religious drama. Jesus, according to many expressions today, is not the only way to God, but one of many ways. Yes, Christianity is one of many ways in this world, but it is the only way that describes its founder/god in such terms. It is a unique expression living in a world laden with many expressions, its uniqueness is directly sourced from its basic story. A humanistic expression of Christianity is only Christian in that it makes liberal use of familiar vocabulary and theological concepts inherent to the basic Jesus story and its context. It also minimizes the incredible uniqueness of Jesus Christ in its vain attempt to cite the impossibility of metanarrative while simultaneously trying to create one by recklessly smashing all expressions together in the name of pluralism. The Christian embrace of this sort of humanism is as unnecessary as it is unfortunate. A basic understanding of the Jesus story would relieve the seeming need to trek in such a confused direction.<br />Jesus is so much more than just a wise spiritual teacher. He is the Savior of the world. This truth is made known to all by the Holy Spirit and a perusing of the Jesus story, in its most simple and basic form.<br /><br />For further reading on this topic a good read is "The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World"J.S. LYONShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950162580918151580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-93512646205106476.post-33446557344247379752008-04-18T02:33:00.000-07:002008-10-12T15:31:31.640-07:00Societal EthicsIn my approach to ethics and their implications on politics of a pluralistic society, it is necessary to reveal my background that serves as the basis of these ideas. My philosophy is influenced, but hopefully not blinded, by my Christian faith. My experiences with diversity and pluralism is from basic education of world religions and sociology, along with experiences abroad and in my own communities, I will apply my understanding of these experiences in my perception of the human state, the natural ethical implications of that, and then the political implications for American citizens.<br /><br />I believe that all of humanity can be found in a certain state. There exists one absolute truth that holds the definition of right and wrong. This form of moderate realism suggests that only in the mind of God can this normative understanding of a “common good” exist. It is impossible to be defined by humans, existing outside humanity. Humans have an instinct of what is good as a natural moral sense. As stated in natural law theory, there is a basic understanding of right and wrong found in human nature that can be discovered through reason. I believe there is evidence to this natural moral sense in history and psychology. Humans naturally understand good and bad although they may not always act accordingly. The relationship between God and humanity does much to explain this natural understanding. People were created in the image of God and God is described as love. Therefore, in so much as humans are like God, they are able to recognize the absolute right and wrong. Yet, humanity is in a fallen state, unable to completely define and comply with our instinctive moral sense. People are always distracted by another natural sense, selfishness. Because humans are separate from God, they are susceptible to distractions from the “common good”. These distractions have been termed sin in the religious world and are driven by selfishness and pride. The latter being the first sin, the source of all other sins, and the worst of sins. Pride led to the fall of Lucifer, (Isaiah 14:12–15) perfect in beauty, (Ezekiel 28:12–15) and the fall of humanity to our current state. According to Thomas Aquinas, pride is an "excessive desire for one's own excellence which rejects subjection to God." It is the worst sin, Aquinas argues, because it is in its very nature an aversion to God and His commandments, something that is indirectly or consequently true of all sins. <br /><br />So, within each person are two conflicting senses, one which reveals the right and good way of love and the other which seeks out self interest. Reason is the capability to decipher and choose between the two. I believe that all humans have the ability to reason. Rational people will reason to do what is right. Through historical evidence we know that people do things that seem blatantly wrong. These people are not reasoning rationally, using their natural instinct of good. They have been distracted, either for selfish reasons, like power, or by a misunderstanding. By misunderstanding I mean the person has been misled through something like abuse to believe they have a good purpose for their actions. Overall, I believe that through reasoning, humans are able to recognize ethical responses from within their basic instinct of right.<br /><br />Given the above understanding of humanity, ethical implications can be made. The natural moral sense of absolute truth contains two things, love and empathy. The natural instinct for love is evidenced in human’s dependency on relationships, including parent-child relationships, marriage and friendship. Humans yearn to be known and loved by others. Empathy for others implicates that rational people should not harm innocent people and also that rational people should help those less fortunate than themselves. Love and empathy then impose ethical standards on living. Humans have an ethical responsibility for reciprocity. The natural instinct for the “common good” of love, peace and respect creates a thin understanding of the good life, allowing humans to pursue it in different by protecting liberty of all. To practice the natural moral sense of empathy and love means pursuing equality. Humans have the responsibility to uphold mutual respect of each others basic rights. Empathy and love are inherent ethical standards that should govern individual reason within society.<br /><br />The American society is greatly diverse in the views of the good life held by its citizens. Different religions, ethnicities, cultures, and economic levels exist under a single government that has pledged freedom for all. I believe with the instinctive understanding of good described above, all humans have the ethical responsibility to show empathy to their fellow citizens. Basic rights and equality are two examples of empathy’s governance in politics.<br /><br />Protecting basic rights of all citizens is a form of liberalism that addresses individual and minority freedoms in a democratic society. All citizens have basic rights, such as a right to basic resources (food, shelter, etc), freedom to pursue happiness, and self-rule through a democratic government. In order to assure these basis rights, citizens have the responsibility for involvement in government as an action promoting justice. It is unethical for citizens to ignore this means for helping others with their instinctive understandings of love and empathy. Citizens have the responsibility to vote so as to protect the liberty we gained with blood or it will be lost with words. People should not force their specific understanding of the good life upon others. Plurality can not be denied; therefore, under the ethic standards already developed, equality can be pursued. This means that citizens with very different backgrounds ought to respect each other’s views for the sake of equality, an empathic and loving standard. Their vote and other means of political involvement must aim protecting rights of those within the society, encompassing their personal moral or metaphysical beliefs.<br /><br />In addition to basic rights, responsibility to empathy within politics obligates citizens to recognize and act against injustice. Citizens must be in dialogue with others in order to develop a greater understanding of others and to avoid the dangerous tendency to stereotype and marginal those who are different than themselves. Education should incorporate multicultural studies along with national history and English literature. This dialogue allows citizens greater awareness of injustices within the political structure. Again, a citizen ethically has the responsibility to involve oneself in the governmental process of change. Injustice must be recognized as inherent with certain minorities. It is not ethical for a reasonable person to recognize the inequalities inherent to a certain minority or individual and at some level not stand against it. <br /><br />It is out of a natural sense of good that citizens of a government must seek out equal basic rights. Ethics should be judged according to the state of humanity, divided between an instinctive understanding of good and selfish desires, but with the ability to reason. Empathy summons reasonable citizens to require equality and basic rights within a pluralistic society.J.S. LYONShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950162580918151580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-93512646205106476.post-56262836655636719662008-01-18T21:06:00.000-08:002008-04-27T21:10:18.922-07:00Theological Reflections on Church Planting<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">In his book <i style="">Church Planting</i>, Stuart Murray first lays some foundational theological frame work of Church Planting. He makes sure that the reader recalls that “Theology refers primarily to the study of God and by extension to the activities of God within creation.” In doing so he then explains that to refer to “a theology of church planting” seemed “increasingly problematic.” Such phraseology, though popular and superficially impressive, may in fact hinder theological reflection. He goes on to say that “to suggest that there is a theology of church planting is surely to confuse strategy with theology and processes with principles.” He instead likes the terms “theological perspectives on” or “theological reflections on”, saying that these are a more accurate use of language, which reserves the term theology for the central task of reflection on God. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style=""> </span>Now with this terminology in mind, <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">Murray</st1:place></st1:city> then goes on to talk about three fundamental theological concepts. The first is the <i style="">mission Dei</i>. (mission of God) He says that missiologists are “increasingly drawn to this phrase to express the conviction that mission is not the invention, responsibility, or program of human beings, but flows from the character and purposes of God.” <span style=""> </span>The second theological principle is that of <i style="">incarnation</i>. Stating that “If mission originates in the character and activity of God, the means by which God engages in mission are paradigmatic for those who participate in this mission.” And lastly the “<st1:place st="on"><st1:placetype st="on">Kingdom</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename st="on">God</st1:placename></st1:place>”. This Kingdom mind set provides a framework within which a more wholistic understanding of mission can be understood. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style=""> </span>He concludes the book by exploring the church’s role within the Kingdom of God and His mission in order to better understand that the church’s primary task is the <i style="">mission Dei.</i></p>J.S. LYONShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950162580918151580noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-93512646205106476.post-42285216661034115942007-12-18T19:01:00.000-08:002007-12-19T15:36:16.731-08:00Institutional Failures"Church" as we know it is not producing disciples of Christ. The question is why not?<br /><br /><br /><br /><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dziScjTygN5xMwZcWN-vGAlxcqusOUoKdr6Js6ZAqJllzd6qeYP5fbi7cP8ZhgvYEShLXW9Wf3GQRKyCcIlyw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br /><br />To view the full 13min video visit the <a style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;" href="http://revealnow.com/story.asp?storyid=48">Reveal</a><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;"> </span>website. <a href="http://revealnow.com/story.asp?storyid=48"><br /></a>J.S. LYONShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950162580918151580noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-93512646205106476.post-4968860915725966102007-11-18T04:18:00.000-08:002009-02-13T18:09:59.575-08:00Theology of Humanitarian Missions: Kingdom Lifestyle<p class="MsoNormal" style="LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span style="font-size:0;"></span>A basic definition of Humanitarian Missions is when Christian witness and goodwill meet human needs. Christian witness is the heralding of the good news to which we are called in the great commission, starting with people we are in daily contact with. (Acts 1.8) Purposefully making it a point to preface evangelizing by developing relationships, in doing so being a character witness to the hope we have in Jesus. Goodwill is how we are called as disciples of Christ to engage the world through service and love. The driving force at the heart of the <i>missio dei</i> is God’s boundless and unconditional love for His creation; particularly humankind who, being made in the very image of God, reflect the essence of God. I believe love should be at the foundation of anyone’s theology of mission. As such we embody the very nature of God in our human relations, purposefully striving to avoid the narcissism caused by humankind’s sinful nature. When we become a follower of Christ we are brought into the covenant God made with His people. In doing so, we partner with God in His mission. Paul talks about being heirs with the father, calling us into relationship with Him in the redemption of a fallen world; as though God were making His appeal through us.</p><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">In the last two hundred years “missions” was redefined as going somewhere meeting the spiritual needs of the heathen world. In most cases, even to this day, this salvific approach focuses on the conversion of souls. The chief goal is to meet the spiritual need in humankind for redemption, salvation through Jesus, reconciliation with the father, and/or sanctification. All are very important aspects of missions but foolishly reductionistic, sometimes to the point of minimizing, obscuring, or distorting the <i>missio dei</i>. Because of this distortion of the term “missions”, missionary work is sometimes seen as the destruction of indigenous cultures and the implantation of foreign ones.<span style="font-size:78%;"> </span>Sadly, mission work has become the westernizing of the heathen world, which even in the church is debated as a positive or negative strategy. In His book <i>What is Mission?: Theological Explorations</i>, J. Andrew Kirk says, “<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 /><st1:city><st1:place>Mission</st1:place></st1:city> is quite simply, though profoundly, what the Christian community is sent to do, beginning right where it is located.” Again an (Acts 1:8) reference that we are ambassadors of Christ, this “Christian community” is to share the ministry of reconciliation entrusted us. When in fact the three year ministry of Christ is an example of what holistic missions, humanitarian missions, should look like. His stint as a humanitarian missionary divinely balanced meeting not only the need for the redemption of the soul, but also the physical, emotional, and social/economic needs of His fallen creation. This is the life God has called us to as followers of Christ: to go, live, love, serve, engage. If we are truly to pursue a Christ like life we would be humanitarian missionaries every day, wherever we are. The <i>missio dei</i> flows directly from the nature of who God is, making Gods calling to mission a calling to service. “As the father sent me, I am sending you.” (John 20.21)”Go and do likewise”, (Luke 10.37) this verse is shown in the context of mercy towards the outcasts of society. <span style="font-size:0;"></span><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Humanitarian mission is daily having a kingdom mindset in all relations, both with God and fellow humankind. This kingdom living of following in the way of Christ quite simply (and yet with many obstacles to overcome) requires communicating the good news of Jesus and the kingdom (Acts 28.30) (evangelism), insisting on the full participation of all people in God’s gifts of life and wellbeing (justice), and providing the resources to meet peoples needs (compassion) and never lethal violence as a means of doing God’s will (the practice of passive resistance as a means of change). Kirk then says that the Church’s mission ‘in the way of Christ’ “is thus to be an instrument of God’s righteness and compassionate governance in the world.” The story of the early church’s evangelism begins and ends with a declaration of the <st1:place><st1:placetype>kingdom</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename>God</st1:placename></st1:place>. (Acts 1.3; 28.31) </p><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">Most of us know our “purpose” as Christians and when called upon can give a good answer with scripture references. Though when it comes to the application and integration of these principles exemplified in scripture into how we live our lives, we often segregate our spiritual life with our work, family, or school life. Because of this segregation we (all of us) have marginalized brothers and sisters throughout cultures, including our own, which are less fortunate. Sachs says, “The greatest tragedy of our time is that one sixth of humanity is not even on the development ladder.”<span style="font-size:78%;"> </span>What he is saying is that about a billion people on the shit basket we call earth, live in extreme poverty. While the other five billion aspire to earn their first million by the age of thirty, have a television in every room of our over priced homes, and plan for retirement in Jacksonville with season tickets to Jaguars home games. In his book, <i>Rich Christians in an age of Hunger,</i> Ronald Sider said, “In an age of affluence and poverty, most Christians, regardless of theological labels, are tempted to succumb to the heresy of following sociality’s materialistic values rather than biblical truth.” That is an indictment on the “church.” And the real sad part is that we (the body of Christ) are in such disagreement over how to address this pressing issue. Christ, being in the very nature of God, became flesh, and exemplified the way in which we are to address social injustice (to use a common buzz word). I truly believe one of Satan’s most effective tactics against Christians to be the busyness of our lives, even in ministry. (programs, programs, programs) Oswald Chambers said “Sometimes the greatest competitor to true devotion to Christ is the service we do for Him.” Sider later says that he is convinced “that the overwhelming majority of Western churches no longer understand or experience biblical <i>koinonia</i> to any significant degree….The essence of Christian community is far-reaching accountability to and liability for brothers and sisters in the body of Christ.” This rarely happens and is best suited for small communities of believers like the house churches of first century Christians. </p><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><span style="font-size:0;"></span>What the world needs is willing Christians fully committed to the mission of the Father. By that I do not mean balls to the wall spring break campaigns or short summer missions trips in which we come back and gush over how it affected me and how it changed my life. Do not get we wrong, these are good these. I myself went to <st1:country-region><st1:place>Croatia</st1:place></st1:country-region> for eight weeks one summer while in college, and i am a different person, but I am also an optimistic realist. More often than not in our own short-sightedness and western “results” mentality, the real answer to the why question is lost. Our humanitarian missions efforts “must be matched by a personal level of commitment to meet the needs of people and worthy of the seriousness of the need."</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="LINE-HEIGHT: 200%; TEXT-ALIGN: justify">So as Christians how do we use the example Christ gave us and apply that example to how our humanitarian participation in God’s mission? In looking at the story of Jesus ministering to thousands in Mark eight and Matthew fourteen, He admonished His disciples when they wanted Him to send the hungry crowd away. He told them, “they do not need to go away, you feed them.” Well if the disciples thought they could feed them all I would think that they would have done so the first two days, and not asked Jesus to send them away in the first place. These are just one of many examples of Jesus meeting the physical needs of people while not yet making known that he was the Son of God. People receive the gospel better on a full stomach.<br />Cultural values play a central role in fostering poverty and creating wealth and yet in an attempt to reach a lost and dying world it is cultural values that we shape our idea of “missions”. It just goes to show how much our worldview, I’m sorry, Christian worldview, is shaped by our culture and not always biblical principles. In a perfect world there would be no children dying from starvation, but we live in the realm of the evil one, all humankind subject to our own sinful nature. There will always be poor and oppressed peoples, (Mark 14.7) (Deut 15) the good news is that we are already redeemed. The question every believer should ask oneself is how I, as a follower of Christ, called to a life of humanitarian mission, reach out and engage those around us positively, as salt and light? I believe the answer to be relationally. God is by nature missional, he is also, by nature, relational. He desires to be in relationship with everyone of His creation. That is why He provided a way to do that through His son Jesus Christ. God does not separate the two, they can’t be, were not meant to be. But somewhere along the line we did. If we are the body why aren’t His arms reaching, why aren’t his handing healing, why aren’t His words teaching, why aren’t His feet going, why is His love not showing them there is a way? Jesus is the way.”</p><p style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><div id="edn4" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><p class="MsoEndnoteText"><?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p></p></div><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><u>Works Cited</u> <p></p><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify">What is <st1:city><st1:place>Mission</st1:place></st1:city>?: Theological Explorations. Fortress Press: <st1:city><st1:place>Minneapolis</st1:place></st1:city>, J. Andrew Kirk, pg 61</div><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"> </div><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"> </div><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><div style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"></div><div id="edn6" style="TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><p class="MsoEndnoteText">The End of Poverty: Economic possibilities for our time. Penguin Books: Jeffrey D. Sachs. Pg 19<span style="font-size:0;"> </span></p><p class="MsoEndnoteText"> </p><p class="MsoEndnoteText">Rich Christians: In an age of Hunger. W Publishing Group, Ronald Sider, pg 122</p></div>J.S. LYONShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02950162580918151580noreply@blogger.com0