There is an interesting but esoteric branch of mathematics, a kind of advanced calculus, called “transforms.” In the simplest possible conceptualization, a transform converts a problem from one frame or domain or coordinate system to a completely different one – such as from time-based to frequency-based. If you’re not a mathematician or an engineer, it’s nearly impossible to explain with any brevity. Suffice it to say, for the purposes of this discussion, that the idea is to figure out a different frame in which to consider a problem, which is unsolvable in the original frame, but readily solved in this other frame. Once you’ve solved the problem in the alternate frame, you transform the results back into the original frame. Some well-known examples are Fourier transforms and Laplace transforms. It’s amazingly useful, if you know how to use it.
I remember barely enough about transforms from my college classes about 35 years ago to remember that they were utterly confounding to me; I wrestled through the classes just enough to pass them, and certainly not enough to understand them. But the general principle has stuck with me over the years.
In my experience from those college classes, I found that I never truly understood the mathematical solution. For those problems that I was somehow able to use transforms to solve, all I understood was that I had come up with a solution that apparently satisfied the instructor. But my rational brain couldn’t grasp the solution with any confidence.
To someone who doesn’t know the higher math, using transforms looks magical. From the common reference frame, a problem is impossibly complex. But suddenly an intractable, unsolvable matter has been successfully solved, against all expectations.
Also, note that the solution provided by the transform usually involves assumptions. There are almost always multiple solutions, depending on your assumptions. You simply don’t get a simple answer. That, in fact, is what make the problem impossible to solve by normal means: the assumption that there is only one solution just doesn’t apply, and that very assumption is what makes finding A solution impossible.
So what does this have to do with theology or faith? Why on earth would I be talking about math on a blog like mine?
Recently I was having a discussion with my spiritual director when I realized that the general principle of transforms might just be very applicable to this season of my life, when I’ve been wrestling with some rather confounding problems that really truly do seem like they’re impossible to solve.
For most of my life, until a couple years ago, I approached faith as a fairly simple issue. Using this math language, that simplistic faith deals with God essentially as algebra: problems can generally be solved directly, with simple replacement of variables with values. Do a few simple manipulations of the variables, and you’ve got the answer. X=3, therefore Y=12, or whatever.
In his book “Faith After Doubt,” Brian McLaren discusses his concept of four stages of faith; the first of these is dualistic, simplistic binary faith. Things are right or wrong, black or white. The second stage understands that there is some complexity, but it’s still fairly easy to solve the problems by the suitable application of simple formulas.
Go beyond those simplistic stages of faith, however, and you get to his two advanced stages, which he calls mystery or perplexity, and finally harmony. In those stages, most problems just don’t have easy solutions – if there are any at all.
In the context of this mathematical analogy, then, these advanced kinds of faith deal with God essentially as advanced calculus: the solution to problems – if there even is a solution at all – generally requires transforms to find an answer. It is necessary to view and ultimately to work on the problem in an entirely different frame – an entirely different way of looking at the issue. In the simplistic X=3 world, there is never going to be a solution. Only after you’ve done the hard work in that other frame, and found a transformed answer, can you possibly begin to reference the answer back into the simplistic world.
In the context of today’s complicated world, we live among a lot of calculus-level problems. There are a few algebra problems out there with easy yes/no answers, but most of the important problems are far more complex: can there be peace in the Middle East? How do we rebuild community in a fragmented nation? How do we balance women’s autonomy and patient/doctor privacy with preserving as many unborn fetuses as possible? How do we honor tradition family structures, while seeing the harm from purity culture and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric? How do we help people earn a living wage without overburdening businesses with regulation and costs? The questions go on and on and on, and they’re essentially impossible to solve with mere X and Y algebra. They need unconventional – even Godly – wisdom which views these problems in a transformed frame of reference, operates on that other level to craft a solution, and then helps communicate the solution back into everyday language and concepts.
And in keeping with the fact that transform-derived solutions have multiple answers, based on the assumptions made in the method, real-world spiritual and social and international problems just don’t have simple singular solutions. There will always be many ways of solving the problem, and which solution you obtain will depend greatly on what your assumptions are about the problem. If you see the world from a liberal perspective, for example, your solution will look different than if you see the world from a conservative perspective. If capitalism is your vibe, you’ll get a different solution than someone who has a socialism worldview. If you are secular, you’ll arrive at a different solution than a religious person. A Muslim or a Buddhist will arrive at a different solution than a Christian. A Baptist will have a different solution than a Catholic.
And please note that it would be a fallacy to say that only and exactly one of those opposing solutions is the right one. Any of those solutions just depend on the assumptions applied when transforming the higher-frame solution back down into a real-world situation. So some humility is required: my way of solving something may be perfectly valid and agree with my assumptions, my worldview – but it’s NOT the only perfectly-valid solution.
So I’m deeply glad that my job doesn’t require calculus. But I’m beginning to recognize that my OTHER job, the more important one, that of accurately representing God’s nature and character to those around me, really does require transformed thinking. I have to see the solutions on God’s reference frame, not my own. And I’ve got to become fluent in doing those transforms: reframing the questions and problems into God’s realm, and then just as importantly, fluently transforming heavenly solutions back into practical, everyday realities that everyone can access. And I have to be gracious and humble as I work towards real solutions together with others holding a very different worldview, because many different solutions may produce the results we all want and even desperately need. And I’d even propose that we need a multitude of solutions to each problem, not just one.
I honestly don’t know what this will look like. I just know it’s a clarity of need that’s been awakened in my mind. And I’m willing to learn.
I doubt there’s anything directly actionable in this post today. But I hope it’s got you thinking about being aware of these different frames or coordinate systems, of thinking on a higher plane, of inviting God into the solutions in a new way, letting God teach us this transformed thinking. And give each other grace for seeing a different solution than we do – because they might be just as right as we are.
If you have questions or comments, or you just want to share your own story, I’d love to discuss it with you. Drop me a comment here or on my social media feeds.
Be blessed – we’ll talk again soon.
and 
or join our email notification list.