which came first: the chicken or the egg: or the butterfly wings before the earthquake

A thought process on the 'Reasonable calculation of the sum total of all past interpersonal and observational interactions'.

Say what?

Let’s start with the postulate that our characters and mannerisms become, in most cases, more predictable to others over time: even if we somehow manage to remain blissfully or ignorantly unaware of the smell that our own lives give off: the longer we persist along a chosen path: and the longer we adopt certain mindsets: artifacts and traditions: the more the path and the mindsets, artifacts and traditions that put us on the path in the first place: actually become the predictable path:

That is to say: they eventually become our predictable path:

It goes something like this:

The path we take becomes us: as much as we become the path we take: sure, there are random events that we cannot predict: but if folks know us on any level at all: beyond the superficial: with the added benefits of time and some well won relational real estate: the folks in our lives can probably predict with some degree of certainty how our response and actions to most events will play out: if there's any kind of discernment at work in them: they'll spot who we are in us.

Do, our lives in fact give us way? Or should I say: Our lives do in fact give us away?

For our actions speak louder than our words.

Our words vary from the sacred though to the profane, the erudite through to the superficial bombast: but our lives, as lived out in front of the interwoven-ness and inescapable network of mutuality that is life on this planet: tell a far more accurate story about us.

You can tell me I can trust you: and of course you tell me with words: I will eventually find out if I can trust you: Because I will start from a place of trusting you: for that is my own personal modus operandi: and then you will either be found wanting: or not: by your own words and the statements you make about yourself: for as time passes and your MO reveals itself:

Your actions will either irrefutably reveal themselves to be in synch with your words: or alas, and more importantly: reveal where your life and any resultant actions reveal themselves to be at significant odds with what you have spoken ‘to be so’ about yourself: you might fool yourself: but you are less likely to fool anyone with a modicum of discernment: or street smarts.

For generally speaking, the range of viable options and responses we are capable of choosing: tends to diminish over time.

For instance: God revealed to Jesus some very predictable aspects of Peter’s character: Jesus, being no fool: knew about Peter anyway: He had worked with the fisherman for the past three years: and had Peter’s character ‘banged to rights’: so Jesus was able to say to Peter in an uncomfortable blessed assurance of His awareness and understanding of the man before him: ‘you will deny me three times’: Jesus knew this to be so:

Simply because He knew Peter.

He had seen Peter’s love, heart and emotions worn on his sleeve: the aforementioned superficial bombast through to the declaration of love for his savior spoken by the fisherman: Jesus had also seen the trust in Peter as he got out of the boat and attempted to walk on water: Peter's actions were, over time, giving him away: so the prediction of the denial, could be called, form Jesus perspective: either:

‘A reasonable calculation of the sum total of all past interpersonal and observational interactions’.

Or: if you prefer: divine foreknowledge.

Either way: Jesus hit the ball out of the park when He called out Peter on that one: accurately calling what was soon ‘to be so’: and as we all know, for Peter, the soon ’to be so’: became the ‘and it came to pass’.

Anyone who knew Peters character as perfectly as Jesus did: and Jesus would ultimately know Peters character better than Peter would know himself: could make the ‘reasonable calculation of the sum total of all past interpersonal and observational interactions’: and work out how they would play out under such highly pressurized circumstances as those surrounding, say, the crucifixion drama:

The drama in these circumstances could have easily been orchestrated by God: or the unfolding drama in the circumstances could have been the 'stuff' that God would choose too work ‘with’ and ‘through’ as He turned the terrible into something altogether magnificent: the way back to God: which makes Paul’s statement: ‘everything works together for the good of those who love Him’: actually be found to be true: and not just a trite cliché.

Jesus made a public spectacle of the powers and authorities by ‘nailing them to the cross’: the curtain was torn in two: the way back to God had just been bridged by the forsaken divine calling out to Fatherly divine: my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

So in the darkest moment of the darkest day: Jesus: whether fully aware of it or not: was confirming that all things do work together for the good of those who love Him: as insane as that sounds to us: especially when we ourselves have just been trampled underfoot by some idiotic diatribe or callous action aimed in our direction by another: it comes nowhere close to the idiotic mindsets and resultant actions stemming from such mindsets that Jesus had to deal with: and respond to: and ultimately surrender to: throughout the crucifixion narrative:

But in nailing Him to the cross: we eventually find out in Colossians that the powers and authorities had been made a public spectacle of themselves: and were in fact also somehow nailed to the cross: the point is this:

Everyone eventually overplays their hand:

The enemy had just played the worst hand of all time: in the nanosecond that he thought he had succeeded in playing his best: and actually killing God: it turns out that he had defeated himself: his last best weapon: death: had been eternally defeated: where o death is your sting? where o grave is your victory? nowhere mate: that’s where:

So the questions I would like us to ponder given the above are these:

How much of the above crucifixion narrative did God the Father orchestrate, via divine foreknowledge? And how much did God ‘improvise’: that is to say: work with and through the circumstances, the personalities and the characteristic traits of all who took part: to bring about what He wanted to bring about: redemption.

Knowing the characters of all the players in the drama: and knowing the fact that character becomes: in most cases, more predictable over time: the longer folks persist along a chosen path: adopting a certain mindsets: the more the path and the mindsets that put them on the path, become the path itself: so as much as they become the path they took: the path they take becomes them.

I know this sounds like a riddle: bit it isn’t.

So if God knows us on any level at all: and if He does, it will be well beyond the superficial: then He can probably predict with what we can call divine certainty how our response and actions to any events will play out:

For our lives do in fact give us away.

Our actions do speak louder than our words.

Our words are mostly pollen adrift on the breeze.

But our lives, as lived out in front of the interwoven-ness and inescapable network of mutuality that is life on this planet: and our lives as lived out within the interwoven-ness of the divine narrative and interaction with man: tell a far more accurate story:

God has your number: and He also has mine.

God revealed to Jesus some very predictable aspects of Peter’s character: as we said earlier: Jesus knew them anyway: He had worked with the fisherman for the past three years: so Jesus was able to say to Peter ‘you will deny me three times’: knowing this to be so: simply because He knew Peter. I've said this before: but as it's starting to sound a little bit too much like the 'red pill or the blue pill' from the Matrix: it warranted repetition.

Jesus had seen the manifold character traits that made Peter who he was, at work in him from the time he said ‘come follow me’: so the prediction of the denial, could be called: either ‘reasonable calculation of the sum total of all past interpersonal and observational interactions; or 'divine foreknowledge’:

But either way: a no-brainer.

So the questions are:

How much does God orchestrate?

Is it all sown up?

Is it all a done deal?

Or how much does God ‘improvise’ with and through the machinations and orchestrations of fallen man to bring about what He intended to being about in the first and final place?

Is it possible for man to throw God a curved ball: Or not?

Or is the reality more akin to this:

Man throws a curved ball: but God knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt about all of our idiosyncrasies and characteristic traits can ‘foreknow’ the curved ball about to be launched: because He knows us better than we do ourselves: and then ‘work all things together for good’ just as the ball is thrown: for He saw your curved ball coming before you were born: and He also saw it within the sum total of your interactions and this ability we refer to as divine foreknowledge.

Or He saw the curved ball, because: a reasonable calculation of the sum total of all past interpersonal and observational interactions’ regarding yourself: was, and is possible: and while you may have thrown the ball: or you may not: and either did throw it: or didn’t: God, sustaining all things: can deal with the possibility of many possible realities simultaneously:

Knowing that whatever events transpire: He will bring heaven too earth: and He will bring eternity to here.

Final point: if the future is 'closed' rather than 'open': in the sense that all that is ever going to happen to us: or all we are ever going to do: is already cast in stone in eternity: what's the point of life?

I don't want to be awoken from my slumber one day to find out I was just following a script that I didn't even know existed: but apparently did: and was written by some writers with whom I'd like to have a word: and it also turns out that I was, and am also currently powerless to alter the script because everything about me: the 'reasonable calculation of the sum total of all of my past interpersonal and observational interactions': made, and continues to make my path all the more obvious: all the more predictable and all the more knowable over time:

Did I paint myself into this corner, by my actions: or am I living in this corner because God ordained it to be so? Is it 'either/or', or is it 'both/and'?

While Jesus works 'all things together for ultimate good': even though now for a little while, from time to time: the 'stuff' of live is on a Newton's cradle swing of 'magnificent to mundane' and all points in between: Jesus just left Chicago.

You might not see Him in person: but He'll see you just the same.

Thanks to Gregory Boyd: and to all the folks who have ever walked into and out of my life: and helped me discern: and to make sure that I never turn into a teacher who forgets how to learn.

there are things beyond our ken

If something's beyond your ken, it is beyond your understanding.

So then; 'The only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing':

I think that quote is from Edmund Burke and i have always liked it:

Of the two mindsets that are, broadly speaking available to us as individuals: there's the 'either/or mindset': which might also be referred to as the 'black and white' mindset: or there's the 'both/and' mindset: of the two: I much prefer the 'both and' mindset: I prefer the ambiguity: I have no problem with residing there: it's a great place: less fraught: less dogmatic: less anal.

The Greek mindset which has stolen the rabbinical mindset from us in the west: has, it seems to me, to be proven to be found seriously wanting when applied to matters of faith: this is why I advocate for dialog and a certain ambiguity: and the preferring of each other within the dialog taking place. I have no problem with not knowing.

But I really do want too know what you think: the problem is: that particular mindset is not very often reciprocated: folks spew their thoughts and diatribes all of me: or all over facebook: end their train of thought with the words: 'it is written': and we're supposed to buy that?

We have seen the enemy and the enemy is us: especially if the 'us' is on facebook: it's the arena for dialog that most resembles the carpet bombing of cities during war: it is rampant with cowardly bombast.

Really listening is now approaching extinction: an artifact and a characteristic trait of our ancestors human condition now long since gone the way of the dodo and the mammoth: that of story telling: which requires really listening: Jesus told stories

But now the skill of story telling and listening has morphed into something more akin to this mindset: 'I'll pretend to be listening to what you're saying: but in reality I am searching the deep recesses of my limited intelligence: looking for the witty retort that makes me look smarter than you: then I'll feel good about myself at your expense: and I'm fine with that: for while I beleive that God is love and that one should love one;s neighbor: I all for it: as long as I come out on top: if I dont: I'm not playing'.

These folks wanna tell you what they think and then clear off before you can offer another perspective: why is that?

We are all fallen: yet those of us 'in Jesus' are also saints

Fallen yet saints: hmm....

Sinners yet righteous: hmm....

Old Adam at war with new Adam: hmm......

The flesh at war with the spirit: hmm....

Yet in spite of the sum total of the above (seemingly) oxymoronical / dichotomous statements: there are folks who think that regardless of the above apparent 'simultaneous conditions' at work within us: that they are the ones who have it all 'nailed down': the mind boggles.

What nonsense: what hubris: what arrogance.
When did the clay become the 'arch definer' of what things mean?

The potter does that right? Defines what things mean: and the potter is called Jesus

Why is the Talmud still being written?
if there's nothing new to learn?
The simple fact is that there is always something new to learn.
Why is Yahweh still being discussed?
Because we don t know everything: that's why.

Even Jesus didn't know everything: really; it's in there: and He said this about Himself.

Alarmingly, inspite of the fact that Jesus was happy too say He didn't know everything: I have met some folks who would happily claim that 'badge' for themselves: in fact they polish it up every morning and parade around town, as if arrayed in some sort of mystically superior regalia: I much prefer the tee-shirt: Jesus loves you: but everyone else thinks you're an ( inset mild expletive) much more accurate to my way of thinking.

We can all learn something new: always: but we have to want to learn something new to actually learn something new: right? QED

In fact it is our duty as believers to engage in dialog and take a leaf out of the rabbinical tradition and approach: 'both/and': plus dialog equals the disappearance of the 'tit for tat ya boo sucks mentality': it is in fact the only grown up version of discourse: simply because: by definition: discourse is 'grown up': yelling at each other from opposite sides of the table is what we did when we were kids: a la: 'my dad is bigger than your dad': I'm rubber: you're glue........

I'm a genius: whereas you've about as much imagination as a caravan site.

But alas, the fact remains that there are too many folks who practice faith by proxy: they follow the guys who shout the loudest: regardless of the flavor and political color of the shouting: do any of us really know with absolute certainty what we vehemently claim to say we know?

I doubt it.

Once in a while taking a leaf out of the scientific mindset and approach wouldn't hurt: (when discussing matters of faith) the world used to be flat: the earth used to be at the center of the universe: when dialog and a desire to understand trumped these insane ideas: we grew up: although it took some folks a lot longer to do so than others: and these folks took longer in the name of the all seeing all knowing christianity. Oh the irony.....

Life is 'both and' : I have said this for years: and firmly believe it to be true: things that look apparently blatantly obvious may be anything but: the world used to be flat.......

But when humans walk in black and white: erroneously thinking that they can selectively sanction the 'goodness' or the 'badness' of the sin or characteristic trait under discussion: they are treading on Holy ground: and are foolish in the extreme to do so: once they pass judgment on the 'it': whatever the 'it' is: and pass judgment a few too many times: they perceive it as part of their own dominion: their 'calling' if you will: they become the oracle. As if.

What idiotically stupid bores....

We are called to be love: for God is love
We are called to be ministers of reconciliation: because Jesus reconciles us too himself:

So: if we don't smell like the 'reconcilers of love' (good name for a band that) we are out of line: not Jesus

And by the way: passing judgment once is 'a too few many times'

For the dominion of judgment belongs to God and that means the 'both and' mindset needs to be remembered and practiced a lot more: our ways are not His ways and our understanding is not His understanding and the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom: are we ever gonna buy that?

The parables were to some extent open ended: on purpose: to get folks to go away and say 'hang on a minute' what the heck was that fella on about?

All the times I have personally heard a sermon on the prodigal son: I have never once heard the preacher saying anything remotely about that story the way I see it: because my understanding and interpretation of that story comes from the sum total of who I am: just as your interpretation and understanding comes from yours: who ever 'you' are and whoever 'I' am.

One thing's for sure: ain't none of us the I AM

Dialog was by definition built into Jesus teaching and ministry: it was his modus operandi: so it should be ours.

The absolute nonsense that folks who believe in Jesus distance themselves form other folks who believe in Jesus because the 'others' hold views that are 'at variance' with their own is quite frankly beyond ridiculous. It is the ultimate 'anti Jesus' thought process: and it goes something like this: 'if you believe in Jesus you have to think about Him and all His teachings in the same way that I think about them: or you're wrong: not sound: and probably dangerous: and just plain wrong: for I am the oracle: and just plain right': ever met anyone like that? I sure have.

Too many times as it happens......

This mindset removes grace and acceptance from our human story and within the story and the interwoven-ness and interaction of God with man: it replaces it instead with assumption: condemnation and judgment:

All the things the vast majority of believers are good at: that they should in fact be useless at doing: the trouble is: when you practice stuff: over many years: you get good at it.

And if the folks who hand out the Oscars ever decide that judgment , condemnation and assumption are to become part'n'parcel of the ceremony: it would never bloody end: too many candidates

By this shall all men know that you are my disciples: by what?

By love.

We need to get good at the right stuff: right?

We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality: a single garment of destiny: MLK

It's like we never heard a word he said;

Thanks to Gregory: Clif and Peter for firing my thought processes further on all this 'stuff'

peace
love
mike

Communication breakdown: and how to avoid it.

Phoenix-Metro: open letter

Communication breakdown: and how to avoid it.

If our family and community is to stand: the following mindset must be seen as 'self evident': and we must adhere to it: for the sake of ourselves,: and even more so for the sake of Jesus and the continuance and furtherance of His Kingdom.

If a theological position is true, it ought to be able to handle any and all objections and questions raised against it: at least: better than any competing positions. Just because we think a position or stance taken by us is 'so': doesn't make it so: especially if the mindset behind the thought process can be shown to be contrary to a fundamentally basic understanding of the mindset of God: Namely put God first: and love our neighbor as ourselves.

Jesus final prayer to the Father for His church was that : 'they may be one: as we are one': John 17:22.

Believers are called to exhibit a loving unity among each other that reflects nothing less than the eternal, perfect love of the Trinity.

This does not mean that we must always agree on all things any more than the love between a husband and wife means that they must always agree. It does mean, however, that we must agree to 'love one another amidst our disagreements'.

If we only love those who agree with us, we are in fact not loving others at all. This too, is self evident.

Repeat: If we only love those who agree with us, we are in fact not loving others at all.

We are in fact only loving the (assumed) 'rightness' and perceived 'sacredness' and 'sacrosanct immovability' of our own position. Disagreeing with one another need not, and should not, be scary and divisive: as long as we keep our hearts and minds focused on Jesus.

Dialog and discussion is fundamental to the culture of our family and community at Phoenix-metro: and one that I have gone out of my way to encourage and enable as pastor: this too is self evident.

We 'prefer' the other: that means we listen to the ideas: thought processes: mindsets: and questions raised by anyone in our family and community: any direction we take after all the dialog is in: will fulfill the law: as it applies to us under the new covenant: and it is this: as handed down to us by Jesus Himself: put God first: and love our neighbor as ourselves.

Again, this doesn't mean that we should pretend that our differences don't exist, as one might expect from a dysfunctional family: and we are not dysfunctional and while I am the pastor: we never will be.

I have been part of too many dysfunctional churches and their leadership to submit myself to this type of 'standard operating procedure' anymore.

Let's do it for real: or let's not do it at all.

I am not in this for myself: or to build my own Kingdom: I am compelled by Jesus: so you won't ever find me feigning the required amount of pious posturing and fake humility to keep my job as I have seen some do who refer to themselves a 'career pastors': you can have a career as a doctor: answering Jesus call has nothing to do with a career: Paul was compelled: He never referred to his position as a career: rather, he referred to himself as the worst of dinners: or the least of the saints: these descriptions are ones that I am happy to have applied to myself.

But I am not a dysfunctional man.

And we are not going to entertain a dysfunctional approach.

No: the opposite is going to remain true: and it means that we must therefore face our differences and discuss them openly in love: Ephesians 4: 15. This is how we learn from each other and grow together in truth and in love as a family and a community.

Since it is important to fully understand and appreciate the strengths of a position before we critique it: our first objective: as always: will be to examine whether the position under discussion opposes any passages that can be found in the biblical narrative: and in the collective culture of our family and community: and decisions made within the our community must always fall within the heart and mindset of the Trinity.

Therefore, when we dialog: I would like to encourage us all to continue to adopt and maintain the stance of 'preferring' the other until all the evidence is in: stating one's position then refusing to engage in debate is not dialog: it is monolog: and we have already firmly established that monolog is not part of our culture.

Stating one's position and/or objection(s): then having them found to be 'false' position(s) after what will generally only require a cursory glance at the mindset of the Trinity and the written word of God: means that once these positions can be found and clearly be seen as false: and against the heart and mindset of Jesus: these the 'position(s)' whatever they may be: must fold.

Simple.

If folks are intransigent to the idea that their 'wants' don't match the requirements placed upon us by the summation of the law as stated by Jesus: 'love God first, and love your neighbor as yourself': our intransigence to engage in reasoned debate is, alas, no more than the spiritual equivalent of 'my dad is bigger than your dad': it's the proverbial ostrich head in the sand.

That is not a mature approach to faith: and is the opposite of preferring the other. It is childlike.

But we are not called to remain children forever: so we must not act like children but like a family and a community looking to move into well founded and grounded maturity in Jesus. That has to be the culture at work in any and all individuals for the authentic expressions of love: advocacy: support: encouragement: agreement: and a willingness to learn and a willingness to have any and all positions submit and be transformed by the renewing of our minds in Jesus: because as stated above:

If a theological position is true, it ought to be able to handle any and all objections and questions raised against it: at least: better than any competing positions. Just because we think a position or stance taken by us is 'so': doesn't make it so: especially if the mindset behind the thought process can be shown to be contrary to a fundamentally basic understanding of the mindset of God: Namely put God first: and love our neighbor as ourselves.

Whenever we are used to hearing only one side of a story, it is easy to read our beliefs into the evidence, as we perceive it, rather than let the evidence speak for itself:

Everything must either stand or fall against the test of the biblical narrative, and of our family and communal discussions and decisions: all made within the summation of the law: as presented to us by Jesus: and as seen in practice by the new testament narrative: the acts of the apostles: and the early church.

If we don't love and dialog like this: we will fail: and I have no intention of letting a failure to dialog: or an intransigent posture hold any sway whatsoever within our community.

I would not be doing my job of shepherd if I did so. Jesus wasn't 'nice': and alas, 'playing nice' has somehow become part and parcel of what is taken to be christian in this day and age.

The 'passive-aggressive fake smile sunday go to meeting modus operandi and demeanor' will not become the norm in our community: I will not let it: Sometimes love has a tough side to it:

Because believers are called to exhibit a loving unity among each other that reflects nothing less than the eternal, perfect love of the Trinity.

mike: phoenix-metro community church.

I would like to thank Gregory Boyd for some thoughtful input into the above.