131. THE CHURCH IS TO GROW INTO THE FULLNESS OF CHRIST
        Preemptively Preventing Conflict Through Relational Wisdom

Ken Sande began Peacemaker Ministries about 30 years ago because, as a young attorney, he was impressed by the inadequate methods by which people, including Christians, handled their conflicts.  Binding arbitration in the legal system was very different from reconciliation and agreement as described in the scripture.  People meet in the legal system because they are already adversaries, and, in court, each side tries to get the most and give the least, and often no one is happy unless they make the other party suffer in some way. This occurs in lawsuits and proceedings of all kinds -- in business, in divorce, and in many other cases.  So Ken began a ministry designed to apply the principles of love, forgiveness, and peace found in the gospel to resolving conflicts, especially between Christians and groups of Christians in churches.  The scriptural basis for this approach and how to apply it has been summarized in a classic book, The Peacemaker.  Peacemaker Ministries has provided counselors to help bring resolutions to issues and reconciliations between people and groups, It has also provided training and certification for people to be conciliators and peacemakers in their own church groups. 

In working as a conciliator over many years, one of the things Ken noted repeatedly was that the particular conflict never had to happen in the first place.  Under better relational circumstances, conflict could have been prevented, or at least largely attenuated and then more easily handled.  Peacemaker Ministries talked of a "culture of peace," in which the members of a church group understood enough about the love and forgiveness of God through Jesus Christ that they could settle disagreements in love before they reached the conflict stage.  

But how is a "culture of peace" established in a church group, or any other group for that matter?  How are channels of communication for the flow of love and forgiveness created so that embers of conflict can be quickly extinguished before the fire explodes?  To address this need, Ken Sande has initiated another endeavor -- a ministry called "Relational Wisdom." 

The prime objective given by God to the members of the body of Christ is that we should help one another grow to be like God in true righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:24) at the maximum rate -- the highest lift -- the greatest elevation.  In so doing, the relationships in the church manifest the love of God, peace of Christ, and unity of the Spirit, so the world can see the love of God through His Son.  

What effect does conflict and division have on traveling toward that directive?  It derails progress.  It gets people centered on tearing down one another instead of building one another up to be more like God.   

What does peacemaking do?  It gets people centered on the love of God through Christ, on the forgiveness they have received, and on their own reconciliation with God so that the conflicted parties can begin to treat one another as God has treated them.  

How does all this fit together?  

Conflict derails progress toward God; peacemaking gets people back on track.

Relational Wisdom is the track.  

Check it out at www.RW360.org

130.  THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE UNIVERSE IS NOT A MATHEMATICAL FORMULA

We are moving more and more into a legalistic mindset that is defined by specific, measurable, narrowly focused, job descriptions.  Like a robot that moves something of a certain size and weight and shape from point A to point B within a tolerance of 0.01%.  And a sensor measures the displacement to know if the robot is functioning according to plan.  A test stimulus is presented occasionally to test the sensor to make sure it is calibrated correctly.  On and on it goes.  Then something measures to see if it is Six Sigma yet.  If it is, then black smoke puffs out of the chimney, and a sensor measures the density of the smoke and the mean diameter of the carbon particles +/- standard deviation.

Responsibilities are reduced to measurable job descriptions and so-called quantitative measures of success as defined by the organization.  How well the school is teaching the students is not how well they are prepared for life, but the students' score on a standardized test.  Something of a shorter range than a life changing education needs to be measured, because we need measurable feedback now, not in 20 years.  Besides, we need to compare these students' performances with students from other schools.  

A class syllabus is like a contract between the teacher and the students.  "Do we have to know that?  Is this going to be on the test?  Is this listed in the syllabus?  Why do we have to know this?"

You have a device near your house; it's called a trash can (let's call it a "dumpster.")  You fill the dumpster with trash -- some household, some yard stuff, some grass, some sticks.  You push down and compact the contents to get everything in, and you roll the dumpster to the street.  Now it's somebody's job to empty your garbage and haul it away.  A motorized specialty vehicle sometimes known as a garbage truck drives by.  A big robotic arm with pincers comes down from the truck, picks up the dumpster, raises the dumpster over opening in the back of the truck to a level where the lid flops open, bumps the dumpster twice, lowers and releases the dumpster.  The truck drives to the dumpster(s) at the next house, and the next, and so on.  The refuse personnel did their job by emptying your trash.  Right?  

You walk to the street to roll your dumpster back to your house.  Your dumpster has fallen over on its side.  You pick it up and look inside to see that half of the trash is still left stuck in the bottom.  Besides that, the wind was blowing and caught the papers as the dumpster was hovered over the opening in the back of the truck and carried papers all over the neighborhood.  Papers, "junk mail," and other stuff with you name and address on it.  

What do you think?  The robotic arm put the dumpster on the ground such that it rolled over, half the trash was left in the container, and papers were strewn all over the neighborhood.  Oh, and the sticks are in the middle of the street.  Do you think, "They didn't empty my trash!  They didn't do their job."  Well, think again, because they did their job -- it's just that their job is not to empty your trash.  What??

Their job is defined on a specific list of "do's" on a job description.  This is a description of what this job consists of, and the person will be evaluated by whether or not they do exactly what this list specifies.  The list says, "You will drive the truck up to the dumpster and stop so that the robotic arm will reach the dumpster, grasp the dumpster, raise the dumpster to the top of the truck, bump the dumpster twice, lower the robotic arm, release the dumpster, and drive to the next dumpster.  You will do this to an average of XX dumpsters an hour and YY dumpsters in a 6 hour period.  A counter will measure how many times the robotic arm is activated up and down, and if the number of the count approximates the number of dumpsters on this route, you have done your job.  

This check list of specific actions is defined as emptying your trash.  The trash truck drives over the blowing papers and sticks on the road as it goes down the other side of the street.  This list of job description duties has defined that your trash has been emptied and a truck has carried it off.  You may have to go over the neighborhood and pick up the papers; you sweep the street; you put the debris in the dumpster; you roll the half-full dumpster back to your house.  But your trash has been emptied, because the job description says so.
Good luck calling and actually talking to somebody who is alive and speaks the same language as you do.  If you do, and if you say that your trash wasn't emptied, you are informed that the people did their job.  "They didn't empty all the contents."  "That's because you pushed compacted the contents too much."  (i.e., is your fault).  "But it's their job to empty the dumpster."  "No, it's their job to bump the dumpster twice."  "But what about my trash?"  "Okay, I'll send some someone out."  

So, you think the job of the next people will be to empty the trash?  It may seem that way, but really their job is to perform the actions listed on a piece of paper the supervisor gave them.  This job title is called, "Responding to pain-in-the-neck customers."

Now what are these only slightly exaggerated stories saying? 

Do any of these stories describe actions in the church?  Have our Christian responsibilities been reduced to a list of job descriptions - either on paper or in mind?  Does any group call this list, "doctrine?"

The Unified Field Law of Everything in the Universe is not based on present observations to be understood by studying natural operations in the past.  This Law is in the present, but is based on where we are headed in the future.  We are told what the destination is; we have been given a description and a model of the destination.  That is the Law.  The question is, "Are we preparing to get there?"  How well we understand and believe that Law determines what we do in the present.  Many people know about the Law intellectually; but, what they apparently do not understand is that this Law is the Law of the universe, from beginning to end.  It is the Law under which everything submits and gains purpose and meaning.  If people understood the magnitude of the Unified Law of Everything in the Universe, they would act very differently in the present.

129. THE UNIFIED FIELD THEORY OF EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE

It seems like a dichotomy -- on one end we strive to discover every minute or gigantic detail in the universe; on the other end we want to have one simplified summary, an all inclusive formula, for everything.  The Conceptual Theory of the Universe -- into which everything that exists can fit.  Unification.

Some say we are getting close to discovering it.  Once the existence of the Higgs Boson is confirmed, that will be a big leap.  Others say it will happen in the future, but one day humans will understand it all and there won't be anything left to discover.  Many say that it is an oxymoron that will never occur, because discovery produces more to explain with greater complication, and there will always be exceptions and contradictions.  

We have said that the Christian has the greatest bandwidth for receiving both the truth of the physical universe and the revealed truth of God in the Bible, because God is the author of both.

We propose that there is a Unified Field Law of Everything in the Universe. (A rather tongue-in-cheek amalgam of the Unified Field Theory, the Theory of Everything, and the Conceptual Theory of the Universe.)

We believe this is a Law within which all physical parameters of the universe reside and have meaning as well as why we are here, why we were created, what we are to be doing, what the church is supposed to be doing, and how we are missing it.  It includes all things on the earth, above the earth, under the earth, past, present, and future. 

All of the posts on this blog, as well as the companion web site, fit into the Law. 

The Unified Field Law of Everything is found in Eph. 4:24 and Col. 3:10. All things in the physical realm, natural and supernatural, submit to this Law.  

The theoretical pontification begins here.

128. WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE OUGHT WE TO BE?

Something's coming!  Are you ready for that day to come?

2 Peter 1:3-4
His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.  Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

2 Peter 3:10-12, 14
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief.  The heavens will disappear with a roar, the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be?  You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.
So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him.

That first part sounded pretty good, but I'm not too sure about the second part.  Who was this written to, anyway?

2 Peter 1:1
To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours.

Okay, so 2 Peter was written to those who had received a faith through the righteousness of Jesus.  It didn't say to the ones, as in a bunch of individuals, it said "To those..." as in a plurality of people. So 2 Peter must have been written to the church.  That mean us, right?

What are all these things that the church has -- God's divine power, everything we need for life and godliness, his very great and precious promises, and participation in the divine nature.  Wow!  That's quite a list of things given to the church. 

Peter didn't say that all of these gifts were given to a few individuals or to a few groups or to a few select institutions who had the best doctrines.  He didn't say that one organization would scoop up all the power and everyone else would be cast out, and he knew that would happen because he, Peter, was the first Pope of that organization.  No, these words in 2 Peter precede the later development of human traditions that retrospectively assign doctrinal interpretations where they do not exist. 

Isn't this all a great carrot?  Participate in the divine nature.  That's like having been "created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness."  Doesn't this sound like something that all Christians should want -- especially when it has already been given to the body of Christ?

Is this something that we have to earn?  No, but Peter has more to say, and the next part doesn't sound quite so good.  It's about all this fire and melting stuff, all about the earth being destroyed, all these grim-sounding things.  And then Peter said what ??  He said that since we are looking forward to this.  Now, what is that supposed to mean? 

We can look forward to this event because we do not have to fear any demise of natural elements, because we have the great and precious promises, because we participate in the divine nature, because we have made our calling and election sure, and because we will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:10-11).  

Now, let's consider what each of these assurances imply as far as actions on our part --  Knowing these things, what manner of people should we be?

What are the great and precious promises?  Certainly eternal life, but what about promises we have now?  How about the promise of the Father, delivered on Pentecost, and pouring the gift of the Holy Spirit, which are the spiritual genes of God, Himself.  The same genes that Jesus had on this earth.  Genes that make us brothers and sisters, if we are in the family of God.  

Do we have a promise for division in the body of Christ?  Do we have a promise to fight and compete with one another.  Do we in the church have a promise to condemn and judge one another or to act superior to one another?  Do we have a promise to ignore, dismiss, or totally disregard one another?  What is the church today doing with its "great and precious promises?"

How do we participate in the divine nature?  The Holy Spirit resides in our hearts and transforms us into the likeness of Christ.  But the Spirit of God lives in the church as "you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by His Spirit" (Eph. 2:22).  What about it?  Are Christians being built together?  Are groups of Christians being built together?  Are institutional groups with their centuries of traditions being built together?  How is the church participating in the divine nature?

What did Jesus pray for in John 17?  "...that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.  May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me." (John 17:21).  We in the church participate in the divine nature by having the same relationship one with another than was between the Father and the Son.  When believers are in the unity of the Spirit, they participate in the divine nature of Jesus and the Father, and the world takes note of that.  

How have all the members of the body of Christ been doing with this one?  How have all the competing, condemning, fighting institutionalized groups been doing with this one?  Why is the church known by the world, not for its unity, but for its infighting and division?  How is the church participating in the divine nature?

What else is there?  "Make your calling and election sure."  Calling?  You mean, as in Eph. 4:1-6?

"....I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received.  Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.  Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.  There is one body and one Spirit -- just as you were called to one hope when you were called -- one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all in all."

Is this "the calling" that the church is "making sure" by dividing and judging? 

Knowing these things, what manner of people ought we to be?  How is the church today -- the elect, the called out, the family of God -- doing with modeling the divine nature of the relationship between the Son and the Father that Jesus prayed for in John 17?

Are we what we ought to be (or, better, whom we ought to be like)?  If we are growing into the One whom we are to resemble (Jesus), what will we as the church do about all of those dividing doctrinal hindrances that so easily beset us? 

Are our traditional interpretations and opinions more important to us in the church than being in the divine nature in unity under the Lordship of Jesus?  For all appearances, the answer is "Yes."

Continued in the unity series on "intheimageofthecreator."

127. JESUS PRAYS FOR UNITY - ONE GOD AND FATHER OF US ALL

What do the following topics have in common?

Unity in the body of Christ; water baptism; baptism within the Holy Spirit (aka baptism of the Holy Spirit, baptism in the Holy Spirit); filled with the Spirit, speaking in tongues; instrumental worship; singing; doctrine of silence; unity of the Spirit; bond of peace; genes of God; children of God.

drtheophilus has embarked on an admittedly aggressive discourse on the state of unity in the body of Christ.  Either we get aggressive in discussion, or else God may soon get aggressive in discipline for His church. 

The world and the media don't differentiate between the various institutional Christian groups as Christians do.  Why do Christian groups have to emphasize their differences between on another more than the world does?  Why do institutionalized Christian groups spend their time and energy emphasizing what separates them from other groups than on unifying the body of Christ? 

The case for unity is presented in the companion web site:  www.intheimageofthecreator.com.  The 31 posts (chapters?) added thus far to this site are indexed under three major categories with three approaches to why Christians must be in unity in the body of Christ:

[1]  Christians are started in Christ as New Creations, being of the same family of the same Father God.  Discussed under this category are the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, the Promise of the Father, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the baptism within the Holy Spirit, the new birth from out of above, baptized into one body within one Spirit, anointed with the Spirit, filled with the Spirit, come upon by the Holy Spirit, the indwelling Spirit, receiving the spiritual genes of God, Acts 2:38, and water baptism.

[2]  Unity in the body of Christ is the message to us from the book of Acts.  Luke records the preparation for unity by Jesus and the Holy Spirit.  Acts records how the Holy Spirit confirmed the message of oneness in the body of Christ in the beginning of the church.  Discussed under this category are the interpretation of Acts, Greek words in Acts, conversion accounts in Acts, and global conclusions.

[3]  Jesus prayed for unity of all believers, and Christians benignly and inattentively ignore the global meaning that prayer and redefine its application and deny the consequences of the resulting division.   This category is being developed periodically with new postings.  

Christians with their institutionally approved traditional self-defining doctrines have placed themselves in the driver's seat for the carriage called "unity."  Each group sets their personal parameters and qualifications over why they are more qualified to hold the reins than anyone else.  A phrase may even float through the air, "Who is worthy to hold the reins of the definition of the conditions for unity?"  What arrogance and pride!  Who is worthy?  Worthy is the Lamb.  Unity has been defined in John 17.  It's not a question of, "Who holds the reins;" the question is "Who holds the reign?"  It is the Lord Jesus, not the church or subgroups within who define themselves into positions of superiority.

The Holy Spirit holds the reins; the parts of the body of Christ are the horses that pull the carriage of unity.  Unity is not "what;" unity is "who."  It's defined in John 17 when Jesus prayed for unity.  When Christians provide the "rules" for unity based on themselves, and blindly deny they are doing that, Christians have usurped the authority of God.  

Continued on "Division by Doctrine:  When Human Opinion is More Important than Jesus."


[Comments on the above or on material from www.intheimageofthecreator.com can be made in the comment section of this post.]

126. ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE ELECTION RESULTS?

You have good reason to be, but the reason may not be what you think.

Christians have tried to find the right way to interface with the civil government for 2000 years.  Christianity started off independent of government on the Day of Pentecost, but began to pattern its organization after the government even by the end of the first century.  Over the years, Christianity has been tolerated by the civil government and persecuted by the government.  Christianity has pervaded the government and virtually taken over the government.  Government and Christianity have agreed to remain separate as institutions.  The modern trend is to separate government and Christianity, not only organizationally, but also ideologically.   This tension between the civil (secular) and Christian philosophies raises peoples opinions to the publication level, so the relationships between the Christian and politics and the church and the government are subjects for books, blogs, broadcasts, and sermons. 

Scot McKnight has written several blogs with reviews of books concerning religion and American politics -- Politics and Religion, the American Odyssey (9/27/11)   and Saturday Book Review: Dave Moore on Christians and Politics (11/3/12) 

The topics of most of the publications deal with how the individual Christians should interact with the civil government in the armed services, taxes, civil service, and the political process.  What should Christians do as individuals.  In some cases the topics deal with churches or groups or congregations who tend to blend Christianity with politics and political candidates, particularly around election time, and doubly particularly around presidential election time.  Can a preacher endorse a candidate or party or criticize the other from the sanctity of a pulpit in a Christian organization that has been granted tax exempt status by the civil government?  Is that separation of church and state, just as one type of question.

"I'm not being political, but there's one party's platform that .........."

"If this person is elected, you haven't seen bad, yet ....."

"How can you be a ( ..... insert name of political party....) and still be a Christian?"

"Let us meet together and pray for our country, because we're in big trouble because ...."

"A Christian must be involved in politics; you have to be vocal; you have to ......."

"Oh, Lord, as we go to the polls, let us be guided by You and vote for ..... "

Are you concerned about the election results?  Good, because you should be!  

"drtheophilus" dares to take a different approach in a fairly lengthy post (about 6000 words) about why the problems this country has accumulated for itself are related to the church having not done its job.  It's much more than a question about individual Christians being political or apolitical; it's much more than the influence of a group or of a denomination or even of the Catholic Church on government.  It's about the responsibility of the body of Christ.  The ONE body, as the scripture defines it (Eph. 4:1-6).

It's about unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace in the church; it's about fulfilling the mission of the Lord Jesus Christ.  It's about the church either doing its job, or the church falling on its face.  It's about the future of American and the future of the church that is a part of it.  The reason that the church gets stirred up about the political choices and outcomes every four years at a presidential election is that the church hasn't done its job in the four year intervals between the elections.

Are you concerned about the election results?

125.  A PLACE FOR COMMENTS REGARDING POSTS ON 

"INTHEIMAGEOFTHECREATOR.COM"

OR

"CREATEDTOBELIKEGOD.COM"

The web site, "intheimageofthecreator.com" is a static page site used for organization and presentation of material in an academic lecture type fashion.  It is perhaps similar to an e-book.  I am sure it is possible to have a site set up for posts, pages, blogs, static, and comments, but this static site hasn't come that far yet.  At this time it is dedicated to what it is best set up for.  Since the "intheimageofthecreator.com" and "createdtobelikegod.com" sites are related, this page is provided as a possible place for comments related to either site.  A link to this page is provided in the posts on the "intheimageofthecretor.com" site.

Topics covered on the "intheimageofthecreator.com" site deal with areas that have many doctrinal implictions.  The New Creation section covers the promise of the Father, pouring out of the Holy Spirit, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the baptism within the Holy Spirit, the birth from out of above, the baptism into one body, the anointing of the Holy Spirit, the family of God, the DNA of God, the genetics of the family of God, fellowship, God's incredible gift, and the interpretation of Acts 2:38.  The Holy Spirit section covers the operations of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts and the purpose and themes for the book of Acts.  Accounts of conversions are considered individually, and everything is summed up.  The functions of signs, Spirit baptism, water baptism, and tongues are discussed.  The bottom line is given that Acts is a book detailing unity in the body of Christ, and the church has used it for the opposite.  

No post on either site is intended to promote any private doctrine.  In some cases, it takes private interpretations to task.  The universal church is not moving in a good direction; its direction is a downward side of a circle of natural entropy.  It's past time to hear from Mr. Wimpy Guy, who has polite things to say to those who wear "politically correct" around their collars and "seeker friendly" on their buttons and "I be tolerant" on their fancy cuff-links and vests that say "Jesus was just a nice person."  When a knock on the church door is heard throughout the institutionalized calcified organization called "Christianity," it's not going to be Mr. Nice Guy doing the knocking.  He may be looking for "Christians" all right, but it won't be to join them.  Sound like the guy on the street corner with a "The End of the World is Near" sign?  Look carefully and see if he casts a shadow; he might be an angel of light in disguise.  

The interpretations and views on these sites are not perfect by any means.  They are based on a message of inspired revelation, the scripture, but they come through a flawed human filter.  They are conclusions and thinking drawn from many years of Biblical study and a variety of experiences and are presented as suggestions for thought.

May we, together, have the mind of Christ. (1 Cor. 2:16).

10/23/2012

124. YOU'RE MY FAMILY

About 25-30 years ago, my family was visiting the congregation in which my wife and I had "grown up."   We attended a Wednesday night service, which was traditionally a song or two, a scripture reading, a 5 minute talk (with an invitation to be baptized), and a prayer for dismissal to 45 minutes of classes.  The agenda was to get as many of the five "acts of worship" done in decency and order in spirit and truth every time there was as assembly.  On Wednesday night there was a little problem, because one of the acts of worship, the Lord's supper, could only be done on Sunday.  The best the Wednesday night service could do was four, so, being the ever so slightly cynical person that I was, I called the Wednesday night ritual a "worship servicette."   

On this particular Wednesday night, a deacon in the congregation named Johnny gave the little 5 minute pulpit sermonoid.  He was a person who was very active in helping others.  He and his son would show up and mow someone's grass for them.  He and his family would help people fix their houses, take them food, visit to encourage them, or pick them up and take them places -- about anything of service for those who needed it.  They were ready to give.  Johnny wasn't a regular speaker, but he just happened to speak that night.

Johnny spoke well.  He just "told his story."  It went like this:

"I was born in an unpopulated area in the middle of Louisiana.  My parents were poor, and we lived in a small shack.  We had food most of the time.  When I was about 3, and my sister was 6, our mother died.  Our father tried to take care of us, but we had no money.  My father was a share-cropper.  In some crop seasons he had to leave and go to where the fields were located and work for days and weeks and sometimes months.  We had no relatives and no one to help, so my father didn't have any choice but to go work in the fields and leave my sister in charge of caring for me.  We stayed by ourselves.  I can remember every night going to bed on my blanket on the floor and listening to my sister cry and cry before going to sleep.  She was sad, but it didn't bother me that much.  I have since wondered if that was because I had never really known a mother's love like she had, so I didn't have something to remember, to miss, and to grieve about. 

"My father had to finally turn us over to a state agency, and I went from one foster home to another.  I was treated well but was never a part of anything, never part of a family, just a temporary person to feed.  I married and started coming to church with my wife.  I became a Christian and, as an adult, joined with this congregation.  I had never known the love of a family until I came into this church home.  I never knew what a family was.  I've never had a family.  You have shown me what it is to have the love of a family.  

"You're my family."

I was totally stunned.  I had been teaching classes in our home congregation in another state about how the church was more than just rules to check off each week, but rather a relationship in the body of Christ.  And here was this lesson in real life, served on a silver platter.  I was astonished at the opportunity I had been given to even hear such a story.  The natural probability of such a "coincidence" was incredibly small; and, to my self-embarrassment, it had happened at a worship servicette.  I felt maybe God was telling me to take a little chill on the cynicism routine.  After the last "Amen," I went to the back to tell Johnny how much I appreciated his sharing his story.  His wife was also standing there crying saying, "I never knew he had it so bad."  At that time they had been married about 20-25 years, which back then I thought was a really long time.  Apparently Johnny didn't complain much.  

Many years later, we were visiting the congregation again, and Johnny was beginning the downward phase of a battle with prostate cancer.  That Sunday, he stood before the congregation and thanked them for their love and prayers.  Again I heard him say, "You're my family."  

This is a tribute to Johnny Guy.  

I was reminded of Johnny's story when attending the dinner for the "Arms of Hope" in Dallas on Saturday night, October 20, 2012.  People gave testimonies of how they had been rescued from impoverished and abusive situations, either as children or as mothers with children.  These people had turned their lives around because of others who had taken them in as a family and had given them love and provision out of a sincere heart.  Because of this, they could rise above their past bondage and become what God intended for them to be -- all because some loving people were willing to be a family for them. They testified about these people being their family.  What other family would they have?

The Jesus House in Oklahoma City takes in people who are about to the end of their rope from family situations, mental problems, and usually some drug addiction. They are rescued off the streets and from under bridges.  The Jesus House shows them what the love of Jesus looks like -- often seen for the first time.  After rehabilitation and recovery, people want to do what they call "giving back."  So, these Jesus House residents go and testify of love and offer help to the poor and widows, serving anyone in need.  They have lived the need and the solution, and now they want to share that with others.

Jesus left His anointing of the Spirit upon the church to fulfill -- "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.  He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." (Luke 4;18-19).  James said pure religion was looking after orphans and widows in their distress (Jas. 1;27).  Jesus said whoever gives water to the thirsty, food to the hungry, refuge and clothing to the needy, attention to the sick and those in prison -- to the least of people -- do so as if Jesus were that person in need (Matt. 25:40).

We know that we as Christians are part of the family of God.  God the Father has given us His own DNA so that we might participate in the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4).  We have the same spiritual genes of the character of God that Jesus had on this earth, and we are being transformed into His likeness more and more by the power of the Holy Spirit operating within us.  How should a family, who has had everything for life and godliness provided for them, treat other family members?  Shouldn't we say to one another, "You're my family," and treat each other as such?

At the marriage feast for the Son (Matt. 22; Luke 14), the King will be at the head table and all attention will be upon Him and the glory of the Son.   Don't we want to hear the King say, "You're my family?"

Don't we want to hear the King of kings and the Lord of lords look at us and say, "Welcome these people inside; they are My family.  I know that they are mine because I have seen them treating one another as My family."

I can just hear Jesus welcoming Johnny Guy home, saying, "You're My family."


--drtheophilus

RECONSTRUCTION

CREATED TO BE LIKE GOD Blog Series

and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. (Eph. 4:24)

Note:  Some of post #'s 1-128 (July 2011-current) have been removed for 
reevaluation and possible reorganization.

Thank you for visiting this "created to be like God" site.  Another site has been started in a format more like static web pages in which topics are presented in even greater detail than here.  The name of that site will be "intheimageofthecreator.com"  

This new domain name is from the passage in Colossians that is parallel to Eph. 4:24 (above):

and have put on the new self which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its 

 Creator.  (Col. 3:10)

                         ("of its" in the NIV is actually "of the" in the Greek; and it sounds better as a title.)


Also, multiple posts from this Blogger site have been grouped under general topic headings and saved together as one page on a sub of this createdtobelikeGod site.  (Go there).

       

Blogs on other websites are recommended:

Musings on Science and Theology 

One-In-Jesus (especially latest series on atonement and on creation)

BioLogos

122. PREDESTINATION WITHIN THE HUMAN MIND [5] : “THE RULE OF THE FIRST VECTOR”

-- When an Initial Assumption Determines Subsequent Choices – Part 2

 -- [continuation from Part 1]

The assumptions of uncharitable judgments – vector decisions out of the flesh.  We may not all go to class at 2am or make fateful decisions involving invasions, missiles, airplanes, or ships, but we all make other types of decisions that come out of the flesh and not from the guidance of the Spirit.  One of the most common mistakes come from uncharitable judgments, when we choose to think something bad, prejudicial, unflattering, judgmental, negative, condemning or ungodly about someone else when there is no evidence.  The righteous presupposition is to choose to think the best about another unless proven otherwise.  Unrighteous assumptions are often based on unforgiving attitudes, selfishness, pride, jealousy, or ambition.  The results are often slander, gossip, reputation damage or other works of the flesh which reflect immaturity and not maturity.  The consequences for the church are chaos and division. 

“I know they’re over there talking about me, so I’m going to …..”

“She meant it that way, because she’s just mean like that.  I’m going to file and complaint and …..”

“Of course I’m still mad; she apologized, but I know she didn’t really mean it.  She’s just that way.  I going to tell everybody how ……..” 

“They’re not going to cooperate with this plan.  They don’t corporate with anything around here unless it’s their idea.  So I’m just going to ignore them and …….”

All of these statements begin with a presumptive negative judgment about the thoughts, attitudes, or motives of another person or group.  The statement is made according to the speaker’s opinion.  If may be based on past track record (according to their interpretation), but, nevertheless, it is judgmental in the present.  What is done or said next can be a work of the flesh if the vector of the first assumption is continued.  The result will bring chaos and not peace.  We were called to be peacemakers, as sons of God (Matt. 5:9), in order to raise a harvest of righteousness (James 3:18).  

Initial presumptions.  In all of the examples in this post and the previous, there was an initial presumption or interpretation of circumstances at the time that led to a decision for inappropriate action leading to negative consequences.  In Part 1, the lady presumed Charlie Brown must have been clowning around.  I presumed that my alarm clock was correct.  Frank presumed that the 3 cars that turned off had the same destination around the traffic that he did.  The airline pilot chose to presume he was clear for take-off and that he didn’t need to listen to his crew.  JFK’s advisors presumed they knew what the president would do.  The ship’s owner and captain presumed they could make it to Rome even though unfavorable weather signs were already developing.  People presumed they knew what other people were thinking or their motives.  Therefore, a path was taken based on a false presumption, with negative outcomes ranging from inconvenience and embarrassment to life and death disasters.

What is the usual human response to try to correct for “the vector decision?”

The human response to the realization of the consequences of poor choices is usually to commit to oneself that they will make a point of noticing the environment sooner so that an unfamiliar or unexpected outcome might be recognized more quickly and reversed before more damage is done.  Another way is to tell oneself that they will just not make any more of those types of decisions, or that when this type of conversation comes up, they will just keep quiet and not say anything.  Another way is to make a resolution to ratchet up the self-control and consciously think first before talking or making a decision.  These are all fine and may help sometimes, but we all know that poor and inappropriate vector decisions will continue to be made with ensuing negative outcomes.  Even “New Year’s Resolutions” fade in a short time. 

Sometimes it’s done with intention.  Start off with a faulty presumption, purposely look only for supportive evidence, filter the data to eliminate contradictions, interviewing, screening, and obtaining testimonials only from those who support the presumption, publicize the information as if it were unbiased and factual, draw conclusions that are the same as the presumption, start the next faulty presumption based on the previous one being “proven true.”  This tactic appears notably around election time as political posturing between candidates ramps up.  “We tell the truth; all they tell is their ‘spin.’”  Do different Christian groups ever use this approach in characterizing one another?  A political approach?   Do you have a scripture for that?  Sure, “Do everything to make your calling and election sure.” 

Is there a better way?

Being prepared to hear God’s voice.  The words of Louis Pasteur provide an interesting bridge between randomness and predestination, “Chance favors the prepared mind.”  Has God authorized that we should be able to predestine ourselves to increase the probability of receiving something that would otherwise appear to be totally random?   Could we perchance do that?

The mind that is not spiritually prepared can miss the voice of God, misinterpret the voice for something else, or explain it away as a random naturally-occurring phenomenon.  God spoke in an audible voice to Jesus in John 12:28-30.  Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine.”  But who benefited?  His disciples benefited, so they must have heard and understood – certainly John did because he wrote the account.  The benefit was lost on the others – it went right over their head.  Some heard a sound and thought it was something unusual, possibly even supernatural, and attributed it to an angel.  Others heard a sound, but couldn’t recognize anything – must have been just a plain old natural, random event like the weather.  Weather happens, you know.   There were likely still others who heard nothing at all.

Sometimes messages from God are given in such a way that they discriminate between those who have spiritually prepared minds and those who do not.  This is one reason why Jesus spoke in parables.  Following the teaching of the parable of the sower, Jesus and his disciples had a “post-parable” conversation.”

Matt. 13:9 [Jesus said] “He who has ears, let him hear.”

10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”

11 He replied, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. 15 For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes.  Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’ [Isa. 6:9-10]

16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.

Jesus indicated that people didn’t have a visual problem at the retinal levels – it was more at the level of the cortex.  They have closed their minds to the perception of certain information.  Their eyes and ears work, but they have closed them of their own volition and by their own self-imposed choice. 

Even in the physical, Jesus did not force someone to be healed.  Even though it might seem obvious, He still asked the blind man what he wanted.  “Rabbi, I want to see.” (Mark 10:51)  

People can have different attitudes about God and how God has, does, and will work in this world that they can look at the same data and draw diametrically opposed conclusions – one can say the information is consistent with an operation of God and another can say the information is explained by randomness and pure chance.  Both conclusions follow the presupposition that each started with – that either God exists or that He doesn’t.  This is the first vector decision, and it had already been made before the new data were even considered. 

Matt. 13:34  Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. 35 So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet:  “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.” [Psalm 78:2]

Is it possible that much of what we experience in the physical realm is like a parable, needing to be spiritually interpreted?  Is it possible that the entire physical realm, the entire natural creation of God that reveals His divine nature (Rom. 1:20), needs to be interpreted like a parable for the “hidden things” to be unlocked?  Is it possible that these truths and revelations of God can only be explained by the Holy Spirit, who reveals the mind of God (1 Cor. 2:10-11) and who guides us into all truth (John 16:13)?

Is it possible that even Christians can think they understand the revelation of God, but, like the Jews, view God through eyes of natural humanism?  Have some dismissed the voice of God as just natural background noise?   Talking about the power of God is just theory unless the church shows the world the difference that the indwelling Holy Spirit makes in our lives.

Is it possible that some passages in the Old Testament are meant to be parables – with a physical detail within the story that reflects a much greater spiritual meaning that would be hidden without the help of the Spirit?  Do we set ourselves up to miss this spiritual meaning when we made presuppositions about how literal or figurative the passages should be interpreted? 

Jesus spoke in parables.  Since all things were made through Christ (John 1:3), could Jesus have also spoken in parables when Genesis 1-3 was written?  Perhaps we close our eyes to the spiritual meanings hidden since the creation when we insist on literal interpretations of 6x24 hour days of creation and try to make Genesis into a science book.  Can Christians predestine themselves to error and to missing the revelation of God because of their own self-imposed limitations in human thinking?   -- A preconception that, “I already know it has to be this way, because this is an interpretation that I can understand.”  

Prayer for wisdom.

James 1:5 If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6 But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7 That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; 8he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.

Renewal of the mind (Rom. 12:2).

Rom. 12:2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Col. 3:10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.

Renewal is by the Holy Spirit (Tit. 3:5), and the renewal of our minds in the image of God helps us to know what God’s will is, so that we can be better equipped to make the decision that is in the right direction.

Obedience coming from submission.  God has given us the authority to predestine the outcome of our actions according to our choice of submitting to His will or to our own.

To be like the Lord Jesus Christ, we must operate out of humility and submission and obedience to God.

Phil. 2:3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4 Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature e God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!

We are to clothe ourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ.

Presumptions, presuppositions, preconceptions, predispositions, preliminary conclusions, prejudices (pre-judgments)

There are few opinions or decisions that we form that are totally objective using only the data presented at the time of the decision.  Most of the time we have already preformed a mental attitude before any new data are even considered.  We are already making presumptions even before we finish hearing the story.  

If there is a group discussion among people who know one another, whether a team of people at work or a committee at church of a group in a class, as soon as a person begins to make a comment, we have already formed an opinion in our mind whether or not the comment will be any good – useful or not – really deep and profound or stupid – important to listen to or time to take a brain nap.  We assess a situation and made an initial judgment that might be right, partly right, or just plain wrong.  

What does it mean when a wife says to the husband, “You’re not listening to me.”  Does it mean the sound waves are not making micro-movements in the tympanic membrane which are conducted to the cochlea?  Or, does it mean that the husband has allowed the auditory nerve input to bypass his cortex because he has already reflexly predicted what will be said and decided whether or not he wants to “hear” it.  He has made a vector decision and is following along that path.  His wife may help him to decide that path is not such a good idea, after all.  That is why it is said “listening is an art.”    

Someone can make a comment that elicits different responses in everyone who hears it, based on their instilled preconceptions which are derived from their past associated experiences.  One person may think it’s humorous; one may take offense; one may feel fearful and react negatively; another might be encouraged.   

One area particularly susceptible to presumptions and preconceptions is the interpretation of scripture.  I used to know that my interpretation of scripture because mine was logically provable whereas those other interpretations were not.  Many of the key doctrinal scriptures came from the book of Acts.  I wanted to be open and give God an opportunity to correct me if I should, perish the thought, actually be wrong about something, so I would frequently check through the book of Acts – I guess to make sure nothing had been altered since the last time.  So I would pray for guidance and to let my mind be open and to receive the right interpretation of these scriptures.  And I would commit to myself that I would start from scratch and prove everything by objective consideration.  Then I would go through the book of Acts and examine every point and every scripture and rethink the logic of each interpretation.  When I got to the end of Acts – sure enough, I had once again proven that I was right and they were wrong.  Those preconceptions of interpretation were so calcified that it took a 2x4 wielded by God to break through.  

Could this describe anyone else?  Any doctrinal interpretation that forms a groups that has to defend that doctrine at the expense of unity in the body of Christ is an idol that must be torn down, and the persons involved need to subject themselves to the Jesus as Lord.  It doesn’t matter who started that interpretation 200 years ago, 500 years ago, or 1700 years ago.  

People read the scripture with their background of training and prior thoughts and they rehearse the same thing over and over.  Call that interpretation truth and shut the lid on it.  How people interpret Genesis 1-3 has already been decided in their minds before they even consider anything.  If someone has already decided what they will think, they are not objective.  They aren’t looking at new data to learn something, they are looking at it in order to find something wrong with it – because they know it is in there somewhere.

My brain made me do it.  There is a neurological basis for this self-predestination.  God has placed in our brains the neuronal connections and pathways to make decisions and receive the consequences of those choices – good or bad.  God essentially predestined the development of this physical substrate called the human brain, and God used this structure to give us the authority to do many things.  Included in this authority is the free will to chose either the control of the Spirit, to discern the will of God toward freedom, or the control of our old self and our own will toward a human destiny of self-induced bondage.

121. PREDESTINATION WITHIN THE HUMAN MIND [4] : “THE RULE OF THE FIRST VECTOR”

-- When an Initial Assumption Determines Subsequent Choices – Part 1

Over 30 years ago when I was interviewing for a faculty position at a new medical school, I visited with a person named Dr. Charles Brown.  Charlie was a very good administrator -- straightforward, saying what needed to be said and doing what needed to be done, while asking the right questions.  Charlie was average build but was very short in statue – most women were taller -- and he had a well-rounded head and was prematurely very bald – as in, like a knob.  You get the Peanuts picture.  Charlie was congenial; and at “get-together parties” of new faculty and spouses, he would walk up to a new person, put out his hand and say, “Hi!  I’m Charlie Brown.”  On one occasion, the wife of a new faculty member, who had never met or heard of him before, looked him over and said in response, “Oh, sure!  And I’m Minnie Mouse!  Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha!”  Charlie just looked at her and went on to the next person.  She was mortified when another person whispered to her, “His name really is Charlie Brown, and he’s the associate dean of the medical school – your husband’s boss.”

In our conversation, Charlie and I talked about the importance of early decisions in a beginning venture such as a new school.  I recall Charlie saying, “My Ph.D. is in mathematics, and I tend to think in vectors.  I know that the decisions we are making now will be amplified later, and small differences today will one day appear as very big differences.” 

The initial decision.  In thinking about the impact of an initial decision or assumption on subsequent decisions, I decided to call it, “The Rule of the First Vector.”  The first decision or assumption establishes a direction; this direction establishes a precedent which becomes a trend which can becomes an entrenched way of thinking that is unchallenged and presumed to be right.  It can even become something to defend against those who would disagree.  It can even become a doctrine.

Momentum and inertia.  Humans naturally are reluctant to change.  Momentum reduces the likelihood of a change in direction.  Momentum is the thrust of force that is the tendency of an object to proceed in the same direction it started.  Momentum has to be stopped before a new direction can be established.  Stopping momentum takes energy.  All this effort and past work has to be negated, and that takes energy.  Then energy has to be spent to overcome inertia and start in a new direction.  Humans tend to be energy efficient when it comes to mental effort.  As we will cover in a later post, this is the way our brains have been designed to function.  If our brains had not developed this efficiency in processing during evolutionary development, humans would be far less advanced in mental capacities.   But, this efficiency also comes with some disadvantages, which come into play when we “predestine how our own future choices will be made.” 

The incumbent.  Why does the incumbent have an advantage in an election?  Unless there is some well-known problem or the person hasn’t done a good job, an incumbent candidate for an office has an advantage over the challenger because people assume he (she) knows how to do the job because they’ve been doing it.  Don’t fix it unless it’s broken.  Keep the same; status quo; keep the good times rolling.  The incumbent starts off the campaign with momentum and the challenger has to overcome the inertia. 

A perpetuation of the flaw of the initial assumption.  Once something is accepted, it tends to fly under the radar of detection.   Once data have been considered and a decision has been made, the brain tends to push this decision into the background in order to expend energy on evaluating the data for the next decision.  Mentally, the first decision is placed into the “history” file, and that decision becomes a stepping stone for the next one, which prepares for the next one, and the next one ……  The further along the pathway of decisions we go, the greater distance we travel from the initial decision, and the more we consider that decision to have been correct.  After all, we have constructed quite a trail of subsequent decisions based on that first one.  The amazing thing is to see in retrospect how far afield we have to get before realizing that the scenery along the path isn’t right and we are lost, revealing that that first decision or assumption had been wrong.  The strength of confidence in that first assumption is proportional to the distance we get in the bushes before figuring out that we are in trouble. 

Let’s see how this works in a few examples.

The case of the compulsive student.  When I was a college freshman living in a dorm (back when dinosaur eggs were 39 cents a dozen), I was very compulsive about attending class – and starting the day by eating breakfast at the “bean” – and being on time to a 7am chemistry class.  I know, it’s hard to imagine such a nerd existed.  One time I had stayed up late getting some assignments done, and finally went to bed about 1am, knowing I would be tired when the alarm went off at 5:45.  My roommate was still out goofing off, and the guy across the hall was typing a paper.   I totally underestimated how bad I would feel when that alarm went off.  I staggered into the bathroom down the hall, shaved, got dressed, got my books, and left.  The guy was still typing, and I thought, “He typed all night.”  I lumbered down from the third floor and outside.  It was dark as usual for 6:30am that time of year.  There weren’t any students out but me, and the buildings weren’t lit up. I wondered about this but dismissed it in my determination.  I would not be late for class even if I had to wait on the front steps for the building to be unlocked.  I stayed in denial until I got to the “bean” and saw it was closed and locked at breakfast time.  It was only then that I finally realized a friend had reset my alarm clock to 2am.  I went back to my dorm room; the guy across the hall was still typing.  I was already dressed, so I just slept in my clothes.  When the alarm went off again at 6:00am, I felt worse than I had at 2am.  I fell for the scheme because of the strength of my initial assumption that I had to get to class, and I had already presumed I would feel bad when the alarm went off, anyway.  I walked half-way across the campus at 2am before reality finally broke through compulsion.  (BTW, the Lord provided an opportunity about a year later for me to “return the favor”).

Assuming they are going where I want to go.  On one of his blogs, Frank Viola wrote of a time when he was headed for an appointment, but on the way got stuck in an unexpected traffic jam.  Three cars ahead of him pulled out of line and turned off to the left, and all headed down the same side street.  Since Frank didn’t know the area that well and was pressed for time, it was expedient to assume these three drivers must have known a short cut around the traffic and back to the main road.  Frank decided to also pull out and follow them.  He followed them for about 5 minutes until the three cars separated and pulled into different parking lots.  Frank was left in an unfamiliar neighborhood with loops and cul-de-sacs.  After another 10 minutes, he found his way back to the original street, and, by that time, the traffic was mostly cleared.    Frank’s point in the blog was about knowing where you’re going.  Most of the comments were about not following the crowd.  My comment was about the fate of the entire venture being based on the first vector decision to follow the cars on the assumption they had the same purpose as Frank did, except they knew how to achieve it.  One could even continue to believe this was a good idea until the third car pulled into a driveway. 

One person made the comment that since our steps are ordered (Ps. 37:23), God had predestined that Frank turn down the side road.  Frank said that God foresaw this would happen and allowed it, which was the predestination of free will. 

The deadliest accident in aviation history.  According to quantum mechanics theory, even if a process is totally random, given enough time, anything can happen.  So many unusual circumstances lined up in such a way on Sunday, March 27, 1977 at the airport on the Spanish island of Tenerife, one of the Canary Islands, that an erroneous presumption by a Dutch pilot produced a decision that resulted in the death of 583 people on two airplanes.  If one of many imposing circumstances had been different, this disaster might not have happened.  A detonated bomb with additional threats had closed another airport, diverting planes to the small airport at Tenerife.  With so many planes and not enough space, planes were lined up on the taxiway, having to wait for tower clearance before taxiing across the take-off runway.  Radio communications were difficult and made worse by language accents and use of non-standard verbiage.  Visual information was limited to a few feet because of bad weather including a very dense fog.   The controller couldn’t see the planes and neither plane could see the other.  The airport had no ground radar.  Pan Am flight 1736 followed unclear instructions on how far to proceed on the taxiway.  The pilot of KLM flight 4805 wanted to make up time lost from the airport diversion and made an assumptive interpretation of a non-standard statement from the controller that he had received clearance for take-off.  He chose to override the query of his flight co-pilot and began the take-off.  Then the controller radioed that clearance for take-off had not yet been issued, but this transmission occurred simultaneously with a radio message from the Pan Am pilot that their plane was crossing the runway.  The two messages essentially obliterated each other by interference.  Hearing either message could have allowed the take-off to be aborted.  By the time the planes were in sight of one another, the collision of the two 747’s was unavoidable.  The Dutch plane was loaded with 40 tons of extra fuel, and many passengers died in the fire from the spill.  All 14 crew and 234 passengers on the KLM flight died; 335 people of 380 on board the Pan Am died.    

Following the accident, the KLM airline tried to contact Captain Velduyzen van Zanten to make the public announcement, since he was the airline’s preferred pilot for publicity.  He was a distinguished pilot, one of KLM’s most able and experienced, who was also their chief of flight training and pilot certifications.  They were unable to contact Captain van Zanten, because he was the pilot of KLM flight 4508.

A pilot who trained other pilots made a decision that he would have failed a student for making.  He didn’t listen to his co-pilot, who he had certified two months before.  An environment was created for making a convenient assumption that led to a fateful decision that ended in the words, “We’re going.”  The vector decision had been set into stone, and 583 people died as a consequence.

Decisions on the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis – a debacle and a model within a span of 18 months.    Soon after his inauguration, President John F. Kennedy received a CIA proposal that had been carried over from the Eisenhower administration to train Cuban refugees in Guatemala to invade Cuba and overthrow the Castro government.   Historian Theodore Draper later described the Bay of Pigs decision as "one of those rare events in history- a perfect failure."  Because neither President Kennedy nor his advisors had taken the time to develop an effective decision-making process, people made many presumptions about what someone else was thinking or what they would do in a certain situation.  The height of the debacle occurred when, on April 17, 1961, about 1400 Cuban refugees were either killed or captured on the beach of the Bay of Pigs, because they had assumed US military support that they never received.  Advisors assumed that Kennedy would use the US military if the invasion failed, but this was something Kennedy never intended to do. 

Nikita Khrushchev assumed from this fiasco that Kennedy was a weak decision-maker, and the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred in 1962 when the Soviets installed 40 nuclear warheads in Cuba with plans to build a Soviet naval base.   Learning from the previous mistake, Kennedy had developed a decision-making protocol which began to function.  There were steps and balances throughout the process, including meetings of advisors with Kennedy out of the room.  A naval blockade was decided instead of direct military action, and the Soviets ended up backing down and removing the warheads.  A major confrontation with a devastating outcome was averted by a good decision-making process.

The handling of the Bay of Pigs resulted in decades of analyses on how to not make a decision, whereas the Cuban Missile Crisis provided a model for decisions to come.   A difference between the two is that the first was built on false presumptions and the second was structured to eliminate presumptions.

Let’s set sail, anyway.  In Acts 27, Luke wrote a description of a shipwreck that is as detailed and riveting to read as any in Greek literature.  The shipwreck was a consequence of a vector decision made by Julius, the Roman centurion, who was in charge of getting Paul to Rome.  The weather had already produced a delay in the trip, and a “go or no go” decision came when the ship stopped at Fair Havens (vs 8).  The centurion, the ship’s pilot, and the owner decided to sail for Rome over Paul’s warning that the voyage would be disastrous with great loss to the ship.  The centurion, the pilot, the owner, and Paul all had input to the decision.  The first three presumed they could get to Rome and that Paul didn’t know what he was talking about.  Paul was outvoted, but what the humanistic majority didn’t realize was that Paul represented the creator of the universe.  The outcome of their bad choice became apparent when the storm hit.  The next time Paul gave the centurion some advice (vs 31-32), the centurion listened.   The pilot and owner made an economic decision based on the ship and the cargo, and everything they based their faulty decision on was destroyed.  God guaranteed the safety of the people, who all made it to the destination.  What might have been different had they only listened to Paul?

 -- [continued in Part 2]