On Relationships We Can Trust

What if walking with God could be understood in the context of relationship?  What if the quality of that relationship depended on God's approach to His end of the relationship?  Could we trust Him?  Would it influence our approach to Him?  Would it influence our approach to others?

Business and psychology writer and executive coach (among other things), Dr. Henry Cloud, writes about trust building in relationships, in Integrity: the Courage to Meet the Demands of Reality - How Six Essential Qualities Determine Your Success in Business. What would happen in relationship if not only did the other party go beyond win-win in interactions but also looked out for your best interests when you weren't present and at cost to themselves?  Cloud's answer may astound you, but I also think it will ring true.  In Chapter 5, "Building Trust Through Extending Favor," Cloud states,

. . . there is a much greater degree of trust in the person of a more complete integrity.  It is the kind of trust that looks out for your interests, as well as his or her own.  In other words, you are not in it alone.  There is someone who is not only looking out for what is good for him, but what is good for you too.  That goes past just "win-win," meaning that he will look out for you when it benefits him.  It goes to looking out for you, period. 

One of the Hebrew words that means "trust" has the association that I like most when thinking of what "trust" actually means.  To trust means to be careless. 

It means that you do not have to worry about how to "take care" of yourself with that person, because he is going to be worried about that too.  It means that you do not have to "guard" yourself with her, because she is going to be concerned with what is good for you and what is not good for you.  You do not have to "watch your back" with him, because he is going to be watching it for you.  So if something comes up in the deal later that neither of you thought of, you know that the person on the other side of the table is going to be concerned for your interests as well as his own.  He won't be a pushover and ignore what he needs, but he will have concern for you too, even when he doesn't have to. 

Cloud later describes this in terms of being "for" someone and not "against" them. He defines types of approaches to trust.

The first is what we refer to as paranoid.  This kind of person just doesn't see trust as an option and can do OK, as long as things are going well. But, these people typically do not extend themselves to others in the kinds of giving and vulnerability that we saw above, because they feel as if everyone will come back to get them.  Somehow they will "get screwed in the end," they feel.  "No good turn goes unpunished" could be their motto, and when something goes wrong, they instantly get into retaliatory mode.  

Since they can so quickly feel that you are out to get them, trusting them becomes difficult also because they will quickly turn into an adversary, based on suspicion or even a slight of some sort.  And since they feel so threatened, they respond with heavy artillery and attack.  You are not really safe, even when things are going well, as it could quickly turn nasty . . . they really do perceive the world as split between the good guys and the bad guys, and because of that, they are always expecting to see the bad guy come around the corner, and that could be you.  And since you can become "bad" pretty quickly, you have to watch out for them also.  Everyone is on edge, and "careless trust" really never happens.  

The second type of person is not really one who is suspicious or expects things to go bad.  These types desire trust and good relationships and treat people well, as long as they are being treated well.  And they do not turn mole hills into mountains or read paranoid meanings into innocent mistakes.  They are pretty forgiving and can solve problems.  They will do wonderful things as well and can be quite giving to people who are doing well to them.  They give as long as they are receiving, and things are mutual.  They truly are "for" the ones who are "for" them . . . 

But, if something truly does go wrong or, even less than going wrong, is not equal or mutual in some way, then they cry foul, and their good treatment of the other stops.  They are not being stroked, so they are not going to stroke . . .

. . . it is a dependent giving, and a dependent love.  In other words, they are giving to each other because they are being given to. They are being gratified in some way, so they are giving "in return." As long as the other person gives to them, they give to the other . . .

The truth is that it is difficult to trust someone based on the demand for mutual performance.  If I can only trust you to be for me when I am doing well by you, then I am in trouble.  Because the truth is that I will fail you in some way somewhere along the path, and at that moment I need you to help me, not turn against me.  But if you are going to turn on me when I fail to do my part well, then I am always in fear and protection mode, thinking that I could lose your support at any juncture.  Then we live not in trust, but in mutual fear . . . The love is dependent on the other one gratifying him or her. 

True trust comes when we realize that another's goodness, and being for my best interest, is not dependent on anything.  It is just a part of that person's integrity.  It is who that person is, the kind of person who wants the best for others and will do whatever he or she can to bring that about.  Then, there is nothing to fear.  If I mess up, you will be there fore me.  You are going to do well by me, even if I am not watching.  That doesn't mean that you are going to ignore my failures, by any measure.  You may even do an intervention, or something strong to get me to face my lack of performance.  But you will still have my best interests in mind, and that will be your motivation.  As a result, I can trust your intervention and be helped. 

And the trust is that this kind of person never really initiates being "against" anyone, unless that person is doing something to harm him or others.  At that point, the person will take a stand to end the destruction, but even that kind of stand is against the destructiveness.  There is a big difference between a wolf and a loving German shepherd who sometimes growls to protect someone.  It's the difference between a predator and a loyal pet . . . The person . . . is only against the destruction and not the person himself.   

Dr. Henry Cloud proceeds to describe a "person of grace" as the third type of person.

Grace is when we extend "favor" to someone, not because they have earned it in some way, but because we just possess it to give.  It is a stance in life, a way of being . . . the key is that this kind of person keeps the standard, while at the same time trying to be a force that helps the other person meet the standard.  That is a trustworthy character that we can throw in with and depend on for the long haul. 

Integrity, the kind that meets the demands of reality, is character that can handle another person's not being all someone needs that person to be.  By moving as a positive force that is "for" the other person's getting better, as opposed to moving against him or disengaging because he ins't, the person leverages him to a higher level.  As a result, these people do not get dragged down by other people's failures, but are a force of redemption in any situation, bringing it to a higher level.  That translates into a relationship being healed in one's personal life, or a company getting turned around in one's business life.  Either way, his or her character has been a force "for" the good of the other, even when no one made her do it.  

I have been guilty of all of these things on more than one occasion.  I suspect I have a ways to go to demonstrate integrity here.  I know I have been guilty of writing people off, giving up on people and not showing people grace.

But what if God isn't; and what if God doesn't?  What if God's character was such that He demonstrated dignity, grace, constancy, and love all at the same time, all the time.  What if God was a God of integrity.  Could we trust Him?  Would we want to?

Consider, Romans 5:1-11 (NASB):

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.  And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.  

For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.  But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.  Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.  For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.  And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. 

Philippians 2:1-11, states,

Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.  Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.  Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.  Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.  For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.  

I John 4:9-10 states, "By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.  In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins."

Romans 8:28-39 (NASB), states,

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.  For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. 

What then shall we say to these things?  If God is for us, who is against us?  He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?  Who will bring a charge against God's elect?  God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns?  Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.  Who will separate us from the love of Christ?  Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?  Just as it is written,  

"For Your sake we are being put to death all day long; we were considered as sheep to be slaughtered." 

But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us.   For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. 

II Timothy 2:10-13 (NASB), states,

For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.  It is a trustworthy statement: "For if we died with Him, we also live with Him; if we endure, we will also reign with Him; if we deny Him, He also will deny us; if we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself."  

Deuteronomy 4:25-31 (NASB), states,

When you become the father of children and children's children and have remained long in the land, and act corruptly, and make an idol in the form of anything, and do that which is evil in the sight of the Lord your god so as to provoke Him to anger, I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that you will surely perish quickly from the land where you are going over the Jordan to possess it.  You shall not live long on it, but will be utterly destroyed.  The Lord will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where the Lord drives you.  There you will serve gods, the work of man's hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell.  But from there you will seek the Lord your God, and you will find Him if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul.  When you are in distress and all these things have come upon you, in the latter days you will return to the Lord your God and listen to His voice.  For the Lord your God is a compassionate God; He will not fail you nor destroy you nor forget the covenant with your fathers which He swore to them.  

Philippians 1:6 (NASB), states, "For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will be faithful to complete it until the day of Christ Jesus."  And Philippians 2:13 (NASB), "for it is God who is at work in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure."

In my mind, these things fit Dr. Henry Cloud's description of relationship with someone we can trust.  Why wouldn't we want that with Him?  Believing that is who He is, how would that affect our relationship with Him?

Knowing Him, I also want to trust Him.

You?

The Other Side of Hope

There's a Proverb that says, ". . . hope deferred makes the heart sick."  Thinking about this makes me wonder whether or not hope is placed in the right things.  People say, the best way not to get your expectations violated is to set low expectations or to enter a situation with no expectations.  Some say, this allows you focus on what you can control and that if you have confidence in yourself, you will be able to handle whatever the situation throws at you.  Buddhism tries to deny emotion so you don't experience heartache.  Others, idealists, continue to hope but may never see their vision come to reality.  Was it worth the try?  At what point do we give up and cut our losses?  A friend encouraged me to grieve, saying it what important to process loss prior to moving to something else.  I've been told this also also is advised by divorce counselors and I've read that processing mistakes is key to bouncing back and learning from failure.  Others - Teddy Roosevelt for example - talked about living life to the fullest (my paraphrase) so there are no regrets, and to make the most out of life.  Ecclesiastes states that there is nothing better for a man (for a person) to tell themselves that their work is good and to enjoy the fruit of their labor.  Elsewhere, the Bible states that without vision the people perish and one of the tactics utilized by POW camps was to strip people of their sense of self, of their sense of dignity, possibly of their sense of right and wrong, and of their hope.  According to others, people without something to look forward to and people without something to fight for slowly waste away.  The goal of Utopia is to create controlled equality as a hope, but history has shown time and again, that that does not work.

So is there value to hope, or are all the above just ways to cope with the difficulties of hope deferred?  And is there a hope we can bank on that will not disappoint?

Some thoughts:

1. Hope in small things helps us persevere, even if we are wrong and it never happens - and that does not mean it's necessarily easy.  The Tom Hanks character in "Castaway" held onto the hope that he could reunite with the love of his life and to the thought of delivering packages that had washed up on shore . . . and he gave up a couple times.  
2. To have hope is to be human.  It adds vitality.  
3. Others can influence whether we maintain our hope, but it is better maintained internally, regardless. 
4. The love of those most important to you is powerful.  
5. Eventually we all let each other down -- a lot -- and it is not possible to make it through life without being hurt by something or someone.  Eventually, material things we place our hope in also let us down.  We all die.  We all get sick.  The Law of Entropy is a reality.  Some respond to this with fatalism and narcissism: how much can I get out of this life and we only live once, so . . .  This can also turn into a pursuit of riches and comfort.  
6. John Ortberg, in All the Places to Go: How Will You Know?  Turns this on its head.    

When people approached Louie [Zamperini], he would often pray for them on the spot.  "Anybody can pray for somebody," he said.  His life was energized because he didn't regard it as his life; every moment was an opportunity to connect with someone, to learn from someone, to make someone smile . . ."

In the Bible, there is a world of difference between faith in a supernatural God on the one hand and trying to use magic or superstition on the other.  The problem with superstition is not just that it's ignorant.  It's an attempt to use some power or force without placing oneself in obedience to a Being who is concerned with justice and love . . .   

When I try to use God the way someone uses a Ouija board or a Magic 8 Ball or a horoscope, I violate the nature of the divine-human relationship.  I make me the master and God my genie in a bottle.  I make getting the right outcome my idol. And I move away from the spiritual growth that is God's deepest desire for me; God's primary will for me is the person I become and not the circumstances I inhabit . . .  

. . . Both science and magic offer power we use to remold our outer world to our satisfaction.  Faith tells us that what most needs to be transformed is not our outer world, but our inner selves.  Faith is not about me getting what I want in my outer world; it's about God getting what he wants in my inner world . . . 

Trouble avoidance is tempting but not ennobling.  Spiritual maturity is being able to face troubles without being troubled.  At the end of our lives, it's the troubles we faced for the sake of a greater cause that will have the greatest meaning.  

You might often hear the phrase, that "you deserve to be happy."  What if that is not the case?  With that mindset, anything that does not make you happy is taking from what's yours and is a kind of enemy.  The Bible commands to "Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance.  And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." (James 1:2-4, NASB)

On the surface, that seems backwards, but in light of what Ortberg described, it makes sense.

So what makes sense in regards to hope?  Maybe trying to fail-safe hope, as described at the beginning, makes sense.  But if we do that, perhaps, we should place our hope on something solid.

The Bible says that God is the same, yesterday, today and forever.  Some say God does not exist.  What if He does?  If God does exist, and our expectations for God could be founded on His consistency, would placing our hope in that consistency be worthwhile?  It would depend on who God is?  If God is the loving Father, if God is both just and loving, if God does keep His promises, if God's lovingkindness and mercy are new every morning, if God is faithful even when we are not, if God is slow to anger and abundant in mercy, if God exercises true justice either now or in the next life, if my life counts for something on this earth - no matter what happens - because God loves me and because Jesus died for me, then yes!, placing my hope in God's consistency would be worthwhile.

Does that mean I will always understand His decisions?  Does that mean He owes me anything?  The Bible states to owe nothing to anyone except to love one another?  Can I expect His love?  Yes.  Can I expect His justice?  Also.  Can I expect Him to get angry at things that go against His holiness?  Yes.  Can I expect Him to show mercy in light of repentance?  Yes.  Would He be just otherwise?

All this is well and good in the immediate and in light of the future, but what about in light of eternity?  Ortberg writes, "The only way to fix a broken story is to embed it in a larger story that begins and ends well."  Reality is, we are all a broken story.  None of us experiences life the way we dreamed as a kid.  Ecclesiastes 12 is right to describe growing old as difficult.  We all have scars we carry with us that impact our relational effectiveness.  We all have hot buttons.  We all have pain.  We all cause pain to others.  We all suffer due to the consequences of the actions of others and we have all suffered due to the consequences of the actions we have committed (we reap what we sow).

The Bible frames this in the context of sin: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."  In other words, we are all separated from God because of our sin. But God loves us so much that even though He owed us nothing and we owed Him our lives due to sin, Jesus died for us.  Check out the following sequence of verses.  "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."  "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."  "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life."

The Bible takes hope a step further in the phrase, "the hope of glory."  This is referring to Heaven.  Heaven implies eternal life, but the Bible also describes it as life without pain, life without sin, life in the presence of God as we were meant to be - without all the things on this side of life that trip us up and make life difficult.  That is really what we all long for deep down - what we all try to resolve when we feel compelled to minimize the risk of hope deferred.

The Bible places two conditions on this type of hope: 1) that Jesus rose from the dead - without that, the concept of eternal life would be a farce; and 2) accepting what Jesus did on the cross in our place, alone, as enough to save us - to accept God's justice for our sins and God's mercy in providing someone to sacrifice for us in our place, to believe Jesus is God and that He rose from the dead, and to make Him Lord of our lives.  In doing so, God promises to give us Jesus' righteousness in exchange for our sin.

It's that simple and it's that profound . . . and it means placing our hope in something we cannot control - but in the only thing as solid as a rock (in addition to placing our hope in God's nature).  In this case, it's hope deferred until heaven.  But on this side of eternity, we can have the steadfast hope that God will be true to who He says He is, that He will demonstrate that in our lives, and that He will not fail us.

All of us start with a clean slate and then we murk it up.  With Heaven, we can place our broken stories into a larger story that ends well.

Hope.

On Great Hearts

Robert Ludlum, in The Janson Directive, has an interesting take on greatness.  It combines great skill with great virtue.  However, I wonder if it is realistic from the standpoint of human nature.  We are all sinners in need of grace.  Indeed, that seems to be the point of Ludlum's novel, but from a more cynical perspective and fully taking into account human nature.

Ludlum does a great job of analyzing the topic from different angles.  The book draws similarities between the battles in the boardroom and the battles on the battlefield.  It is quite the study in contrasts.  Without giving away the plot of the novel, consider the following in terms of greatness.  In doing so, consider how Ludlum uses this in comparison to others with less skill or different intentions.  To me, he's making a point.   Maybe I'm wrong.  (Note: the order of the content quoted, below, is intentional.)

Chapter 12 describes perceived virtue in someone who accomplished much but tackled problems no one else had the influence to tackle.

Where humans have been tearing one another apart, he seemed to belong to some race that had learned, finally, to reconcile the brain and the heart, keenness and kindness.  He wasn't just a numbers whiz--he understood people, cared for people.  I believe the same sixth sense that allowed him to see which way the currency markets would go--to anticipate the tides of human greed--is also what allowed him to see precisely what sort of social interventions would truly matter on this planet.  But if you ask why he threw himself at these problems everyone else regarded as hopeless, you have to put reason to one side.  Great minds are rare--great hearts rarer still.  And this was ultimately a matter of the heart. 

Chapter 36 describes a different person with equally great skill but a pragmatic approach to virtue that skirts the edge of principle.  I wonder whether the same skill set could be employed with a less arbitrary approach to principle.

. . . after decades spent within the U.N. bureaucracy, deliberation and consultation were second nature to him.  His diplomatic skills were most fully engaged in reconciling conflicts among the U.N. divisions themselves--calming hostilities between the Department of Peacekeeping-Operations and the Humanitarian Affairs people, preventing resistance from forming among frontline workers and their superiors in the head offices.  He knew the thousand ways that the bureaucrats could stall executive decisions, for in his long career he himself had had occasion to make use of such techniques.  The methods of bureaucratic infighting were as advanced and as sophisticated as the techniques of aggression on the world's battlefields.  It was a tribute to his own success on the internal battlefields that he had risen as far and as fast as he had.  Moreover, the bureaucratic battle was truly won only when those you defeated where led to imagine that they had, in some way, been victorious.  

Being the secretary-general of the United Nations, Zinsou had decided, was like conducting an orchestra of soloists.  The task seemed impossible, and yet it could be done.  When he was in good form, Zinsou could lead a conflict-riven committee to a consensus position that he had planned out before the meeting had begun.  His own preferences were masked; he would appear sympathetic to positions he secretly found unacceptable.  He would play off the preexisting tensions among the assembled deputy special representatives and high commissioners; subtly lead people into temporary coalitions against detested rivals; guide the discussion through ricochets and clashes, like a pool shark bringing about a complex sequence of carefully planned collisions by a well-aimed cue ball.  And at the end, when the committee had worked its way around to the very position he had meant them to reach, he would, with a sigh of resignation and a display of concessive largess, say that the others in the room had talked him around to their point of view.  There were bureaucratic players whose ego demanded that they be seen to have won.  But true power belonged to those who wanted to win actuality, regardless of appearances.  A number of people still accepted Zinsou's soft-spoken and courteous demeanor at face value and did not recognize the forceful nature of his leadership.  They were losers who imagined themselves winners.  Some of those who supported Zinsou did so because they believed they could control him.  Others, the smarter ones, supported him because they knew he would be the most effective leader that the U.N. had known for decades, and they knew that the U.N. was in desperate need for such leadership.  

Or perhaps greatness, has more to do with intent or the lack thereof based on worldview.  In Chapter 18, Ludlum describes the difference between terrorism and state-sanctioned violence from the West, and highlights another aspect of diplomacy and street-smarts.

Oddly low-key in his approach, he played it straight. When Cooper diverted the conversation to the inequities of the West, Janson, as a trained political scientist, was happy to follow him.  Rather than jeering at his politics, Janson was happy to concede that there was much to criticize in the Western democracies--but then rejected the dehumanizing simplifications of the terrorists in direct, hard-hitting language.  Our society betrays humanity whenever it doesn't live up to its own expressed ideals.  And the world your friends wish to create?  It belongs to humanity whenever it does live up to its expressed ideals.  Was the choice so hard?  

Ludlum, in The Janson Directive, also addresses related aspects of human nature, such as, the impact of conscience on actions; the human tendency to exalt others as heroes whether or not those people are worth adulation; the impact when those people we exalt let us down; what occurs when expediency exceeds virtue; how far people can go to establish a ruse; and the importance of honesty, integrity and character in building relationships (believing in the relationship itself and having something to stand on because of the relationship) and how those relationships can be thwarted or turn out to be abusive when that turns out not to be the case.

The book often returns to describing self-recrimination and what could be called a road to redemption accompanied by internal human frailty.  Of interest is Ludlum's description of a hawk that masks itself as a songbird to fool its prey.  One of the most devastating scenarios in the book involves a woman who has lost all reason to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Aside from what I see as Ludlum's mastery at development of characters, one might wonder whether any of this is true to life -- it's a novel after all.  In the initial chapters of Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the List that Led to Vietnam, H. R. McMaster (author) describes the effect of lies and deception in the Kennedy administration that led to increased American involvement in Vietnam leading up to the Johnson administration.  It's nuts.

So what is greatness or greatness of heart in a world that often lets us down and where we often let ourselves down?  Is it inextricably also linked to accomplishment and striving for accomplishment?

Ludlum seems to conclude that this greatness of heart is is in short supply . . . and maybe he's right.  Ludlum seems to point to the continued need for justice and conscience in combat situations; the need for checks on the abuse and potential abuse of power - even in the service of good intentions, because power does corrupt as John Adams and others are quoted as saying; and the need for individual love for and by people (in return), along with healthy relationships . . . regardless how violent the individuals' skills.  Ludlum points to healthy relationships as a source of hope --- throughout.

In the end, perhaps greatness of heart and its relationship with accomplishment is a matter of shrewdness from a Biblical perspective (Matthew 10:16).  Can great things ever be accomplished without it?  It's a valid question.  It's a question The Janson Directive, perhaps inadvertently, seeks to address.

Matthew 10:16 (NASB), states, "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves." There are varied opinions on what this verse means, but perhaps the best interpretation of its meaning would be the life of the one who said it: see the life of Jesus in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).  Seeing Jesus as wholly innocent and harmless but not as wise and shrewd is missing the point.  He was both.  He was no shrinking violet, and was well aware of when others were out to get Him.  Sometimes He baited others Himself to make a point.  Yet He lived the only wholly innocent life in history and loved the world so much that He laid down His life for our sins. It's why He came.

The Ludlum book certainly speaks to the importance of being shrewd.

There is more that can be tied in from a biblical perspective.

This same Jesus said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.  It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:25-28 NASB).

The biblical book of Proverbs includes contrasts of the foolish and the naive in contrast to the wise and those of understanding, knowledge and prudence; and Proverbs also contrasts laziness to diligence and discipline when it comes to power; and describes the importance of honesty, character, integrity, being a faithful witness, and a word well spoken, in contrast to rash lips, being a false witness, concealed love and concealed hatred, and being a schemer.

In a different vein, the Apostle Paul describes false teachers as follows (II Corinthians 11:13-15, NASB): "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.  No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.  Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds."

The closing statements in 2 Peter include, "You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

Perhaps, in it's own way, Ludlum's The Janson Directive was intended to shed light on these things.

There is one more parallel that can be drawn in terms of greatness of heart and its relation to accomplishment.  In Chapter 12, Ludlum describes "just war" in terms of pursuit of the ideal while confronting reality: ". . . about the "just war," about the interplay of realism and idealism in state-sanctioned violence." As stated, Ludlum seems to conclude that this greatness of heart is in short supply . . . and the Bible seems to support this.  Yet, biblically, if we are being renewed on the inside to be more like Jesus, as the Scripture says, the life of the Christian should demonstrate that.  Titus 3:1-8, states,

Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men.  For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another.  But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.  This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds.  These things are good and profitable for men.  

So in final analysis, maybe Ludlum's focus on recrimination and conscience in the main character's journey is a good thing.  Maybe the Apostle Paul is right in saying in the book of Philippians 3, ". . . but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus."  Maybe Paul's reminder in Titus 3 is necessary.

Transcending Time's Indifference

Yesterday, The National Review republished a 2014 article on the passing of time, called "Sinners in the Hands of an Indifferent God: New Year's and the Tyranny of Time" by Kevin D. Williamson.

The article questions the rationality of the Biblical doctrine of salvation and the character of God, and points to a lesser "god" with a little "g," called time, who is consistent in spite of what we do, and really does not care what we do.  The writer identifies the futility of life and closes with the indifference of time to what we do.  Below are the first paragraph, parts of the second, and the last paragraphs of the article, however, I would encourage you to read the whole thing.

The God of Abraham is enigmatic, paradoxical, capricious, or so He must always seem to us, our understanding being imperfect, the limitations of our minds severe and unnegotiable.  On Christmas, we celebrate the fact that He, in His incomprehensible goodness, chose to dwell among us, for our salvation.  Emanuel, God Who is With Us.  The journey that begins in Bethlehem and ends (but does not end) at Golgotha must for our mortal days be the subject of faith -- the reasoning mind recoils from it.  

But there is another, less enigmatic, less mysterious god (and capital letters are not his thing) who reminds us of his austere presence during those abbreviated days of winter: the god of passing time . . . His law is inscribed not on our souls but on our cells.  His church is every place where we are laid prone with our names written at our heads: every nursery ward, every graveyard . . . You can make jokes about the god of passing time -- he does not laugh, he is not offended, he is completely indifferent, as cold and remote as the star over Bethlehem.  If we make  jokes about him, we make them for ourselves.  The proverb tells us that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.  But nobody needs convincing when it comes to the god of passing time.  we are born terrified of him and the darkness of his eternal shadow . . . 

With apologies to the Reverend Jonathan Edwards, we are sinners in the hands of an indifferent god . . .

How dieth the wise man?  As the fool.  

But there is work to be done, and champagne to be had (in moderation -- we resolve to amend our ways), and even though everybody -- everybody -- knows that everybody -- everybody -- at every -- every -- New Year's Eve party is only pretending to enjoy himself, we observe the proper offices and come together in our little pools of light in the brumal darkness.  And we may even raise a glass to the god of passing time, who is there, too.  He is not unwelcome.  He does not wish us ill.  He does not wish us anything at all.  

(Read more at http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367293/sinners-hands-indifferent-God) 

Ironically, the Bible supports the writer's point of view . . . but not as you might imagine.  It, too, talks about the passing of time -- but offers a different perspective.  Perhaps there is value to understanding both.

The writer is not the first to state that God is capricious.  However, given understanding of God's character, those same people might not consider Him capricious at all.  Instead, God is consistent in character and willing to be known if you search for Him with all your heart.

As contrary to human understanding as it may seem (hard to believe Someone would want to do that), the Story of sin, Christmas, the cross and redemption, is not something solely taken on faith that does not stand up to reason.  It is the only story that makes sense of what some call "The Problem of Pain."  People point to the love of God and say that if God is a loving God, why does He allow so much pain and suffering in the world?  Why would He send people to Hell?  Valid questions.  On the surface, perhaps embracing Agnosticism or Atheism allows you to get past these questions and treat them as show-stoppers.  This is what the writer appears to do in reference to the ability of mountains to withstand the passing of time compared to humans -- of all religious persuasions -- and the apparent futility of people of all faiths responding to the death of their loved ones.  But on closer inspection, taking the path of Agnosticism or Atheism has problems that cannot be adequately explained, and they are just as much a belief system.   Every human believes in something.  And Agnosticism and Atheism also have to explain the Problem of Pain to be legitimate as a worldview.  So instead of treating them as separate (fatalism/nihilism and worship at the alter of time or acknowledging its existence and its indifference as the article explains so well), perhaps, Atheists and Agnostics need to be grouped with the Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Sikhs all praying fervently at the foot of the bus that fell into the gorge.  Did evil evolve?  Is there purpose beyond Me and those things that benefits Me in this life, given Death?  What about purpose to/from pain and suffering apart from the love of God?  Some try to explain it as the Universe -- giving the Universe god-like, but impersonal qualities for bringing purpose out of suffering -- but that begs the question.

The Story is also in line with God's character and how He has set up the world.  There is an element of faith, but that comes with humility: instead of getting angry in frustration at a capricious God who is unnegotiable because the Bible says we cannot save ourselves, acknowledge that God loved us so much in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (in our place).  It shoves comparison out the door.  It shoves being good enough out the door.  "Sinners in the hands of an angry God"?  Sure -- God experiences wrath every day, but God is also slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness (mercy, among other things having to do with provision).  Would God be God if either were untrue? Or better yet, what kind of god would he be?  Someone you could respect?  But God, in His mercy, provided a way to pacify His wrath in Jesus Christ.  The Bible, in Romans, calls Jesus the Just and the Justifier because being sinless, He could pay for the sins of the world.  For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus.  He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.  In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Thing is, God respects our free will.  He, Himself, has free will -- and we are created in His image -- and in His free will, He decided to die for our sins (Jesus) and defeat death (the physical and spiritual, eternal consequence of sin) by being raised on the third day.

What about time?

God (the Bible) also speaks about time as merciless:

1. Ecclesiastes admonishes to remember our Creator in the days of our youth before we grow old and decrepit and can no longer do the things we could in our youth.  

2. Ecclesiastes admonishes to rejoice in the wife of our youth and to let her breasts satisfy us at all times.

3. Ecclesiastes admonishes us to recognize that given the futility of all our efforts (we all die) that the only thing that gives people lasting purpose is to understand that meaning comes in living life with an eternal perspective.  That even wisdom is futile in and of its own because we all die and any gains due to wisdom could be lost on the next generation.  

4. Ephesians 5 talks about being wise in how we live, as wise, not unwise, redeeming the time because the days are evil. 

5. The Parable of the Talents is all about making the most of what we've been given to the glory of God. 

6. The Bible says that one day, each of us will be held to account for what we have done in this life, whether good or bad.  

7. One day, all humanity will run out of time.  First by death ("the human condition" -- as alluded to by the writer); but second -- for those still alive when it occurs -- with the return of Jesus Christ.  

8.  Ecclesiastes states that God has set eternity in our hearts -- the reason we long for something to hold onto, to provide meaning as an anchor for our souls -- and that God has set things up so that none of use knows what will befall us in life, whether good or evil.  

9. II Corinthians 5:17 (NASB): "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things have passed away; behold new things have come." 

The vicissitudes of time are real.  Sure, time is consistent in that it marches on in spite of us.  Just ask my body.  But time, if worshiped, is capricious, because of its indifference.  But with God (Jesus), a few things are secure:

1. God's character.  God does not change -- He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  God does not lie.  Does He change His mind?  Sure.  But it is consistent with His character.  

2. The Bible is truly a living book: "For the word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12, NASB)  And speaking of time, with each passing year, although the words do not change, I am convicted in different ways, reading the same content.  It's amazing.  

3. God's promises are certain.  All of the prophecies in the Bible have come true to date, including the ones about Bethlehem, with the exception of those pertaining to the future.  There is something to that.  But beyond fulfilled prophecies, I can bank on who God is, who He says He is / will be, and what He says He will do.  God is a Rock, a Shelter, and an ever present help in trouble.  Sure, much of God is unfathomable and unknowable to us -- but God says that "draw near to God and He will draw near to you" and that if we seek Him earnestly with all our hearts, He will let us find Him.  God, after all, sent His Son that we might know Him and the power of His resurrection.  He is the God that can be known.  But beyond that, He is the God who knows us -- who knows the number of hairs on our heads, the number of our days, and who says we are fearfully and wonderfully made.  He knows us intimately, and is involved in our lives.  

4. People might say, the opposite of love is hate.  In my mind, hate stands on it's own.  In my mind, the opposite of love is indifference.  God came down to earth to die for me.  Where's the indifference in that?  Jesus loves me (even me).  I don't deserve it.  I never will.  But I love Him for it.  And that -- what Jesus did and His love for me -- does not change with the passing of time.    

Beyond that, there's hope.

Go ahead.  Worship time.  And see where it leads you: selfishness, self-centeredness, chasing youth, chasing adventure, chasing immortality in the form of fame, chasing wealth and material comforts, chasing health and a long life, chasing lasting relationships, chasing pleasure, chasing happiness.  This is the climax of the book of Ecclesiastes.  It leaves you empty.  Because on the one hand, time overtakes us all and we don't have a clue when that time is / will be up, or what we will experience in between).  And on the other hand, no matter what good we do, no matter what we accumulate, no matter what we experience, that can all be flushed down the toilet by someone else's decisions and 5, 10, 20, 50 years out -- in most cases - that life is just a grave stone, which itself degrades over time and is remembered no more.  Indeed, the graveyard outside outside a 17th century church on Manhattan Island has headstones where it is no longer possible to read the names on the stones.

Instead, focus on the One who provides life based on the truth of who He is (God), what He's done (His death and resurrection), and who we are (sinners); and who provides meaning for making the most of the time, because one day -- no matter what we experience -- we'll get to be with Jesus in Heaven, where all wrongs will be made right, and all actions justly rewarded.

Time.

Yep.  Time is indifferent.  God is not.

God broke through time and sent Jesus to experience time Himself . . . and then defeated it.

It is time.  Time for what?  Time to choose.  You become like those you worship.  Choose fatalism in view of your coming death, you'll reap the rewards of placing your hope in things that pass.  We are all bound by time -- but life in Jesus transcends it.  So think in view of Eternity. Choose Jesus; choose life.  Then live in view of Eternity.