Repent, For the Paradigm Shift is at Hand

Vineyard

We talked last time about the need for radical shifts in outlook — paradigm shifts — if we want to overcome neuro-cultural resistance to change, and mentioned religious conversion as an example. This week, we’ll look at how a paradigm shift gave birth to a church renewal movement in the late 80’s and early 90’s known as “the Vineyard.” I write about it because I was personally involved with it. This is NOT a critique or judgment of the Vineyard or anyone in it; I offer this only to further our examination of the neuro-cultural dynamics of religion.

Vineyard founder John Wimber taught missionary methods and church growth at Fuller Theological Seminary, and often heard reports from foreign fields of conversions and membership growth propelled by “signs and wonders” — gospel-style miracles and personal encounters. Western theology and sensibilities mostly explained away supernatural phenomena, but non-Westerners weren’t scandalized by gospel-era experience.

Wimber formulated a ministry model based on the non-Westerners’ worldview. His message was that the Kingdom of God truly was at hand — in the here and now — a concept explored by theologians such as Fuller’s George Eldon Ladd. To embrace and practice that message, Westerners would need to embrace a new worldview — a new paradigm of practical spirituality — that made sense of signs and wonders.

Wimber catalogued what he called “ministry encounters.” where Jesus and the disciples knew things about people they had not revealed, and where people would fall down, cry out, weep, etc. when engaged. Wimber was a Quaker, and adapted the practice of waiting to be moved by the Spirit to watching for these “manifestations of the Spirit” to occur in gatherings. “Ministry teams” trained in the new paradigm would then advance the encounters through the laying on of hands and other gospel techniques.

Wimber’s model began to draw crowds — not unlike the gospel events that drew crowds from towns and their surrounding regions, and sometimes went on all night. Very soon, the Vineyard’s “ministry training” and “ministry conferences” were all the buzz.  Attendees came with high expectations, and the atmosphere was electric.

Vineyard events began with soft rock music with lyrics that addressed God on familiar and sometimes intimate terms, invoking and inviting God’s presence and expressing devotion. The songs flowed nonstop from one to another. By the time the half hour or so of music was over, the crowd was in a state of high inspiration — they were “in-spirited,” “filled with the spirit,” God had “breathed” on them — all phrases connoted in the word’s original meaning when it entered the English language in the 14th century.

After worship, Wimber would offer paradigm-shifting instruction such as describing what a “ministry encounter” looks like — e.g. “manifestations” such as  shaking, trembling, emotional release, etc. He was funny and entertaining, as were other Vineyard speakers, and readily kept up the inspired vibe. Each session would then close with a “clinic” of “ministry encounters.”

The model worked. Vineyard conferences became legend, and soon Vineyard renewal teams traveled the world. I took two overseas trips and several around the U.S. Hosting churches sometimes billed our events as “revival meetings” — their attempt to describe the conference in traditional terms. We were in and out, caused a stir over a weekend, and that was the end of it unless the sponsoring church’s leadership and members adopted the requisite new worldview. Before long the Vineyard began to “plant” its own churches and became its own denomination.

Back in the day, I thought the Vineyard was truly the kingdom come. 30 years later, I view it as one of the most remarkable examples of neuro-cultural conditioning I’ve ever been part of. Neuroscience was nowhere near its current stage of research and popular awareness back then, but what we know now reveals that Vineyard events were the perfect setting for paradigm shifting. As we’ve seen previously, inspiration releases the brain’s “feel good” hormones, activates the same brain areas as sex, drugs, gambling, and other addictive activities, generates sensations of peace and physical warmth, lowers the brain’s defensive allegiance to status quo, and raises risk tolerance — the perfect neurological set up for adopting a new outlook.[1]

As for what happened to Wimber and the Vineyard, that’s beyond the scope of this post, but easy to find if you’re inclined. Stanford anthropology professor Tanya Marie Luhrmann offers an academic (and sympathetic) analysis in her book When God Talks Back:  Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship With God and her TEDX Stanford talk.

[1] “What Religion Does To Your Brain,”,: Medical News Today (July 20, 2018). See also this prior post in this series. And for a look at thee dynamics in quite another setting — finding work you love — see this post from my other blog.

The Hostilities of Change:  Surprise, Death, and War

Storming of the Bastille

“Ideas that require people to reorganize their picture of the world provoke hostility.”

Science historian James Gleick,
in his bestseller Chaos:  The Making of a New Science,

We looked last time at neuro-cultural resistance to change, and asked what it takes to overcome it.

It takes a paradigm shift — which, according to Merriam-Webster, is “an important change that happens when the usual way of thinking about or doing something is replaced by a new and different way.” Physicist and philosopher Thomas Kuhn coined the term in a work that was itself a paradigm shift in how we view the dynamics of change.

“The Kuhn Cycle is a simple cycle of progress described by Thomas Kuhn in 1962 in his seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions… Kuhn challenged the world’s current conception of science, which was that it was a steady progression of the accumulation of new ideas. In a brilliant series of reviews of past major scientific advances, Kuhn showed this viewpoint was wrong. Science advanced the most by occasional revolutionary explosions of new knowledge, each revolution triggered by introduction of new ways of thought so large they must be called new paradigms. From Kuhn’s work came the popular use of terms like ‘paradigm,’ ‘paradigm shift,’ and ‘paradigm change.’”

Thwink.org

Our cultural point of view determines what we see and don’t see, blinds us to new awareness and perspective. That’s why our visions of a “new normal” are often little more than uninspiring extrapolations of the past.[1] Paradigm shifts offer something more compelling:  they shock our consciousness so much that we never see things the same again; they stun us into abrupt about-faces. Without that, inertia keeps us moving in the direction we’re already going. If we even think of change, cognitive dissonance makes things uncomfortable, and if we go ahead with it anyway, things can get nasty in a hurry.

“People and systems resist change. They change only when forced to or when the change offers a strong advantage. If a person or system is biased toward its present paradigm, then a new paradigm is seen as inferior, even though it may be better. This bias can run so deep that two paradigms are incommensurate. They are incomparable because each side uses their own paradigm’s rules to judge the other paradigm. People talk past each other. Each side can ‘prove’ their paradigm is better.

“Writing in his chapter on The Resolution of Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn states that:

‘If there were but one set of scientific problems, one world within which to work on them, and one set of standards for their solution, paradigm competition might be settled more or less routinely by some process like counting the number of problems solved by each.

‘But in fact these conditions are never met. The proponents of competing paradigms are always at least slightly at cross-purposes. Neither side will grant all the non-empirical assumptions that the other needs in order to make its case.

‘Though each may hope to convert the other to his way of seeing his science and its problems, neither may hope to prove his case. The competition between paradigms is not the sort of battle that can be solved by proofs.’”

Thwink.org

What does it take to detonate a logjam-busting “revolutionary explosion of new knowledge”? Three possibilities:

The Element of Surprise. [2]  We’re not talking “Oh that’s nice!” surprise. We’re talking blinding flash of inspiration surprise — a eureka moment, moment of truth, defining moment — that changes everything forever, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. In religious terms, this is St. Paul’s conversion on the Damascus Road or St. Peter’s vision of extending the gospel to the gentiles. In those moments, both men became future makers, not future takers, embodying the view of another scientist and philosopher:

“The best way to predict the future is to create it.”[3]

A New Generation.  Without the element of surprise, paradigm shifts take a long time, if they happen at all.

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents
and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die,
and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”[4]

In religious terms, that’s why the Exodus generation had to die off in 40 years in the wilderness, leaving a new generation for whom Moses’ new paradigm was the only one they’d ever known.

Violence.  Or, if the new paradigm’s champions can’t wait, they can resort to violence, brutality, persecution, war… the kinds of power-grabbing that have long polluted religion’s proselytizing legacy.

Surprise, death, violence… three ways to bring about a paradigm shift. That’s true in religion, science, or any other cultural institution.

More next time.

[1] Carl Richards, “There’s No Such Thing as the New Normal,” New York Times ( December 20, 2010).

[2] Carl Richards, op. cit.

[3] The quote has been ascribed to a lot of different people, including Peter Drucker and computer scientist Alan Kay. But according to the Quote Investigator, “The earliest evidence appeared in 1963 in the book ‘Inventing the Future’ written by Dennis Gabor who was later awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in holography.”

[4] Max Planck, founder of quantum theory, in his Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers.

What Iconoclast.blog Is About

icono1

I’ve spent the past ten years writing books, blogs, and articles on technology, jobs, economics, law, personal growth, cultural transformation, psychology, neurology, fitness and health… all sprinkled with futurism. In all those seemingly unrelated topics, I’ve been drawn to a common theme:  change. One lesson stands out:

Beliefs create who we are individually and collectively.
The first step of change is to be aware of them.
The second step is to leave them behind.

Beliefs inform personal and collective identity, establish perspective, explain biases, screen out inconsistent information, attract conforming experience, deflect non-conforming information and experience, and make decisions for us that we only rationalize in hindsight.

Those things are useful:  they tame the wild and advance civilization, help us locate our bewildered selves and draw us into protective communities. We need that to survive and thrive.  But they can be too much of a good thing. They make us willfully blind, show us only what we will see and hide what we won’t. They build our silos, sort us into polarities, close our minds, cut us off from compassion, empathy, and meaningful discourse.

Faced with the prospect of change, beliefs guard status quo against the possibility that something else is possible — which is precisely what we have to believe if we’re after change. Trouble is, to believe just that much threatens all our other beliefs. Which means that, if we want something else,

We need to become iconoclasts.

The Online Etymology Dictionary says that “iconoclast” originally meant “breaker or destroyer of images,” originally referring to religious zealots who vandalized icons in Catholic and Orthodox churches because they were “idols.” Later, the meaning was broadened to “one who attacks orthodox beliefs or cherished institutions.”

Our beliefs are reflected, transmitted, and reinforced in our religious, national, economic, and other cultural institutions. These become our icons, and we cherish them, invest them with great dignity, revere them as divine, respect them as Truth with a capital T, and fear their wrath if we neglect or resist them. We confer otherworldly status on them, treat them as handed down from an untouchable level of reality that supersedes our personal agency and self-efficacy. We devote ourselves to them, grant them unquestioned allegiance, and chastise those who don’t bow to them alongside us.

Doing that, we forget that our icons only exist because they were created out of belief in the first place. In the beginning, we made them up. From there, they evolved with us. To now and then examine, challenge, and reconfigure them and the institutions that sustain them is an act of creative empowerment — one of the highest and most difficult gifts of being human.

Change often begins when that still small voice pipes up and says, “Maybe not. Maybe something else is possible.” We are practiced in ignoring it; to become an iconoclast requires that we listen, and question the icons that warn us not to. From there, thinking back to the word’s origins, I like “challenge” better than “attack.”  I’m not an attacker by nature, I’m an essayist — a reflective, slow thinker who weighs things and tries to make sense of them. I’m especially not a debater or an evangelist — I’m not out to convince or convert anyone, and besides, I lack the quick-thinking mental skill set.

I’m also not an anarchist, libertarian, revolutionary… not even a wannabe Star Wars rebel hero, cool as that sounds. I was old enough in the 60’s to party at the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, but then it failed like all the other botched utopias — exposed as one more bogus roadmap claiming to chart the way back to the Garden.

Sorry, but the Garden has been closed for a long, long time.

garden closed

A friend used to roll his eyes and say, “Some open minds ought to close for business.” Becoming an iconoclast requires enough open-mindedness to suspend status quo long enough to consider that something else is possible. That’s not easy, but it is the essential beginning of change, and it can be done.

Change needs us to be okay with changing our minds.

All the above is what I had in mind when I created Iconoclast.blog. I am aware of its obvious potential for inviting scoffing on a good day, embarrassment and shaming on a worse, and vituperation, viciousness, trolling, and general spam and nastiness on the worst. (Which is why I disabled comments on the blog, and instead set up a Facebook page that offers ample raving opportunity.) Despite those risks, I plan to pick up some cherished icons and wonder out loud what might be possible in their absence. . If you’re inclined to join me, then please click the follow button for email delivery, or follow the blog on Facebook. I would enjoy the company.

#icons #iconoclast #psychology “philosophy #sociology #neurology #biology #narrative #belief #society #socialstudies #religion #law #economics #work #jobs #science #industry #commerce #education #medicine #arts #entertainment #civilization #evolution #perception #reality #subjective #culture #culturalchange #change #paradigmshift #transformation #growth #personalgrowth #futurism #technology #identity #rational #consciousness #cognition #bias #cognitivebias#agency #selfefficacy