Questions to evaluate technologies

How do we evaluate the benefits and costs of technologies? Neil Postman (1931-2003) was a media theorist and cultural critic at New York University who spent a lifetime wrestling with such questions. In a talk given in 1998, he considered five things we need to know about technological change. Postman's enduring influence and relevance are marked by the fact that these five things featured in a column in The Washington Post, "Is the Internet Evil?" by Christine Emba, published in 2018.

Below, I summarise the five ideas from Postman's talk and provide questions (in italics) we should ask about any technology, particularly Artificial Intelligence (AI).

1. All technological change is a trade-off. 

"the greater the wonders of a technology, the greater will be its negative consequences" 

Don't just ask the question "What will a new technology do?" Also ask, "What will a new technology undo?"

"a sophisticated perspective on technological change includes one’s being skeptical of Utopian and Messianic visions drawn by those who have no sense of history or of the precarious balances on which culture depends."

Through adoption of the technology, what will we lose, individually and as a society?

2. The advantages and disadvantages of a new technology are never distributed evenly among the population.

Who will benefit? Who will be harmed? 

Winners will try to persuade losers that they will benefit as well.

Benefits and harms can relate to employment, finances, social status, health, and political power.

3.  Embedded in every technology are powerful ideas. 

"These ideas are often hidden from our view because they are of a somewhat abstract nature. But this should not be taken to mean that they do not have practical consequences."

"The telegraphic person values speed, not introspection. The television person values immediacy, not history... the computer person values information, not knowledge, certainly not wisdom." 

"The medium is the message."

What ideas are embedded in the technology?

How does it make us use our minds and bodies?

How does it affect our personal relationships and social cohesion?

4. Technological change is not additive; it is ecological. It changes everything.

"The consequences of technological change are always vast, often unpredictable and largely irreversible."

The entrepreneurs who started the television industry "did not mean to turn political discourse into a form of entertainment."

The consequences can be social, economic, political, environmental, religious, and health-related.

What are the unintended consequences of the technology?

5. When a technology becomes mythic, it is always dangerous because it is then accepted as it is, and is therefore not easily susceptible to modification or control.

"...our enthusiasm for technology can turn into a form of idolatry and our belief in its beneficence can be a false absolute. The best way to view technology is as a strange intruder, to remember that technology is not part of God’s plan but a product of human creativity and hubris, and that its capacity for good or evil rests entirely on human awareness of what it does for us and to us."

How does the technology lead to idolatry? Do some people worship it, its creators, or its owners?

Finally,

Do we use the technology or does the technology use us? 

In different words, will we shape our lives to fit the requirements of the technology, rather than have our values shape our use of the technology?

Addendum (12 August, 2026). In his last book, Building a Bridge to the 18th Century, Postman suggests six questions to ask about new technologies. 

1. “What is the problem to which this technology is the solution?” 

2. “Whose problem is it?” 

3. “Which people and what institutions might be most seriously harmed by a technological solution?”

4. “What new problems might be created because we have solved this problem?” 

5. “What sort of people and institutions might acquire special economic and political power because of technological change?”

6. “What changes in language are being enforced by new technologies, and what is being gained and lost by such changes?”

My articles on theology and science

Here are links to articles that I have written over the years on theology and science.

Can Science see the End?  Case Magazine, 2003, with Greg Clarke.

Foundations of the Dialogue between the Physical Sciences and Theology, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith  (2004).

Dialectical critical realism in science and theology: Quantum Physics and Karl Barth, Science and Christian Belief (2008), with Ben Myers.

Emergence, reductionism and the stratification of reality in science and theology, Scottish Journal of Theology (2011).

Emergence: The whole is greater than the sum of the parts, Test of Faith.

Science and theology in the non-Western world, Guest Editorial, Science and Christian Belief, 2012.

Living as a Physicist and a Christian, a chapter in the book, Why Study? Exploring the Face of God in the Academy, published by Singapore FES.

Towards a Christian vision for the modern secular university: A theological contribution to competing visions of the university, IFES Word and World, 2018. What is a university for? is a long version of the published article.

Who's afraid of social science?

CASE Magazine, 2019.

A Theology of Weakness,

Chapter  in Pub Theology: Where Potato Wedges and a Beer are a Eucharistic Experience

Blessed are the Meek: The Science and Theology of Humility, 

Chapter 3 in To Whom Shall We Go? Faith Responses in a Time of Crisis

Science, Humanity and Jesus, A talk at Theology on Tap Brisbane, June 2025.

Transformation in the Natural Sciences

Draft book chapter, September 2025

Karl Barth and the dialogue between theology and the sciences, Draft paper

A Disciplinary Brief for the Global Faculty Initiative, The Radicalness of Love—for the Natural Sciences and the Research University.

What is a university for?

A Christian Vision for the Modern Secular University

CASE Magazine, June 2026.

Lectures on Science and Christianity: Part 4

Part 4: Apologetics, mission, and the social sciences

1. Overview

2. Emergence and reductionism

3. Human sciences

4. Mental health

5. South Asian contexts 

6. Conclusion

Balance and emphasis are the impossible but necessary tasks of theology

Christian theology is talking and writing about the triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). It has a history of two thousand years. There are multiple traditions: Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Reformed, Liberal, Evangelical, Feminist, Black, Liberation, Conservative... 

There are multiple sub-disciplines of theology:  Biblical, Old Testament, New Testament, Trinitarian, missional, spiritual, historical, pastoral, practical, political, ...

There are multiple topics: Trinity, creation, sin, redemption, revelation, the Cross, the Incarnation, soteriology, ecclesiology, Christology, eschatology,...

Denominations, churches, parachurch ministries, and careers are often built on making one of these theologies central and dominant.

There is endless jockeying and competition within the church and the academy for the relative importance and priority of one of these theologies. Fashions come and go. The "breakthrough" or "paradigm" of yesterday is today seen as a mistake or irrelevant or simplistic... However, it is amazing how in the long run people keep coming back to something basic that centres around the Bible and the theology of the early church, such as in the Apostles Creed.

Different factions critique one another, sometimes carefully and graciously. Sometimes critiques are harsh, aggressive, dogmatic, selective, and ill-informed. People talk past one another. Individuals and groups and their voices get marginalised within certain communities if they do not conform to the favoured "theology".

How do we make sense of all these competing voices?

Much of the difference between these theologies is of emphasis. One particular topic, concept, method, perspective, Biblical passage, doctrine, creed, or historical figure is claimed to be the most important and to provide the key to making sense of everything else. The problem is whether the emphasis is helpful overall or whether the emphasis distorts the overall picture in an unhelpful way.  

Where does this diversity come from?

We should not be surprised by this diversity of perspectives and emphases as the diversity reflects the nature of the object under study and the nature of the subject studying it.

The objects under study are God, humanity, the world, and their interplay. This is a multi-faceted reality. The complexity of these objects requires descriptions at multiple levels and perspectives. This leads to a multiplicity of questions, methods, and conclusions.

Just consider the Bible. It has multiple authors, and possibly editors, who wrote in diverse contexts over two thousand years. There is a multiplicity of genres: history, law, poetry, prophecy, pastoral letters, and apocalyptic. How is this canon of literature to be interpreted? Naturally, the text will mean different things to different people at different times and in different contexts. The text does not interpret itself. Readers will interpret the text drawing on a complex interplay of interplay of reason, experience, and tradition. Even interpreters who claim to be drawing on a specific tradition have to also interpret that tradition. Given our diversity of personalities, life histories, and contexts it should not be surprising that we disagree about questions of meaning and significance on the most profound topic of all: God.

Everyone is a theologian. We are all human and this means that our theology is constrained by our limitations, individually and corporately. On the one hand, human language is incredibly powerful and a testament to what makes humans different from other animals. On the other hand, language, particularly formal academic language, cannot fully capture complex and subtle realities. That is why we have poetry!

Given our finite mental and linguistic capacities we need simplicity. This leads us to develop models, metaphors, frameworks, doctrinal statements and creeds. All models are wrong, but some are useful. 

Theologies can reflect the fallen nature of humanity. Our reason and communication are corrupted by sin. This can lead to the narcissism of small differences. Eugene Peterson says "a sect is a front for narcissism."

What do we really need? 

Humility, grace, and love. We need to be humble about our own abilities, individually and collectively, to discern the truth. We need to be gracious towards those who have different views. We need to be driven by love, love for God and love for others.

That there is a plurality of theologies does not mean they are all equally valid. On the one hand, we should not deny subjectivity. On the other hand, a careful comparison and critique of theologies different to our own may show their respective limitations. Commonalities that transcend our contexts may be a signpost to the essential truths to emphasise. Our focus should be on being more faithful to the centre, rather than trying to determine and enforce the boundaries of acceptable belief.

We need dialectic. A problem with many theologies is that they are dualistic. They are either/or. They embrace false dichotomies. There is room for both/and. Consider the following pairings: the humanity and divinity of Jesus, free will and predestination (human agency and God's sovereignty), faith and works, grace and judgement, redemption now but not yet, creation and fall (humans being made in the image of God versus corrupted by sin), faith and reason, special and general revelation, ... They need to be held in creative tension. Finding such a balance is impossible to do perfectly. But it is necessary if we are to be faithful to our subject.

Balance and emphasis are the impossible but necessary tasks of theology.

Power, science, and the academy

Power is the ability to influence what people think, how they feel, and how they act. Power can be direct or indirect, explicit or implicit. Like money and technology, power in itself is morally neutral. Power can be harnessed for good or for evil. Power can be used to protect the weak and to enact justice. It can also be used by the strong to cause untold suffering and injustice.

How does the concept of power play out in science and in the academy? Science and universities are human institutions. Hence, their activities and organisation inevitably involve the exercise of power. Power affects what people believe is true, the narratives they live by, how the social context shapes academia, and whether the strong triumph over the weak. Below I discuss the power of ideas, the power of narratives, how economic power shapes the academy today, and the paradox of the power of the powerless. The latter gives hope in a situation in which it is easy to despair.

Power of ideas

Universities are primarily about thinking. Teaching an academic discipline is ultimately about training students to think in a particular way about a subject, whether physics, sociology, or theology. Research is concerned with thinking about a topic, gathering data, analysing the data, and formulating concepts and theories that make sense of the data.

Ideas are powerful, for better or worse. Ideas can enable us to synthesise and understand vast amounts of information. Academic disciplines begin with new ideas and accelerate when these ideas provide an understanding of a dimension of reality. For example, genetic information is encoded in the biomolecule DNA. 

On the other hand, disciplines stagnate and may become dangerous, when ideas become ideology. Then, an idea becomes an assumption that should never be questioned and is claimed to have universal applicability and validity. For example, Freud's view that the subconscious is shaped by repressed sexual desires and this determines behaviour. Ideology can frame discussions about economics, from both left-wing and right-wing perspectives. Free markets are efficient and produce the best outcomes for everyone. Or, the only way to produce a fair and just society is for the state to control capital and the means of production.

Power of narratives

Stories are powerful. They capture our imagination and frame what we believe is true, what is possible, and how we should live. Individuals, families, institutions, and nations all have narratives that they live by. 

Here are three powerful narratives involving science. These three narratives are interrelated.

a. Over the past two thousand years, Christianity has consistently been opposed to scientific progress. 

Promotion of this narrative began about 150 years ago with the publication of an influential book by John William Draper, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874). This was followed by Andrew Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896).

The book is still in print and available on Amazon. The publishers blurb for the 1993 edition states:

“The struggle of science over outmoded medieval concepts is still emerging. Even a century after its publication, White's great work has much to teach us about the dangerous effects of religious doctrinalism on education and moral growth.” (1993 edition)

Scholars of science and religion today accept that this narrative (known as the conflict thesis) is false. See for example, Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion, Edited by Ronald L. Numbers. In contrast, it is accepted that Christianity did not hinder but facilitated the rise of modern science.

Nevertheless, this narrative is still promoted by prominent public intellectuals, such as the New Atheists, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris.

b. Science makes possible certainty in all areas of knowledge. It is the ultimate authority on what is true.

This idea began with Rene Descartes (1596-1650) and continued with Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827). Auguste Comte (1798-1857) was the first philosopher of modern science and a founder of sociology (social physics). He was the founder of positivism, claiming that societies progress through three stages: theological, metaphysical, and positive. These correspond to eras of primitive (Christendom), Enlightenment, and modern science. 

This narrative of increasing certainty through a universal scientific method achieved power and legitimacy due to the successes of Newtonian mechanics. It gave an accurate quantitative description of the motion of the planets and cannonballs. It even predicted the existence of a new planet, Neptune, in 1846.

This narrative led to pressure for the biological, social, and human sciences to be more like the physical sciences and use statistical and quantitative methods. It has led to a marginalisation of the humanities in universities. It promoted liberal theology and doubts about traditional Christian doctrines and the modern relevance of the Bible. 

This narrative promotes the idea that science is the ultimate authority concerning what is true and important. In a desire to seek greater legitimacy in the modern world, attempts are made by apologists for major religions that their ancient texts are actually scientific and even predicted modern scientific discoveries.

c. Progress. Increasing scientific knowledge results in greater human flourishing and less human suffering.

A current proponent of this narrative is the Harvard psychologist, Steven Pinker in his book, Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. Below is the publishers blurb.

Is the world really falling apart? Is the ideal of progress obsolete? In this elegant assessment of the human condition in the third millennium, cognitive scientist and public intellectual Steven Pinker urges us to step back from the gory headlines and prophecies of doom, which play to our psychological biases. Instead, follow the data: In seventy-five jaw-dropping graphs, Pinker shows that life, health, prosperity, safety, peace, knowledge, and happiness are on the rise, not just in the West, but worldwide. This progress is not the result of some cosmic force. It is a gift of the Enlightenment: the conviction that reason and science can enhance human flourishing.

This narrative promotes the idea that all social problems have scientific and technical solutions and that any limits on scientific research and the development of new technologies will be bad for humanity. 

The problem with all of the three narratives above is that they are not true. Yet they are appealing and powerful as they promote particular political and philosophical agendas.

Economic power shapes the academy today

All institutions are located in a historical, social, political, and economic context. Today that context is dominated by economic ideology, which has labels such as globalisation and neoliberalism. This ideology promotes the idea that "free" markets produce the best outcomes for all. Briefly, this means that decisions should be made in terms of economics. Students are consumers, faculty are human resources, and universities are businesses. Resources (capital, infrastructure, personnel, influence) are allocated based on what will generate the most income for an institution. The goal of scientific research is to generate technology that will promote economic growth. Researchers are competing with one another to obtain resources. Research is to be managed like a factory production line with well-defined timelines, measurable outcomes, and techniques. Everything has to be efficient.

This all leads to the marginalisation of the humanities and curiosity-driven scientific research. Awe, wonder, collegiality, doubt, and play are cute irrelevancies.

Universities are dominated by money, management, marketing, and metrics.

Like the culture, life in a university is dominated by the relentless pressure of individualism, immediacy, functionalism, and secularism.

This is a dramatic shift from the seven core values that shaped medieval universities, one of which was the notion of "scientific and scholarly knowledge as a public good transcending any economic advantage it might bring".

Derek Bok, a former president of Harvard University, has documented the problem of commercialisation in his book, Universities in the Marketplace, published in 2003.

There are multiple problems with letting economic ideology control universities and science. First, it is inhumane, diminishing the value of people and knowledge, reducing both to economic commodities. Second, it promotes economic inequality and injustices. Universities have become another means for the rich and powerful to increase their wealth and power. Third, this approach will fail to produce the putative desired outcomes of graduates who contribute to society through their creativity, expertise, and service or to produce new scientific knowledge that leads to technologies that benefit humanity. Countless examples of discoveries in science resulted from pure curiosity and had no clear practical application. However, some [but far from all] of these discoveries eventually led to unanticipated industrial applications in computing, communication, materials, or medicine.

The paradox of the power of the powerless

In the long run, the mighty do not triumph. The proud are humbled. All empires fall. This is because of the judgement of God. It is also because they cannot accept the way that the world really is and live by lies. Ultimately, they come up against reality and truth. God has made people and the world in a certain way and to function in a certain way. For those who do not accept this eventually their world unravels. This does not just apply to those with military, political, or economic might. Intellectual rulers (Freud, Marx, Plato, Dawkins) also have clay feet that eventually crumble. Intellectual fashions pass.

I find inspiration in the story of the early church. Their triumph over the mighty Roman Empire has been documented beautifully by Rodney Stark in a fascinating book he published in 1996, The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries 

Other inspirations for counter-cultural resistance are provided by Walter Brueggemann in The Prophetic Imagination and by Vaclav Havel, in Power to the Powerless.

This might capture our imagination as to the way forward. I believe it is to form counter-cultural informal academic communities that live by the truth.

This post is part one the session that I will be leading in a Seminar course on Power that my fellow "holy" scribbler is giving this week at Asian Theological Seminary in Manila.

The messy complexity of facilitating reconciliation

I was asked to write an endorsement for a book written by my IFES colleague, Augustin Ahoga, and published by Langham (in French). It is based on his PhD thesis.

Vers un modèle africain de dialogue interreligieux

Le cas de Vodun Xɛbyoso et de l’Église des Assemblées de Dieu dans la région Maxi au Bénin

Here is a DeepL translation of the title, subtitle and abstract.

Towards an African model of interreligious dialogue:

The case of Vodun Xɛbyoso and the Assemblies of God Church in the Maxi region of Benin

In this study, the author has developed an African research methodology for interreligious dialogue, based on an experiment in the Maxi region of Benin. This experiment was carried out among a verbomoteur people, in a vodun context, for the resolution of conflicts involving Christian communities.

Based on the experience of conflict resolution between the Evangelical Churches of the Assemblies of God (EEAD) and the Vodun Xɛbyoso, the author has formalised a resolution approach called the 'African Model of Inter-Religious Dialogue' (MADIR). MADIR is applied when an ethnic group splits into conflicting communities due to the introduction of another religious tradition. This is why MADIR's resolution principles are based on : "ethnic identity as a basis for dialogue" and "cultural history to re-establish mutual trust".

This book is for anyone interested in inter-religious conflict resolution or empirical research among the verbomoteur people, and anyone working in development structures that reach out to the rural world or the verbomoteur people.

I wrote the endorsement below (based on reading a DeepL translation). I really hope an English translation will be published.

This wonderful book is a benchmark in excellence for research at the heart of the whole mission of God. Dr. Ahoga skilfully and critically integrates insights from theology, anthropology, and conflict studies, with his own lived experience, careful fieldwork, and loving practice of the ministry of reconciliation. He presents an African Model for Inter-Religious Dialogue (MADIR), that is concrete and practical. Ahoga developed, tested, and refined it to resolve a complex communal conflict that resisted other approaches. Despite this specificity, the book deserves careful study by a wide readership. 

While scholarly and profound, the book is fascinating and easy to read. The model presented has significant potential to be adapted and applied in other contexts and for purposes beyond understanding and resolving conflicts in a community. The model could aid the development of contextual theologies and stimulate mission initiatives that are culturally sensitive and have a lasting impact to the glory of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

A theology of mental health

Humans are complex. Society is complex. Theology and science are complex. Mental illness is complex. What causes mental illness? What are paths to healing? Can it be prevented? Here, I explore how Christian theology is a rich resource to help address these questions. I write as a non-expert in theology, cognitive science, and mental health. But I also write as someone who, for four decades, has struggled with my mental health, read widely, and walked with many others on their journey.

As with many issues, I find it helpful to begin my exploration with the key theological concepts that are encapsulated in the Biblical narrative: creation, sin, redemption, and re-creation.

The doctrine of creation highlights that humans are made in the image of God. We are relational, rational, and wonderful. Human relationality is reflected in the Trinity. We are creatures; we have finite capacities. We are designed by God to enjoy and live in harmony with one another and with the rest of God's creation. We are like animals, but distinct. Rest (Sabbath) is central to life and its rhythms. Creation, from our being to food and nature, is a gracious gift. Mental illness is not God's plan or design.

Sin. (The Fall) We do not experience God's ideal: life in the Garden of Eden. Like Adam and Eve, we want autonomy, to rule ourselves. Like them, we are alienated from God, ourselves (shame), each other, and nature. Work is toil, and male-female relationships are a power struggle. We live in a world that is marred by sin: individual, collective and structural. Sin has corrupted our thinking and desires. The whole creation is broken and groaning. Violence, disease and death are part of life, but not God's wish, plan or design.  Given the multiple-dimensional character of sin's influence and presence in the world, we should not expect to be able to simply identify the cause of a specific incidence of mental illness in one individual.

The tower of Babel captures human hubris and ambition, the vanity of our futile attempts to know and understand everything. Even when we don't understand, we will claim that we do and ridicule and silence those who don't have our "correct" understanding. 

In her book, Mind Fixers: Psychiatry's Troubled Search for the Biology of Mental Illness, Anne Harrington, a historian of science at Harvard, comments.

Today one is hard-pressed to find anyone knowledgeable who believes that the so-called biological revolution of the 1980’s made good on most or even any of its therapeutic and scientific promises. It is now increasingly clear to the general public that it overreached, overpromised, overdiagnosed, overmedicated and compromised its principles.

Fortunately, we are not cursed and condemned to forever live in a sinful world marred by disease, despair, shame, guilt, and violence. God acted according to his promises, sending his Son, Jesus Christ, to usher in the Kingdom of God.

Redemption. God identified with humanity by humbling himself and becoming fully human as Jesus Christ. He proclaimed the Kingdom of God, preaching repentance and the forgiveness of sins, healing the sick, and driving out demons. Mental illness is not God's design or plan. People are not sick simply because they sinned or their parents sinned. Jesus death and resurrection bring reconciliation: between God and us, with one another, and the whole of creation. The curse of sin is reversed. Jesus is the suffering servant. He suffers for our sake. He has entered into our suffering. As he lives in us and we in him, we can participate in his sufferings. If we struggle with mental illness, we can find hope and comfort as Jesus knows and shares our struggle. Our liberation from our sin and the world of sin and disease is "now, but not yet." In this life, an individual may experience no, some, or almost complete healing from mental illness. Nevertheless, we can be certain of a future day when we will all be completely healed from every affliction.

Re-creation. There will be a new heaven and earth, where there will be no more tears, sin, suffering, or death. In this Kingdom of God, justice, truth, and righteousness will reign. We will have new minds and bodies. We will be living in the City of God, which contains the River of Life and the Tree of Knowledge. There will be no mental illness. Redemption will be complete. This hope can give hope to those who suffer and those who care for them.

Living with virtue. How then shall we live as we wait for our redemption, even while afflicted with mental illness or walking with those who are? The fruits of the Holy Spirit include love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self-control. God has designed us to live a particular way. Hence, we should not be surprised to learn that research shows how forgiveness and thankfulness are beneficial to mental health.

What is a person? Our view will shape what we consider to be the causes and cures of mental illness. A Biblical anthropology acknowledges the complexity of the human person.  Different facets of the whole human person include heart, mind, body, and soul. These facets are highlighted in the following passage from Matthew 22:36-40.

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

[For the first commandment, Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:5 but replaces "strength" with "mind"].

Mind, body, heart, and soul are not well-defined, separate entities but inter-twined facets. For example, "heart" refers to our will, desires and inclinations. It is hard to separate this from the "mind".

We are a complex whole and cannot be reduced to just one dimension: genetics, physiology, personality, experience, social conditioning,...

If we accept this complexity of a human person and the presence of these different but interrelated facets, then it is natural that understanding the causes of mental illness and proposing action to prevent or cure it will also be complex and multi-faceted. We will never be sure we really do understand.

For two thousand years, philosophers have debated the mind-body problem, which is now being addressed in cognitive science. In spite of many advances, there is no clear philosophical or scientific consensus on the relationship between the body, brain, mind, and consciousness.

Another dimension to Biblical anthropology is the social. A human person is not an isolated individual who can be defined independently of their social context. Rather, a human is part of a family, community, and nation. The person is also defined by a network of relationships. The emphasis of Western modernity on individualism and postmodernity on the "authentic self" conflicts with the anthropology of the Bible and almost all times and places outside the past four hundred years of the Western world. Mental health needs to be addressed within relational and social contexts.

I now introduce one model for a person. It is discussed in the book, Mental Health and Your Church: a Handbook for Biblical Care, by Helen Thorne and Steve Midgley. I recently encountered the model at a one-day seminar given by Midgley in Brisbane.

I introduce the model with the caveat that, as a scientist, I consider that all models are wrong, but some are useful. I think this also applies to models in theology.

A human person is created by and lives in the presence of the Triune God. The Word of God and the Spirit of God can speak to the heart of the person, changing their sinful, wicked, rebellious, and hard state to one that is oriented towards the desires of God. But the heart is not some abstract, free-floating essence. My heart is embodied. My heart and mind are intimately connected to my physical brain, which is also part of my physical body. My mind and brain have been conditioned and moulded, for better or worse, by my experience living in my body. Stress, trauma, and addictions have an effect. Relaxation, sleep, diet, and habits can heal and train my body. Furthermore, my body is also embedded in a social context. These are my circumstances: family, housing, school, church, workplace, neighbourhood, and nation.

There are several competing models of mental illness, and I have reviewed them in this post. The current dominant model in the secular world is the biomedical model. However, I would consider that these models are complementary, and we need a multi-faceted model, nicely captured in the figure below.

[Figure from Sanctuary Mental Health ministries]

Three of these models [biomedical, psychological, and social] are promoted by people who may not be Christian and do not operate from a Christian theological framework. However, the models can be valuable for understanding and treating mental illness, due to the doctrine of common grace. Thus, there is a role for drugs and counselling.

Human diversity. Paul uses the metaphor of the human body to describe the church. It is the body of Christ, his living presence in the world. Like a human body, there are many members. They are not all the same. They have different purposes, gifts, and functions. The weaker members are indispensable. This means that those who struggle with mental illness are indispensable members of a church. They are not a burden that has to be carried. They are not a problem that has to be solved. They are not a distraction from the "more important" work of preaching and evangelism. They are indispensable. The whole body grieves with them, walks with them, and celebrates them. Christ's power is made perfect in weakness.

Acknowledging human diversity is also important to understand and to treat mental illness. On the one hand, we are all made in the image of God. We are all sinners. We all have the same biology. On the other hand, Paul acknowledges a diversity of backgrounds, life histories (calling), and gifts. This diversity means there are no "one-size-fits-all" answers to mental illness.

Finally, the concept of the "powers of this age" is helpful to understand the causes of mental illness, and particularly its proliferation in the modern world. Massive power struggles are going on. Some are clearly visible. Others are not. Forces such as globalisation, capitalism, and autocracy unleash ideologies and technologies that undermine good mental health. Mobile phones, social media, junk food, consumerism, secularism, movies, television, internet, alcohol and drugs are not just neutral. They are tools for some people to gain inordinate amounts of power and money, with no regard for human flourishing. These powers need to be resisted, from the individual to the global level.

A celebration of God's superabundant love

Too often theology, philosophy, academia, church, and the Bible can feel dry, boring, abstract, irrelevant, dour, and a chore.

But this should seem strange because the Bible is full of celebration: feasts, parties, songs, and poems. They are celebrations of love, thanksgiving, and wonder; celebrations of the superabundant generous gifts of God to humanity.

It is refreshing to encounter an academic book that addresses theology, philosophy, and the Bible in a manner that is a celebration.

I have read most of Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible's Unfolding Story Makes Sense of Modern Life and Culture by Christopher Watkin.

There are many elements to the celebration. Here is one beautiful passage that reflects on the gift of creation and of the Cross of Christ.

The cross lifts Christianity out of the iron logic of necessity, of unbreakable cause and effect, up into a logic of superabundance...

...philosophy... could not receive theology's gift of a superabundance in the midst of life. There is no ultimate explanation of God's love, no rational justification for it, no way to bring it under the logic of necessity and equivalence. The love of God expressed in creation and in the cross is a reality with which the two-speed gearbox of chance and necessity can never come to terms. Divine superabundance is the raging bull that storms through the staid china shop of demure philosophical concepts, shattering every symmetrical plate and dashing every systematic bowl to the ground in a way that leaves not a trail of destruction but a grander, richer, and more open imaginary than ever before.

        (pages 420-1)

Celebrating God's generous gifts to us: existence, meaning, and love

“This paradigm of the gift places us in the posture of recipients. We receive existence, we receive meaning, and we receive love. To be sure we are creative recipients,... and receiving the gift of the universe certainly does not make us passive. But the fact remains that we are recipients nonetheless. The one thing we should not do with a gift is pretend we bought or made it ourselves. The giver is usually thanked, so our fundamental orientation to existence in the paradigm of the figure of gratuity is one of praise and thanksgiving.”

        (page 60)

Engagement with the world, in all its limitations, can still be a celebration

To live in God’s city here and now is to enjoy God’s limitless peace, love, and creativity; it is also to live a subversive, revolutionary life in this world as we repeatedly scratch the surface of the earthly city to reveal God’s goodness, truth, and beauty under its makeshift palimpsest.

Celebrating the gift of human language

Watkin writes as a gifted wordsmith, delighting in turns of phrase; not just his own, but also that of masters including C.S. Lewis, David Bentley Hart, G.K. Chesterton, and of course, the Biblical authors.

How does the Bible engage the big ideas in the university

At their best universities engage with big questions. What does it mean to be human? How do we know what is true? What is real? How should we live?

I really like the new book, Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible's Unfolding Story Makes Sense of Modern Life and Culture by Christopher Watkin.

To get the flavour of the book you can download the first few chapters for free or listen to a podcast where John Dickson interviews the author.

The book is a monumental achievement. I admire it for its scope, balance, tone, and accessibility. Its breadth and depth cover the whole Biblical narrative and significant ideas from modern Western philosophy, politics, humanities, and social sciences. This means engaging with many academic authors, concepts, and perspectives. This provides a balanced perspective that surpasses common sectarian or partisan slants, whether about theology or politics. The tone is gracious; people and ideas are critiqued with respect and without caricature. Finally, for an academic book, I find it relatively easy to read and engaging. I enjoy reading it because I learn so much. I am gaining a better understanding of the ideas and thinkers behind modernity and post-modernity while being challenged to contrast and compare them to the big theological ideas (such as creation-fall-redemption-recreation) that flow from the narrative of the Bible. Watkin's prose is winsome and occasionally light-hearted.

A central idea of the book is that most modern social theories and philosophies present false dichotomies. They are imbalanced and so do not capture all  dimensions of reality. Watkin argues that the Biblical narrative presents a balanced, more imaginative picture that affirms both polarities. He uses the term diagonalisation to describe this. It is not a matter of either-or but both-and. In different words, the Bible presents a dialectical view of reality. Diagonalisation is best illustrated by one of the many helpful diagrams in the book.

This dichotomy pits traditional societies against modern societies and communal identity against individual identity. This is then presented as a stark choice between crushing individual freedom or undermining community.

The doctrine of the Trinity removes these polarities as it affirms both individuality and community. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons but are also in a harmonious relationship. 

The many diagrams in the book represent that Watkin is steeped in the use of models: models for theology, models for modern thought, and diagonalisation is a model for relating theological concepts to modern thought. This is good provided that we remember the maxim, "all models are wrong, but some are useful".

Christian Platonism and Science

Recently the theology reading group we discussed A Christian Theology of Science: Reimagining a Theological Vision of Natural Knowledge by Paul Tyson. 

Paul is a former member of our group and so were happy he could join us to discuss his book. Here is one summary.

We have come to separate natural knowledge (science) from faith and moral beliefs (religion), leading to serious difficulties in integrating knowledge and meaning, facts and values, and immanence and transcendence.

At the root of these dissonances is the difficult relationship between a naturalistic philosophy that purports to be a scientific realism and the things that make us human: transcendence, faith, meaning, and purpose. This is the result of science displacing Christian theology as Western modernity's first truth discourse. However, Christian theology contains deep resources in its approach to knowledge and reality that have not been brought to the science and religion conversation since the late nineteenth century.

You can download the beginning of the book here.

I have a great interest in the subject of this book and it stimulated and challenged my thinking. 

Tyson builds on two important ideas from the historian Peter Harrison. In his book, Territories of Science and Religion, Harrison makes the case that "science" and "religion" are ill-defined entities and their definition and "territories" [the domain of their relevance and authority] have shifted over time. Second, in a 2006 article, Harrison, observes that in the late 19th century there was a "remarkable reversal" "from Christian theology interpreting the true meaning and validity of natural philosophy to science interpreting the true meaning and validity of Christian theology" (page 31).

In other words, "This is a profound shift from faith-based theocentric ontological foundationalism (TOF) to egocentric epistemological foundationalism (EEF)." (p. 32). 

Thankfully, there is a ten-page glossary at the back of the book so the reader can keep refreshing their memory of how the author defines different terms. This is important as terms such as truth, theory, quality, meaning, wisdom, knowledge, and understanding are used in the sense that Plato used them, not how a modern scientist or citizen might use such terms. For example, theory (theoria) is "A vision of meaning. An inescapably imaginative and interpretive act of the meaning-discerning mind" (p.120).

I appreciated the book for giving a gentle introduction to a range of philosophical concepts, particularly metaphysics and transcendence.

The heart of the book is chapter 7, which includes several helpful diagrams, such as the one below, based on Plato's metaphysics.

This is based on four distinct categories of awareness considered by Plato. Tyson translates these into wisdom, mathematics, belief, and perception.

The central claim of the book is that modern science as a "first truth cultural discourse" has made the line between rationalism and wisdom uncrossable. In other words, modern physics has reduced metaphysics to the unreal, the realm of speculation and fantasy. We cannot know the true essence of reality, the ground of being. We can only know existence. Tyson has a very different vision. He claims that the separation of metaphysics and physics is intellectually incoherent. He cannot accept the position of some Christian scientists, such as myself, that the methodological naturalism of science is not necessarily in tension with Christian theology. He wants to imagine that Christian theology can provide a vision of natural knowledge.

Today we are a long way from Plato who considered metaphysics as the basis of physics. That is, one starts with qualities such as the character of God and from that reason towards what one thinks the world is like. This led to Aristotelian physics, which was discredited by Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton. This is why scientists, Christians and non-Christians, are nervous about elevating Christian theology [a specific metaphysics] back to its pre-modern status as "the first truth discourse". It has a bad track record.

On the other hand, some atheist scientists claim physics determines metaphysics. In different words, the content of physical theories tells us what the world is really like. Science determines questions of meaning, purpose, values, and morality.

Update. (March 2024). Peter Harrison has written a helpful review of the book.

Signals of transcendence from human experience

Peter Berger was an influential sociologist. In his book, A Rumor of Angels: Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural, Berger considers five aspects of everyday human existence that he considers are "signals of transcendence". These experiences are accessible to all and are within the domain of natural reality, but appear to point beyond that reality. [Berger wrote the book in 1969 and revised it in 1990].

Berger describes his arguments as "inductive faith" which "moves from human experience to statements about God". In contrast, "deductive faith begins with certain assumptions (notably assumptions about divine revelation) that cannot be tested by experience." (p.64-5). Deductive faith provides an interpretation of experience.

The five signals of transcendence are below.

1. An argument from ordering. Humans have the propensity to believe that the world is ordered in a trustworthy way, even when things appear chaotic. An example is a mother comforting a scared child, telling them that things will be okay. The mother is not lying to the child because "the reassurance, transcending the immediately present two individuals and their situation, implies a statement about reality as such." (p. 62)

2.  An argument from play. In all contexts, even the most "serious" ones, humans have the capacity to play. While playing adults can become like children, suspending the time structure of the ordinary life of adults. Berger quotes C.S. Lewis famous sermon, Learning in Wartime:

"Human life has always been lived on the edge of a precipice. [It is part of our nature to create, reason, and laugh in the midst of pending disaster] to propound mathematical theorems in beleaguered cities, conduct metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, make jokes on scaffold, discuss the last new poem while advancing to the walls of Quebec,..."

3. An argument from hope. have an "unconquerable propensity to hope for the future." We hope even in the face of death.

Man's "no!" to death - be it in the frantic fear of his own annihilation, moral outrage at the death of a loved other - or in death-defying acts of courage and self-sacrifice - appears to be an intrinsic constituent of his being. There seems to be a death-refusing hope at the very core of our humanitas. While empirical reason indicates that this hope is an illusion, there is something in us that however shamefacedly in an age of triumphant rationality, goes on saying "no!" and even says "no!" to the ever so plausible explanations of empirical reason. (p.72)

4. An argument from damnation. Humans have an innate morality and justice. Even people who would identify as moral relativists, sometimes exhibit a conviction that some things are just plain wrong and must be condemned and be punished.

The transcendent element manifests itself in two steps. First, our condemnation is absolute and certain, it does not permit modification or doubt, and is made in the conviction that it applies to all times and all men... We give the condemnation the status of a necessary and universal truth, [but it] cannot be empirically demonstrated to be either necessary or universal. We are, then, faced with quite a simple alternative: Either we deny that there is here anything that can be called truth... or we must look beyond the realm of our natural experience for a validation of our certainty.  Second, the condemnation does not seem to exhaust it's intrinsic intention in terms of this world alone. Deeds that cry out to heaven also cry out for hell. This is the point that was brought out very clearly in the debate over Aldolf Eichmann's execution.

5. An argument from humor.  Humans have not only the capacity to laugh, but also to use humour to cope with tragedy and to undermine the delusions of the powerful.

By laughing at the imprisonment of the human spirit, humor implies that this imprisonment is not final but will be overcome, and by this implication provides yet another signal of transcendence - in this instance in the form of an intimation of redemption... 

Humor mocks the "serious" business of this world and the mighty who carry it out... The one to be finally pitied is the one who has an illusion. And power is the final illusion, while laughter reveals the final truth... Power is ultimately an illusion because it cannot transcend the limits of the empirical world. Laughter can - and does everytime it relativizes the seemingly rock-like necessities of this world.

We can debate whether these are convincing arguments for the existence of transcendence. On the other hand, I think these arguments are creative and a refreshing alternative to the classical arguments for the existence of God.

I thank Vinoth Ramachandra for making me aware of Berger's ideas through a recent blogpost. 

The intellectually illegitimate children of Isaac Newton

The incredible scientific success of Isaac Newton led to intellectual revolutions in science, philosophy, economics, and theology. But many of the ideas developed and promoted have a dubious intellectual parentage. 

The key issues to consider centre around whether Newton's approach, success and interpretations in physics translate to other topics of interest.

Newton studied a specific topic: the mechanical motion of bodies, including cannonballs and planets. He used a method appropriate to that topic. High levels of precision, both in measurement and in making theoretical predictions were possible. This led to high levels of certainty about what was true and what was not.

A few intellectual bastards fertilised, fed, and sustained by the success of Newtonian mechanics include the following.

 The mechanical philosophy

The clockwork universe. 

People are machines.

 Strasbourg Astronomical Clock

Auguste Comte (1798-1857) was the first philosopher of modern science and a founder of sociology (social physics). He was the founder of positivism, claiming that societies progress through three stages: theological, metaphysical, and positive. These correspond to eras of primitive (Christendom), Enlightenment, and modern science. Comte promoted a hierarchy of sciences with physics as the most fundamental. Comte's legacy has been roundly criticised by Pierre de Gennes, a Nobel Laureate in Physics.

Foundationalism seeks to establish truth logically by starting from a few axioms that can be taken as self-evident or "justified". There are parallels to Newtonian physics in that it starts with just Newton's laws and can deduce all the details of mechanical motion from these laws.

Theology was diverted in unfruitful directions and impoverished by these intellectual movements that claimed credence because of the success of Newton. There was a desire to mimic methods and levels of certainty of Newtonian physics. Here I identify several problematic movements in theology.

Deism. This was a natural outgrowth of the clockwork universe.

Foundationalism. Theology is largely concerned with propositional truth rather than with godly living. The object-subject distinction was considered possible and desirable.

Liberal theology. Since one could not match the confident certainty of Newtonian science one was left with doubt about everything: the reliability of the Bible, miracles, the existence of a heavenly realm, and the divinity of Jesus. The solution was the methods of historical-biblical criticism (form, source, redaction, literary, .. criticism), demythologisation, ...

Fundamentalism.  This reaction to liberal theology led in the opposite direction. A desire for certainty produced notions such as the infallibility of scripture, the inerrancy of scripture, and strict true-false dichotomies with little room for paradox, dialectic, imagination, or polyphonic readings of texts.

Modernist forms of apologetics.  In the second half of the twentieth century in the U.S.A. , there was the development and promotion of evidential apologetics and presuppositional apologetics. They attempted to show the intellectual validity of orthodox faith to the point that anyone who did not believe or accept the arguments presented was portrayed as irrational. Presuppositional apologetics aims to show a non-Christian that their worldview is intellectually incoherent and then in their despair preach the gospel to them.

In conclusion, I do not think any of these movements was particularly helpful. They impoverished theology rather than enriching it. Their intellectual foundations were shaky. They created as many problems as solutions. They lacked nuance and in hindsight are now seen by many as problematic. Humans and the Triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are not cannonballs or planets orbiting the sun like clockwork. The methods and certainty of Newton cannot be uncritically transposed onto other areas of knowledge.

Transformation in theology and mission

“I am making everything new!” 

So proclaims the One who sits on the throne as a new heaven and earth come into being (Revelation 21:5).  The Apostle Paul proclaims (2 Corinthians 5:17):

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! 

The concept of transformation is central to the grand narrative of the Bible. God transforms bondage to freedom, hate to love, alienation to relationship, lost to found, poor to rich, darkness to light, infidelity to faithfulness, injustice to righteousness, and death to life. God has transformed, is transforming, and will transform individuals, families, communities, churches, and nations. The Kingdom of God is all about transformation.

Transformation is qualitative change. The new state is qualitatively different from the old state. It has a quality that the old state did not have.

For several decades my fellow "holy" scribbler, Charles Ringma, has taught a course on Transformational Theology at seminaries in Australia, Canada, and Asia. He recently reflected on this experience, noting dimensions that students struggled with, and raised several important questions about transformational theology. This has stimulated the following post, which mostly reflects on what the social sciences might contribute to this discussion. Here I bring my perspective as a condensed matter physicist with an enduring interest in complex systems and the concept of emergence. I start with several claims (presuppositions) to justify why this perspective is possible and may be useful.

There is a dialectic between our actions and the work of God in the world. We live in a material world that functions in certain ways. The book of Proverbs is all about discerning wisdom: how the world actually works (the physical and moral order) and living accordingly. Acting according to wisdom or folly will produce good or bad outcomes, respectively. This world is both created and fallen, good and bad, of great potential and fundamentally flawed. We are constrained to live and act in this world. We are creatures living in a creation. We have autonomy but are constrained. 

God is sovereign, the Holy Spirit is always working, and God does do miracles (events outside the normal pattern of regularity, such as raising Jesus from the dead, speaking to people's hearts and souls, causing nations to rise and fall). But, arguably most of the time God acts through normal processes associated with human action (speaking, loving, serving, listening, planning, ...). Even God's acts of judgment on Israel and other nations were performed through human agents such as Assyria and Babylon.

If we are concerned with mission as transformation, i.e., acting in ways that promote the transformation that God desires, then we need to observe and learn how the world actually does function. This reality both creates possibilities and imposes constraints. The material world behaves according to the laws of nature, that physics, chemistry, and biology, aim to encode. Are there "laws" of transformation? How does transformation occur in individuals, families, institutions, communities, and nations?

Charles noted that

Many students worked on the assumption that if we get our theology right (orthodoxy) then good strategies and practices will follow in impacting others and our world.

This reflects a common problem that people too often have implicit beliefs (i.e., unstated assumptions that are embedded in a particular worldview or life experience). In this case implicit beliefs about how transformation happens.

Today we know more about answers to the last question above than we ever have before. Scholars in history, sociology, political science, anthropology, and psychology have greatly increased our understanding. This does not mean that we have complete understanding or that all the scholarship in these fields is reliable or sympathetic to the values of the Kingdom of God. But, there is much we can learn from this scholarship to aid us in our journey to partner with God in transformational mission. 

A significant idea is emergence: the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Emergence is one of the most important scientific concepts developed in the second half of the twentieth century. It is relevant to physical, biological, human, and social sciences. The possible relevance of emergence to mission has recently been explored in detail by Darren Duerksen and William Dyrness in a recent book, Seeking Church: Emerging Witnesses to the Kingdom. They draw on work by the sociologist Christian Smith. In a recent talk I explored some of these ideas.

An emergent perspective considers a specific entity that we wish to see transformed, whether a human individual or an oppressed community, as a system that is composed of many interacting parts and that, is embedded in an environment of external components. For example, a human individual is not a disembodied spirit but a combination of mind, heart, body, and soul. Furthermore, a person is never an isolated entity but interact with a social network of family, friends, and community, which in turn is embedded in a nation-state and a global economy. If we wish to see an individual come to faith in Christ or to experience healing from trauma, we may need to consider the role of many of these interacting components.

Charles noted that

The greatest overall weakness in papers for the transformation theology course was the treatment of synchronicity. Religious, social, economic, and other factors usually have to combine to bring about significant change. Students tended to operate on the basis that only religious factors were needed.

The characteristics of emergence are as follows. Due to the interactions between the components of the system, new entities can emerge.  The whole system can have properties that are qualitatively different from (and not reducible to) the properties of the individual components. A brain is conscious but a single neuron is not. A dead body has no morality but a living person does. Water is wet but a single water molecule is not. New entities that emerge may be desirable (e.g., a just society or a flourishing church in a slum) or they may not be (e.g., a stock-market crash or a church that becomes a personal empire). Christian Smith, refers to these emergent entities as relational goods and relational evils, respectively.

Quantitative change can lead to qualitative change. Changing the temperature of the water in the pipes from plus one degree Celsius to minus one degree Celsius will lead to the water undergoing a transition from the liquid to the solid state, i.e., freezing and expanding, and bursting your water pipes. Last year in Chile, a 30-peso (four-cent) rise in the price of peak-hour metro tickets led to social upheaval and a plan to write a new constitution for the country.

Emergent phenomena are hard to predict, even for simple physical systems where scientists have an excellent knowledge of the components and their interactions. Hence, it should not be surprising that it is very hard to predict how society and the economy will behave. For example, economists cannot agree on an answer to the simple question, "Can government "stimulus" spending actually prevent an economic recession?"

Central to describing and understanding emergent phenomena are a range of scales in time, space, and numbers of components. For example, transformation of a society can be viewed at the scale of individuals, families, neighbourhoods, cities, and nations. Insight and discernment are required to decide which of these scales may be most significant, and thus key to our understanding and action.

I now give a specific example to illustrate how emergent phenomena are hard to predict and often surprising. 

The emergence of social segregation

Many churches are very homogeneous with regard to the demographics of members. Many Christians do not have many non-Christian friends? Why is that?Segregation is a common social phenomenon: groups of people clump together in spatial regions (or relational connectivity) with those similar to them. Like attracts like. Examples range from ethnic ghettos and teenage cliques to "echo chambers" on the internet.

In 1971 Thomas Schelling published a landmark paper in the social sciences. The motivation for his work was to understand how racially segregated neighbourhoods emerged in cities in the USA, but the ideas are applicable to a wide range of phenomena. Schelling's work surprised many because using a simple model he showed how small individual preferences for similarity can lead to large-scale segregation. 

A major conclusion is that motives at the individual level are not the same as the outcomes at the macro level.  This idea provided the title for an influential book Micromotives and Macrobehavior, that Schelling published in 1978.  People may be very tolerant of diversity (e.g. only have a preference that 30 per cent of their neighbours be like them) but collectively this results in them living in very segregated neighbourhoods.

Practical implications for transformative mission

An emergent perspective should lead to humility. It emphasises how much we do not understand rather than deluding ourselves that we do understand what we are doing and what the outcome will be.

The systems we are interested in, communities of people, are complex. They are hard to describe, understand, and predict. Yet, many of us, and the organisations that we are involved in, have a simple mechanical view of these systems and how transformation will happen. Study at this seminary and you will become a successful pastor. Give money to this family in the slum and it will lift them out of poverty. Preach the Gospel and people will become disciples of Jesus. Elect Christian politicians and society will become more Christian.

Humility means a willingness to learn from others: community members, non-Christian social scientists, team members, and those with a different perspective than our own.

Humility should lead to realistic expectations about the likely outcomes from our actions. On the one hand, we want to proceed by faith that God will do great things "far more than we can ask or imagine." On the other hand, we are constrained by our ignorance, limited resources, and the fallen nature of our world. Suppose, we proceed with the hubris that we actually know what we are doing and that our actions must produce the outcome that we naively believe will follow. Except by the mercy and generosity of God, our efforts will "fail" because they go against the way that the world actually works. This will lead to disappointment, disillusionment, and despair. Countless activists have been burnt out and quit and organisations collapsed because they had unrealistic expectations and did not see the outcomes that they assumed would happen. A humble emergent perspective can lead to a long-term view that makes initiatives sustainable, both at the individual and institutional level.

Most complex systems are adaptive. In response to perturbations, they adapt and re-organise. This is the basis of the law of unintended consequences. Organisations need to be adaptive. One approach is Action Research where action leads to reflection which leads to action.

An emergent perspective on transformation is against the common narrative that great leaders are heroic individuals who have the vision and know the strategy and tactics to get there. As they are immersed in their surrounding corporate culture most Christian organisations embrace this view of leadership. The origins of this narrative are not Biblical but rather the theory of management that arose from the military success of the USA in World War II and of the auto industry in the following two decades. Two experts on organisational development, Gervase Bushe and Robert Marshak, state that

The “visionary leader” narrative and performance mindset that predominate in theories and practices of “Change Leadership” are no longer effective in an environment of multi-dimensional diversity marked by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity.

Instead, they advocate an alternative leadership model that starts from the perspective that organisations are emergent and their behaviour is hard to control and predict. Leaders need to find ways to harness the self-organisational and adaptive tendency of organisations. This might be done by influencing the conversations that take place within the organisation, encouraging employees to come up with their own solutions to problems, and creating a culture and structures that are sensitive to the tension between efficiency and innovation.

Obviously, this emergent perspective on leadership and organisational development has important implications for how any organisation selects and promotes leaders, how those leaders act, and what policies and procedures are embraced.

How might Christians respond to poverty?

 On the one hand, the world has never been so wealthy and prosperous as it is today. On the other hand, it has never been so unequal. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Billions live on a few dollars per day. The covid-19 pandemic has made this fragile existence even more tenuous and has pushed hundreds of millions more into poverty. Poverty is not just material but also involves limited access to education, health, social networks, and political representation. There are also psychological and spiritual dimensions to poverty.

Addressing global poverty has become a massive billion-dollar "industry", for better or worse, involving governments, philanthropists, NGOs, universities, and researchers. Yet, the effectiveness of this industry in alleviating poverty is contentious.  

The Bible, from beginning to end, says a lot about poverty, wealth, inequality, injustice, and caring for the marginalised. Hence, addressing these issues should be central to the mission of the global church. But, this is a complex issue as it involves theological, political, economic, social, and cultural dimensions. 

A helpful place to begin is the book, When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor and Yourself, by Brian Fikkert and Steve Corbett. They state

one of the biggest problems in many poverty-alleviation efforts is that their design and implementation exacerbates the poverty of being of the economically rich—their god-complexes—and the poverty of being of the economically poor—their feelings of inferiority and shame.

There is also an excellent small group guide with videos that my wife and I have used with a church small group.

For those who want to go deeper, either because they are academically oriented or are practitioners, there is a "textbook".

Walking with the Poor: Principles and Practices of Transformational Development by Bryant L. Myers

Myers worked for World Vision for many years and now teaches at Fuller Seminary. It is comprehensive, balanced, easy to read, and has helpful diagrams. There are many things I like about the book.

Integral mission

"The Christian message is an embodied message, carried by living witnesses." Word, deed, and sign cannot be separated. Poverty alleviation and gospel proclamation are both acts of love that go together. Transformational development has spiritual, relational, and material dimensions. It is central to the Kingdom of God.

Bringing together theology, social science, and activism

Activism and programs need to be informed by both social sciences and by theology. Activism receives motivation and direction from theology, being informed by a Biblical worldview.  That provides a framework to understand who humans are, how they act, and how they change. The themes of creation, fall, incarnation, redemption, and re-creation are central. 

Poverty occurs in a social context. A community is "disturbed" by any outside intervention or internal initiative that aims to reduce poverty. Social sciences can be useful in understanding social structures and dynamics, including designing and evaluating the impact of any program.

A compact overview of state-of-the-art thinking and practice on development

There is a huge academic literature on development, from both Christian and secular, Western and Majority World perspectives. 

Myers provides a succinct introduction to the ideas of Jeffrey Sachs, William Easterly, Paul Collier, Banerjee and Duflo, Muhammad Yunus, Amartya Sen, ...

There are methods for planning, implementing, monitoring, and evaluation of projects. These include The Logical Framework (logframe), Participatory Learning and Action, Appreciative Inquiry, and Positive Deviance. They are all introduced and critically evaluated.

Sensitive to culture and context

Most poverty alleviation programs are led and funded by WWWs (Wealthy White Westerners) but implemented in Majority World contexts that are not WEIRD (Western Educated Industrialised Rich Democratic). Given the hubris that too often goes with money, power, and education (a god-complex) it is hardly surprising that many programs fail, particularly in the long term, because of a lack of understanding and sensitivity to local culture such as social structures, values, methods of communication, ...

The modern Western worldview presupposes dichotomies between the spiritual and material. The figure below shows pairings of categories, such as religion and science, faith and reason. These pairs are assumed to be in conflict or completely independent of one another. These dichotomies are often presupposed by Western Christians. But, they are not part of a Biblical worldview.

Postmodernism does not accept these dichotomies, and rightly points out they are naive. For example, faith and reason can never be separated, either for a Christian or an atheist. Everyone starts with some presuppositions. Rationality takes place in the context of a particular tradition, as emphasised by Alisdair MacIntyre.

Myers draws on ideas from the anthropologist, Paul Hiebert, who contrasts modern and traditional worldviews, illustrated below. A key idea is that of the "excluded middle" in the modern worldview: there is no room for forces and phenomena that bridge the spiritual and seen world. 

This presents a problem for development initiatives in communities with a traditional worldview; this excluded middle that may be seen to determine health, prosperity, natural disasters, and conflicts. Hence, a community will not be receptive to technical "solutions" that are presented by Westerners.

Treats the poor with dignity  

The poor and non-poor are all made in the image of God. They are of equal value in God's eyes. Hence, the poor should be valued, respected, celebrated, enjoyed, empowered, and listened to. 

Myers reviews social science research that shows that the poor actually know a lot more than they are often given credit for. They are incredibly resilient. It is a miracle how they manage to survive and persevere. Myers describes the work of the Peruvian economist, Hernando de Soto who "demonstrated the vitality, creativity, and entrepreneurial activity of Peru's urban poor." However, this positive energy is significantly constrained because they are required to operate in the informal (underground) economy which means they do not have protections from the rule of law or the property titles that others use to access capital. 

Discussion of complexity theory and emergence

Communities are composed of many interacting units (individuals, families, businesses, churches, ...) that are embedded in an environment (e.g. a city and the global economy). For such complex systems, it is hard to predict how they will behave, including in response to a "perturbation". Hence, the concept of emergence and ideas from complexity theory can provide some insight into development.

Principles are relevant to other Majority World issues

The focus of the book is on poverty alleviation, particularly extreme poverty in the Majority World. However, most of the principles (theological and social scientific) and practices are relevant to any initiative of a Christian organisation that aims to have a transformative influence in a community. Part of my interest in the book is because it addresses many issues that we face in the IFES Logos and Cosmos Initiative.

If you want to know more about the book you can download the Table of Contents and Chapter 1. The latter provides a nice overview of the book, introducing some of the key ideas, and describing how it came to be written.