Following up to my “U-Theory and the Cross” post.
One aspect of the U-Theory that Senge and the rest did not seem to speak to was the process of ongoing transformation. In my personal life – especially my spirituality – I can see moments where I have navigated this downward movement; and been presencing in that place… kind of a dark night of the soul season. I have been come to have an a-ha moment of realization. Only to discover that, over time, I experienced that down move again.
As an ongoing process the “U” might be more of a “W” or even a wave. As we move up the “realizing” side of the “U” the natural and necessary process is that the new reality which is being realized becomes embodied, and over time reified and institutionalized. At some point the process invites us to, once again, seek more than what we have realized and we begin the downward “Sensing” all over again.
As we move down the left side of the “U” we are “Sensing” that there could be more than what we have experienced, thus we move away from our place of relative certainty as we deconstruct where we have been. “Sensing” maybe part of the process of both repentance and (to use an old term from my childhood) backsliding. At the bottom of the “U” this crisis of uncertainty, while the upswing is “Realizing” a new response born of presencing with the chaos.
Let’s not kid ourselves, this ongoing wave is not predictable or consistent and neat.
And so we gain a greater sense of the potential conflict between people.
If person A is in the process early “Sensing” and they encounter person B who is already “Realizing” a new reality what kind of spacious engagement would be necessary for relationship? How do we connect as communities/persons in process with others who are in different places along the process?
Peace, dwight
Fascinating.. Im running this thru the grid of an article by Bill Buker titled "Spiritual Development and the Epistemology of Systems Theory." Not quite as nasty as it sounds, and very helpful in thinking about change. (Oral Roberts U and Graduate School of Missions). In the paper Bill talks about three orders of change, and his particular paradigm comes from reflecting on the structure and effectiveness of AA.
Im also struck that your diagram and discussion calls to mind the hermeneutical circle, but horizontally…
I think its called "Grace". 🙂
I think if the relationship is important, then people on different parts of the wave will accommodate each other.
Heres two factors to look at:
1. You want critical mass. So,, you want people with similar waves to be in fellowship. Five or six of them. It doesnt have to be the whole, lifetime wave, just the past few months or years need to coincide.
2. Most likely, individuals will be traversing waves in the context of institutions. Those institutions, themselves are on waves. The waves of the institutions should have some correlation with the waves of the individuals.
all that training, and financial investment in seminary, and you come out scribbling like a kindegarten kid.
but i do like it!! :7)
Dwight,
On this blog and the other "U" theory blog. You may be aware that for a long time NT scholars have sorted out Phil 2:5-11 along the same line, with the Incarnation finding its abasement in the Cross. The "story power" of this text is more powerful than many realize.
And, you are right to point to "other" narratives for the gospel. The "bridge" model speaks to many today (in spite of what many think) but other models do, too. And that is why it is so important to exploit all the metaphors of redemption (which is one of those models) when "gospel" in our world. The classic theories of atonement, in spite of all the chatter about their being out-moded, simply arent outmoded and carry within them their own narrative power. Where many of are rankled is that some think they can all be reduced to a "master narrative," and it just so happens that that one master narrative is a penal subsitution narrative.
And, great to see that you have stuff on the perichoresis.
Blessings,
Scot