and

“Rick Bass, a very good writer, is another

Montana neighbor of mine…. Besides being an excellent writer, Bass is a fervent environmentalist…. Environmentalists care deeply about this creation, but a lot of them are also pretty mean - angry, sometimes violent.  Bass is small of stature, elf-like, energetic, and laughing, it seems, most of the time. He holds parties for the loggers and miners, working for common ground, developing a language of courtesy and understanding. He wrote an essay recently that I count as required reading for anyone who cares about living well as North American followers of Jesus who are immersed in this impatient, shortcut-addictive culture.
“He writes that it used to be that whenever he was confronted with a complex and difficult task, he imagined himself patiently laying down one brick after another until eventually he got the job done…recently he has changed his metaphor. He had been reading about glaciers. A glacier is the most powerful force the world has ever seen. Nothing, literally nothing, can stop a glacier. A glacier is formed by the falling of snow that collects over a period of time - an inch today, a quarter of an inch yesterday, a mere skiff of powder last week.  As the snow deepens, the weight compresses.  Ice is formed, and then more snow, which becomes more ice, year after year.  Nothing happens for a long time, but when glacier is sixty-four feet thick it starts to move, and nothing can stop it.

“…[Bass] notes that one theory about the origin of glaciers is that they are ‘the result of a wobble, a hitch, in the earth’s rotation…. Glaciers get built or not built, simply, miraculously, because the earth is canting a single one-trillionth of a degree in this direction for a long period of time, rather than in that direction.’ And then this comment: ‘When I am alone in the woods, and the struggle seems insignificant or futile, or when I am in a public meeting and am being kicked all over the place, I tell myself that little things matter—and I believe that they do. I believe that even if your heart leans just a few degrees to the left or the right of center, that with enough resolve, which can substitute for mass, and enough time, a wobble will one day begin, and the ice will begin to form, where for a long time previous there might have been none. “‘Keep it up for a lifetime or two or three, and then one day—it must—the ice will begin to slide’ (The Roadless Yak, Lyons Press, 114).

“Or, to replace his metaphor with ours: we’ll see… Christ playing in ten thousand places, lovely in limbs, lovely in eyes not his, to the Father through the features of men’s and women’s faces.”

 

Rick Bass                Eugene Peterson

The above quote is from Eugene Peterson’s, Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places: A Conversation in Spiritual Theology.  Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2005, 337-8.

Peace, dwight

Which came first?  The chicken or the egg? 

In a brief conversation with Marty Folsom (Seattle-area theologian/counselor), he highlighted some possible connections between recursion theory and relational theology.  The language of recursion was new to me and I have much to learn.  This is where I’m in trying to get a handle on it.

First an image or two:

To get a visual of recursion click here or here:

The Dutch chocolate maker Droste is famous for the visual effect on its boxes of cocoa. The image contains itself on a smaller scale. This is sometimes called the “Droste effect” and is a form of recursion.

“Recursion is the process a procedure goes through when one of the steps of the procedure involves rerunning the entire same procedure. A procedure that goes through recursion is said to be recursive. Something is also said to be recursive when it is the result of a recursive procedure.

“To understand recursion, one must recognize the distinction between a procedure and the running of a procedure. A procedure is a set of steps that are to be taken based on a set of rules. The running of a procedure involves actually following the rules and performing the steps. An analogy might be that a procedure is like a menu in that it is the possible steps, while running a procedure is actually choosing the courses for the meal from the menu.

“A procedure is recursive if one of the steps that makes up the procedure calls for a new running of the procedure. Therefore a recursive four course meal would be a meal in which one of the choices of appetizer, salad, entrée, or dessert was an entire meal unto itself. So a recursive meal might be potato skins, baby greens salad, chicken Parmesan, and for dessert, a four course meal, consisting of crab cakes, Caesar salad, for an entrée, a four course meal, and chocolate cake for dessert, so on until each of the meals within the meals is completed.

“It is important to note that a recursive procedure must complete every one of its steps. Even if a new running is called in one of its steps, each running must run through the remaining steps. What this means is that even if the salad is an entire four course meal unto itself, you still have to eat your entrée and dessert.” (wikipedia)

Recursion is not just for funky meals, it impacts social systems, learning, family systems and relating with one another.

Though I don’t know the theory well enough, to state this with any certitude, recursion theory appears to intersect with some aspects of social constructive theory, perichoresis and developmental theory (at least for a starter).  It even reminded me a bit of Eberhard Jüngel’s great text: God’s Being is in Becoming.

FYI - Marty has an article on the topic that will be published shortly.  I’ll try to post a link as one becomes available.  If you know of any theological applications of recursion I’d love to see them.

• A Freeman’s Theology: The problem with God 
• The Tao of Recursion
• Reversion in the Corporeal

Peace, dwight

Though I wouldn’t define myself as “process” nor “open” theologian, I do believe that God is changed by our relationship. That God walks with us, and his responses and actions are relationally dynamic.

In my cynical moments, I sometimes wonder whether a “reformed” person can have a “relationship” with God.

Relationship seem to require interaction and are development in nature. If you take out the possibility of my interaction impacting and changing God then what’s the point “my” talking - prayer would be reduced to little more than personal therapy. 

Similar to Saunder’s, I say yes. God does risk. Risk is core to love and to relationship.

Relationships are radically demanding of all participants in relationship. That is why this conversation raises the standard of discipleship. In much Reformed theology little is demanded of the “Christ-follower”, in relational theology the individual and the community are dynamic players in this thing we call the Kingdom.

Dare I say it; I am beginning to believe that the institutional church is humanity’s attempt to control the Spirit of God.

Peace, dwight

In the pomo world boundaries and such definitions are shot to heck;-). Nothing is seen as static, instead all is understood holistically and dynamically.

When we start talking about a relational way of being and doing church or organic this, and morphing that; we create an environment where static theology is irrelevant.

This significantly raises the bar of discipleship. Because it is no longer sufficient to get a person to sign off on a Creed, because the person must relate meaningful with Christ and the Christ-community.

This is why dynamic faith communities, relationally organized must surface to replace the institutions.

Peace, dwight