Calvinian Evolution
Published by Blandus June 7th, 2005 in UncategorizedAs much as some of my cohorts in the religio-political arena rail against the destructive forces of uncritical acceptance of the Theory of Evolution, you would think they might be more careful to avoid the consequences of “survival of the fittest” themselves. Alas, what seems to happen in religious organizations is that people with certain area of expertise (let us say, in process or information management) give their opinions only to have them rejected by the more “advanced” theologian – who believes that, since he has been selected by God to be one of the Elect and has been providentially placed in a position of authority, can safely assume that he has received Bezalel-like knowledge of all things related his job and must guard against “secular” thinking.
The result is that only the “most spiritual” people advance and thrive in the organization and talented/skilled people are disenfranchised and disillusioned with the “things of God.” This is not wisdom, but is the height of folly. Yes, a religious organization must remain true to its religious values and goals. Yet pursuing these goals in a way that dogmatizes inefficient processes and devalues skilled workers only drives people from the group, and worse, runs the risk of removing the values and passions that drove them to service in the first place.
Unless your name is Bezalel or Oholiab, perhaps you should approach your pastorate, committee headship, or presidency with a little more humility.
Very true. I haven’t observed an animus against skilled non-religious workers per se, but that is perhaps because not many churches that I’ve been a part of had, say, marketing executives or such as part of the membership.
I have, however, seen a general animus against using “things of the world” like marketing strategies and so forth in church-work. The fear is always that the church will be polluted or watered down by the world. But the church is already in the world, and is designed to be a part of the world, not a fortress against the world. “Worldly” tactics which can be adopted without watering down the message—and most of them can be—should be enthusiastically pursued, in my opinion.
Yes, a healthy understanding of the regulative principle will help in these situations.
Your first parargraph is interesting. I was not exactly referring to the secular, but to the skilled religious members of a particular group. It may be true that one who is less trained theologically may not recognize the moral error in the common practices of his profession - but in non-moral (even less-moral?) decisions, some deference should be given to those who have some expertise in the subject.