« Easter in Wartime. | HomePage | Of Baptists and Jedi. (Categories in Synthesis.) »
30 May 2007
Architectural Principles.
[Extract from Amazon Framework: Culture Navigators.]
Biblical Design Principles.
Before we set out plagiarizing the work of the Grand Designer, let's read His autobiography. Understanding His Word better will lead us to better understand His works. Fortunately, He leaves us lots of bread crumbs.
//
"Four things on earth are small, yet they are extremely wise: Ants are creatures of little strength, yet they store up their food in summer; coneys are creatures of little power, yet they make their home in the crags; locusts have no king, yet they advance together in ranks; a lizard can be caught in the hand, yet it is found in the king's palaces." - Proverbs 30:24-28 (NIV)
Self-Generating Complexity. A decent programmer can make a program to accomplish a given task, but it would take a brilliant programmer to make a program that adapts itself to any task it is given. God has designed His universe in this way. Clouds come into being at the margins of dewpoint and temperature. Ecosystems adapt themselves to their inhabitants. The best business ventures find wealth on the margins, multiplying it many-fold. There are three levels of optimization: choices, rules and systems. The most basic of optimizations tells us to make one choice vice another. The next level of optimization analyzes what choices work and what choices don't, and sets forth rules to make choices. The final level creates systems, which in turn create rules, which in turn create choices. Stated in calculus terms, the derivative of a system is a rule, and the derivative of a rule is a choice.
To take this from the abstract into something a bit more practical, let's say that we're a river engineer.
We want to build a path for water to flow from the ice-capped mountains to the ocean. Optimizing choices, we can climb all the way up to the top of the mountain, and start walking down to the ocean. As we go, we decide where we want the river to flow based on what we think looks right. Unfortunately, this will take us a very long time and we will not be able to correct mistakes very quickly. Our span of control is very small. So, just as Jethro tells Moses to do, we appoint administrators to carry out rules. We find that water flows better down inclines, it carves its way through sand easier than through rock, we realize that as it runs down hills it makes ox-bow. So we make rules, and we tell the river design administrators to move water down hills, and to favor sand over rock as they make rivers. And this works better for a time, until our bureaucracies keep growing. At some point, call it cross-over, the next rule creates more inefficiency in its administration than it creates in its implementation. At cross-over, it becomes exceedingly difficult for the system to adapt to any changes, for its institutional inertia has past a critical point. This is the toxic paradox that plagues many Western programs: rules paralysis. Instead of solving it with another rule, we need to go back to the drawing board.
Returning to our river puzzle, lets look to the Grand Designer's solution: engineering systems. Instead of making five-hundred rules to govern His rivers, He makes two or three meta-rules, and allows self-generating complexity to run its course. He makes water molecules, gravity and pressure gradients. He then turns them loose. The water melts from the ice cap, and gravity starts pulling it down to the ocean. As it starts to make its way, it finds obstacles in its path. Following simple pressure gradients, it seeks out the path of least resistance, which is incidentally the optimal path. Let the water keep going, following very simple meta-rules, and it will make you a nearly perfect river on its own. As an added bonus, your system will adapt to changes real-time without having to redesign itself. Meta-rules plus time equals optimized systems. This is the math of a Creator.
Application: Extant Economic Structures.
Just as God has built rivers to distribute water, He built markets to distribute money. A bayou may look tremendously different from white-water rapids, but both are accomplishing the same purpose in different contexts. There is an economic structure to any tribal community because there must be. There is some means by which resources are collected, refined and distributed. For someone who is used to rapids, it is difficult to understand water-flow through a bayou, so the temptation would be to pave the bayou and cut a trench for a river. This would not be the most effective solution. To a typical Western mind, business as missions generally takes on a very distinctive flavor. A more effective model realizes that there are extant business structures, analyzes them, and optimizes them within their own unique context.
Application: Adaptive Systems.
There is a temptation toward pyramid scheming in economic system design. Basically, once we find an idea that seems to work, we multiply it over and over in its current form. This plan works well as long as the initial conditions are maintained, but rapidly loses its relevance as those conditions change. Hence the rise and fall of various political and corporate empires. Windows is on Version 8-point-something, depending on how you count, and that's over the course of twenty years. The Field Rabbit is still on version 1.0 (2.0 if you count the Fall, but that was really our fault.) Therefore, a true adaptive system must not only be self-sustaining in its current form, but self-adaptive, sub-consciously redesigning itself as conditions change. Such a system would then be self-propagating, able to jump between different environments geographically and chronologically. Such a system would be sustainable, in its truest sense.
//
"For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him." - 1 Corinthians 1:25-29 (NIV)
Asymmetric Engagement. If we were to build a religion from the ground up, we would probably try to assemble a team of the best philosophers, the most renowned lawyers, the most notable priests and ministers, and the wealthiest financiers. God did this feat far more effectively with eleven barely literate fisherman and a turn-coat preacher named Saul. Certainly, it is a testament to the power of God that so few did so many in such little time. But part of that testament is in the brilliance of His choice. If He had used the best and the brightest, He would have had to push against the inertia of all the power structures of the time that named and trained those best and the brightest. The lawyer can't come out strongly on the issue of circumcision, because his mentor wrote the caselaw for the opposition. The Ephesian nobleman can't disturb the political structure of the town too much without losing his position. The best and the brightest were often shackled to their institutions, hence 'it is more difficult for a rich man to enter Heaven than for an camel to pass through the eye of a needle.' But twelve men that would leave everything they knew to follow a Rabbi are free. They can go where they want, and do what they want. For a Caesar to visit Spain, there would have to be all sorts of political, diplomatic and security arrangements. Paul can go by simply hopping on a ship.
Everything has its strengths and weaknesses. It is the sign of the expert general to take the things generally considered weaknesses and use them as his strengths. It is also quite an effective tactic, as your enemy will rarely have a counter. When we leave behind our soul's investment in the things of this world, we will see those things as they are. We will also see them as God can use them. Abandon all pride, consider outcomes with humility, and you will find victory.
Application: Asymmetric Technology.
The problem with technology is that it is a shackle as often as it is a solution. It may fix your problem, but you are now indentured to a system that requires tremendous support and maintenance. Additionally, your technological choices for your current problem may limit your choices for future solutions. For this reason, a traditional Western application of technology may be largely inappropriate for reaching a low-tech culture. Bringing in a computer will require bringing in a generator, and a printer and a lot of paper and cartridges and ink and tech support and so on. High-footprint solutions are impractical. However, low-footprint solutions can accomplish tremendous good. If we can bring a few critical pieces of technology in, which can enhance the extant community life with minimal support, we can multiply our effectiveness. For instance, bringing in advanced farming techniques, along with plans for farm implements that can be manufactured with existing resources could do great good, enhancing current activities rather than overwriting them. Even something like plans for a home-built ultra-light constructed largely from readily available materials would allow a tribe to watch over herds or find resources more effectively. Some technology may be irreplaceable, where its asymmetry is found in its effects rather than in its employment. An example of this may be an IRIDIUM Sat-Phone serving as a Comm link between an operator and his support networks.
Application: Carterian Instruction.
For some reason, people have bought into the idea that something must be smart if it is hard to explain. Academia plays to this stereotype, often obfuscating the simple, using phrases like 'I'd like to nuance that by adding some dynamic tension,' that don't mean anything but add a lot of syllables. We think that making things complicated is intelligence. We forget that the smartest Man that ever lived told farmers about the Kingdom by speaking about crops. The true mark of brilliance is the ability to explain things with simplicity, not syllables. George Washington Carver was a brilliant botanist, but the true make of his genius was his ability to explain advanced peanut farming techniques in simple terms to people with little if any formal education. If we are to use technology as a ticket for spreading the gospel, we need to be able to apply that technology using simple concepts and simple instruction. This is not pedantic pride, but simple respect. Invoking the authority of syllables and complexity muddies our message, only to indulge our intellectual pride. Words have contexts. The missions field is not the context for Turabian writing style.
//
"Send me, therefore, a man skilled to work in gold and silver, bronze and iron, and in purple, crimson and blue yarn, and experienced in the art of engraving, to work in Judah and Jerusalem with my skilled craftsmen, whom my father David provided."…"Send me also cedar, pine and algum logs from Lebanon, for I know that your men are skilled in cutting timber there. My men will work with yours 9 to provide me with plenty of lumber, because the temple I build must be large and magnificent. I will give your servants, the woodsmen who cut the timber, twenty thousand cors of ground wheat, twenty thousand cors of barley, twenty thousand baths of wine and twenty thousand baths of olive oil." - 2 Chronicles 2:7-10 (NIV)
Diversity of Economies. Basic laws of economics: everybody produces and consumes something. Everyone has a comparative advantage. In the construction of the temple, Solomon recognized this fact. Cedars from Lebanon. Gems and gold from the four corners of the world. The temple was made rich by the combination of many things, not by the consolidation of a few. We have a tendency to over-look this fact in the industrialized world. Ricardian economics talks about comparative advantage, and on the purely mathematical level, he is quite correct. Unfortunately, we usually apply these theories to tell us that one American worker is worth many workers from another country. The Hescher-Ohlin model seems to favor traditional forms of capital, chalking up lesser developed countries to the 'labor-intensive' category. And while this may be true for 'cars vs. lamps,' fictional goods, I wonder if there are not alternate forms of capital. A tribe's story-teller has generations of the human capital of experience invested in his words. It is not that the models are incorrect. It is just that we have a hard time applying them outside the contexts that we know.
Application: Linking of Markets.
There is a temptation to 'modernize' an indigenous economy, to transform it into terms we can easily understand and then bring it 'up to speed.' We think we are creating an economy, but we are really overwriting an existing indigenous economy. A better approach is to analyze the existing economic structures, identify comparative advantages, and link those advantages to the outside world to turn a profit. That profit, in turn, can be used to purchase goods for which the tribe has a comparative dis-advantage, such as vaccines and the like. Instead of paving over existing markets, find the niche goods supplied by the tribe and demanded by the outside world, and trade them for the niche goods demanded by the tribe and supplied by the outside world. Of course, the initial steps of any such linkage would be establishing the availability of these goods. It is remarkably difficult to demand tribal clothing if the outside world does not know it exists and is available. It is remarkably difficult to demand vaccines if a tribe does not know much about immunology. So there must always be an initial investment in establishing relationships. But that investment should turn a profit once the links are flowing. Stated simply, we need to understand needs and wants in a cultural context, and then allow existing skills to provide for those needs and wants.
//
"And [the Queen of Sheba] gave the king 120 talents of gold, large quantities of spices, and precious stones. Never again were so many spices brought in as those the queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon… King Solomon gave the queen of Sheba all she desired and asked for, besides what he had given her out of his royal bounty. Then she left and returned with her retinue to her own country." - 1 Kings 10:10,13
Investing in Relationships. There is a vast difference between simply giving someone money and using that money to start a mutually beneficial relationship. If you just give me money, then there will forever be a power imbalance between us. We can never truly be peers if there is no future expectation of reciprocity. But if you give me some money now in order to establish a positive working relationship in the future, there remains an equivalency of power. When you have the expectation of reciprocity, I will move into a mutually beneficial peer role as I get off the ground. This is a much better model for all involved, as there is mutual gain to be made. The Queen of Sheba realized this, cementing a long-term economically profitable relationship with the wealthy King of Israel through a short-term economically unprofitable tribute.
Application: Initial Trade Subsidies.
USAA Savings Bank provides loans to Air Force Academy cadets at 1.0% interest. The company actually loses money on the loans, but they write it off as an advertising expense. They almost always make it back many-fold over the course of the cadet's officer career, as he is more likely than not to choose USAA for any future banking endeavors. As long as USAA continues to provide good service, they have a customer for life. It is in their economic interests to subsidize initial interactions. The same is true for any economic relationship with an indigenous group. It makes sense to subsidize things such as vaccines and medicine, not just in the public interest, but also in sheer economic interests. Additionally, it makes sense to pay above-market for goods produced initially (as the market may actually correct to a higher price once established.) Initial capital placed into training and linkages evolves into a profitable bilateral relationship.
//
"The LORD said to Gideon, "With the three hundred men that lapped I will save you and give the Midianites into your hands. Let all the other men go, each to his own place." So Gideon sent the rest of the Israelites to their tents but kept the three hundred, who took over the provisions and trumpets of the others." - Judges 7:7,8 (NIV)
Quiet Professionals. Numbers can be as much of a liability as an asset. In Gideon's Special Operation, thousands of troops would have made hundreds of decibels of noise. There would be no way for them to effectively infil the enemy camp, nor to cause mass chaos. God did not choose randomly, though. Those who cupped the water to their mouth were alert and on guard even while resting. Their motivation and their preparedness showed them to be the elite of Israel's army. God accomplished tremendous people through these few people. This principle holds true for the military today, where Special Operations Forces are highly selective, preferring a few elite individuals, dedicated to the mission, to a massive bludgeoning force. One reason for this preference is the investment in human capital. Ten dedicated men who will stick around for a decade are worth training to a very high level, while a hundred who will be there for a year are hardly worth training at all. Highly trained SOF operators are able to effectively navigate dynamic, complex situations in ways that conventional forces could not. In many situations, large numbers of conventional forces would do more harm than good. This principle holds true on the missions field as well. It is critical to have a small footprint and a subtle impact realized over time. Better one highly trained missionary who can train a hundred indigenous believers for leadership than a thousand one-week missionaries who cannot speak the language and do not understand the culture.
Application: Highly Selective, Highly Trained Missionaries.
There is already a limited pool of applicants with the legal credentials to return to their tribes. But there already was a limited pool of soldiers in Gideon's army before he started sending people home. Better a few on fire, willing to make a ten year investment in their people group than many who do more harm than good, poisoning the well for any future efforts. Taking only people willing to live with their people for ten years or more allows you to profitably invest up to two years of intense, personalized training in them.
//
"As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men." At once they left their nets and followed him." - Matthew 4:18-20
Eternal Investments. One of the cardinal rules of the Special Operations community is 'humans are more important than hardware.' It is certainly true in the battlefield of the Great Commission. Jesus never died for a computer or an airplane. A well thought through plan or book can do something to advance the Kingdom, but it is not indwelt with the Holy Spirit (save one book, of course.) Our primary investment must then be in people. The American body of Christ probably could afford to write less books and train more people. That's what Christ did, after all. The Word from which all other words came, Veritas embodied, certainly could have written an excellent book. After all, He wrote history. Instead, He chose to write Himself on the lives of His followers. Books turn to dust, and they will pass away with this world. People live on, for they are made in the Image of God.
Application: Training.
Capital is a factor of production, according to economics. It is comprised of all things that are not labor that go into producing a good. Labor is time invested. Capital is computers, looms, factories and anything else that helps someone make more stuff. People throw around the term 'human capital,' usually incorrectly. They tend to confuse it with labor. But there is such a thing as human capital: it is all the things that stay with someone that allow their labor to return more productivity, such as experience, education and training. This form of capital is a better investment, as it is self-sustaining. Someone who uses their training keeps it fresh, experience builds on experience, and education grows with time in a fertile mind. And someone who is highly trained can pass on much of that training and experience to the next generation, magnifying the original investment in their training.
This brings us back to the idea of sustainability. Training is the most sustainable investment possible. It maintains itself, it appreciates on its own, it can pass itself on many-fold. The second most sustainable investment is the building of linkages, as those linkages tend to grow with time, and they sustain themselves with use. Investing in physical goods is generally only useful insofar as it supports either of these two investments, at least in this context.
//
"To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some." - 1 Corinthians 9:20-22.
Culture Navigators. In Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Strider mentions to Frodo that it is quite a trick to be able to disappear and re-appear wherever one wants. Paul seems to achieve this feat without the use of a Ring of Power. It is really quite a useful skill to be able to put on or take off cultures at will. All of us do this in little ways. An apostate academic pilot, I will use words like 'problematic' around scholars, so as to be understood, and I will use words like 'pull chocks' around pilots, so as to be understood. An IT professional will put on words (TCP-IP, Baud, and the like,) to communicate with his work peers, but he will take off his work words when he comes home to his wife (hopefully.) The people of God have done this far more effectively historically. Joseph was brilliant as an Egyptian Prime Minister, but he spoke the words of a tribesman to his brothers once revealed. Daniel was a cornerstone of the Jewish exile population, but he served superbly as Belteshazzar, the Persian administrator. The Apostle Paul was Paul the Jew when speaking to a synagogue, and Paul the Roman when speaking to Imperial officials. He abandoned his cultural pride, becoming all things to all people so that he might win some. Because he was able to put on and take off cultural robes as will, cultural conversion never got in the way converting someone to Christ.
Application: Tri-Cultural Fluency.
One very common mistake in applied Cultural Anthropology is the failure to recognize 'multicultural' as its own culture. We assume a multicultural person will automatically be fluent in the two (or more) constituent cultures. Consider the case of a third-generation American Latino. To a typical white American, he might be considered an ideal missionary to Latin America, assuming that he would be able to instantly put on or take off Latino culture. Unfortunately, there are a number of problems with this assumption. First, the amalgamation that is 'Latino' exists largely within Norteamericano borders, and exists largely as a function of the Norteamericano collision of cultures. To an Ecuadorian, a Cuban-American may be as foreign as a Haitian or an Eskimo. Second, even if he were to return to his grandparents country of origin, an American term such as 'Mexican-American' may imply a false singularity within the originating culture. There were some reasons that his family left three generations ago. While understood well by other Mexican-Americans with similar experiences, those reasons may be seen in a much poorer light by Mexican-Mexicans. For instance, in the case of Cuba, if his family left because they were part of the landed elites driven out by Castro, then he may be a worse candidate for missionary to Cuba than some random person off the street, depending on the group being ministered to. Finally, since many multicultural people invest much of their identity in their differences from the majority culture, they are often blind to their similarities with the majority culture. Our missionary may arrive in Ecuador only to find that people see 'Norteamericano' when they see him, not 'fellow Latino.' For a more extreme example, it would be ludicrous to send a tenth-generation Irish-American to Ireland assuming some special 'in.' Due to these reasons, a multicultural person requires cross-cultural training, possibly as much as a mono-cultural person, especially as generations progress.
All of this is a very long way of going about saying that any missionaries sent out need to be able to communicate in a number of cultural contexts, starting by recognizing their own. An urbanized tribesman needs to be able to recognize his actions in their cultural context of 'bi-cultural urbanized tribesman,' and then be able to translate those actions into the 'mono-cultural tribesman' and the 'mono-cultural urbanite' contexts. In order to do so, applied cultural anthropology training is likely in order. I recommend MBAs with specializations in cross-cultural business (or former Special Forces personnel,) or applied Christian cultural anthropolgists as a source of cross-cultural trainers.
//
"As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him. Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground. So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him. David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine's sword and drew it from the scabbard. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword. When the Philistines saw that their hero was dead, they turned and ran." - 1 Samuel 17:48-51
Critical Point Targeting. There are often layers and layers to a story. One layer of the story of the Shepherd-boy David has him standing on a battlefield across from a giant. All of that battlefield is focused on these two men, and the fate of the fight rests on their shoulders. They are standing at the critical point, and at that point one well-flung rock will be more important than a thousand spear-thrusts. There are layers of critical points, in this story, it is not just the battlefield. One level down, the story is decided when one small rock impacts a fairly small but absolutely vital nerve cluster on Goliath's forehead. The rock finds the critical point and becomes more important than the entirety of the giant's sword. One level up, this story is the beginning of the ascendance of Israel's second most important king, a man who plays a critical role in salvation of history and the line of Christ. Layers inside of layers of critical points found themselves focused on one smooth river rock, and an ounce and a half of common stone changed the course of history. A thousand years later, the fate of the entire universe hung quite literally upon four ounces of metal and two common boards of wood.
The servants of God have a unique habit of showing up at those critical points. An army turns upon a shepherd boy, but the shepherd boy finds himself there because of his faithfulness. Joseph finds himself in Egypt just in time to save the lives of his family, and hence the Messiah. Daniel finds himself the chief scientist in the Persian court, the man who trained the predecessors of the Magi to read the stars, so that the gifts of the Wise Men pay for the newly born Christ's life-saving flight to Egypt. The Author places His characters, if we will ask Him our roles. Surely the Author of critical points can teach us how to find them, if we ask.
One little piece of stone can change a whole battle. Trumpets and marching, done in a certain order a certain number of times, can conquer a well-defended city. Wood, cloth, and metal arranged in a certain fashion can reach an unreached people group on the wings of the wind. We call things different names, but really they are not. Remember that a sling was a weapon in David's day, nothing mystical. Just as an airplane is today. Yet the owner of that sling took on mythical proportions in the hands of God, inspiring his army to fight and win. Just as the owners of that airplane took on mythical proportions in God's hands, inspiring generations of missionaries. Stephen was just a man, a scribe, a man of little import by the world's accounting. Yet his words echo in the mind of Saul, over and over, until the martyr Stephen is fully avenged upon the man Saul, who dies at the hands of the new man Paul at his baptism. The blood of Stephen purchases salvation for many, for His blood is not His own. His is the blood of Christ, the same blood that pours from his murderer many years later upon the stones of Rome, the witness himself made witness. The question is not so much what a thing is, but what can it do in God's hands.
Application: Critical Point Analysis.
The first step in critical analysis must be to ask the story's Author. Pursuing Him in faithfulness, He will take us to the places where we need to be. The Author gave us minds as well. Therefore, we must use our hearts and minds in concert. The analytical piece of this puzzle calls us to examine any choices with an eye to multiplication. This is the Parable of the Talents. If a given investment does not have a possibility of multiplying itself several times over, then it should only be considered if it is critical to another endeavor, if its collateral impacts are more significant than its direct impact.
[End Excerpt.]
20:32 Posted in Thoughts | Permalink | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Email this
Trackbacks
The URL to Trackback this post is: http://odb130.blogspirit.com/trackback/1292015