Nathan Key

I made a challenge for myself to re-brand what I do for a living.

Some call me a trainer. I've also been known as facilitator, performance coach, mentor, learning guide, instructional designer, writer and all sorts of other titles that all fall within corporate learning and development. Well, I decided that I needed to create something new and different that really spoke to what I think about my own role and my abilities.

I came up with the title, Learning Architect.

I think this speaks to what I do. I create spaces where learning happens. I perform this role in the classroom, on the computer, in small and large groups. I do this at work and at church. I think it pretty much summarizes how I think of myself. So, that's how I'll secretly refer to myself- even when my job title says something different.

It's been too long since the President's State of the Union Address for this to be considered very relevant (it's certainly not timely), but I wanted to briefly admit that I actually agree with the President on some areas he feels the country needs to improve upon in order for us to remain competitive in the global community.

Innovation: I agree. I think we've always been a country that has enabled those who want to dream BIG do so. We've enjoyed a few hundred years of some of the most innovative ideas known to mankind and I think that our national, state, and local policies should be structured so that they encourage, rather than discourage, ideas and innovation.

Where we disagree is how to encourage and invigorate innovation. I don't think that nationally funded government research projects are the answer. President Obama seems to think that the private sector doesn't see R&D as important. I disagree. I think they'd spend a lot more time on R&D if we'd keep them out of the wings of Congress (aka, get rid of the Lobbyists) and force them to be productive and competitive again. Instead, they lay about in the halls of Congress steering policy instead of productivity.

I'm anti-business. NO! I'm very keen on the free market. I just don't think you can call it a free market if Big Business has the ability to hold our country hostage to the idea that they are "Too Big to Fail...". I disagree with big businesses being allowed to gain the ear of Congress and manipulate them into laws that make innovation and competitiveness more difficult for everyone (except big business). The repeal of a lot of regulation and restriction would encourage smaller businesses- local businesses- to become more innovative. The repeal of some regulations would actually devastate some of these "too big to fail" businesses and remove the stranglehold that they've created over our National Policy.

Education: I agree with the President here, as well. I think we've got a terrible situation on our hands in the United States. We need to improve our education system. This is one reason why my wife and I aren't interested in sending our children to public school.

But, I'm not certain the the Federal government needs to be in the education business. I think the businesses of America (and the world) should have more to say about what they need and how they think we can get it. I think we need to look into encouraging businesses to invest in the workforce (not taxed into it). When the baby-boomers are gone from the workforce in a few years, I think businesses across the country are going to be struggling to find the talent they need and very quickly there will be an incentive in creating a more talented pool to choose from.

Infrastructure: Oddly enough, most people think that Libertarians are anti-roads and law enforcement? I'm not. I agree that the infrasturcture of our country needs to be improved. Our airports are awful. Our roads stink. So do our rails.

But I also don't think that we need to push the country further into debt in order to fill in potholes. Again, I think there are more creative ways where businesses and other private investors help pick up the tab (of their own will) rather than creating national spending projects.

So, all in all- I actually enjoyed the vision that the President cast. I think these three areas of innovation, education, and infrastucture are very profitable and beneficial paths that we should pursue. I'm just not on board with the implemenation methods that he's suggesting to accomplish these tasks.

I saw an article this morning about Judy Clarke, a modest, humble (and high profile) public defender who has represented some of the most notorious, reviled killers of recent history. She will apparently be representing Jared Lee Loughner when he goes to trial and she had this to say about her philosophy:

"None of us, including those accused of a crime, wants to be defined by the worst moment, or the worst day of our lives." - Judy Clarke

The rest of the article details Clarke's humble dedication to defending anyone who needs her help in court- even the worst offenders.

What are your thoughts?
Are there any actions that are "LIFE DEFINING" or should our actions be judged independently?
Do vile criminals deserve to be defended?
Should public funds be used to provide lawyers in open and shut cases such as these?

I love the Liar Lunatic or Lord argument, but it's pretty silly.

If you don't know this famous argument (first made by CS Lewis, I believe), here's a short summary: You say Jesus was a good man, but you don't believe he was God. Fine. You're either calling him a LIAR (He was dishonest about who he said he was) or a LUNATIC (He falsely believed that he was God). Either way, you're stuck with the problem of explaining how a Good Teacher whose ideals we should follow could be compatible with a person who wasn't honest with us about his person-hood or was mentally unstable.

This is a pretty good argument at first glance. I'll admit that I was smitten with it for quite a while.

But the problem is that the Liar, Lunatic, or Lord Argument is that in essence it's claiming that a Liar can NEVER tell the truth and that a Lunatic can NEVER say something sane or worth repeating. I think you'd find us hard pressed to make that sort of leap. Liars are usually proficient at telling truth-telling; just think of all the politicians who lie through their teeth to get elected and sometimes end up passing legislation that's worthwhile. And Lunatics are sometimes better at seeing reality than the rest of us- they are often simply missing the filter that allows them to interact with the rest of us in a reasonable, rational manner.

Now, this isn't to say that Jesus wasn't Lord. I believe He is. I just don't like this particular argument because it oversimplifies matters where there isn't a simple answer.

This series is about the importance of the oral tradition and reading scripture out loud, with other people. I know, at first glance to be a very strange proposal. I mean, aren’t there more important things to discuss about scripture or about community than the importance of reading the bible, out loud together?

For a few years now, I’ve wrestled with that question.

I keep coming back to this topic over and over again and struck by its importance. I think it’s partly due to the environment I live in, here in the West. We have a very independent spirit about us which has contributed to our success. The individual spirit it’s crept into all sorts of areas of our life- our political structure, business practices, and most of all, our religious heritage. In fact, it took me a while to really pinpoint this missing element from my own life. I don’t claim to have it all resolved either. I’m really just hoping that this series will evoke some thoughts in others to see if this is truly a good idea, or merely a misaligned pattern drawn from my own, personal experience.

So, instead of jumping in with theory or praxis, I thought I might share a few stories- a few scenes as it were, to shed some light on my own experience over the past few years. These three scenes embody of what’s been nagging at me. Together (along with other scenes that I don’t have time for), they form an outline of a misalignment that I’ve sensed for the past few years. I hope that they will invite you into the discussion and spark some interest in you to explore this topic with me.

Scene One:

If you’ve attended an American church for any length of time, you’re probably familiar with a similar rendition of the following story:

As a small group bible study nears its end, during prayer request time, someone in the group lets everyone know that her computer died and she is looking into different options for replacement. She needs the group to pray about it because she isn’t certain how much money she has and which computer really meets her needs. She’d like a Mac, for after all it’s the computer that she likes the most, but she’s not certain that she wants it for the right reasons or if she can afford one at all.

Later, after a week of prayer and meditation, she returns and tells the group that while thinking through her decision, she turned to the book of Genesis and began reading about the garden and God’s command to eat of any tree in the forest (with one exception: Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil). She knew at that very moment that the decision was clear- God wanted her to get a PC. Why else would she be directed toward a passage about the “forbidden fruit” (which was obviously God’s symbol for the APPLE computer she was concerned about)? She thanks the group for their prayer and announces that the request has been answered- scripture has been used to clear up her issue about which computer she should purchase as a replacement.

Scene Two:

This story is actually true, (the former was a myth that I invented based on similar experience regarding individual interpretations of scripture).

The other week I was wondering around the bookstore when my eyes happened upon a display table filled with all sorts of different bibles. It seems that no matter who you are there is a bible tailor-made for your taste and style.

Traditional leather bibles, thump-able and what have you, stood out clearly on the table. But there were also women’s devotional bibles, teen devotional bibles, men’s bibles, and girl’s bibles. There were children’s bibles- with mostly pictures, and bibles that looked more like a journal than scripture. There were poetic interpretations and slang versions. There were big ones that called attention to themselves and some so small you could fit them in your pocket. There were bright colors, soft colors, hardbacks, paperbacks and every variety in-between.

One in particular caught my eye. It seemed to sum up the entire experience. It was the Solo Bible Devotional from Eugene Peterson. Now, while the Solo Bible Devotional isn’t actually a bible (it’s a collection of scripture and thoughts from Peterson and spaces for self-reflection), it captured my attention because it seemed to be encouraging each person to create their own unique experience.

“You can do it!” It called to me. “This bible and you are all you need to begin your solo journey in Christ.”

Scene Three:

During the past few years, I’ve been admiring the work of musicians who have invited their fan base to remix or reinterpret songs. Radiohead, Ben Folds, Phoenix, and 3Eb (among others) have all made their contributions in one form or another. I’ve blogged about each of them in the past because in a way, it represents the practical outworking of the postmodern “Death of the Author” doctrine that’s been broadcast by art critics and university professors. The artist’s invitation to the public to reinterpret a song is a way that they create a unique experience for each listener.

It’s a similar concept that video game designers use when introducing a “sandbox” map or character that can be customized by players.

Perhaps this idea is represented in its finest form within the work of the folks over at Auto-Tune the News. You don’t need to look much further than their site to know that reinventing arbitrary videos can make them even more fantastic than they were to begin with. In fact, many of these remixes are much more famous than the original content.

Three scenes:

1. A girl who knows that the scripture has authority over her purchasing decisions
2. The solo bible devotional, inviting us on our own unique journey
3. The 'death of the author' and a culture that embraces and encourages personal interpretation

These (and others like them) represent the cultural underpinnings that I live in. Perhaps you, too, have experienced stories like these in your own life. Over the next few posts, I hope to explore exactly why I feel that reinstituting the oral tradition and community reading are so vitally important for us today.

I hope you'll join me, too, or this will be a fairly contradictory exercise.

I've got this fantastic idea for a blog series that I've been milling over in my head for years now. I want to write a series on the lost art of reading biblical narrative and scripture together. Reading, out loud, together with others is how the majority of people throughout the course of history have taken in spiritual guidance.

In modern times, we've got access to books of all kinds as well as digital media that has put scripture into the hands of laypeople and allowed us to have individualized reading plans and devotion. I think this is mainly a good thing, but I wonder if we're missing something by leaving behind the legacy of corporate reading and community interpretation.

Anyone want to join me for the series?

"What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself, the land contend with the sea? ls there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?"

- Private Witt (The Thin Red Line)

* * *

This opening line of questions frames the entire experience of 'The Thin Red Line' and makes me wonder if the movie is really about WWII or if it's much deeper and more meaningful than the story of American soldiers taking an island in the South Pacific.

Of course, these thoughts comes not only from watching the film but also reading through The Thin Red Line (Philosophers on Film). Between the two, I'm blown away that a movie has this much potential meaning packed into it. I say potential meaning because I'm taking away insights cast through the filter of a bunch of philosophers who had nothing to do with the film itself. They may be far off course from the original intent of the film. In fact, there's a good chance that the director didn't have much more in mind than making a movie about war. But whatever the case, this film has given an awful lot of philosophical and religious fodder to academics, and I'm enjoying the experience of borrowing the ideas of other people and wrestling with thoughts that are much bigger than my own.

A question that's bugged philosophers for some time is 'why is there something rather than nothing?' This is a difficult question because there IS something, and so we can't even begin to fathom that there could be a situation where there is nothing.

But why?

Why do we exist?

Why does God exist?

Why is there something, rather than nothing?

I've been listening to Herbert Dreyfus' lecture series on Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard on the way to work over the past few weeks. He's quite a good lecturer and I'm not only intrigued by his insights into the content of Kierkegaard's most famous work, I'm also blown away by a few aspects of the lecture that seem to be present in front of me in my every day life.

I want to give additional time to these ideas and mill them over in my mind for a bit, but I also feel the need to write some of them down lest I forget them.

According to Dreyfus, Kierkegaard's makes an interesting differentiation between the Universal Ethic (a Greek ideal) and the "Suspension of the Ethical" for those who are engaged in an Unconditional Commitment (a Judeo-Christian ideal). The reason this concept stuck out to me, personally, is that living here in the West, I've grown up in a culture that straddles these two concepts. We value both conformity and individuality simultaneously.

I heard a joke a few years ago that summarizes this experience pretty well (I think I saw it on a t-shirt): "I want to be different, just like everybody else."

We live within this duality in a lot of different arenas- one that's specific to my experience is my religious/spiritual life. Over the past few years I've attended "Christian" conferences, events, or church services where the speakers have made a very strong argument for Absolute Truth and Absolute Ethics (which is more Greek/Rational) even in the midst of our Judeo Christian tradition (which is based on Revelation/Subjectivity).

Now, I know that comment regarding absolute truth and relativism is sure to get a lot of resistance, so let me clarify it a bit more before I'm pounced upon for abandoning my faith. Kierkegaard reestablished a very clear historical perspective that the concept of Absolute Truth and Rationality are Greek- not Christian. It's Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle (Greek Philosophers) who responsible for the idea of a Universal Ethic. Now, it's true that their influence permeated Western Christianity to the point where Augustine, Kant, Dante and other Christian philosophers all adopted a very Absolutist attitude. And with that sort of thinking affecting early church reasoning and writing, it's also true that we've been impacted (in the West) to the point where we don't have a clear understanding of the original Judea-Christian ethic, which was very personal and subjective. But there are still small semblances that remain, even with our viewpoint washed thoroughly with the Socratic Method.

For those of us who are engaged in an Unconditional Commitment to God, there are instances when we may be called to do something very personal to our own experience rather than the requirement of all. We ask “what is God's will for MY life” rather than merely His plan for the Church/collective; a hint that we care about the very personal/subjective nature of our relationship with God. And there are even times when we may find ourselves being required to do what which is "outside" of the Universal Ethic. One instance that Kierkegaard explores in Fear and Trembling is where God requires Abraham to murder (sacrifice) his son- a universally unethical, immoral act which would be sin for him to enact in any situation other than the one he's presented with.

Luckily, we know the end of the story- God provided an alternative sacrifice (a ram) in Isaac's stead. So, for us, it's a little easier to rationalize the instance. He wasn't really forced to act out the murder/sacrifice. But for Abraham, trekking up the mountain with his boy by his side, wrestling with the knowledge that he was about to kill the offspring who had been promised to him- there was a clear problem. Although the Universal Ethic says that it's wrong to kill- especially wrong to kill your children, God had revealed an instruction that usurped the Ethical. And in Abraham's Unconditional Commitment to God, he was ready to do the unthinkable. And this was accounted as Faith.

That said, it's actually Revelation rather than Rationality that we adhere to as the Ultimate Right for the Judeo-Christian Ethic. The problem for us is that it's a rather difficult concept to reconcile with the claims of "Absolute Truth" that are proclaimed by most prominent Christian leaders in the world today. They seem contradictory. And they are. They are birthed out of two traditions that have shaped our thinking here in the West.

The only way I can even come close to reconciling the two is in this:

It seems that the only exception to the Universal Ethic is when Revelation clearly counters it. But Revelation never comes from the individual. It always comes from outside of the individual- either from God or from the consensus of many individuals. This said, individually perpetuated murder is still Universally Wrong. If God clearly commands a death, perhaps it could be said that the individual is no longer driving the choice- it's being delivered to the individual from an outside force greater than the individual. So, Abraham in this case would not be violating the Universal Ethic of self/individually perpetuated murder. Likewise, an individual jailor who flips the switch on an electric chair is not a murderer even though a prisoner dies by his hand for a jury of peers may come to consensus that the person's life should be taken. This Revelation or outside opinion has not violated the Universal Ethic, but enhanced it and made the way for exceptions.

I don't know that this is what Kierkegaard has in mind. He believed that it's an individual's unconditional commitment to God (or to ideals) that allows faith to suspend the ethical. But I think my way is a better reconciliation of these two ideals.

I live in the paradox, as Kierkegaard did, and I want it both ways.

Last night, Beth and I decided to attend Northland Church again (for the second week in a row). I'm really glad that we did. It was inspiring to say the least.

At the beginning of his sermon, Joel Hunter (the senior pastor), ascended the stage and revealed that it had been a very difficult week. His granddaughter has been in hospital due to brain cancer. He was noticeably shaken as he related the story to the congregation.

Two things really struck me about what he said.

He began by telling us that he's been praying for his church all week because of the situation. "Although our family is under a lot of stress," he said, "we're confident that our God is a God who heals. He may wish to heal her physically here on earth, or he may choose to heal her completely by bringing her into His presence. But either way, we're confident that God will do what's best for our family."

If that weren't enough, he continued...

"Our family is under stress, but we are not shaken. But that doesn't mean that everyone who goes through something like this isn't. In fact, I know that Satan would like nothing better than to use something like what's going on in my family to shake you to the core and cause you to question God's goodness and mercy. And so I've been praying for you this week. I've been praying that your faith will be strengthened whether you're dealing with your own personal pain or if you're seeing pain in the life of a friend or a pastor."

And that's about when the tears began to creep into the corners of my eyes and my throat got that feeling... you know, the one where you're on the verge of sobbing.

Why was I suddenly about to burst out crying?

Well, I was in the presence of a man who is so in tune with the church he shepherds, that even his own very personal pain is a cause to pray for and encourage his flock. Instead of being more self-focused, he became more other-focused.

That said, I think we've decided to put some roots down at Northland. Mainly because we both want to learn from a man like that. And, honestly, I want to be like that, too.