The Institutional Imperative

Warren Buffet has been acclaimed for his characteristic of the organizational phenomenon that seeks legitimacy and resists changes by mimicking normative practices of their industry. This behavior is basically an inertial resistance by organizations to any change to its current direction. This is not new to Buffet in that economist Adam Smith predicted in 1776 such constraints in organizations as managers became caretakers of organizations. In the 1950's March & Simon described rational decision making as a logic of legitimacy more than a logic of consequences. What this means in organizations is that existing practices get perpetuated not because they are the best path but because they are the established path.

The institutional imperative is not limited to commercial organizations. I find the church to be just as subject to these inertial influences. As many of you know I have been frustrated by how the church teaching has perpetuated the concept of "the process of sanctification." Theologians have declared sanctification has two meanings, definitive and progressive. Because this has been declared and accepted by mainstream theologians, preachers regularly preach sanctification in both ways, with more emphasis on the "progressive" and completely resisting any challenge to it.

I have argued that the definitive form is the only form supported both by the definition of the word sanctification and God's ordinances as expressed in Scripture. The word sanctification literally means "set apart." In Scripture this refers to God's work in and through us to set us apart for His purposes (I Thess 5:23; Hebrews 13:12; I Corinthians 1:2). John Frame labeled this definitive sanctification. However, others like Wayne Grudem have added to this a notion of progressive sanctification, that is a continual work of GOD and MAN that is an incremental spiritual work of both.

I do not find any evidence in the meaning of the word or biblical use of the word to suggest it is collaborative in any way. I Thess 4:3 has been used to support our role in sanctification. However, this implies more to our reaction to our sanctification, not our part in it. The INERTIA to make the Christian life more collaborative than God's ordinances set forth leads to a stubborn embrace of this dual notion of sanctification. Thus, the logic of legitimacy has trumped the logic of consequences. The defense of the legitimacy of these two tenets of sanctification lacks thorough examination. I am generally dismissed and simply told by preachers (and others) the difference between definitive and progressive is a nuance, not substantive.

I think this "blinds eye" to the consequences in favor of legitimacy is substantive. Collaborative meaning to any of God's sovereign acts breeds legalism and ultimately guilt and judgmentalism. To suggest that being made holy is a collaborative work of God and man places an inappropriate role on us and diminishes the power of God's Grace. While "growing in Christ" may in fact represent a legitimate experience as Christians, it is not the incremental progressive work of sanctification, it is mainly living by faith in the sanctification we already have. When God sanctifies us, we are His. It is a finished work. He doesn't need us to help Him complete it. It is not incremental. To think its collaborative and progressive exalts us.

"Growing in sanctification" implies we don't have it all yet. I don't get more sanctified by trusting in Jesus? Do I? Just like salvation and justification, I would prefer to say "growing IN OUR sanctification" which implies that we are exercising something we already have (Philippians 2:12b). I think it frustrates Christians to believe God hasn't given us all we need and we must work with Him or do something to get more of it. God's ordinances clearly sets forth that He has justified and sanctified us in His redemptive work of salvation. Our issue is not getting more sanctified but appropriating by faith sanctification we already have.

The reluctance of even reformed preachers to challenge Grudem's collaborative extension to the meaning of sanctification is an institutional imperative based on inertia of man's need to do something to make himself Holy. The consequences are much more than a nuance. The notion of "progressive sanctification" constrains the freedom and the joy of our calling to play out what God has put in us.

So, is preaching the "process of sanctification" an institutional imperative? I have yet to be given an explanation of why its not. IDK

Affectionately Yours,
The Word Nerd

Ay yi yi ......

where does evil get its power?

"be vigilant, be sober, because your adversary the devil walks around like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour"     I Peter 5:8

"the thief comes only to steal, kill, and destroy, I come that they may have life and that they may have it more abundantly"   John 10:10

Where does evil get its power? We see that the objective of evil is to destroy, to kill "life" (zoe, God's life) and evil "roams around seeking whom it may devour".  We know that for the unbeliever, evil is eternal separation from God (Hell). But for the believer, the consequences of evil are not death (eternal separation from God) but rather impotence. The power evil has over believers is to constrain their light and to steal their joy, to put them in a box where Christ stays private. This happens through shame, guilt, fear, pride, etc. of the believer. This gives evil its power.

Why does the believer feel these emotions that constrain their joy and make them hide their light under a basket? Well, I think it generally comes from our desire to please others, to be respected and liked by our peers. But its more than that. There are two sides to the equation.

While our nature is to seek our well being from the world around us and not the glory God has given us through Jesus, our reaction to our own transgressions feeds destruction of our pride resulting in our fear, shame, blame, and guilt. However, if those who witness our transgression responded to us in Grace, we the transgressor may be spared the consequences of Satan's desires, and thus not have the light in us extinguished. There's a case to be made that evil has no power unless the persons witnessing the transgression choose to give evil attention and react in judgment and gossip, not Grace.

I for one have made many mistakes, some significant ones even recently. As I pondered the shame and guilt from my actions, I realized that while I really offended God and should know better, my desire to withdraw and hide is mainly influenced by fearing the condemnation of others, not God. The thought occurred to me that if my friends never embellish evil's design on me, if they simply ignore what Satan has orchestrated and respond in unconditional love as God does, then "death and destruction" doesn't occur. The power evil has to shut me down and to steal  my joy may be as sourced in my brothers and sisters mistakes in how they respond to my mistake than in my mistake itself. This is not intended to be a deflection away from consequences of my own action, but a broader look from God's perspective of what is really happening.

In some ways a condemning response to another's transgression may be more destructive than the original mistake itself. While not excusing or rationalizing our sin, may God really be equally concerned by our giving evil its power when we respond to others in judgment rather than Grace?? Can we really take the sting out of evil and make it impotent instead by extending the Grace we have been blessed with to others as each of us in our own way fail in our actions.

certainly worth pondering .....

Will the real xxxxx please stand up?

What are we really like? What we think? How others perceive us? Is there a reality of self that both miss? Self-perception is an interesting phenomenon. Sometimes we see ourselves as we wish we were, or as we fear we are, or as others convince us we are. The degree we deceive ourselves about ourselves is the degree we fail to receive feedback from others about us. Its true that some feedback, if not all, is contaminated by the biases of the source of the feedback. The motive of the feedback source can reduce credibility of the message others have for us about our self. Yet information from others about us is necessary to challenge the tendencies we have to see our self as we want to and not as we really are.

In my organizational behavior class i require students to provide me with a write-up of their reflections on each chapter they read. I am currently reading the first write-ups form this semester's class. The chapter includes the topic of personality and how it informs behavior. Students had opportunity to take a personality survey on them selves to further grasp the topic of personality.

Here is one student's reflections: "The results show I have a distinctive preference for judging.... I see myself as not very judgmental... I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt."  The student then proceeds to slam "personality tests." She writes "I do not believe this is an accurate way of assessing one's personality... people perceive each other differently and a test cannot determine a universal way of knowing.... the model isn't a sure fire way of assessing who a person really is...I see myself differently than this test has scored me.... I believe I have a great personality.. the personality test I have taken would not agree.. its all how one perceives it (personality)."  REALLY???

I found this so interesting. Personality is merely the tendency to behave a certain way. There is no right or wrong personality. Depending on the desired behavior, some are more likely to produce the behavior than others.

This student announces the "test" pegged her incorrectly ( based on her own self-perception) but then spends the rest of her write-up (behavior) displaying her judgmentalism by condemning personality tests. I don't think I have ever witnessed a more blatant example of how one's behavior totally contradicts one's self-perception. So, what is this student really like - what she thinks or what some objective feedback suggests?

Duh!!!!!

Genesis - and not the one from Hyundi

There's growing hype on Hyundi's new luxury car Genesis, especially where I live - someone is getting a new one for the first time almost monthly. When I bought mine I wondered why they picked that name. What could Hyundi be trying to communicate to car buyers with this name. For most of history Genesis has been associated with the first book of the Bible. I looked up genesis in 1828 Webster's dictionary, the first dictionary published in USA and the one I used in college (jk). The first reference of meaning was that Genesis is the first book of the Bible. I had always thought genesis primarily meant "the beginning". However, the only other reference to meaning of genesis in 1828 was an application in geometry, "the formation of a line, plane or solid by the motion or flux of a point, line or surface."

Here we see that in part genesis reflects the notion of beginning but more importantly denotes the act of formation. Formation is a bit more substantive than just the beginning because formation denotes source and intent, not just beginning. I guess buying a Hyundi Genesis represents not just a new beginning but the formation of a new driving experience desired by the engineers at Hyundi.

In the Bible Genesis then is not just the beginning of God's story but the formation of history as God desires it to be. The creation is God's original intent, His ordinances prior to sin, the fall of mankind. In the creation story we see God gives us His intent in at least 3 areas - work, worship, and relationship. The Fall of man contaminates these three areas of our life and the Cross redeems them back to the original design or genesis of life.

The creation account in Scripture has often been the central component of the scientific perspective of the origin of the universe. Does one day really mean 24 hours? How does theory of evolution contradict Genesis 1? However, references in the rest of Scripture doesn't seem to worry itself about these questions but rather we find the essence of the creation account - God sovereignly did it and it was good - as the basis for worship and pastoral endeavors. In other words the intent of Genesis 1 and 2 is not to answer the scientific debate on origin of universe but to establish the formational intent of life as one established by God for His purposes according to His ordinances. Its man who has attempted to imagine life as intended and sourced by other means, for other purposes, and with other ordinances.

Tim Keller once said unless "your God can outrage you and make you struggle will you know that you worship the real God and not a figment of your imagination." Those who reject Genesis (God's formational intent of life) have done so because their own imagination provides a comfort to them and does not challenge the notion that man alone is sufficient to deliver the soul's well being.

If our faith does not cause us to struggle against our carnal mindedness, then our imagination provides for us comfort in the illusion that we are the sovereign one ...........