On being a good man in a storm

As we saw in Acts 27 last week, in Fair Havens, Paul lost the argument and the vote on whether the ship's company should try to move down the coast of Crete, to Phoenix, if a wind came up.

But, as he warned, as they sailed out of Fair Havens and down the coast, they were snatched up in a typhonic wind [as the Gk puts it!], a noreaster -- i.e. an early winter storm. The result was devastating, as the ship apparently immediately was reduced to slow-sinking condition, and was being driven towards the sand bars off the coast of what we now know as Libya:

AC 27:13 When a gentle south wind began to blow, they thought they had obtained what they wanted; so they weighed anchor and sailed along the shore of Crete. 14 Before very long, a wind of hurricane force, called the "northeaster," swept down from the island. 15 The ship was caught by the storm and could not head into the wind; so we gave way to it and were driven along. 16 As we passed to the lee of a small island called Cauda, we were hardly able to make the lifeboat secure. 17 When the men had hoisted it aboard, they passed ropes under the ship itself to hold it together. Fearing that they would run aground on the sandbars of Syrtis, they lowered the sea anchor and let the ship be driven along. 18 We took such a violent battering from the storm that the next day they began to throw the cargo overboard. 19 On the third day, they threw the ship's tackle overboard with their own hands. 20 When neither sun nor stars appeared for many days and the storm continued raging, we finally gave up all hope of being saved.

Then, in the midst of despair, Paul again intervened:

AC 27:21 After the men had gone a long time without food, Paul stood up before them and said: "Men, you should have taken my advice not to sail from Crete; then you would have spared yourselves this damage and loss. 22 But now I urge you to keep up your courage, because not one of you will be lost; only the ship will be destroyed. 23 Last night an angel of the God whose I am and whom I serve stood beside me 24 and said, `Do not be afraid, Paul. You must stand trial before Caesar; and God has graciously given you the lives of all who sail with you.' 25 So keep up your courage, men, for I have faith in God that it will happen just as he told me. 26 Nevertheless, we must run aground on some island."

I find his words spoken into a multicultural, potentially hostile situation, interesting: he confessed God, and pointed to the hope that God had graciously opened [echoing Jonah's very similar yet strikingly contrasting remarks]. Thus, he spoke with a consciously prophetic voice into the multicultural, volatile. apparently hopeless situation -- one where his earlier [now demonstrably prudent] words had not been heeded.

Then, after fourteen nights, the ship neared a rocky and dangerous unknown shore. Anchors were cast out by the stern, to hold the ship off the rocks. Then, when the sailors were about to again act selfishly by exploiting the ignorance of the passengers, Paul intervened a third time:

Ac 27:30 In an attempt to escape from the ship, the sailors let the lifeboat down into the sea, pretending they were going to lower some anchors from the bow. [NB: which did not make technical sense, but most landlubbers would not know that.] 31 Then Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, "Unless these men stay with the ship, you cannot be saved." 32 So the soldiers cut the ropes that held the lifeboat and let it fall away.

In turn when the soldiers wished to put the prisoners to death [fearing flight thus the forfeit of their own lives], the Centurion-- out of gratitude to the man who had just saved them all -- put an end to that idea at once. So, after a night's battering, the ship was run onto a sandbar, and as it broke up, passengers and crew made their way to the shore best as they could. That way, all 276 souls were saved from the sea.

Then, onshore, as the Maltans built a fire, Paul, in helping out, was bitten by a viper. The immediate assumption by the pagan islanders was that Justice was coming for her own payment, then when they saw that he was not harmed, they were overawed. Thus a door for ministry was opened on that Island [which is proudly Christian to this day], and after a winter in Malta, Paul was able to go on to Rome.

Several points jump out as lessons on democratic governance:

1] Selfish agendas often work against the interest of the community and even those who put them forth, but clever rhetoric can make them appear to be in the best interests of the common good. (Thus, we see for instance how the ship's owner, pilot and crew acted.)

2] Often such agendas can be exposed by the objectively unjustifiable risks they run, and/or by how they seek to exploit our ignorance. (Here, we see the attempt to abandon the passengers on a ruse as a capital case in point.)

3] The same case also shows that those who would exploit others are often the first to try to abandon their victims to their fate if things go wrong. Thence, we see the community reforming force of the gospel principle of neighbour-love: RO 13:8 . . . he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the [moral] law. 9 The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

4] We also see that by having spoken the unwelcome truth earlier on, Paul gained the credibility to intervene later on; precisely because the wisdom of his advice was now known to all. (Thus, also, is underscored the importance of hearing out and protecting the minority down to the individual; and, the importance of going though the storm with the community, where this is what is either inevitable or what God counsels us. Plainly, too, the majority or the powerful and influential are not always right.)

5] Paul, in so further intervening, acted to give prophetic hope, and to protect the company from further selfish actions -- and was believed because of the credibility he had earned the hard way.

6] On a sadder note, we also see that too often sound advice only becomes evident to the majority and to decision-makers through the disasters that could have been averted had it been heeded when it was given.

7] As a direct consequence as well, we see that if democratic governance and government are to work, we need a well-informed public and we need to have a determination to act prudently in the face of uncertainties, hazards and risks. That means that we need to be very cautious when our interests and/or emotions and/or loyalties to certain leaders or causes are appealed to as if that should be enough to decide wisely. The same holds for those who pose on their expertise in the face of our ignorance. A warped, biased, agenda-driven media -- unfortunately, I just described a major slice of the media all over the world in our time -- is also a plain menace to the public interest.

Well did Churchill observe that democracy is the worst form of government -- except for the others. For, a spirit of "unity" in the teeth of godly counsel and wisdom avails naught, save disaster. That is why, a long time ago now, Bro Henry, a wise old tailor and Sunday school teacher told my class, that one man, with God, is a majority. [He was speaking of Elijah and his challenge to the evil, apostate and foolish regime of Ahab under the influence of Jezebel, her Phoneican agendas and her 450 prophets of Baal. Resemblance to the current situation with Western culture, as pope Benedict XVI observed a few days ago, is NOT coincidental.]

Majority rule is not an excuse for either mob-rule, or for manipulation, or deceptive rhetoric. Down that road lies shipwreck. So, let us re-open our minds to the principles of government under God, and thus to godly, wise, prophetic intellectual, cultural and community leadership. END

Found! Pope Benedict's Lecture [provisional form]

Thanks to the indefatigable Charles Johnson of LGF, we can access the Pope's actual remarks, which were plainly taken WAAAAAAY out of context by the Islamists and secularists who have set out to censure him -- and even in some cases of the former, sadly, evidently to threaten him.

I must pause: why do the Islamists apparently fail to see the stunning contrast between their rage over the Pope's remarks and the absence of similar outrage over the recent incident of the at-gunpoint conversion of two Fox News journalists in Gaza, evidently by groups affiliated with the Palestinian Government?

Does this not tend to underscore a point made by Mark Steyn, in a recent column? Namely:

Our Thought For The Day comes from Steve Centanni, the Fox News reporter freed over the weekend by his captors in Gaza:

"We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint. Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it."

Before their release, Mr Centanni and his cameraman, Olaf Wiig, had appeared on camera in Islamic robes, sitting cross-legged, and had read from scripts announcing that they had become observant Muslims and asking Bush and Blair to do likewise. "Islam is not just meant for some people. It is the true religion for all people at all times," said Mr Centanni. "I changed my name to Khaled. I have embraced Islam and say the word Allah."

Earlier, his captors released a statement saying the two men had been offered a choice between a) conversion to Islam; b) the jizya (the tax paid by non-Muslims to their Muslim masters); or c) war. There was no none-of-the-above box. "They chose Islam," said the spokesperson for the group," and that is a gift God gives whom He chooses" — even if circumstances occasionally oblige Him to give it to you down the barrel of a gun . . . .

But Centanni and Wiig's brief interlude as practicing Muslims is revealing in a larger sense. Ever since 9/11, the western multicultural mindset has been desperately trying to swaddle Islam within the fluffy quilt of diversity. It's "just" another religion, like the Congregationalists and Episcopalians. To be sure, it's got a few hotheads, but haven't we all? Sticking with this line requires an awful lot of brushing under the carpet and there's so much under there by now it looks like a broadloomed Himalayas. For a start, you can't help noticing the traffic is mostly one-way: In Dr. Mahathir's country, where a long English Common Law tradition is under sustained pressure from sharia, a lady called Lina Joy is currently enduring death threats and a long legal battle because she committed the "crime" of converting from Islam to Catholicism.

Well, that's Malaysia for you. But how about Michigan? Nazra Quraishi, a kindergarten teacher at a local Muslim school, wrote to The Lansing State Journal last month as follows:

"Islam is a guide for humanity, for all times, until the day of judgment. It is forbidden in Islam to convert to any other religion. The penalty is death.There is no disagreement about it. Islam is being embraced by people of other faiths all the time. They should know they can embrace Islam, but cannot get out. This rule is not made by Muslims; it is the supreme law of God." . . . .

Christians and Muslims are both "people of the book." But there's a difference: Christianity started out as a religion of the weak, held by the lowliest in society and advanced by conversion and example, independent of the state. A distinction between religion and temporal power is embedded in its founding narratives. Compare the final words of Jesus to his disciples, on the day of his ascension …

"Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."

… with the final words of Mohammed to his disciples:

"I was ordered to fight all men until they say, ‘There is no god but Allah.'"

That's quite a difference. Christ is saying go to the remotest parts of the world and persuade others of what you know to be the truth. Mohammed is saying fight all men until they submit to your truth: It's not a plan for converting an existing empire (as Christianity did) but for establishing a new empire. Islam was born and spread as a warrior's creed and, while that can be sedated, the intensity of anger of today's western Muslims suggests that the Mohammedan fighter endures at the heart of their faith, albeit significantly augmented by greater firepower. Oh, come on, you say, what about the Spanish Inquisition? Well, for one thing, the Inquisition killed fewer people in a century and a half than the jihad does in an average year. But, in the larger sense, it's easy to argue that, numbers aside, it was always an aberration and distortion of Christianity's roots. It's less clear that the jihad in its most violent form is a distortion of Mohammed's message. [Read it all, excellent!]

Odd as it may seem, this goes tot he heart of the Pope's concern in his lecture. This can be seen from how he bridged from his opening remarks to the central concerns of the lecture:

The university [at Regensburg] was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation ([. . .] controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably [. . . ] is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature . . . .

At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? . . . .

[D]espite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature. Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria - the Septuagint - is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with logos" is contrary to God's nature.

So, now, it may be an excellent exercise to put all of this back in context: Faith, reason and the God who is Reason Himself, and then let us recall the dogs of war.

At least, if we would be . . . reasonable. END

An interim note on saying the unwelcome truth

The last major post has led to an interesting exchange, so you may wish to look at [and perhaps join] the comment stream.

DV, Monday, I will go on to the issue of becoming a good man in a storm, in light of Paul's example in Ac 27.

GEM

On the importance of saying the unwelcome truth

Now, let us turn our attention to why Paul spoke up in Fair Havens, even though it was probably predictable that he would not have been likely to have been heard, and may even have been made to sound as if he were an idiot speaking out of turn.

Perhaps, a contemporary parallel will help us see why it is sometimes important -- and even commanded by God -- to speak the unwelcome truth, even if you "lose the argument" in the short term. [Remember, mere facts and logical reasoning are usually the LEAST persuasive form of argument.]

For instance, if you have been listening to the BBC or the like over the past day or so, you will have heard how Pope Benedict XVI has offended many Muslims and others, in a recent lecture at Regensburg, in which he quoted the C14 Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologos, from a debate with a learned Persian.

As The Australian reports in a well-researched article:

"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the Pope said. "He said, I quote: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."' [NB: Cf Q 9:29 & 5 below.]

Clearly aware of the sensitivity of the issue, Benedict added "I quote" twice before pronouncing the phrases on Islam and described them as "brusque", while neither explicitly agreeing with nor repudiating them.

"The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable," Benedict said in the 32-minute lecture on the relationship between faith and reason. [You may wish to see my own notes on that here.]

"Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul," he said, issuing an open invitation to dialogue among cultures.

Reiterating his concerns about a modern world "deaf" to God, he warned that other religious cultures saw the West's exclusion of God "as an attack on their most profound convictions".

"A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures, " . . . .

Papal spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said Benedict used Emperor Manuel's views on Islam only to help explain the issue and not to condemn all of the Muslim religion as violent.

"We know that inside Islam there are many different positions, violent and non-violent," he said. "The Pope does not want to give an interpretation of Islam that is violent."

Many Islamic leaders have denounced Muslim radicals for using violence, saying this perverts their faith, but a minority of extremists say the Koran commands them to use it.

Last week, the Pope said no one had the right to use religion to justify terrorism.

At an open-air mass on Monday, Benedict told about 260,000 faithful that Christians believed in a loving God whose name could not be used to justify hatred and fanaticism.

Notice how the wider context of the West's need to open up its conception of reasoning, by no longer conflating reason and naturalistic rationalism, has been lost in much of the reporting.

Also largely lost -- cf. the response from a Muslim cleric below -- is the subtle point that the Pope is underscoring the Catholic Church's turning away from the grave errors and indefensible evils that stemmed from its unbiblical advocacy of the crusades in an earlier era -- a point that has in recent years been publicly underscored by Pope John Paul II's apologies and prayers of penitence during his visits to sites of the crusades. [In short, the Roman Catholic Church has first sought to publicly take the beam out of its own eye, before addressing others correctively, as Jesus required in Matt 7:1 - 5.]

Then, too, it is unsurprising that in a time when Islamist terrorism and jihad are major issues that are yet to be frankly and fully discussed in light of the unfortunate facts of the Quran -- cf 9:5, 29 - 31 -- and of the militancy of Islam's founding era, the international media picked up the outcry. A telling case in point is from the leading Muslim Cleric in Turkey, Ali Bardakoglu, which the Pope is due to visit later this year -- his first planned visit as pope to an Islamic country. As AP reports:

Bardakoglu said Thursday that he expected an apology from the pope and said it was Christianity, not Islam, that popularized conversion by the sword.

"The church and the Western public, because they saw Islam as the enemy, went on crusades. They occupied Istanbul, they killed thousands of people. Orthodox Christians and Jews were killed and tortured," he said . . .

AP astutely amplifies: Istanbul, Turkey's largest city, was the capital of the Eastern Roman and Byzantine Christian empires before being conquered by Ottoman Muslims in 1453. Of course, before it was so-renamed by the conquering Ottoman Turks, it had been known as Constantinople, who among other things turned the leading church in Constantinople, the wonderful Hagia Sophia, into a Mosque. [The Attaturk regime turned it into a Museum.] Not to mention, in fact, the first several centuries of the Christian era were marked by Christians who bore peaceful witness to an unwelcome gospel, even at the expense of their lives.

(Also, in a subtle distractor from the Pope's point, the Islamic cleric adverts to the occasion where Venetian-led crusaders, deflected from their more normal focus on recapturing the Holy Land from its Muslim conquerers, attacked Constantinople. Unaddressed: the prior hundreds of years of jihad wars that for instance from 62os to the 730's took the domain of Islam forward by the sword, from Medina to India in the East and France in the West. It is impossible to make the case that that vast arc of conquest that created today's Muslim heartland largely at the expense of precisely the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire, was as a result of "defensive" actions.)

In short, part of the balancing context we should address - but which is of course missing from much of the news coverage, which instead has too often seemed to make the pope sound like an idiotic hypocrite -- is the unfortunate fact that Islam has in material part been spread by the sword, right from its founding era, and the further sad fact that that was justified by not only the example set by Mohammed and the four "rightly guided" Caliphs, as is encoded in the sharia law, but by Quranic passages such as:

9:29 Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued . . . .

9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. [This is the infamous Sword Verse.]

That these passages are often, and indeed historically have usually been, taken to mean just what they seem to say is an unfortunate fact of the current radical islamist movement. But also we can see it in the thought of a great many other more "moderate" muslims, e.g. the attitude of for instance Pakistan's Brigadier S. K. Malik, in the preface to his The Quranic Concept of War, as cited by Silas of answering-islam.org:

"But in Islam war is waged to establish supremacy of the Lord only when every other argument has failed to convince those who reject His Will and work against the every purpose of the creation of mankind."

"Many Western Scholars have pointed their accusing fingers at some of the above verses in the Quran to be able to contend that world of Islam is in a state of perpetual struggle against the non-Muslims. As to them it is a sufficient answer to make... that the defiance of God's authority by one who is His slaves exposes that slave to the risk of being held guilty of treason and as such a one, in the perspective of Islamic law, is indeed to be treated as a sort of that cancerous growth on that organism of humanity.... It thus becomes necessary to remove the cancerous malformation even if it be by surgical means, in order to save the rest of humanity."

There are of course simply no parallels to such a sentiment in the New Testament, the distinctively Christian Scriptures. Indeed, the specific "sword passage" in the NT, Rom 13:1 - 7, is in a context that immediately implies that the pagan Roman Emperor, Nero -- admittedly before he went quite insane -- was not only legitimate but God's Servant to do us good, in part by bearing the sword in defense of justice from evildoers!

But all of these nuances are liable to be lost in today's shouting, just as Paul's cautions were lost in the dismissive rhetoric of that fateful day in October 59: a prisoner arguing against the Ship's Owner and Pilot -- ridiculous!

So, then, why bother speak up when it is likely to be unwelcome? Should we not rather instead remember that while speech may be silver, silence is golden?

First and foremost, because if God tells us to speak up, and how, we should:

AM 3:7 Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing
without revealing his plan
to his servants the prophets.

AM 3:8 The lion has roared--
who will not fear?
The Sovereign LORD has spoken--
who can but prophesy?

Second, such a prophetic caution is often a vital stage in the reformation to follow as the folly of rejecting godly wisdom soon enough manifests itself.

Then, there will be a dire need for a good man in the storm -- and having the courage to speak unwelcome truth and wisdom is often a qualification for such an important but thankless job. (Next time, we will see how that happened with Paul, and draw out lessons for our own situation.) END

Making better Community Decisions in the face of risks

Now, let's get anachronistic, transporting ourselves in our imaginations to the ship in Fair Havens that October of 59 AD.

Could a different apptroach to the decision have made a difference?

For instance, what if the Centurion had asked the Kubernete ["Pilot" in the NIV] to tell him what the odds were on what kind of weather during October?

Then, the decision makers would have had a better picture of the situation. Going back to my Nov 15, 2002 post:

In many decision-making situations, what the facts are is an open question, often hotly contested by highly articulate advocates and spin-doctors. Thus, we are forced to act in the face of uncertainties, risk and probabilities.

Operations Research offers a framework for making such decisions, based on Game Theory: playing a “game” with Nature as the opponent.

For instance, let us again consider the situation of Acts 27, from a decision-making perspective:

NATURE: The relevant environmental factor was the weather. We can identify at least three plausible states of Nature, given that it was late in the year, so the first winter-storms could have come at any time.

(1) Continued adverse winds until the first winter storm closed down sailing for the winter. (This would have locked the ship up in Fair Havens, regardless of intent.)

(2) A day or two of good sailing wind, as that would suffice to get the ship within striking-distance of the more commodious harbour, Phoenix.

(3) Initially favourable winds, but as a precursor to the first winter storm – what happened in the event.

DECISION-MAKER: This would have mainly been the Centurion, as influenced by the Experts (Ship Owner and Kubernete/steersman), the majority and Paul. Here, there were two options:

(A) Sail for Phoenix, if the winds became favourable. (The majority opinion.)

(B) Stay put in Fair Havens. (Paul’s alternative.)

We know that in the event, we had the match A-3, leading to disaster. However, this is after the fact. How can one decide wisely before the event?

Basically, we can set up a so-called “payoff table” showing what outcomes would be likely from A or B if Nature went to states 1, 2, or 3:

A: In state 1, there would be no opportunity to sail before the winter weather set in. If 2 ocurred, then the ship would have been in a better, and probably safer, harbour. Of course, as happened, we ended with A-3, a disaster.

B: Safe, but not comfortable, and the ship could possibly have been subject to damage.

The next step in deciding is to assess the likelihood or prudence of the outcomes, and to decide on the best alternative. Here, if one knows the probabilities attaching to states 1, 2 or 3 it would be helpful in quantifying the options. (One way to do this, is to ask the experts to indicate how often out of say six seasons the weather would play out as 1, 2 or 3.) But, the usual case is that such “subjective probabilities” are at best educated guesses, and the down-side vulnerabilities may exceed the upside benefits.

In that case, we should assess the range of opportunities and threats, and if possible, estimate what is more or less likely to happen. Then, we could weight the potential benefits and potential costs, to give an expectation, by summing up benefit/cost x probability. (For instance, if we bet $100 on a six on a die, for $1,000, we can expect, on average, to gain $1,000 if we get a 6, with a 1/6 chance, but stand to lose five chances out of six, so we expect to gain: 1/6 x $1000 + 5/6 x (-$100) = $ 83 per throw. One may lose most of the time, but on average, one would gain. That is how businessmen and investors make a living. Profit is often based on returns to the risk of enterprise.)

However, in some cases, like Russian roulette, even though the chance of a negative downside is 1/6: one bullet and five empty chambers when one pulls the trigger; the loss is so high that we would probably decide to minimize our exposure to a catastrophic outcome. (In yet other cases, the outcome is a mixed bag, so it may be wise to see how to minimize regret: the “if I had only known . . .” on either the upside or the downside.)

In the case in Acts 27, Paul’s initial advice was probably prudent, even if the gentle South Wind had lasted long enough, as the potential loss was so serious – as the Apostle pointed out.

But, the point is that if a proper exploration of the possible scenarios and the decision alternatives had been looked at, together, the whole pattern of how the decision was made would likely have shifted. [One challenge: the shipowner probably knew the risks being run, but to him the odds of losing the ship across a whole winter in Fair Havens loomed larger than the possibility of passengers losing their lives in a short run down the coast with a favourable wind -- i.e. his interests and that of the passengers diverged. So, he may well have been tempted to try the usual side arguments and personal attacks that so often distract attention from inconvenient points. ]

Thus, also, the principles of participation, mutual respect and freedom of information are very important if democratic decision-making is to work. It is no surprise to see that these are exactly the principles that are so often wanting in our own public debates -- nor, to see how often disaster results.

So, as we look at many risky decisions in our region today, and as we look at how we make decisions in which the public has a stake, the presence of distractors and disrespectful personal attacks should serve as a warning that somethig is probably wrong here. (Resemblance to developments here in Montserrat, or across the Caribbean and event he world as a whole over the past several decades are NOT coincidental.)

Right -- not might, nor money, nor technical expertise, nor even the views of the majority -- makes right. END

Democracy and the prophetic voice in a world of fallen, fallible people

We have begun to discuss the implications of the Acts 27 account of events in Fair Havens, Crete in October of [probably] 59 AD.

For, we have seen how Paul's well-judged minority report that an undue environmental risk was about to be run if they set sail from Fair Havens plainly failed to carry the day with the majority, in the face of the advice of the pilot and of the owner of the ship. [Doubtless, these were in turn influenced by the fact that the ship and cargo were at higher risk in Fair Havens than in Phoenix, so they appealed to the discomfort of the passengers, to induce them to go along with the plan to make the ship safer by sailing on to Phoenix.]

So, when a gentle south wind came up, the ship sailed out towards the more attractive wintering port, Phoenix, only to be caught in an early-arriving winter storm.

That is, we here see several key lessons:

1. First, let us note how the majority, as influenced by the powerful -- but evidently agenda-driven -- voices of the technical and moneyed elite, made a dangerous decision and nearly lost their lives as well as the boat and cargo.

2. Thus, we should immediately note a point that should be obvious, but is often lost in the noise over the value and importance of "Democracy": the majority, the powerful, experts and the otherwise influential, can be wrong or even foolish. (It is right -- not might -- that makes right.)

3. That is one reason why it is very important to encourage, hear out, and protect the minority down to one person, even though it is often "inconvenient" for backers of whatever agenda is being pushed by the powerful.

4. Lurking beneath, too, is the issue of community decision making in light of an uncertain future and a potentially dangerous environment.

5. So, in a world of uncertainties, it is important for decision-makers to consider the full "fan" of credible scenarios -- optimistic, typical, pessimistic -- that could play out if a proposal is acted on in the relevant environment.

6. That way, the community can learn to think in terms of alternatives and consequences, and can see why more robust alternatives -- even if less comfortable and attractive than other alternatives [if things go well] -- may be more prudent.

7. We can also see Paul, a Christian, acting the part of the good citizen and rendering wise, informed and prophetic counsel to the micro-community represented by the ship's company, even though it was probably predictable that his words would be unpopular.

8. As we will go on to see, in the crisis that followed, the earlier wise counsel gave him a credibility that allowed him to become the "good man in the storm," as decisions had to be made in the unfolding crisis.

In short, given a world full of uncertainties, and of fallen, fallible, interested people, we must recognise that we can go wrong, dangerously wrong. So we need to govern ourselves in ways that encourage that "still, small voice" of wisdom that we should then follow -- uncomfortable and inconvenient though it so often is. END

Learning from 9/11 the Montserrat Volcano crisis and Acts 27

Today is of course the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, a case where in the interests of freedom of society, risks were run with potential terrorists [we all know the profile now . . .], and the world paid a stiff price as evil men exploited the vulnerabilities of freedom to murder thousands and plunged the world into a dark night of war that still continues.

Overnight, too, we had some serious developments here in Montserrat. Summarising:

Over the past day or so the volcano here in Montserrat has reached a new, further elevated state of activity as a vent on the Gages Wall has reached the stage of repeated albeit small explosions. A crumbling notch is now in that wall, overlooking Plymouth. Alarms sounded, we heard from the chief scientist at the MVO, and from the Governor yesterday. People living on the flanks of the Belham valley [to the NW] have been put on notice to prepare for evacuation, if in a worst case scenario, there are pyroclastic [hot ash, gas and rock] flows and surges in that valley. That news was certain to be deeply unwelcome, for very understandable reasons, among many living in Isles Bay, Salem and environs.

There was some relatively speaking good news this morning though. In a further development, the MVO head informed the public that the peak of the dome is tilting over towards the North East, and that growth appears focussed there suggesting that the Tar River valley to the NE -- and away from inhabited areas -- is the most likely direction of expected collapses.

Oddly, this issue of society involving itself in potentially high-risk situations and the need to address credible scenarios and balance freedom or convenience with security, is an apt illustration of the situation that developed in Ac 27. For there, Paul, an appellate prisoner on a ship in the Imperial wheat service from Egypt to Rome, had counselled the ship not to sail out of Fair Havens, Crete, precisely because of the risk of winter storms setting in and putting the ship at grave risk:

AC 27:9 Much time had been lost, and sailing had already become dangerous because by now it was after the Fast. So Paul warned them, 10 "Men, I can see that our voyage is going to be disastrous and bring great loss to ship and cargo, and to our own lives also." 11 But the centurion, instead of listening to what Paul said, followed the advice of the pilot and of the owner of the ship. 12 Since the harbor was unsuitable to winter in, the majority decided that we should sail on, hoping to reach Phoenix and winter there. This was a harbor in Crete, facing both southwest and northwest.

Duly, a gentle south wind blew up and they thought the were going to be able to sail on to Phoenix. So, they set sail. But, disaster was the result:

Ac 27:14 Before very long, a wind of hurricane force, called the "northeaster," swept down from the island. 15 The ship was caught by the storm and could not head into the wind; so we gave way to it and were driven along. 16 As we passed to the lee of a small island called Cauda, we were hardly able to make the lifeboat secure. 17 When the men had hoisted it aboard, they passed ropes under the ship itself to hold it together. Fearing that they would run aground on the sandbars of Syrtis, they lowered the sea anchor and let the ship be driven along. 18 We took such a violent battering from the storm that the next day they began to throw the cargo overboard. 19 On the third day, they threw the ship's tackle overboard with their own hands. 20 When neither sun nor stars appeared for many days and the storm continued raging, we finally gave up all hope of being saved.

Why was Paul not heeded? Why is it that when I and other hosts of the Let's Talk Radio Talk show raised concerns in the context of warnings by Dr Glen Matteoli of the USA and presentations by Prof Okada of Japan, during the 10th anniversary conference of the Volcano eruption, we were publicly lashed during the weekly volcano update and interviews, as misconstruing the situation, when we called for managing the situation in light of a full fan of credible scenarios? Why is it that even today, many are in denial about the realities of the evolving world in which Islamism is making its third religiously-motivated bid for global power in 1,400 years: the first being from 632 on under Mohammed's early followers, and the second from about 1453 on when Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks?

The answers are a bit of a surprise – or, maybe not: we all like to imagine we know more about and are more in control of our circumstances than we really are. Worse, a probability is actually an index of ignorance -- if we knew the outcome for sure, it would be 1 or 0, not somewhere in between. [And acknowledging ignorance is a very humbling exercise for many of us . . .]

So, we tend to dismiss or deny the possibility or even the actuality of unwelcome, uncomfortable or disruptive – but in fact otherwise, quite credible -- scenarios. Sometimes, we call it optimism, sometimes it is just plain wishful thinking, but as a result we too often run risks that we should not, with potential downsides that if we were to look at them in the cold light of day, we would think again before running the risks. (Think about the risks of speeding in a car on a dangerous road.)

So, sometimes, we get caught out: even if the technical experts tell us good news, and the big business classes back them up, and it is the popular feeling. That "democratic" “consensus” in the teeth of unwelcome reality is exactly what happened in Acts 27; to disastrous results. For next time, let's explore these thoughts on the limits of democratic government in a world of sinful, fallible men, a bit further. END

___________

PS: I am experimenting with a new font, Georgia. Let's see if it gives a pleasing result. This is also the third attempt to post, we had two brief power cuts. UPDATE: I did a slight cleanup, and I like the result on screen. The link to the discussion of Islam and that to the lessons on probability should be helpful.

Please hold till Monday

Sorry, I had to take on a bit more overnight at EO. Monday, I will follow up.

The Caribbean people in global missions

We the people of the Caribbean are the result of the world's first experiment in globalisation, as the Spanish tried to pioneer new trade routes to the far east by sailing west: Columbus refused to believe Eratosthenes' calculation of [rather roughly!] about 200 BC, that is in fact within several percent of the true value of how far it is around the Earth.

[The Librarian of Alexandria had looked at the shadow cast by the sun on a certain day at Alexandria and at Syene, far tot he south along the Nile. From the difference in angle he worked out the number of degrees of arc between the two cities, thence the circumference of the Earth. Earlier, Aristotle had argued that since the Earth cast a round shadow always on the Moon during a lunar eclipse, and since it is obviously a solid, then it would logically be a sphere as only such a shape always casts a circular shadow.]

Columbus bumped into the Caribbean, and a largely unhappy train of events was set in motion as European settlement of the New World began.

However, despite the horrors of slavery and all that went with it, we received the blessing of the gospel, which materially contributed to our liberation and empowerment. So, over the past 200 years, we have become a Caribbean people even as we became more and more a cultural melting pot of people from all over the world. By God's grace, we have largely learned to live with one another across many a racial and cultural divide.

That immediately means that we are in a position to reach out by bridging North and South, East and West, through the power of the gospel.

In turn, that immediately raises the challenge that we are strategic for the ministry of the gospel all across theworld. For never have we been so educated, so relatively well-off, so able to travel, and so out of the current geostrategic clashes. So we need to ask if we have come to the kingdom for such a time as this. Thus, we need to consider carefully what God may be telling us and calling us to.

In turn, that leads us to reflect on the way we should interact with government. So, have a look at Acts 27, to see a case study I first looked at when this blog began. END

Fullness, reformation, blessing and our Mission to the Nations

Today, I had to pause to help put out a brushfire over at the EO blog. Pardon the delay.

_____________________

Now, to the main topic of the day:

As Acts 17 notes, when the Apostle Paul went to Athens, 500 years after Socrates' day, he spoke to them in terms that God had made the nations from one man, and so controls our places and times that he uses our times and challenges to prompt us to grope for him, however blindly [that is the underlying impression in the particular words Paul used].

So that brings to a focus the issue of nationhood at a moment of crisis, of kairos. Into such places and times, the risen Jesus sends his Gospel and his church, opening the doors of blessing:

Eph 4:11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

So the choice that confronts the nations in such times is the call to repentance, discipleship and reformation, leading to the overflow of the blessing of Abraham to the nations -- the exact blessing long since promised to the chosen people. [BTW, that means that envy at the blessings an utterly unwarranted response to it as enjoyed by Israel or as enjoyed by any other nation that wholeheartedly turns to the gospel.]

It also means - and I here make a note to those who sub-biblically see the church as a tiny remnant with essentially no influence on an increasingly corrupt surrounding world -- that reformation of the nations under Christ is just as much a part of the church's commission as is the call to penitence. Indeed, that should always have been obvious from the Great Commission:

MT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. [nb: I believe this is the incident wiht 500 bretheren together seeing Jesus at once mentioned in 1 Cor 15] 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

That highlighted phrase is telling, as it speaks to a transformation of the way of life of the community and of individuals in it as is envisioned in Eph:

2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do . . . .

EPH 4:17 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.

EPH 4:20 You, however, did not come to know Christ that way. 21 Surely you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

In short, discipleship leads naturally to reformation as more and more people amounting to a critical mass seek to live by Jesus' principles of neighbour-love and all-out love to God, which he cited from the Torah as the summation of the Law.

And so, in our time that call to repentance and reformation again goes out across the world, in the Caribbean, in the lands of the North and across the lands of the South. In that context, our strategic location as a bridge people raises the question of the Caribbean's strategic value int he church's mission to the nations in our time. To that we will next turn. END

Kairos: the nexus of opportunity and risk

It is a commonplace to observe that the Caribbean and the wider world are in crisis. Here in Montserrat, with a fast-growing lava dome [again!] that is underscored. But, what is less common is to understand that there are both risks and opportunities that now face us.

My concern is that we the people of the Caribbean rise to the opportunity without unduly exposing ourselves to the risks.

For instance, we face a major challenge because -- apart from Trinidad, Barbados and Cuba -- the island nations of our region have but little or no commercially exploitable oil; which exposes us to the volatile energy market.

So, when oil's price spiked last year, we rushed into the Petrocaribe deal with Venezuela, putting ourselves into heavy debt to what may well be an emerging Latin American strongman of an all-too-familiar type. Is this wise? Was there an alternative, given -- say -- Trinidad's oil reserves? Have we in light of Prov 22:7 -- The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender -- implicitly sold our right to take an independent stance to a regime that historically has claims on the territory of several Caribbean states? Should we for instance -- in addition to the usual renewable and efficiency approaches -- be exploring the emerging, promising PBMR modular nuclear reactor technology being developed in South Africa? [Let us note that some 80% of France's electricity is nuclear powered.]

Clearly, we need to think again.

More broadly, we the people of the Caribbean are the world's first cosmopolitan people, and we have learned to live and work with each other across racial, religious and other divides,with a high degree of harmony. In a world in the midst of a massive geostrategic conflict, is that not an asset, the ministry of reconciliation? Could that be an implicit challenge from God to awaken to our awesome potential under the church's global mission?

Why not now? Why not here? Why not us? GEM

PS: I have added several apologetics and issues links for those who may wish to explore such themes; cf. the links sidebar. If the anonymous commenter of yesterday needs to think through some issues on the evidences at the core of the Christian faith, I highly recommend to him that he reads Kreeft and Tacelli's Handbook of Christian Apologetics. C S Lewis' Mere Christianity is a classic that will well repay a look, too. Online, on the issue of the trustworthiness of the Bible, a look at F F Bruce's classic will be a worthwhile investment of time. When we look at such issues, finally, let us remember that the point is not so much that God is on trial before our bar of judgement, but that we are on trial before his bar of judgement:

Rom 2: 6 God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil . . . 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good . . . 11 For God does not show favoritism.