"unswerved from our deliberate purpose"

It's a really nice idea that any of us can be "unswerved" from anything that challenges where and what we want to be. Maybe you are watching a good movie and you don't want anything to bother you and take your attention away. Maybe you are enjoying time with a friend and hope that you can continue enjoying each uninterrupted.

Remaining in a place or state of mind that you deliberately (intentionally) want to be in is highly desirable. We don't use the word "unswerved" very often, but we sure appreciate the idea.

Christians think about being "unswerved" more than maybe they are aware. The term is usually translated patience or perseverance. The idea of persevering in times of difficulty is an idea many hold onto as a virtue. Christians use scripture like Romans 5: 2-5 and James 1: 3-4 to be encouraged during times of trial or tests. Affliction is viewed as positive when we attach some transcendental benefit to suffering. Perseverance leads to hope, assurance everything is going to be alright.

Yet, often human nature attaches a "grin and bear it" meaning to "unswerved." That's a natural association of patience or endurance in times of difficult circumstances. When Christians view perseverance this way, they have a virtue that is no different than non-Christians. In this case the distinction Christians make between their patience and that of non believers if that they have a better hope. That's true, but that's missing the main distinction in their witness and in their own life.

The notion of "unswerved" used in the Bible (a version of hupomoné ) deals with simply holding fast to the purpose we have intentionally oriented our life around. It means, "don't be distracted by what you see going on around and to you." Don't lose sight of what matters. This is far from a "grin and bear it" mindset that waits for relief. It is a way to remain in the joy of our purpose, like the companionship of a good friend. Turning off the cell phone and staring into the eyes of our beloved at an intimate dinner is Biblical perseverance. Hupomoné reminds us that our circumstances are like a wind storm, blowing temporarily to take us off our game.     

God's idea of perseverance and patience is associated with rejoicing in the very midst of our circumstances, not because something beneficial is coming later, but because we are now in the presence of a loving and generous God.

For example, I recently read a famous football player just found out he may have throat cancer. His dad died of throat cancer at 51 and this former NFL star is now in his early 50's. He admitted he had lived in fear of throat cancer most of his life. He is a Christian, and he said his faith will help him deal with his fear. In other words he sees faith more as a temporary crutch and persevering as "just getting through the tough times."

The passage in Luke 12 came to my mind, "do not fear little flock for your Father has chosen gladly to give you His Kingdom."  Notice, Jesus didn't say "deal with your fear." Instead He said, "DO NOT FEAR." Jesus' idea of being "unswerved" by cancer was to rejoice right now in his relationship with Jesus and his life in the Kingdom. The cancer is a passing wind storm (a distraction) in which he shouldn't have fear in the first place. DO NOT FEAR, not deal with ("grin and bear it") your fear.

Also, notice the fear came from his experience with the futility of his earthly father. His dad was defeated by cancer and could not provide further for him (abandonment). His Heavenly Father is very different. God is able to provide all his soul could ever need and more, forever.

This is why Jesus can say, DO NOT FEAR. We can view perseverance as being "unswerved from our deliberate purpose," not a "grin and bear it" tolerance of pain.

Pondering the difference is an "out of this world" experience ....

knowing the unknown

Since the beginning of time, there is no question more asked and still offers much confusion than, "how can we know what we don't know?"

Recently, a famed behavioral economist, Nassim Taleb, challenged the business world on how their ideas around this question are misguided. The author of "The Black Swan" argues well that success is best obtained when managing the unknown.


For example, he points to the massive destruction of events like Katrina, the financial crisis and 9/11 attack as indications that the most significant outcomes in recent times came out of nowhere. In everyday life we see that when we hire someone or take a new job ourselves, its what we find out about the other 6 months or a year later that matters more than all of the knowledge gathered during the hiring process.

Let's take a closer look at what it means to "know the unknown." I contend we can be misguided and maybe don't even agree on what this means. For instance, the English language just has one word for "know." The 1828 Webster says to know is "to perceive with certainty or to understand clearly." Implied in this is "seeing is believing". So the cultural norm for knowing requires physical evidence.

The ancient Greeks had two words (I have blogged on this several times). One word meant knowing through the physical senses (eido), which aligns more with prevalent thinking. The other was knowing in some way other than through physical senses (gnosis). Since this second way does not fit current thinking about "to know," we find other words to capture what the Greeks called knowing without observable evidence. Some call this way of knowing intuition or conscience or "gut feel." Yet, people refer to this type of knowing with some level of puzzlement when they wonder how they can know if he/she loves them. People say, "I know my spouse" when they are speaking of clarity they have that didn't come though physical evidence, but through an intimacy in relationship with them.

So, there are several ways to think about "knowing the unknown."

First, we can ask, "how do we have certainty about what we observe by gaining more clarity from new observations we have certainty with?" Both views of "to know" deal with observable evidence. This is primarily what we believe science accomplishes.

Second, we can ask, "how do we have certainty about what we cannot observe by getting new observations we can have certainty with?" Here, the idea is getting a certainty about unobservable truth by using rational processes to gain certainty from what we can observe. This is an attempt to verify faith through science. Typically, we see this approach by Christians and non-Christians to "prove" something about the unseen human soul, such as virtue and personality, and God, such as His existence.

The third way to ask this question is, "how do we have certainty about what we see from certainty about what we cannot see?" This is actually the question answered by the Bible. Christians understand "knowing" by trusting revelation from God to clearly understand what they experience in the physical world. Human nature influences us to view type two question about "knowing," Humans naturally want to believe something about the invisible from inferences made from the visible.

The fourth possibility is, "how do we have clarity and certainty about what we cannot see from clearly understanding what we cannot see?" This is the ultimate point of the Bible. Humans adopted into God's family involves an assurance of an invisible act on God's part to bring us into a relationship experienced only through faith. 

The problem arises when the non-Christian thought leaders are asking the first and second type questions about "knowing" when the Bible is applying the third and fourth type of questions about "knowing." Even worst, and too prevalent, is when Christians rely on their flawed human nature and apply questions like one and two above to defend their faith and the Bible instead of questions like type four.

One more point about "knowing the unknown" that contributes to the confusion. When Taleb discusses this issue of "knowing," he is dealing with predicting the future. In other words, the unknown is only unobservable because it hadn't happened yet. This is the only purpose of science, to provide the likelihood B occurs given A depending on C. Science cannot prove the certainty of the future, only the likelihood. We also cannot confuse the "unknowing" (uncertainty) of the future with the "unknowing" of the invisible.

Science has no role in gaining knowledge about what already exists and cannot be seen. For instance, science can analyze data and provide a reasonable explanation of "what is?" Yet, science cannot be used at all to answer "why?" Science cannot determine the heart, or motive. Science can explain WHAT choices people made through observing their behavior, but cannot explain WHY. Science, in no way, can provide certainty about God and the Kingdom of Heaven.

Only revelation allows any human to "know the unknown" God and His gracious, Sovereign rule.

So, when you hear someone use the term "know," you now can ask which of the ways they are viewing "to know"? Maybe after you ponder the multiple ways of knowing, you can ask that they ponder them too.......

 
        

If diversity is the answer, what is the question?

Valuing diversity is unmistakably one of the dominant themes of our times. I was asked recently why I had not blogged on this topic before. I thought I had, but found I had not. This request was not challenging the moral value of respecting people's differences, but rather wondering why it is so popular to see it as the solution to every problem. There is a frustration by thoughtful people that diversity is almost always, without question, viewed as THE ANSWER to every question. 

So, I was asked to ponder, "is it really?"

Diversity is one of the topics that I taught in management classes at the university level. Its an important topic, not because valuing diversity is viewed as "politically correct," but because the way groups of people handle differences in their members affects their effectiveness. This is what people who study diversity want to find out, "does diversity make teams and broader organizations more effective?" In what way does diversity alone make things better? I think this is what many decent, thoughtful ponderers want to know. When diversity is thrown around everywhere as THE ANSWER, should we not better understand the question to which it is the answer?

When I began my lecture on diversity, I would ask each student to look around them at all the other students, then list ways in which the class was diverse (students were different). Invariably the students would list, sex, race, age, looks, height, weight, hair color, hair styles, etc. No one noticed diversity of personality, ability, experience, values, biases, experiences, and such. Are these differences unimportant? No, they are just UNNOTICED. In fact, if I put together a team to accomplish a task, these unnoticed differences would matter more in the team's effectiveness than what the students' listed as their sense of diversity. 

At least, that is what the research on diversity has found. The first list is called "observable diversity." The second list is called "unobservable diversity." In summary, research has found that in the initial moments people are asked to work together, observable diversity is not helpful. In fact, observable differences create emotional barriers to cooperation and collaboration because of social categorization and social attraction (stereotyping). Yet at the same time, unobservable diversity helps tasks that involve information processing, such as decision-making, because diverse views create more options to choose from.

Given sufficient time and relationship building opportunities, the emotional conflicts attributed to observable diversity are mitigated and the team becomes more effective when unobservable diversity is high. Thus, when the question is asked, "does a diverse team perform better than a more homogeneous team?", the answer is best understood by the diversity we do not obviously see. Given time and greater inter dependency in tasks, teams where individuals are different in ways we do not see is preferred.

Whereas, observable diversity gets all of the headlines and attention by social fairness minded people, visible differences in people are not what makes groups of people more effective. In reality, the diversity the culture values can be harmful, not helpful to higher performance.

If diversity is the answer and success is the question, look beyond what is politically correct about diversity and value the diversity that really matters!

That's how I ponder diversity and encourage others to do so too ....