The Need for Middleware in Faith and Practice (and Innovation)
Vincent Miller’s subtitle of Consuming Religion captures an easily overlooked aspect from his book. The subtitle reads, “Christian faith and practice in a consumer culture.” While this book obviously unpacks and critiques consumer culture, it is also (and just as much) an articulation and reflection on the connection between “faith and practice” with consumer culture as the vehicle or case study of that connection. In fact, two of his three concluding points are void of talk about consumer theology, but highlight the relationship of beliefs and practice. It seems Miller is perhaps more intrigued with helping theology “attend to the structures and practices that connect belief to daily life, [and] attend to the lived, everyday theology of believing communities” (226). Faith and practice; orthodoxy and orthopraxy; beliefs and actions; doctrines and expressions; imagination and implementation. Connecting these two are the aspiration of every minister. If it were simply that easy and straightford. Miller explains, “The application of doctrine to communal practice [however] is never a straightforward affair” (13).
Assuming there will be much dialogue this week on the consumer culture, allow me to comment more (but not exclusively) on the “faith and practice” angle. There seems to be something missing when there are only two categories: faith and practice. Miller tries to connect them (in part) with a call to “pay closer attention to the secular practices that inform our general attitudes toward culture as well as specifically ecclesial practices and structures of communication” (226). Others, too, try to give vocabulary and attention to this connection.
Tim Keller’s church planting manifesto, Center Church, begins with attempting to bridge the same gulf. He inquired why he could see churches of the same doctrinal foundation express themselves in such drastically different ways, while at the same time seeing churches with widely different doctrinal foundations expressing themselves in very similar ways. He offers the metaphor of computer hardware (doctrinal beliefs) and software (ministry programs). There is an important layer in between called middleware “that lies between the hardware and operating system itself” (17). He calls this a theological vision which includes vision and values, ministry “DNA”, emphases, stances, and philosophies of ministry. These are the elements that make a culture, not just a creed. Just as middleware is overlooked in general computer knowledge, so is this space of theological vision in ministry. It’s a challenging space that requires much more thought than is currently given.
Jason Clark employs the concept of map-making to the same ends. “The map-making method of my thesis functions as a kind of heuristic concept map, able to trace correspondence between church acts and beliefs in order to allow for instruction, construction and evaluation of the context of Evangelicalism within its relationship to capitalism” (Clark, 41). He, too, is exceptionally concerned with building this same bridge.
When I interact with entrepreneurial guru, Peter Drucker, I find myself wanting something in between faith and practice in innovation theory, too. Drucker’s definition of innovation has near synonyms for faith and practice: imagination and implementation. If one can flex their imaginative muscles, think outside the proverbial box, and have a means for implementing it, that should be sufficient for innovation (goes the argument). I find the need for something in the middle of the innovation space’s “faith and practice.” I would suggest integrative thinking as this middleware. Largely heralded by Roger Martin, integrative thinking offers mindsets for approaching complex (or “wicked”) problems. Many of the problems ministries are attempting to solve are these types of problems. Complex problems differ from simple problems (where the answers are fairly obvious), complicated (where the problem is difficult, but there is usually one “right” answers), and chaotic problems (where results have no correlation with their variables). Mistakes are made when complicated problem solving methodology are applied to complex solutions. Fixing a car is a complicated issue. There are many moving parts, and it takes a knowledge guru (mechanic) to find the solution. I recently took my vehicle in and it needed a new alternator. It would be ridiculous to assume the next person towing their vehicle in needs a new alternator. Complex spaces need new problem-solving paradigms.
Leading design thinker, Tim Brown, points to integrative thinking as the fountain for design thinking and innovation. He proposes, “Design thinking begins with …integrative thinking – that’s the ability to exploit opposing ideas and opposing constraints to create new solutions. In the case of design, that means balancing desirability (what humans need), with technical feasibility and economic viability.” Desirability, feasibility, and viability.
I consider an evaluation of innovation theory an acceptance of Vincent Miller’s invitation to consider and respond to processes of consumer culture. He suggests, “Theology must consider the structures and practices through with religious belief is insinuated into daily life. This requires a level of attention to cultural processes to which theology is unaccustomed” (226). The theology of innovation is one of those potential “unaccustomed processes.” The process of innovating around desirability, feasibility, and viability add to a consumer culture. Only asking the questions, “Does somebody want it?” “Is it feasible based on our resources?” and “Is it viable in the market?” leave little room for thoughtful engagement. I am constructing an argument to add another criterion to the “sweet spot” of innovation. Some sort of ethical question or second-ordered question needs to be added. It may be as simple as asking, “Should we innovate here?” or maybe something like, “What are the short-term and long-term implications for the community in which this innovation will be implemented?” Vincent Miller’s reliance on Augustine and the concept of desire is helpful here. An investigation and reworking of desirability as the impetus for innovation is greatly needed.
Miller’s assessment of consumer culture isn’t entirely negative, but poses the question of how we faithfully respond to the issues within consumer culture. I’m trusting the “middleware” of integrative thinking and the inclusion of another criterion for innovation selection and implementation are in step with Miller’s hopes of connecting the dots of faith and practice in a consumer culture.
__
Brown, Tim. “Designers — Think big!” Ted. Accessed February 2, 2020. https://www.ted.com/talks/tim_brown_designers_think_big/transcript?language=en#t-219694
Clark, Jason. Evangelicalism and Capitalism: A Reparative Account and Diagnosis of Pathogeneses in the Relationship. 2018.
Drucker, Peter Ferdinand. Innovation And Entrepreneurship: Practice And Principles. New York: Harper & Row, 1985.
Keller, Timothy. Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry in Your City. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.
Martin, Roger L. The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative Thinking. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press, 2007.
Miller, Vincent J. Consuming Religion: Christian Faith and Practice in a Consumer Culture. New York: Continuum, 2003.
About the Author
Shawn Cramer
10 responses to “The Need for Middleware in Faith and Practice (and Innovation)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Whether we look at consumerism, from different negative or positive positions, the question What and what do we consume? That is why we will analyze consumerism, its effects and consequences, in a Western context, with some North American nuances, especially the visible consequences that affect society.
Joe, I’m not honestly following what you’re saying, but I’m sure it’s on point 🙂
Shawn,
While I appreciate your Middleware perspective, is it truly an innovative way of approaching institutions that were crafted on innovative thinking? How are the questions you ask different than the ones asked generations ago in the rise of capitalism and evangelicalism? I wonder if lack of iteration along the way was more damaging than the innovation process (like, oh crap, that didn’t go as planned, let’s shift gears…or maybe that’s why we have so many denominations?) What have you discovered in your research?
I like the idea of integrative thinking as the middleware that you speak of. It’s the invisible hard work that bridges complex problems with solutions. In this case, if consumer culture within religion is a complex problem, what do you see as the solution? And how does that propsed solution inform the process of integrative thinking?
I’m also wondering if the entrepreneurial ethos that seems to describe the US generally, and white American Evangelicalism more specifically has created an addiction to innovation. Do you see a connection between consumerism and innovation?
Jer, good probing questions.
Re: complex problem of consumer culture and religion. Complex thinking attempts to keep two seemingly opposing truths in tension. I imagine the realities of communities and families seeking to steward and meet the their spiritual needs is holding one rope of that tension. The other part would be the damage when stewarding and meeting needs turns into commodification and the disproportion or disordered priority therein. Complex thinking would probably look for a kernel of truth or a kernel to keep at the root of consumer culture (rather than simpel cast it to the side), and consider how that might be levered for restorative mission.
Re: addiction to innovation. I suppose this depends on how you look at innovation. Yesterday, I was frustrated for a moment when the credit card didn’t respond to the tap feature and I had to have the teller insert it. My safety and privilege and first-world standing considered that a problem. I’m grateful I was quickly convicted. In that form of innovation, yes, the new and novel are overly praised in that environment. James KA Smith talks about Job’s black turtle neck picture as THE icon of our culture. If, however, you mean people longing for something new – a new song, a new justice, a new righting of a wrong – that is not unique to white American Evangelicalism in the slightest. Consider one example – The Future of Fundraising, who are laboring to broaden parachurch funding models beyond only those that have historically worked in white communities. They are using Design Thinking and Innovation language laboring towards ways to not “keep parachurch ministries white.” Innovation for them isn’t a way to means to save them 10 seconds in the check out line, but a plea for justice.
The middleware analogy is interesting, but did I miss the part having to do with the user? The best operating systems, programs, and even underlying vision and values come up short if the user isn’t utilizing the technology. My laptop is configured to do far more than what I use it for. Our faith is as well, but dependent on the practice of the faithful. As leaders, isn’t it crucial to keep the “user” in mind as we innovate, create, and design?
John, yes, user-engagement is a critical piece. For me, the intended “user” is ministers in the broad sense of the term. I have found with them, the mindset or framework of complex problems is a missing piece. It’s a little meta, but trying to use the innovative process to help them innovate.
Shawn,
Interesting middleware analogy. I am not sure how this would look since we aren’t hard wired like a computer. How often during the innovation process is the intended purpose of the designer considered? The reason I ask is that in a consumer culture it appears we are more concerned with what the end user thinks than we are about what God may think. I know this is a hard question to answer. Are their boundaries and places innovation shouldn’t go? We live in a culture that says “any and everything is possible”, how do you see this middleware process guiding us in avoiding what may appear to be good but may not be God?
This is exactly what I’m driving at in my analysis of the desirable/feasible/viable criteria for innovation. There is a lack of ethical or biblical criteria. Both first and second order implications would help govern the boundaries of innovation.
The only way to the other side is by the bridge? I love the idea of middleware. The traffic in-between. A place to process where we are headed. The thing is, there’s ‘no stopping’ on a bridge. The pressure is to keep going. Once the direction is decided, the crossing begins, it seems like there’s no space/chance for stopping to reconsider, to turn back to where we came from to reconsider the inspiration (perhaps motivation).
Between the doctrinal beliefs and ministry programs and the development of middleware. Sweet thought and challenging question. View forward to where we are heading and time for reflection on ‘why’.
There’s a rush to cross the bridge. The pressure is felt from all sides to not stop, to keep going. And, sometimes we find ourselves somewhere wishing we could go back, slow down a little with all the movement.
Consider the cost. Beyond the perceived need. The commodification and we become the slave of the commodity, the commodity of the commodity (ie. it is made, now we must cross that bridge).
I was chatting with someone the other day about the cost. Some reflection on the widespread cost, in view of the thoughts and topics we’ve been moved by over the last few weeks, ‘either our minds to the confusion or our hearts (deeper yet, our souls) to the popular compromise.’ What is happening?
This place of integration. Bro, totally appreciate the middleware questions. Wondering context in which they are asked?