Sermon - TLIS - 8.0.3 - Protocols
Deuteronomy 5:29
Oh, that their hearts would be inclined to fear me and keep all my commands always, so that it might go well with them and their children forever!
James 1:22
Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.
I watch too many Hallmark movies. I particularly like the ones that involve royalty: princes and princesses, generally marrying commoners, generally Americans who are completely ignorant of royal protocol. Usually, in these particular movies, the commoner either gets into conflict with, or runs roughshod over, the royal protocols.
There are, of course, protocols involving royalty, and celebrities, and diplomacy, and a number of other human activities. As a matter of fact, I know an awful lot about protocols, because we deal with protocols in technology. And it may surprise you to learn that we have protocols and technology for pretty much exactly the reason that the nobility and royalty have protocols.
Protocols are there to manage and mitigate expectations. Protocols are there to ensure that communication takes place. Protocols are particularly there to ensure that communication takes place, even between two parties who have not communicated previously. This happens whether you are a commoner meeting royalty, or two diplomats representing different countries, meeting together, when they haven't had any dealings previously, but are now in conflict, or two devices on the Internet trying to send messages back and forth about their status. Protocols establish a minimum standard for the most basic level of communication, regardless of what that communication is about.
Aside from knowing what protocols are, and do, and the importance of protocols, I have to admit that I have very little use for them. I am a systems analyst. I deal with problems. In particular, I deal with problems that have occurred and are not subject to, or do not respond to, the usual standards of troubleshooting. As Einstein's definition of madness indicates, if you keep on doing the same thing, over and over again, and it keeps on failing, then why try the same thing and expect it to work on the twenty-seventh time around? I am the person that people call in when what they know, and what they have tried, and their normal protocols, have failed. Therefore, I only deal in situations where the protocols *don't* work.
This is why, when my father explained a problem that had taxed the church's board for four months without any kind of a resolution, I was able to provide the solution before he had it even finished explaining the problem. This is why, when a friend of Gloria's commented that I usually think outside the box, Gloria replied that she didn't think that I realized that there *was* a box. I look at things differently. I have to look at things differently, because all the people who looked at the things in the same way have been unable to solve the problem. The normal protocols didn't work. And, realistically, for so many of the jobs that I have had in my life, I have had to be the person who solved problems when the normal protocols didn't work. Therefore protocols simply do not work for me. I have no use for them.
Protocol often goes by another name: tradition. That's the way we have always done it. It is a perfectly valid reason to do it again that way. Why reinvent the wheel? If it has worked before, it will, most likely, work again. The problem arises when the way we have done it before no longer works. If the way we have done it before doesn't work anymore, then doing it the same way is still not going to work. You therefore have to break the protocol, and break the tradition, and do something new. And you need somebody like me, who is not bound by the protocol and tradition, to find a new way to do things. Or, if the way that we have done it before still works, but it doesn't address a new problem that we desperately need to have addressed, then the way we have always done it before is not going to solve the new problem. Once again, you need something new to solve the new problem.
I have said that protocols are there to facilitate communication and processes. At first glance, this may seem to be counterintuitive. Like security itself https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2026/04/sermon-tlis-011-security-is-hindrance.html , protocols are often seen as an impediment to communication. After all, how do you communicate, if you have to do it in absolutely the right way and with absolutely the right forms and words? However, there are definite reasons for it.
As I have pointed out, similarly to the situation with security, the use of protocols is often regarded as an impediment to communication, rather than a means for communication to exist. Sometimes protocols actually are a there for the purpose of impeding communication. Not necessarily preventing it, but sometimes delaying it. Sometimes protocols exist so that conversation can be slowed down. This takes place in communications technology, as well. Sometimes it is necessary to slow down communication so that errors aren't made, and aren't propagated. Sometimes you need to slow down communications so that you make sure that what is said is said properly, and communicated without error. Sometimes protocols are there to make sure that information is transmitted in the proper format. Sometimes protocols are there to make sure that the proper things are said, and that certain unhelpful things are *not* said. All of this can be seen as impeding communications, in terms of delaying, or making the communications more difficult. But, in actuality, the intent is to make sure that people think about their communication. To make sure that what is said is helpful and appropriate and moves the process forward rather than creating a problem.
Protocol for royalty is there for a reason. People want to be near other people who are powerful. However, if this access is not restricted, then the powerful person gets mobbed, and cannot use his or her power effectively. This is the same whether the powerful person is a monarch, or a CEO, or a celebrity. (When movies first started being made in British Columbia in a big way, the American actors were often delighted at the fact that they could walk down the street and go into a restaurant like a normal person, and not be mobbed. In that case the reticence wasn't reticence as much as an outgrowth of the rather extreme politeness that is part of the Canadian mindset.)
Establishing a protocol helps to manage expectations. People don't expect to be able to get near the monarch, since protocol says that you shouldn't. People don't expect to be able to talk to a monarch, since the protocol says that you don't talk to them monarch unless the monarch talks to you first. Similar protocols apply to CEOs and celebrities. They manage the expectations of the general public. This allows those people to conduct their affairs in relative peace.
Similarly, in diplomacy, protocols govern the communication. If two nations are at war, it doesn't do to grab the two leaders of the two nations and stick them in a room. First of all there are negotiations with third parties. The third parties contact representatives of the two belligerent nations. Protocols are established or modified in order to determine what topics are allowed to be discussed, and what topics are *not* allowed to be discussed. This is why diplomatic negotiations take so long, and seem to be so ineffective. However, keeping the two belligerents apart prevents them from directly addressing insults and vituperation against each other. Therefore, when they finally meet, an awful lot has already been agreed to, and the chance of inadvertent insults upsetting the entire process has been minimized.
As I say, in the technical world we use protocols a lot. Protocols are an agreed upon form. I have addressed the issue of establishing communication with synchronization and acknowledgment packets.
We have protocols in the Christian life as well. This may come as a surprise to those of you who think that their particular church is fairly non-liturgical. But liturgy is simply what you do on a traditional basis. Some churches have formalized their liturgy, and have books of common prayers, and lists of scriptural passages that they read, regularly, at various set times of the year. Other churches do not have quite such a rigid structure written down, but still have a very rigid structure anyways.
For example, pretty much every church is going to have some congregational singing, announcements, scripture reading, a sermon, prayer, and a benediction. Oh now these aspects of the service may come at different times. Some may have the announcements first. Some may have the announcements in the middle. Some may have the announcements at the end of the service, or even after the benediction so that it almost seems like the announcements are not part of the service. However, in reality, they are. When they give the benediction, nobody leaves, and everybody stays to hear the announcements. The announcements are part of the liturgy.
Oh, and then there is also coffee time. Coffee time is part of the liturgy. Sometimes it is before the service. Sometimes it is after the service. I attend a couple of churches where they have coffee time actually within the service itself, generally just before the sermon. (I suppose serving people caffeine just before you preach a sermon is a good way to ensure that a larger number of them will actually stay awake during the sermon.) But very few churches do not have any coffee time at all. Coffee time is part of the liturgy.
We even have a liturgy for campfire devotions at Christian summer camp. You want to burn off any excess energy the kids have left over, but then get them quietly off to sleep at night. So you have three fast songs, two slow songs, and a devotional.
And liturgy is tradition, and tradition is protocol. There are protocols in our Christian churches.
There are also some protocols in our approaches to God. And there are good reasons for these protocols, as there very often are for most protocols. We are to love God. That is a given. But we are also to fear God. Fear not as in anxiety or terror, but fear as in respect not simply for the power of God, but for His righteousness and holiness. We must love God, yes. But we must also recognize the fact that we are not worthy of God, or God's love. God is consistent, and grants us his love constantly. This very constancy may inure us to the fact that the love is constant, and we may begin to feel that we deserve this love. Fearing God, and humbly considering our own lack of holiness, is an important aspect of the Christian life.
No comments:
Post a Comment