Agile Manifesto - Part 4

Note that this is the final installment of a 4-part discussion of the Agile Manifesto.  I recommend that you read Part 1,  Part 2, and Part 3 before reading this post.

 

The final value in the manifesto is “Responding to change over following a plan”.  In some respects, this value is tightly coupled with the third value of collaboration over contracts.  Both demand that the person place a premium on relinquishing control over the process and, more importantly, the outcome of the effort.  In software development, the generally accepted wisdom is to plan, plan, and then plan some more!  We are told that the more we plan, the fewer issues will crop up down the road.

 

As a project manager, I have been in the position of creating and maintaining elaborate plans that attempt to document the daily work of scores of developers over months or even years.  Naturally at the time these plans are created, there are still many unknowns.  Additionally, the client’s requirements may radically change.  Since the contract is based on this detailed plan, both client and vendor can spend much of their time protecting their interests.  Vendors need to maintain their margins and ensure that changes don’t compromise the quality of the deliverables.  Clients need to ensure that their business and technical needs are met while meeting schedule and budgetary constraints.  In the end, both client and vendor view change as the enemy.  The plan becomes the golden calf of the project, and all the while critical issues affecting the ultimate success of the project are actively ignored.

 

This problem statement can be easily translated into the theological realm.  When it comes to religion, humanity has an almost genetic predisposition towards rejecting change of any type.  Even the smallest deviation from historical precedent has led to punishments ranging from excommunication to torture to even death.

 

The critical question is what to the IT and theological world share that causes similar reactions to prospection of change.  In a word, it is fear – fear of what might be lost, fear of moving into the unknown without a safety net, fear that one might be moving down a path from which there is no return.  Such fear initiates a primitive response in our reptilian brains that causes us to close ranks and to reject that which is unfamiliar.  Refactoring theology, on the other hand, demands that we not only tolerate change but actually embrace it.  Change represents the very dynamism that is what the Hebrew writers called ru-ach (spirit wind) and what the church has come to regard as the Holy Spirit.

 

In Part 3 of this series, trust is identified as a critical and necessary component of refactoring theology.  This process cannot exist if those who are engaged in the conversation feel threatened or devalued in any way.  If fear is to be reduced and managed sufficiently to embrace change, community must be established and respected.  Can refactoring theology then be done in most church settings?  Can colleges and seminaries embrace such a process as this?  These are all good questions and ones that may be addressed in future postings.  For now, the important point to understand is that refactoring theology requires the ability to embrace and welcome change.  Change is inhibited in an atmosphere of fear.  Therefore where fear is present, the ability to do refactoring theology is limited.  Conversely, where there is a community that intentionally fosters trust and acceptance, the refactoring theology can thrive.

 

Before concluding this post, there is one final point to make.  If I were to stop this post here, the process of refactoring theology might come off as a utopian ideal that could never be achieved in the real world.  This is far from the truth.  In fact, the need for refactoring theology grows out of the very fact that humanity is caught in this cycle of fear, mistrust, and alienation.  Building these communities of trust in which to engage in refactoring theology does not mean that fear is eliminated or that all people are 100% unconditionally accepted.  What it does mean is that there is the intention and commitment to stay true to the vision of this ideal while at the same time recognizing that such a state can never be fully achieved (Luther called this being simultaneously saint and sinner.).  Refactoring theology does not require a perfect community of trust but rather a group willing to work through the process of building trust and to use this very act of trust-building as the momentum to begin its theological work.