Ants, Orcs and Al Qaeda: God’s Prophets? (Guest Blogger: Ryan)

This guest blog is by my friend Ryan Hollingsworth from Chicago.  I LOVE this topic for so many reasons, not least because it is so provocative!  ;)   We had some great conversations about the relevance of these issues for the church when he and his wife Andrea visited us over the summer.  I'm eager to see where the conversation goes from here.  From Ryan:
________________________

Next June, I will graduate with my Master of Divinity degree and hope to become a Christian pastor. So I have a professional interest in the church. But I also have a personal passion—an almost visceral obsession with the church. So it is no surprise that things I learn and encounter in a variety of settings tend to coalesce as ecclesiological musings. “What does this mean for the church?” is a common question that frames and propels my thoughts.

It is this question that I hope echoes in the background of your mind as you read the rest of this post. As we explore a relatively new trend that is finding its way into many fields of study and application—history, sociology, communication, biology, computer science, leadership, criminology, filmmaking, and politics—I hope we ask what implications (if any) this has for the church. Let us propose adding Christian theology, specifically ecclesiology to the mix and see what it has to contribute to and learn from the dialog.

The trend I refer to has no name of its own. It is actually a cluster of inter-related thoughts, each with different terms. But it has a common thread: the move from centralized to decentralized; from stability to fluidity; from controlled hierarchy to networks of autonomous groups or agents.

Some biologists like Deborah Gordon at Stanford noticed that certain creatures demonstrate complex behaviors as a group (e.g. building elaborate nests, allocating workers to tasks, finding the shortest route to the best food source, mounting military defense against other ant colonies, etc.), even though they are not particularly smart individually. “‘Ants aren’t smart,’ Gordon says. ‘Ant colonies are.’” How is this possible with no one agent in charge? This question has led to recent developments called swarm intelligence. Instead of a leadership structure we would expect, they rely on a self-organizing system utilizing countless interactions between individual ants. These interactions are based on remarkably simple rules. Cumulatively, however, they create the complex and sometimes unpredictable behavior seen in a swarm.

Flocks of birds and schools of fish don’t run into each other, even though they move together so closely, wheeling around in a seeming demonstration of a group mind. However, these critters are just acting on simple rules. In 1986, a computer graphics researcher named Craig Reynolds created a computer simulation that moved like a flock of birds (“boids” in his program). He used only three rules. “1) avoid crowding nearby boids, 2) fly in the average direction of nearby boids, and 3) stay close to nearby boids.”

The technology has developed and was recently used to marvelous results in the Lord of the Rings movies. Steve Regelous wrote a software program he called Massive. “I believe we need to simulate the interactions between individuals realistically to get decent crowd behavior.” The “decent crowd behavior” they were looking to create was warring elves and orcs on a huge scale! Instead of trying to animate tens of thousands of orcs (which is an impossibly daunting task), Regelous developed a single artificially intelligent agent who could make decisions for itself. The agent had the ability to attack, defend, run, turn, and stop. The team at Weta Digital then created adjustable 3D bodies for the agents and used motion capture to animate the movements in the agent’s “library” of actions. Once they had a realistic orc, they just multiplied the whole thing by however many thousands and they had an army of orcs who fought their own battle. You just had to record it, perhaps tweaking the behavior with certain environmental factors or other motivations. It was so realistic that in early tests, some soldiers ran away from the battlefield!

This trend is not just a boon for the silver screen, but in the business world as well. Eric Bonabeau, a leader in the field of swarm intelligence, thinks that the world is becoming so complex that no single human being can comprehend it. He recommends imitating ants and other social insects. This has inspired him and others to use swarm intelligence to help solve complex problems. Computers using swarm intelligence models for their AI are optimizing shipping schedules, and being used to coordinate rescue and reconnaissance robots. Instead of solving a problem directly, this approach creates a swarm that will organically solve the problem itself. “Solutions to problems are emergent rather than predefined and preprogrammed. The problem is that you don't always know ahead of time what emergent solution will come out because emergent behavior is unpredictable. If applied well, self-organization endows your swarm with the ability to adapt to situations that you didn’t think of.” 

But what about mistakes? Bonabeau says, “In social insects, errors and randomness are not ‘bugs’; rather, they contribute very strongly to their success by enabling them to discover and explore in addition to exploiting. Self-organization feeds itself upon errors to provide the colony with flexibility (the colony can adapt to a changing environment) and robustness (even when one or more individuals fail, the group can still perform its tasks).” 

All of this discussion is arguing for using artificial swarms as human tools such as a computer program that can continually optimize computer networks. But can this trend of decentralization be applied to people directly? Does it have anything to say to human behavior? Should it?

Swarm intelligence—or at least decentralization—does have some intriguing benefits for leadership. After all, with any hierarchy, the person or persons “at the top” face huge pressure to make good decisions. Yet, the bigger the organization, the farther from the actual knowledge the person who makes the decisions becomes! Leadership and management gurus work to help the leader get better information quicker, make clear decisions, communicate those decisions back down the line, and motivate the workers to follow those decisions. One can see why methods of getting and receiving information, and motivation figure prominently in leadership research. However, the potential for error and miscommunication is great. We can all recall specific examples of bureaucratic stupidity where information is lost or garbled, or when leaders make bad decisions because they really don’t understand the situation. Furthermore, hierarchical systems’ most important (and usually most vulnerable) person is the one at the top. Just like in chess, take out the king and the game is up.

What if leaders didn’t need to have all of this stress? What if more decisions could be made in emergent, organic ways? What if humans could organize themselves in ways that depended less on special individuals (i.e. leaders)? Could it make the human system itself more robust? 

I can tell you for certain that it does make an organization more robust. Just look at organized crime and terrorists. A few years ago, several weeks after the United States charged into Afghanistan and then
Iraq, some people wondered why we hadn’t decisively “won.” After all, here was the most well-funded military behemoth on the planet, using the most advanced weapons technology ever conceived being held at a stalemate by a handful of terrorists and insurgents! Sure, in a matter of hours, the U.S. military defeated the Iraqi military, but the war was far from won. Personally, I wasn’t exactly surprised that the U.S. war machine was stuck in the sand, however (our leaders shouldn’t have been either, but that is perhaps a different blog). This kind of thing has happened often enough in history. A strong, well-funded hierarchical force is stymied by impoverished, diversified guerrilla cells. The Philistines vs. the Israelite tribes, Rome vs. the Celts, the Britons vs. the Scots, the English vs. the American colonies, and now the United States vs. insurgents in Iraq.

There are a myriad of other factors involved in these admittedly complicated sociopolitical situations. However, I wondered if the way the groups were organized had something vital to do with their differing effectiveness. After minimal research, I came to realize I am not alone in my hunch. “Unlike conventional military forces which are often hierarchical and centralized, terrorist militant units are often small, dispersed and seemingly disorganized. Nevertheless, they have been able to effectively counter much larger conventional armies.”

Researchers are noting that criminal organizations (like drug cartels, terrorists, etc) are changing. “Unlike the top-down-hierarchical structure of traditional Mafia-type organizations, organized crime groups such as the Colombian drug cartels and Russian-speaking organized crime function as loosely-organized networks of cells. The cells give organizational flexibility, reduce the possibility of law-enforcement penetration, and provide greater efficiency. Network structures also make it more difficult to identify leaders while reducing the size of the leadership within each organization. As such, modern organized criminal groups and leading terrorist organizations resemble modern, ‘flat’ business structures rather than the multilayer organization found in older corporations such as the Ford Motor Company and the steel industry.”

Terrorists and crime lords don’t change to be cool or emergent. They do it to be effective. And effective they are; they are able to halt so-called “super powers” in their tracks. They are robust; even when key leaders are taken out, the organization as a whole suffers only minor setbacks. Indeed, researchers (often funded by defense departments or police forces) are trying desperately to understand and therefore destroy fluid networks like these. In addition to the computer scientists and criminologists I’ve already referenced, mathematicians are using their expertise to attempt to destabilize these complex and extremely resilient networks.

What does this mean for the church? I have come to see that the church (at least in my context) looks much like the U.S. military: centralized leadership, clearly defined roles, pre-planned strategies, ample funds (yet complaining of not having near enough money to do what they feel they need to do). But should we in the church take some cues from the insurgents in Iraq? If we want to be effective (and what does that mean?), should we take note of the effective models demonstrated by our “enemies?”

Of course, I would not suggest that Christians can further the cause of Jesus Christ by strapping bombs to themselves or trafficking illegal drugs! But couldn’t we take a note of these networks’ organizational innovation? After all, as some have said, “Were it not for the illegitimate character of their actions, transnational criminals could be lauded as pioneers and visionaries in the age of globalization.”

Could church leaders give up centralized, pre-planned control of a church to a decentralized, emerging patterns based on the cumulating of many interactions? As LeRon might say, there are promises and perils here. The idea of no one person being in charge (or in control) is terrifying. But is that just the kind of scenario in which the Holy Spirit can work in our midst—in the interactions between us? If we wanted to move this way, we would need to think more about developing individuals (“agents” in the terminology of artificial intelligence). This seems counter-intuitive, but the success of a swarm depends on the ability of individual agents to make decisions and carry them out. But are Christians prepared to do that, or are we too used to having a leader tell us what to do? Might people be too complicated for swarm intelligence proper to work?

Just think with me a moment about the “traditional wisdom” of church ministry done in a centralized, stable, hierarchically controlled system. Let’s say my neighbor is elderly and can’t mow her lawn. I could tell my pastor or small group leader. Perhaps we could set up committee to create a Lawn Mowing Ministry. We could get the Youth Pastor involved so we could use the youth as a labor force. Of course, policies would have to be put in place for how we would mow and guidelines developed to weed through potential recipients of our ministry. We’d also need to advertise it to the church and the community. If evangelistically-minded people were involved, mowers would probably need training on how to lead the grateful people to Christ. And then, we’d need to work through our disappointment confusion when the ministry fails!

I have to wonder, what if I just go to my neighbor’s house and offer to mow her yard? What if other Christians just see needs and opportunities and can just act? What if we were in communication with each other—networked—so that we could collectively learn from our mistakes? 

A few questions to spur the discussion:

1) Are principles of swarming applicable to human organizations like the church? If so, are they achievable, or even desirable? 

2) If we do want to embrace ideas of decentralization, self-organization, and emergent problem-solving, what changes would need to be made in our conceptions of church leadership? What about the goals and methods of Christian discipleship? Or evangelism?

3) If we want to resist this trend, how do we do it? Why?

 

Comments

[Ted M. Gossard]

Ryan, This is surely quite intriguing. Somehow this really does make sense, and I think the most healthy churches as in the NT sense engage in it, whether or not the leadership encourages it.

Somehow this reminds me of what Christ's Body is to be in coming together (1 Corinthians 14) as well as in mission to the world. It's like each does its part in consonant with all the rest, Christ himself by the Spirit being the true director and mover of it all, yet each of us in Christ having our own necessary part in the work or movement of the whole.

[Benjamin Sternke]

I enjoyed this thought-provoking post! I've wondered before about how to apply some of the insights from emergence and chaos theory to church leadership.

I wonder if the "leader" of the church in the future will need to be less of a directive spear-header and more of a builder of networks, a creator of possibilities, a facilitator of communication. I think it demands a more experimental, playful attitude toward church work.

Many "church-goers" though, still want to be "led" in the traditional sense, and that is a difficult trend to fight against because there is a perception that you are "not doing your job" if you aren't developing programs for people to plug into.

I think it's worth heading into this direction, though, despite the challenges. Great post. Thanks.

[LeRon]

Hi Ryan,

The idea of a few simple principles (like avoid boids, etc.) fascinates me.

Applied to the church, might this look like, e.g., love God, love your neighbor, love your enemies? Sounds kind of like the "rules" Jesus proposed...

What if we lived by them instead of arguing about bishops, popes, elder boards or presbyteries?

That was my backward way of commenting on your question #3.

As a person planning to be a pastor, what does all of this mean to YOU and your sense of vocation?

LeRon

[Ryan Hollingsworth]

Thanks for your interest, Ted. I think you're right, that the Bible contains metaphors that seem to support this "swarm-like" move. The body of Christ is a powerful one! It's funny that it has also been used to support hierarcy (i.e. the "head" being the leader)! Maybe if we thought of "body of Christ" on more of a cellular or even molecular level...

Benjamin, you and Ted both mentioned the resistance to this kind of model; people often WANT to be led. It is, after all, what we're used to. (The great apes have their silverback, don't they?)

I like your thoughts, Benjamin, about redefining leadership--making it less about directing and more about networking. As a pastor-to-be that sounds like a lot of fun, but would be hard to "sell" to a church board! ('You're doing what with your time?')

Also, the idea of experimentation is interesting, but more difficult to apply. After all, when you experiment, you often "fail." Yet "failing" as well as "succeeding" help you learn. It's just not fun, and doesn't look very successful. But I agree that it might well be worth the cost to try it.

LeRon, you also bring up a good point. Swarm theory depends on setting up a few simple rules for the agents to follow, then allowing the combined effects of the interactions to solve the problem. "Love God and love neighbor" seem to be good basic rules for Christian swarms. It feels right to me... but I wonder if they aren't specific enough.

We need to define love itself, as well as God and neighbor! We need to figure out what love means in different contexts. For a "boid," the rules are not ambiguous at all. Problem is, the more specific you get, the less broadly applicable you get, too.

As I said to Benjamin, I get excited about how this might "redefine" (or completely scratch) my pastoral job description. I'd like to try the less direct approach, focusing on developing the people to understand the rules (love) and to communicate, then watch the behaviors emerge.

[Stephen]

Doesn't the body of Christ only exist if it has a Head? How is it possible to decentralize that? The post was a good read up until the part about the neighbor's lawn. Why would you need to tell the pastor? Why not just mow it in the first place? The string of sarcastic scenarios with the committees seemed unnecessary and took away alot of the impact that the post was hinting at. The controlled system is biblical. An uncontrolled system would be unbiblical. So, your choice is biblical or unbiblical. Now, to the degree that churches are biblical seems to be a better question to ask. The problem has never been with the Bible, the problem is with the people. It's always been the people. Even in the NT era they were a problem. Paul laid out the prescription for harmony in the epistles. Look at Phillipians 4, Euodia and Syntyche were 2 gals who had a disagreement that did not pertain to morals or doctrine. Paul, as an authority, entreated them to end their disagreement by agreeing in the Lord. Paul then told Sysygus, his "yolkfellow" to help them reach that agreement. Anyhow, much more can be said about this, but until the Bible becomes central in the figuring out stages of the emerging movement, I think you'll just chase your tail in circles looking for a humanistic solution. So that's how I answer #3. #2 is a loaded question. It's like: Have you stopped beating you wife yet? #1 Yes, they're applicable, they're achievable, but no, they aren't desirable because it's not sustainable. If decentralization leaves no authority or leadership to guide, govern, correct and equip, then it fails. As soon as the first disagreement arises, factions will be formed and leadership will emerge and centralized stability or instability is right back in your face. I believe this is why God set up institutions the way He did. Marriage: one man, one woman. Man is the head, follows Christ. Woman submits to her husband, as unto Christ. Christ is head of church, gives elders/pastors as gifts to the church. Church members submit themselves to the elders who have rule over them, in doing so, they are submitting unto Christ. Children obey your parent, get a blessing. Parents instruct your children in the Lord. The blueprint is perfect. Such balance and harmony is achievable and sustainable within the divine model. The problem is the people. People screw it up. That doesn't mean that we go out and find another system, one more suitable for screw-ups, does it? At Faith Community, where I attend, we don't have the types of problems that the EM describes, so I may be a little out of the loop. We owe a great deal to our pastor, Dr. Robert Morey who consistently exhorts us to live godly and do good works. We are a community church though, not a mega horse and pony show, and we teach Reformed doctrine but believe in the spiritual gifts. Often times I've thought that only if emerging leaders visited to see how we "do church" if it would bring some resolve. Of course, if it did, they wouldn't be able to pump out so many expensive books 8)

[theologien]

Interesting. I did a blog on this same topic in July (http://sanscontexte.blogspot.com/2007/07/swarm-theory.html). I think this whole topic of leadership and management in the church needs to be scrutinized and deconstructed. I'm interested to see what the feedback and follow-up to this blog will be.

[Ryan Hollingsworth]

"Doesn't the body of Christ only exist if it has a Head? How is it possible to decentralize that?" That is a great question, Stephen; and it's exactly what my post is about. Both of us agree that Christ is the "head" of the church. But should we have many smaller, officially structured human heads (pastors, bishops, etc.) or can we organize organically around just one head, Christ?

In John, Jesus talks about leaving so he could send the Spirit. In Acts, the Holy Spirit is often named, "the spirit of Christ." I wonder if that Spirit can be seen in the interactions within and among communities (swarms) of people who live Christ's Way.

Far from being without authority--it would more apt to say such communities would be without hierarchical, human authority.

"Theologien" - it's great to hear others are and have been talking about some of these ideas, too! As someone who's already been thinking on the subject, let me ask you a question: how does a decentralized "swarm-like" community guard against "Groupthink"?

[Stephen]

"Both of us agree that Christ is the "head" of the church. But should we have many smaller, officially structured human heads (pastors, bishops, etc.) or can we organize organically around just one head, Christ?"

Ryan, I don't think that is up for us to decide, being that it seems to already have been decided for us.

Note these two Bible passages:

Ephesians 4:8-12 [ESV]

8 Therefore it says,

“When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.”

9 (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? [1] 10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) 11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds [2] and teachers, [3] 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ

and

Acts 20:28-29.

28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, [1] which he obtained with his own blood. [2] 29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;

Is not what you are asking in opposition to what is revealed in Scripture?

If hierarchical, human authority is the divinely appointed means to accomplish God's will in expanding and maintaining the church that Jesus built, then is it not going against God's will in seeking to do otherwise?

[Andy Lyde]

Great post. It's good to see seminary students applying swarm theory to the church. My background is in organization development but I'm increasingly interested in how these concepts can be applied in the church.

I was taught that an organization's flatness should reflect a variety of issues, number one being the environment in which it operates. If an organization produces a product that is the same thing over and over without any change in function, it makes more sense to have a hierarchical organization. The organization preserves itself by being able to consistently produce the same product over and over.
But if an organization preserves itself through innovation and new ideas, a flat structure is better in which nothing gets bogged down in bureaucracy. Of course many organizations fall somewhere in between.

Traditionally, it was thought that industries like manufacturing would remain hierarchical, since they produce the same widget over and over, and creative enterprises, like marketing and web-based businesses, would be flatter because of the rapid pace of change in their environments. However, even manufacturers, especially Toyota, turn to a flatter model to constantly refine their processes.

So what kind of environment are we responding to as the church? Is it an environment that demands command and control to maintain the status quo or an environment that requires a way to respond quickly? Or both? Something in between?

In which type of an environment can a leader best equip his/her people?

Addressing question #2, I would say that the issue of power would need to be addressed in the church. Do I, as a leader, have more power by controlling it or by giving it away?

For decentralization to work in the church, the leaders would need to set a vision of what God wants to accomplish through the church and constantly preach it. How the vision is accomplished is where decentralization comes in. Whether there are 10 or 10,000 people working toward a shared vision without any constraints (perceived or real), amazing things will happen. Leadership focuses on helping people come up with solutions for their unique problems and opportunities.

I guess the danger of decentralization is when there is no shared purpose. People will languish if left guessing what they should accomplish.

Here's a classic game that shows swarm theory in action. You need at least 10 people, the more the merrier but no less than 10. Have everyone silently choose another person to be A and another person to be B. Everyone will have different A's and B's that only they will know. Then give them this simple rule: Always keep B between A and yourself. Watch the patterns that develop. Then change the rules: Always keep yourself between A and B. See how long you can keep that one up.
Andy

[Stephen]

Andy,

Your approach will lead to a synthetic christianity (no typo, small "c" intentional) and here's why I think that.

You said "For decentralization to work in the church, the leaders would need to set a vision of what God wants to accomplish through the church and constantly preach it."

If the vision is set by the leaders themselves, and preached, and followed by the 10 or 10000, then the shared vision is merely the man-made vision of the leaders, having nothing to do with what God wants to accomplish through the church. The followers (10 or 10k) will not be followers of Christ, rather followers of the leaders, who, rather than preach what is revealed in Scripture, set a vision of what they decided God wants to accomplish, and this by their own accord, human reason, emotions, and so on.

Ultimately, it will have nothing to do with Christ, but with the leaders vision. That's how cults are formed; by men trying to speak for God when God has already spoken for Himself.

The form that will flow from your suggestion, may at times appear as Christianity, but if there aint no Christ, d'aint no Christianity!

[LeRon]

Hi Ryan,

I've been thinking about the issues of goals and methods from question #2. This is a tough one.

One difference between humans and flocks of birds or swarms of bees is that more humans decide not to follow the rules, or argue about the goals and methods, etc.

It seems that this model would have to have a lot of tolerance or patience in letting people go, but who "lets" them go? Or does no one... do we all simply continue following the rules (of love, for example).

To put it a different way, how would one decide that a particular swarm is (and in what sense is it) the "church"? How to decide that one should continue following the rules of love with this particular swarm?

LeRon

[Stephen]

Hi Leron!

Notice I didn't apologize for my Calvinism this time?

You wrote: "To put it a different way, how would one decide that a particular swarm is (and in what sense is it) the "church"? How to decide that one should continue following the rules of love with this particular swarm?"

If the concept ever took off, it seems that a few things would need to be.

1) There would need to be a self-identifying characteristic that was common amongst all, to keep the unity and eliminate the "letting go" aspect. This would need to be a common belief shared by all, such as a core set of beliefs and values. This shared set of beliefs and values would function as the unifying fetter to one another, and if breeched, would place the offender "outside" but not out of reach. These core beliefs and values would need to be things like: unconditional love, total tolerance, and say, peace. If someone was hateful, exclusive or intolerant, or divisive in an unpeaceful manner, then the swarm would reposition towards the offender, and rather than count on help from her, help her.

2) It would need to be a religious movement. It couldn't work as a political movement or a business movement, because selfish ambition would overcome the swarm and be swarmed. It would need to be targeted towards nominal Mormons, nominal JW's, nominal Muslims, nominal Christians, nominal XYZ's, etc. Nominality is essential due to the truth claims particular religions make, and the doctrinal confinements that limit the population of the religions. The core set of beliefs and values must touch lightly on each surface of the competing world views, to attract the nominals in those groups who aren't entirely devoted to their religion as a whole, only the attractive aspects such as: unconditional... To the nominal JW's you can offer kingdom mindedness. To the nominal mormon, family values. To the nominal Christian, love and Jesus' meekness and mildness. To the nominal Muslim, peace.

3. It would need to have antithesis. There would need to be a common agreement on what not to look like in order to accomplish anything missional in this setting. Bifurcation by way of antithesis would maintain identity, fluidity (always have humans in and out)and establish mission. If 2 are serving medicine to a sick person, and the sick person is healed, but one of the 2 becomes sick,the healed and the uninfected helper turn toward the helper-turned-sick and serve medicine to her.

Something like that.

But I'm a Calv...oops!

[Andy Lyde]

Stephen,
I think we're actually on the same page with this. I think that having a man-made vision instead of a God-inspired vision is a very real threat. I also think that the threat is no different in any other church structure. In fact, I think that a decentralized structure might help prevent that because the "power" in the church is intentional given away and this invites more people into seeking what God wants out of the church because they feel like their input is important.

What I like about a decentralized structure is that the term leader takes on a whole new meaning. A leader is not just a pastor or an elder; everyone in the church is a leader, actively seeking God's will for their church.

[Ryan Hollingsworth]

Andy, thanks for your thoughtful response. I appreciate having an "OD" perspective on this topic. I'm intrigued by the idea that organizations requiring stability and consistency tend to be hierarchical and those that need to constantly change and adapt are often flatter. There is a "chicken and egg" idea there, about whether the structure creates the style or the other way around! I tend to think of churches needing to be more adaptable, so flat is cool, but others would disagree. The Roman Catholic church has struggled long and hard to remain as stable and unchanging as possible, and they have a very hierarchical organization. Makes sense.

LeRon, you found one of the weakest parts of my ideas (thank you)! You wonder both how to set up a Christian community/swarm and how to maintain it. I think there are different answers to each.

Because humans are so used to hierarchy it would be nearly impossible to just start "swarming." It seems that a transition would be required where an established leader/leadership progressively trains the community to self-organize. The follow-through would be important and difficult: the leader must back away and not "lead" (at least in the sense the community is used to).

After a decentralized, self-organizing community has been formed, it must maintain itself. Individuals must continually act on the basic rules (e.g. "love God, love neighbor"). Potentially surprising emergent behaviors would address those people who act against the swarm. The community may well "let them go" but also may bring some kinds of pressure to bear. The "leader" may need to monitor the group ethics of such behaviors!

Stephen, I can almost hear the passion in your posts--and the fear. You seem to be working very hard to fix us. I don't see why. As far as I can tell, everyone here is exploring possibilities, not telling the world what should or should not be done. I am certainly not saying all churches should (or even can) move away from hierarchy. It would be disrespectful (and fruitless) to try to force such a change on a community who didn't want it. From what you say about Faith Community, people there appreciate the safety and order of the system; everyone knows his or her place in the system. I wouldn’t attempt to change you.

You are wrong, however, in saying that there is only one system that is ordained by God through the pages of Scripture; your claim reflects poor exegesis. A brief walk through the Bible reveals many styles of human organization that God explicitly or implicitly seems to approve: Family/Clan (Abraham), theocracy, (Moses, Judges), monarchy (Saul and the Davidic dynasty), and the church of the New Testament (which often sounds almost Marxist). God doesn’t seem to mind variety. God’s prophets spoke out not against the way people were organized or governed, but the way they did or did not act within that system according to love, justice, mercy, etc.

[Benjamin Rhodes]

Ryan:

I'll try to be brief, though this is a struggle for me!

I like the idea of swarm theory in reference to human behavior because it has lots of potential, but I wonder if that is really what you are talking about.

I immediately began to remember my Kierkegaard when reading your article. Though I could blab on an on about examples in the animal kingdom, I'm ultimately driven to think of Kierkegaard's single individual before God, and your implicit reference, "If we wanted to move this way, we would need to think more about developing individuals (“agents” in the terminology of artificial intelligence). This seems counter-intuitive, but the success of a swarm depends on the ability of individual agents to make decisions and carry them out."

When you go mow your neighbor's yard, aren't you really acting as a single individual before God? How did you become that single individual? If we are truly trying to be emergent (hopefully I can use that term in a unloaded fashion), does it start with just what you described – a single agent who is willing and able to do what needs to be done with minimal boundary conditions (i.e., rules)? Is it really necessary to talk about swarm behavior at this point, or more cogent to talk about how to make robust agents? I wonder if you might instead be talking about REAL discipleship, not the stuff most churches pass off as discipleship?

My point is that what emerges from robust agents with minimal boundary conditions (i.e., good disciples) could potentially be different than our expectations. (Which, by the way, is where things get truly scary. A person who is not forward thinking may believe a safer question is "How do we make disciples of Christ?", but they would be wrong.) I am wary of envisioning what the emerging entity might look like because it would influence my ability to create truly robust agents. (This has borne itself out in my lab experiments with AI swarm behavior! I suppose we are, indeed, part of the experiment if we try to catch a glimpse of the outcome!)

So, to answer your question #2, I find myself dwelling on the goal of disciple-making, with no preconceived notions about what a “church” that emerges from modern disciples would look like. The goal of Christian discipleship would be a single individual before God. (Whatever that is!)

There are, of course, other questions about decentralization we've not addressed: Is decentralization a good thing when thinking about global efficiencies and volumes of scale, or would we simply trust the emergent entity to tackle that problem? Why worry about tomorrow?

[Stephen]

Ryan, I am surprised by how judgmental your response is. Why do you judge the motive of my heart, and the intentions of my posts, to be out of fear? I was trying to be helpful by adding to the conversation, by adding a perspective that would increase dimension the discussion. Why also must you judge me as trying to fix (us) you? Was I not included in the “us.” If my engagement has become unwelcome, then I’ll leave, out of love, to no longer offend you. I frequent my friend LeRon’s blog because of his welcome. He described authentic discussion as: “I had in mind the kind of dialogue in which both interlocutors are trying to be honest about their own assumptions and trying to indwell the assumptions and interpretations of the other.” I admired that a lot! I have always been straight-forward about my presuppositions, so that all may know the general framework of my contribution.

I fully welcome all criticism of my exegesis, and so should you. If by exegesis you mean a “brief walk through the Bible” then I would submit that your “exegesis” isn’t exegesis at all, and is more eisegesis than anything. In either case, to say that God doesn’t mind variety based on your examples of “Family/Clan (Abraham), theocracy, (Moses, Judges), monarchy (Saul and the Davidic dynasty), and the church of the New Testament (which often sounds almost Marxist)”, is to overlook what I would consider a major exegetical detail: the expiration of the Old Covenant, and the replacement of the old with the New Covenant, which Christ purchased with his blood. This blood-bought covenant is eternal and has specific characteristics that are as unchangeable as its High Priest.

It also seems like, maybe unconsciously, your predisposed dispensational hermeneutic may be driving your interpretation (“God’s prophets spoke out not against the way people were organized or governed, but the way they did or did not act within that system according to love, justice, mercy, etc.”). To emphasize diversity at the exclusion of unity is equally fallacious as emphasizing unity, at the exclusion of diversity. Most dispensationalists have recognized this problem with your system and have moved on to a more progressive hermeneutic. The consistency I see within all of the “human organizations” is Special Revelation from God to man, and man’s faithfulness to God, or lack thereof. I am not a dispensationalist, and you might say that you aren’t either. It’s kind of like a dog with fleas. He doesn’t know where they came from; he just picked them up along the way. They itch though, and he scratches. Same with dispensationalism. Most don’t know where their ideas came from, but they’re there. They emerge, and they’re revealed. Deconstructionism is awesome for this.

As for the insults, I forgive you, just as my Father in heaven has forgiven me. To receive persecution for righteousness sake, Jesus said, is expected from the world and the smile of God (makarios – blessed are) is upon those who do receive such persecution.

Jude 3

[Ryan Hollingsworth]

Wow, Benjamin. Thank your for your thoughtful response. I am interested in your "lab experiments with AI swarm behavior." Forgive me if you are an expert, but I am a novice in all this and haven't heard of your work. What kinds of experiments do you do?

I am also interested in "Kierkegaard's single individual before God." This (again) is a concept I have not read about. However, it does seem that this trend toward decentrilization would strengthen the individual, not diminsh him or her. Perhaps I'm not talking about actual swarm intelligence, but I think of the cumulative effect of persons acting on certain basic principles (love, for instance) without being limited by leadership structures, and it gets me excited. And has at least some similarities to swarm intelligence, including (as you mentioned) the unpredictiability of emergent behavior.

You also asked "Is decentralization a good thing when thinking about global efficiencies and volumes of scale, or would we simply trust the emergent entity to tackle that problem?" Great question. I don't know, but tend to think that this is a potentially a terrific bonus to decentralized "organization" precisly because it doesn't need planning! What do the rest of you think?

[Mike]

Ryan,
Great post! I’m in the midst of a cultivating what might be rendered a missional community among graduate and international students: and, I’ve been able with fits and starts, begin the development of what you describe as swarm intelligence. Not without resistance: strong resistance! As you and other observe in this post, plenty of people read the NT believing in the “one-guy/gal at the top”, who has the vision, and the rest of us boids need to line up and fly in formation. Well, it might not be that regimented: but, the kinds of resistance I’ve received suggest it’s not too far from a deep-seated conviction!

First question: sure, SI is applicable and even desirable. But, and this pours over to the third question: but, it sure does summon lots of trust and communication and love. More in a moment.

Second question: Part of the change in my conception of church leadership involved the interplay or dynamic exchange between a locally-close reading of scripture in community with regularly asking folks from within the community: what kind of service would give you joy? Another version of the last question was more of an affirmation: when I’d observe someone totally overjoyed in their service, I’d commend that experience and continue that with an invitation to serve through similar but self-initiated experiences.

Now, the change in conception for me involved a far-reaching enactment of trust in the Holy Spirit to, indeed, lead and love those in the community into the mission He is leading them into: over against my vision for that community, one that is (usually) cultivated in isolation. Make sense? The students, as a consequence, are inadvertently (?), giving witness to the reign of God simply through a faltering and joyful confidence in Jesus and the service they trust God has lead them into. Instead of giving “witness” to “we did what our leader (me, in this case) wanted us to do.”

In the decentralizing of leadership, ministry and affection has flourished throughout the community. And, an unexpected necessity for decentralization arose: we need to ask each other frequently how to assist each other or empower each other. Often, the reply is not very complex, but such offers do remind us of how much we can and do care for one another.

Re: goals and methods for discipleship and evangelism. That’s worthy of a post unto itself!

Third question: Some students did-and still do-resist this trend. Some have expressed their disappointment and antipathy toward the whole project by refusing to participate; others have attempted to set-up parallel structures of hierarchy-really!

All of which is to say: that resisting SI is definitely for those who need or demand hierarchy, a solitary figure at the top, and clear chain of command form of rigor to ministry and community. I’d hasten to add: such resistance raises the bar for keeping trust, practicing justice and mercy, listening well, and loving one another.

[Benjamin Rhodes]

Ryan:

Let me say that I am NOT an expert on AI or swarm theory, nor have I published anything you should have heard of. I am a biomedical engineer, and in my day job I work to model and understand complex systems that emerge from parts. Where I work, we try to model neurological systems, which emerge from millions of cells interacting in sometimes unpredictable ways. I specialize in cardiac neurology and morbidity. Sounds fun, right? Well, talking about it is fun - doing the work is often boring.

I am moderately familiar with a progam called Avida, which is a free software package (I believe it is still free) offered through a joint venture between the biology and computer science departments at the University of Michigan. In this program, you can set boundary conditions on digital bugs, and "reward" them if they do certain desired behaviors, thereby increasing their likelihood of "reproduction". Using Avida, the company I work for has had some limited success in modeling very complex and chaotic cardiac behaviors. What we have learned is that if we assume we know how the heart works (which is dubious, at times), we inadvertantly set up boundary conditions for our "boids" that enforce an outcome that we expect. In seminary terms, our presuppositions blind us and control our hermaneutic so that we get out of our readings exactly what we expect.

Several years ago I did one experiment with Avida where I was trying to see what would happen if I injected adult stem sells into the middle of ischemic cardiac tissue. My expectation was that the stem cells would die. I set up controlling conditions within Avida to run the experiment, and got out exactly what I wanted - the stem cells died. Then I went on vacation for a week.

When I came back, I revisited the experiment. I realized that I had set up the system (complex as it was) so that the boundary conditions virtually guaranteed the outcome I wanted. At the time I was blinded to the fact that my initial rules for the experiment were being controlled by my expected outcome. With complex systems, the initial boundary conditions seem to determine what you get out, which is in turn colored by what you EXPECT to get out. This, quite frankly, is what intrigues me about futurity.

There is another experiment where one of the Ph.Ds I work with wanted to see if he could get the bugs in Avida to randomly produce his doctoral thesis. He thought this would somehow prove evolution was possible. In fact, they did produce his thesis, but as we got to looking at his boundary conditions, he (I believe inadvertantly) put in conditions that made it much easier for the bugs to produce the expected outcome. For instance, they could only produce english characters, got special rewards when they produced words in his thesis, etc. Ultimately, he proved nothing but how powerful teleological expectations can be on current actions.

You asked about Kierkegaard's "single individual". I don't know how familiar you are with Kierkegaard, but this concept is peppered through all of his writings that I've read. The most overt place is in "Concluding Unscientific Postscript" (which I didn't prefer), and to a lesser extent in "Fear and Trembling" (which I loved). It is also present in a lot of the Upbuilding Discourses, and in "Concept of Anxiety". If you're not familiar with Kierkegaard, you should know that he is an aquired taste.

[David Worley]

Ryan- Fabulous post, I enjoyed reading it. I was a MA in Transformational Leadership student at Bethel Seminary a few years back and I often thought about the implications of postmodernity and decentralization for leadership structures. It seems to me you are significantly ahead of where the critical mass of leadership theory is at currently; great job.

Two questions for you: (1) what implications do you see this having on the actual profession of ministry; specifically, do you see radical decentralization destabilizing the institutional church in such a way that makes it harder for local churches to support full-time, paid pastors? (If yes) (2) do you have any ideas on how decentralization may enhance the profession of ministry in the early 21st century.

I think decentralization is great for the organic church but devastating for the institutional church and I have found that I receive very swift and strong “push-back” from existing professional clergy and those training to do so to my suggesting that the opportunities for professional ministers might dwindle in the coming decades (due to decentralization and the “death” of the institutional church). Because of this, I think you find a significant portion of professional clergy making implicit (and sometimes explicit) choices to perpetuate the organization (institution) of the church instead of its real relational and organic goals. While I agree with you on an academic level that decentralization is where we are headed (and I am excited about that) I think the impact on the church as we know it will be significant. Do you (or others) have suggestions on how the church might hold in tension greater decentralization while also maintaining an educated and professional clergy? To be blunt, how do you encourage the organic growth of a decentralized church and maintain a revenue stream that enables thoughtful, educated, and full-time clergy?

Thanks again Ryan for your post and I look forward to your response.

[LeRon]

Hi Ryan,

I'm eager to hear your response to the last couple of comments! (I'm sure Andrea has told you that SK is one of my favorite philosophers).

And I thought I'd throw in a little Pneumatology question into the mix.

What is the role of the "Holy Spirit" in the ecclesial swarming?

Theologically, how could we understand the presence and agency of a divine Spirit in relation to the energetic (spiritual) swarming of those trying to follow the way of Jesus in the world?

To put it another way, might swarm theory open up new ways to think about the biblical metaphors of the "wind" blowing where it will, or the Spirit as "paraclete"?

LeRon

[Benjamin Rhodes]

Leron:

I really like your pneumatological question, and think the answer to that question has great promise.

But in since I have SK on the brain, I wonder if the peril is a swarm behavior more like mob mentality (which Kierkegaard spoke against). Or, more Biblically, like descending locusts.

I wonder which way most people would currently characterize the Christian Church?

[Ryan Hollingsworth]

Mike, it’s great to hear from someone already attempting this stuff. I am not surprised at the resistance you face; humans have been hierarchical for a LONG time. You bring up a pneumatological point that LeRon also touched on. You wrote that it required, “a far-reaching enactment of trust in the Holy Spirit to… lead and love those in the community,” which I think hits LeRon’s question directly. I imagine that the Holy Spirit is found in the cracks, the spaces between, the interactions among the individuals-in-community. But trust is hard, because it feels so out of control. It is especially hard for leaders to trust this “swarming” because it seems to make them less special, less powerful, or less needed.

David, you got into this very subject in your post. You asked: “(1) what implications do you see this having on the actual profession of ministry; specifically, do you see radical decentralization destabilizing the institutional church in such a way that makes it harder for local churches to support full-time, paid pastors? (If yes) (2) do you have any ideas on how decentralization may enhance the profession of ministry in the early 21st century.”

I don’t see professional clergy becoming extinct any time soon (yeah, job security!) for several reasons. Primarily, most churches (as Mike, David and Stephen have noted) will resist this trend. The church has been remarkably effective at protecting itself and maintaining its status quo. Even if everyone wanted to change, this is a paradigm shift of incredible proportions, and all organizational change is hard.

Another reason I think clergy will have a place is that they will be needed to help transition those willing to change. My guess is that it will take strong hierarchical leadership at the beginning to prepare communities to lead themselves/ swarm in the Spirit’s wind. Such leaders will need to do traditional leadership practices (vision-casting, etc.) but then will need to progressively and strategically relinquish power (not a common occurrence for leaders). Church leaders (whether paid or volunteer, clergy or lay) will need to change styles to adapt to the decentralized style. They have skills that are still important for the community—specialized education and knowledge—as well as time to devote to the work of the church (swarm).

But instead of leading PEOPLE, I think we’ll need to lead the PROCESS. By that I mean that leadership may need to be about connecting people, facilitating communication, gathering and sharing ideas, encouraging people and ideas, providing resources based on skills and training, and refusing to decide direction for the community. Leaders will also need (at least at the beginning) to help set the parameters, as Benjamin describes in his swarm experiments. To guard against getting only what you expect, I would suggest developing these community parameters in as diverse a group as can work together. I rather like this job description (sketch?) and think it will “enhance the profession of ministry in the early 21st century” (at least mine)!

Benjamin, you also brought up a very real concern of mine, and I’d like to ask it to the group as well: What prevents a swarm from becoming a mob? I associate mob mentality with bad decision-making. Smart, kind people can get into a mob and do stupid and cruel things. Researchers like Irving Janis use the term “groupthink.” Yet swarm intelligence is, well, intelligent! Also, how to we weave ethics into decentralized systems, not just efficiency?

[Daniel Winings]

"What prevents a swarm from becoming a mob? I associate mob mentality with bad decision-making. Smart, kind people can get into a mob and do stupid and cruel things."

I would suggest that the answer depends upon if the swarm has been transformed by their experience of Jesus or if Christian faith is a mere appendage to some other primary identification (American, consumer, tribal member...). If following Jesus is central than the swarm will respond to a negative stimulus according to the rules of the swarm (love your enemies; do good to those who hate you; etc) but if Christianity is just an intellectual appendage the person (or group) will respond to a negative stimulus with behaviors one would expect from a mob.

The swarm (if I may continue to use this to describe the local congregation) would then recognize the break with a process of admonition that would lead to either repentance or "excommunication" ("the ban" as it is known in Anabaptist circles).

Moving toward decentralization is, I think, a great idea but just because there is not one person in control does not mean that there are not any consequences if the "rules of the swarm" are broken. In fact, the rules will become paramount because they will become the primary source of identification. Like many Amish groups (a very good example of swarms in action) the rules are enforced. I hope we would choose different rules (though the Amish rules are beautifully efficient for their purpose) but we would need them and this would come with some risks.

1) the charge of legalism
2) a large number of "splits" due to varying interpretations of the "rules."

In closing I see a lot of the proposal at work in the strict congregationalism of plain mennonites and amish. To see how it has worked I would recommend a recent edition of "Amish Society" by John A. Hostetler. He doesn't use swarm language but I think the ideas would lift off of the page.

[Paul Miller]

Hmmm. The church as swarm.Interesting.

Something that I've always found fascinating are accounts of places in the world where institutions of government have completely broken down, but people still organize themselves into workable communities. It's made me wonder why it takes so long and so many meetings for ANYTHING to happen in the church. I think there's a lot to commend this, but a couple of things. For the swarm, whether it's a flock of birds, an ant colony, a terrorist cell -- or the Body of Christ -- to work ,there has to be some foundational agreement on what you're trying to do or be. I'm a pastor in a mainline Canadian church and the problem I see with my denomination, at least, is that agreement on essentials has broken down. As hard as it is to imagine, there are widely divergent views on what the church even IS or should be.

The second thing is that I'm persuaded that one of the basic tasks of the church's theology today is to affirm the irreducible value of the particular and the individual. We live in a culture dominated by scientific consciousness, and it seems to me that science is tending to obscure the inherent value of the particular by, on the one hand, its reductionism in which it reduces the individual to its smaller component parts, and on the other hand its universalizing claim to be able to account for everything that is, thereby absorbing the individual into something bigger than itself. Both these tendencies are open to horrific abuses when they become socially determinative values. Christians, among others, have a responsibility to provide a check on this very powerful drive. So, any adaptation of swarm theory to the church would have to be very careful not to contribute to the devaluing of the individual, which has worth by virtue of being a creation of God.

Fascinating discussion!