Groups whose identity is defined by changing a paradigm become committed to preserving the original paradigm

Or: “Never forget that whoever is not against you is for you.”

In a close analog of “Institutions become committed to preserving the problem they were formed to solve,” a group whose identity is defined by changing a paradigm will tend to become committed to the preservation of the original paradigm in order to not lose their identity.

The attempt to preserve the original paradigm may take different forms, but usually follows the pattern of redefining the new paradigm toward greater exclusivity—the earliest “paradigm reformers” tend to reject those who are the earliest “paradigm adopters.”

The reasons for this may vary, including the concern that the earliest adopters of the changing paradigm are rarely 100% perfectly aligned with the paradigm reformers. This is often, but not always, due to a deficient understanding and incomplete adoption of the new paradigm by the early adopters. The difference in alignment may be due to deficiencies and incomplete understanding of the paradigm on the part of the reformers, corrected and improved upon by the early adopters.

Regardless, this leads to an “in group” vs. “out group” mindset, and a rejection of those who are “not part of our group” (supporting the notion that tribalism is human nature). Furthermore, if the paradigm reformers have a self-proclaimed sense of destiny (e.g., “God has appointed our group to steward this new paradigm”), the likelihood of resisting all others who begin to adopt it but who do not become part of the “paradigm reformers” group becomes significantly more likely.

An example from history: Martin Luther was instrumental (though far from alone) in shifting Christianity back to the biblical doctrine of salvation by God’s grace through faith. This was revolutionary for that era, but some began to agree with his teachings regarding this doctrine. Some became Lutherans, in lock-step with whatever Luther taught (even things he taught inaccurately, overlooking his anti-Semitism and evidence of deficiencies in his moral character). Others agreed with the central tenet of salvation by grace through faith, but disagreed with some aspects of Luther’s teachings on, for example, the nature of the Holy Eucharist.

Not only would Luther not compromise on the issue of whether the Real Presence of Christ—meaning the actual body of Christ—was present in the Eucharist, but he could not even consent to the fundamental idea behind the meeting. … all Philip^[1] was hoping for was that on this single sticking point they would agree to disagree and not let it hamper them from uniting in a common Protestant front against the emperor. Surely they agreed on so much else that to allow this single disagreement to scuttle everything was unwise. And perhaps it was, but essentially that was what now happened. … [Luther’s] response to Zwingli was as cold as ice. “Pray God,” he said, “that you may come to a right understanding of this matter.”

But why was Luther behaving this way? When Bucer, trying to get an answer, asked what it was that Luther did not like about the position of their Swiss friends, Luther replied,

Our spirit is different from yours; it is clear that we do not possess the same spirit, for it cannot be the same spirit when in one place the words of Christ are simply believed and in another place the same faith is censured, resisted, regarded as false, and attacked with all kinds of malicious and blasphemous words. Therefore, as I have previously said, we commend you to the judgment of God.

… Luther effectively showed the back of his hand to this man, who was on the verge of tears. As a result, Zwingli now actually wept. But it seems that Luther would not even allow himself to lean in Zwingli’s direction, much less share in his warm desire for friendship. … So the question remains: Was Luther being insufferably, abominably, perversely bullheaded, or was he being a divinely inspired and immovable outpost of truth?

Ironically, Luther seems to have forgotten the words of Jesus to his disciples when they elevated group identity above unity:

John responded, “Master, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him because he does not follow us.” “Don’t stop him,” Jesus told him, “because whoever is not against you is for you” (Lk 9:49-50).

#strategic #paradigms