Big K little k what begins with k?

How many of you remember that wonderful Dr. Seuss book about the alphabet? It walks through each letter and describes it with a charming mix of rhythm and humorous characters. The book also helps small children see the difference between the capital letters and the lowercase letters. That difference doesn't seem as important today in a world of lower-case logos and texting vocabulary, but it still matters.

Let's take the letter "k." When used in the word "kingdom" the size of the first letter has huge significance to us as Christians. With a capital "K," kingdom represents God's Kingdom in which we are participants in His plan for the world. With a lower case "k," kingdom represents our human efforts to control our situation and build influence for ourselves.

I am participating in the Lausanne Global Conversation leading up to the Lausanne Congress on Global Evangelization happening in Cape Town, South Africa in October. One of the key topics is partnership. One significant issues in partnership is the size of the letter "k" in kingdom. Throughout Christian missions and ministry we have seen many kingdoms come and go. They form around a powerful vision but in the end they are focused on themselves. Sometimes we see efforts and movements that are focused on the Kingdom of God. These efforts don't usually look as impressive in human terms but they recognize that the "k" must be a capital one.

There are many differences between the lower case "k" ministry efforts and the upper case ones, but one of the most significant is the ability to partner and work together. If we have many kingdoms to protect, partnership will always be a challenge. There are intellectual property issues, issues of who drives programs, challenges with keeping donor bases separate and distinct, and the list goes on and on.

But if our ministry efforts have a fundamental appreciation and commitment to the kingdom with a capital "k," then partnership is almost assumed. That doesn't mean it will be easy. People still have their own ideas, their own perspectives and human nature always kicks in. But if our context for ministry is the Kingdom of God, then those things can be overcome in His power and for His glory.

In our ongoing discussion about truth, this size of our kingdoms comes into play regularly. We talk about three ways of understanding truth in our book "Through the River." Each one of these truth lenses understands the Kingdom of God differently. Positivists who base their foundation in modernity understand the Kingdom of God as something that can be understood as we "grow in knowledge and truth." They want a kingdom with a capital "k" and expect that it will be clearly defined and understood. This means that positivism brings an expectation of certainty to a partnership. Essentially, they believe that the Kingdom can be understood completely and then implemented based on that understanding. The expectations of things being completely aligned and in agreement will be very high - so high that much of the time these partnerships only last a few years because the two organization's cannot agree and keep the same picture of reality for a long enough time period.

The second truth lens that we speak about in our book is instrumentalism. This truth lens says that truth is understood personally. For most of them the idea of kingdom will always be a lower case "k" because it is hard to imagine God's Kingdom in the broader sense. This group is the majority of people in Western Christianity today and is defined by pragmatism. That means that partnership is seen as a way for lower case kingdoms to be more effective and efficient but it is not done primarily to advance the Kingdom of God. This means that partnership will be pursued as long as it benefits the lower case kingdoms involved but will be abandoned if there is not clear benefit or if the benefit is only seen in the upper case Kingdom of God.

The third truth lens is critical realism and it is best understood as the truth you know and the truth you are learning. For this group of truth seekers, the Kingdom of God is a place of mystery on one hand and clarity on the other. I believe that this truth lens is particularly well suited for partnerships in the Kingdom of God. This is because critical realism says that there is absolute truth that we can all share as a foundation, but that most of God's Kingdom is still a mystery to us that we are learning about as we work. By acknowledging that we are learning in community but solidly established on the truth we know, we can humbly serve within the Kingdom of God without creating lower case kingdoms. This focus on community levels the field and takes the focus off of individual organization's and puts it on where God is at work.

So is your life oriented around little "k's" or the big "K"?

What the Bay Bridge Can Teach Us About Truth

That iconic bridge in San Francisco that many people have seen in movies or as tourists is a powerful example of the change in how people understand truth. We got this insight after watching 60 Minute's segment about the new bridge currently being built.

The show focused on the race against time to build the new bridge before a major earthquake strikes the area. According to geologists it is time, but the bridge is far from done. There was the usual drama over time lines and budgets, but that is not what caught our attention.

When they were interviewing one of the builders, he explained how in decades past people thought that the best way to help a structure survive the earthquake was to build it as solid and sturdy as possible. But after a major earthquake hit the area and damaged many of the sturdiest structures, they are now focused on buildings that can sway and move. During the piece, they showed how one particular section of the new bridge had at least 6 feet of sway built into the structure.

What does this say about truth you ask? Well, in the last century the truth lens of positivism ruled the thinking of scientists, builders and financiers alike. This way of thinking said that all truth was knowable and claimed that the job of mankind was to build the most solid foundation possible by accumulating truth in an effort to collect it all.

But just as an earthquake shattered the illusion of safety in sturdy buildings, post-modernity and relativism shattered the idea that all truth was knowable. People began to look at those towers of truth they had built and realized that there were many hidden holes and cracks.

Today a new truth lens is emerging called critical realism (the one we share about in our book "Through the River"). This new way to look at truth says that there is a common foundation on which we can build, however the key to stability is having plenty of give in your structure that will allow for the tumult of the 21st century. Just like the new bridge, those constructing the framework for truth today are creating an environment that establishes the truth we know, but then realizes that there is much truth that we are learning together. The new bridge is dug deep into the San Francisco Bay so that the bridge is anchored firmly in the ground. But the rest of the bridge is attached to the solid tower and is designed to learn and adjust to each earthquake that might come.

So are you building your understanding of truth as a solid structure that strives to defy the earthquake of relativism or are you building a structure that is designed to hold fast by leaving room to grow and learn?

Why Truth is Important . . . its not what you think!

I listen to certain Christmas songs all year round. Does that surprise you? Well, it certainly surprises me. Sometimes I wonder why I turn my Ipod to these specific songs when they are very much focused on the Christmas season. But as I listen to them I remember why and those songs bring my faith to life. They speak about Truth in a person . . . the Christ.

But thinking about Truth as a person is a very odd thing to do, isn't it?

Ever since Christianity's growth began to challenge the ideas and power structures of their day, the quest for what is "the Truth" has been at the center of wars, nation-building and cultural upheaval. Truth with a capital "T" has been our goal and we have taken extreme measures to discover it, define it and monopolize it.

But how have we defined and understood Truth? For the most part we have done so through a series of propositions. Ideas that are observable and reproducible. We developed the scientific method as a way to document and categorize these ideas as our understanding of our surroundings grew more and more complex.

In reality we have done the same with our faith. We have created volumes full of statements about what we believe and how they impacts our lives and actions. Those volumes become truth with a capital "T" and we use them as foundational for our understanding of truth.

There is definitely a place for this kind of knowing, but I want to stress for you another kind of knowing that is equally important . . . Truth incarnate. In Isaiah 48:17 God says "I am the Lord your God, who teaches you what is best for you, who directs you in the way you should go." We all believe that God is the source of Truth and the one who can direct us and guide us. But that is a pretty comfortable idea since God is this supreme being out there that never became something that we could touch or feel. Never, that is, until Jesus came as the incarnation of God to this Earth to bring salvation and redemption.

All of a sudden truth with a capital "T" has a name, wears sandals, eats fish, has nightmares and eventually died on the cross. That is the idea that I keep coming back to with these Christmas songs. The idea that all that is real, true and right was among us! People like you and me saw the God of the universe in human form and we have records of what He said and what He did. I love how Jesus says in John 14:6, "If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well."

What this means is that the things that Jesus chose to care about represent Truth. The people He spent time with and the stories He shared represent His values and His presentation of God's character to us. Every time I read the Gospels, I am amazed that I am able to see into God's mind through the actions of Jesus.

But if you truly believe that we can see truth with a capital "T" when we look at Jesus, then the next thing that God did is even more amazing. Once Jesus had left the disciples, the Holy Spirit descended and came to live in all those who believed. In fact, thousands of years later, we as Christ-followers still have the blessing and honor of having the Holy Spirit in us.

So does that mean that truth with a capital "T" lives in us . . . you . . . me? Does that mean that when I respond to the Spirit and not to my flesh that I am representing the God of the universe and showing His mind and His heart to others?

If so than our lives are incarnational and our actions can reveal the character, values, ideas, desires of God. And because God's Truth is so much larger than anything we as humans can fully grasp, when we represent God and put aside our sin and selfishness, we are revealing things that God wants others to see and know. Could it be that God might use you to reveal a new idea that fills out what He has already provided through thousands of years of other believers and through His Word?

That changes how I view my preparation for tomorrow. My thoughts, attitudes and actions could be used by God to bring Truth to those around me, or they could be used to satisfy my sin nature and the Prince of Darkness who plagues this world and torments so many.

Will my life be a tool for God to bring Truth into this world?

I cannot think of a question with more practical and immediate implications than this one!

What happened to the common foundation?

I found this great infographic on Informationisbeautiful.net that shows how the Left and Right in US politics view the world. Take a minute to look at it on this screen or click on it to see the full size:



What struck me immediately about this image is that it shows the two sides completely separate. This is classic positivism (or Rock Dweller) thinking. The idea presented here says that you can either be on one side of the fence or another and that a person must select the picture puzzle that they want to build.

But what if at the bottom of this graph was another bar of all the common ideas and beliefs that both groups of people hold dearly within the system? All of a sudden we would see how those same foundational truths supported both perspectives in very different ways. Then it would be much harder to take a position of arrogance and criticism because we would see that the other side's ideas had at least some origins in a common truth.

A common foundation of truth as seen in critical realism (the Valley Dwellers) challenges us to look for foundational truth and then helps us to look at those around us through a posture of humble learning.

Doesn't that sound better than the friction we see around us today?

The Truth about Healthcare Reform

Wow, what a debate. We have seen discussions, research, lobbying, arguments, protesting, spitting, name calling, and on and on. And in all of the posturing and sharing of ideas from one side to the other, the question you have to ask yourself is “Where is the truth?”

In this issue, that question is loaded and very challenging to grapple with. If ever there was a time when understanding and apply our truth lens (epistemology) would come in handy this seems to be it. In our book Through the River, we talk about three ways of viewing truth that we call truth lenses that exist and influence us today.

So why don’t we walk through the three lenses and how people in each camp might try to derive truth about the healthcare debate. It should be an interesting journey and I’m sure it will garner some dynamic responses! So strap on your seat belt and let’s go….

Positivists:
If you are a positivist (a rock dweller in our river analogy) you believe that your job every day is to add truth and subtract untruth. You also believe that truth is a picture puzzle and your job (along with those around you) is to uncover the pieces and put them in their place.

A rock dweller approaches the healthcare debate with a specific idea about the truth in this matter. Their job is to take every new piece of information about the bill, the players and the ramifications and hold it up to what they believe and either add it or subtract it. Because they understand truth as a picture puzzle, they believe there is one right answer about healthcare reform and that they must uncover it and champion it at all costs.

In essence they agree to agree or they break relationship. We have plenty of rock dwellers in this debate don’t we? In fact, entrenched positions and understandings of truth have been part of the very contentious nature of the debate.
Instrumentalists:

If you are an instrumentalist (an island dweller in our river analogy) you understand truth personally. You believe that truth exists, however you are not convinced that your truth can be shared with others. Instead of a picture puzzle, you view truth as a collage where everyone’s understanding and personal experience are summed up into this big dynamic picture that ends up looking a lot like modern art – interesting but not particularly like anything you can point to in life.

An island dweller approaches the healthcare debate in a very pragmatic way. They inventory their personal experiences, their understanding, their perspectives and the facts and come up with the truth that they know and believe. They may believe their position very strongly and speak adamantly about the healthcare issue, but deep down they don’t expect anyone to reach the same particular conclusion as they have reached. The truth is personal. In the end their perspective will be based on their healthcare experience and needs. It may also be based on their passion for the cause of either side of the argument. The key is that island dwellers have no bridges so in the end their view and perspective is their own and they must live with it as individuals.

The island dwellers agree to disagree, knowing that consensus is impossible. There are many people who hold personal perspectives about this issue but don’t pretend that others will agree; aren’t there?

Critical Realist:
If you are a critical realist (a valley dweller in our river analogy) you believe that there is absolute truth that can be shared and can serve as a platform but you also believe there is much truth that is unknown and can only be learned in community. Another way of saying it is that there is truth you know and truth you are learning. You promote the idea of objective truth but you insist that it is understood subjectively. That looks like a montage of many small pictures that come together to make a clear and powerful picture.

A valley dweller approaches the healthcare debate by working to establish the truth that they know…about the government’s past performance in similar programs, the specific elements of the bill, the potential implications and so on. Once there is a clear understanding of what is known within the valley dweller’s community (and validated by other sources), then that person begins to challenge his/her community to humbly learn together. They discuss the subjective reality, process the personal experiences, and look for new perspectives on the issue that could help them expand what they know.

This group agrees to learn together and does not break relationship even if they are not on the same page yet. This is a relatively new approach in our world and we don’t see a lot of people naturally taking this tactic yet. But what would the debate have looked like if they did?

Challenge
Ok, we quickly explored how people with different truth lenses might respond to the healthcare debate. Now here is your challenge:
1. What truth lens did you use when dealing with this issue?
2. As you reflect on each one, which one represents a Biblical approach and why?
3. Which one reflects the character of God incarnate – Jesus – as he interacted with challenging issues during his time on earth?
4. What will you do the same or differently when the next big truth issue comes up in your world?

The Journey of Truth as Tourism

This month we continue to respond to the excellent articles being posted on the Lausanne Global Conversation site about pluralism and the struggle to understand truth. This is a key topic and was the focus of our book - Through the River.

Today we want to highlight one of the official responses to the article by Krish Kandiah who serves as executive director of Churches in Mission for the UK Evangelical Alliance. What I love about the response is the use of the analogy of tourism to talk about our truth journey. This ties in so well with our analogy of going through the river of relativism as people interact with truth.

In this response the author challenges us in two key ways:

1. There is a challenge not to be "tactless tourists" that simply ignore what those searching for truth are going through and demand that they understand truth the way we do. Here is a quote that I love, "The tactless approach to pluralism can lead the church to retreat into arrogant absolutism." This is so true. What we have seen as we have studied the way people view truth is that many fight away the uncertainty of relativism through arrogance. This is easy to understand because people are trying to reduce the uncertainty around them but it is a huge mistake because it makes Christianity so irrelevant to the larger community who is struggling with truth.

2. There is also a challenge not to be "reluctant tourists" that cower in the face of the pluralistic approach all around us. In our book we call the "reluctant tourists" the "island dwellers." They live out in the river of relativism on sandy islands where there is truth but it is completely personal. Unfortunately most believers in the West live in this world of personal truth where there are no bridges to others. I agree with this great quote from that section, "A fast-food message cannot compare to the nourishment offered by a local flavoursome organic church." What a powerful way to combat the idea that truth can no longer be anything but personal. In our book we talk about a third way that is very compatible with how this article approaches the subject. We talk about a humble approach to truth that is derived in relationship to God and in community with believers.

Our prayer is that this global conversation hosted by Lausanne will be a catalyst to bring that kind of truth discussion to the forefront.

Truth in a Human Context

I am very excited about the upcoming Lausanne Capetown 2010 conference in South Africa. It is a key moment in the life of the 21st Century global church. You can follow Capetown on twitter at www.twitter.com/capetown2010.

This month the Global Conversation leading up to the event is focused on how our world understands truth. This is a key topic for this century and it needs some fresh thinking. I want to focus on one paragraph from Mark Chan's article in Christianity Today and on the Global Conversation:

"Our common humanity is a good starting place to share the truth of Christ. It is in the safety of genuine friendship, where trust is earned and respected, that we may honestly question assumptions. Christians can learn to sow seeds of subversion in the field of relativism by raising questions about the adequacy of moral relativism as a guide for life."

What I like about his approach is that he is starting from a position of human relationship when he talks about truth. The mistake we make so often is to force truth into an objective and sterile world. The age of modernity pushed this as the ultimate goal. But in making the truth sterile they also made it completely without meaning to humanity. It was a bunch of numbers and facts on a page without any context.

In the context of relationship we can validate the truth that we know and understand and commit to learn the rest of the truth in humble community. Mark did not really go there and I wish he would have taken that next step and challenged people not just to fight against relativism but to actively learn truth together.

One of the great challenges that we run up against in the "fight for truth" today is that people think they have to defend the truth. One of the things that Mindy and I have realized as we wrote the book with Dr. Paul Hiebert about our truth lenses is that the best defense for truth is a strong commitment to learning in community. It provides accountability and it also allows our understanding to be framed by what God is telling people across many backgrounds, cultures and experiences.

As we share about in our book, relativism is a natural progression from the short-comings of modernity. The key challenge I would like to throw out there is that the answer is not to pull people back from the raging river of relativism to the rocky shore of modernity. There is another side to the river where absolute truth can exist within the context of learning in community. That is what will appeal to those tired of being buffeted by the waves of relativism.