Hello all.
My parents held radically different views on religion. Some think that is
bad for children, for me-it created the need to make choices and learn how
to think critically about the whole subject of theology, and it made it
impossible for me to accept any idea without question.
My father in particular views me now as a religious radical, because I
won't blindly follow, (in his words, "I lack faith"), and have very
independant views about the bible and christianity in particular that get
me "in trouble" with virtually EVERY religious authority.
I believe the church has the potential (and was meant to be) the ultimate
learning organization. Since no human that any of us know of has met God
face to face and returned with clear proof and information, we are in the
position as described in scripture of "seeing through the glass darkly".
God seems to like variaty. We have all sorts of different kinds of
humans, (both racially, culturaly, genderwise etc.). Yet people seem to
all search for "the one right way". Well, God didn't make just one bird.
A child born in america is faced with an incomprehensible avalanch of
theological opinion, and is told "God expects you to make the right choice
or you will go to Hell when you die". Talk about an impossible
requirement. Talk about a fearful prospect. How can anyone find the
"right" church? How can you KNOW when you've found it? Is the right
church the real goal, or is it the discovery and relationship with God and
fellow humans that is the real goal? I think the best we can do is
explore what is written, try to make sense of it and make life choices
that are consistent with what we understand. Obviously, My under-
standing will be different from yours, but I can learn from you, and you
from me, if we are willing to take the risk of seeing some new things.
I wrote a post a month or so back about "list" learning, and religion is
in my view-the place you typically find the most hard core "list"
learners. If learning is a progression, that begins with a list or recipe
of actions that are desired, but grows into an understanding of the
concept or principle that "makes it go", then why do religious people
spend so much time trying to stop that process and force us to live our
lives in "list" mode? I would think that there is a growth process (and
you hear some christians talk about this in fairly oblique terms) that
starts with a list of behaviours and grows into a conceptual understanding
of the whole.
I personally "have faith" that God understands the dillema we face, and
isn't some sadistic monster who sets an impossible challenge before his
created "children" in order to enjoy their failures. I once saw a bumper
sticker that said, "This life is a test, if this were a real life, you
would have been given better instructions." It seems we need to start
with some of the basic instructions, (and the LO concepts seem to be good
tools to help that process along.) and then develop our under- standing of
God, Ourselves, the Universe (including the sciences that "make it go") in
order to develop our cultures into something that is going somewhere. In
other words, It's an individual process.
The "essentials of christianity" are not so much a list of behaviors, but
ideas like Rick described, "love" or "Respect" for God and fellow human.
Respect/love... These are more than just words. They are BIG IDEAS that
have implications and possibilities I think will take a lifetime to work
through and understand. (see-long term, unfettered growth or learning with
who knows what new opportunities waiting just beyond the horizon.
Ritual has some usefullness provided it doesn't take the place of the love
or respect idea (what Jesus was talking about in the Good Samaritan
example). I get pretty irritated at the idea of being "politically
correct" for some of the same reasons. You can say the right stuff, and
take the "right" action-and be dead wrong because you/we violate the basic
concept of respect for fellow human.
What ever it is that we belive (or don't believe) about God, Theology,
Christianity, etc.. The idea that we aren't going to "get it" with a
casual look, or a list, and that we have to question, or at least be open
to a new view if we expect to continue the learning process over the
course of our lifetime has to be the First principle of a learner.
Until we face God (or chaos) face to face, we will not absolutely know one
way or the other just what God is. Throwing out religion because of
obnoxious folk or custom in religion that block learning, or seizing on
one set of ideas and not proceding further is just shooting ourselves in
the foot. I say the church can be the ultimate learning organization-if
we become consumate learners. I long ago decided I did not have to ask
permission to learn. I already had that permission from the new
testiment, and some guy with his collar turned backwards wasn't going to
get in my way. (so my dad is still mad at me... oh well). I agree with
John Farago that we need to maintain a healthy (I don't like the word
cynacism...) waryiness, of what people think is real, because what we
think is real today-is found to be un-real by tomorrows new scientific
discovery or mentel connections we change (remember the discipline of
Mental Models).
Sorry about the length of this, I've been reading all the posts and it
finally got it together in my head what I wanted to say. (came in a truck
load).
keep smiling people...
Michael Erickson
sysengr@atc.boeing.com
On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, John Farago wrote:
> Replying to LO8950 --
> > On Thu 8 Aug 1996, Rick Karasch wrote:
>
> >... And, there are other elements that we take as more fundamental
> > [in relation to OL].
> >As a personal example, I hold as fundamental the notion of real
> >respect for every human being (as Deming talks about this). Once you
> >decide to try to operate based on this principle, you don't keep
> >asking, "How do we know this is 'right'?"
> >
> > To me, this is parallel to "Love thy neighbor."
>
> Respect for human beings, love thy neighbour, honesty, integrity and many
> of the other 'values' that have been discussed in learning-org in recent
> weeks are useful working hypotheses which I am happy to adopt as my own
> general code of conduct. But they are simple words expressing very
> complex ideas and values, which we are constantly having to challenge,
> confront and reframe. For example, there is considerable argument about
> the point after fertilisation of an egg when a cell cluster becomes a
> human being and that raises dilemmas between respect for mother and
> embryo. Love thy neighbour? Adolf Hitler? Pol Pot? There are many
> instances - and they have been discussed here - where interpretation of
> fundamental values becomes difficult.
>
> In my view OL requires continuing doubt and scepticism (that is probably
> the wrong word) about all hypotheses; so well articulated in the
> philosophy of science of Carl(?) Popper. It is possible irrevocably to
> disprove a hypothesis, but it can only be proved once at a time.
>
> AIUI the Christian and Muslim religions OTOH do require unquestioning
> faith in words.
>
> OL, as earlier contributors to this thread have said, requires a
> willingness to question ALL assumptions and to reframe hypotheses.
> Remember Galileo.
--Michael Erickson <sysengr@atc.boeing.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>