Clearly God was never interested in physical circumcision for in the book of Jeremiah chapter 9, he made a statement to the effect that those who have been circumcised only in the flesh and not in the heart would be judged. Clearly the Lord is interested in a direct relationship between his mind and the mind of the believer precipitated by his revelation entering the world; and then we turn and as an analog of that previously established relationship, then comes the cutting of the physical flesh. We could apply that same thing to the act of baptism and many other things. There is always a rivalry within the world situation. It is a rivalry between those who wish to operate on the basis of analogic relations and those who wish to relate directly on the basis of the sensorium, on the basis of common sense. The common feature is that we sometimes settle for a practical acumen. We are interested in building things, we have become interested in technology and we have become interested in medical protocol and we have become interested in scientific investigation. We maintain an interest in those things that we consider to be most practical.

Non-situational intelligence is "pushed" and therefore only a pushed intelligence could in any way be considered axial. And scripture suggests that only an axial intelligence can correctly relate to the world situation. So it turns out that this pushed intelligence would occupy a position at the axis of the universe, where the eternal and the temporal come together. This is the position to be occupied by the redeemed mind that the Lord has placed in our possession. It is the Lord himself that has placed us in the axial role. This is not something that has been achieved by human wisdom or by human might or by human interest or by human pride. It is the Lord that has brought us together into this unique position. Of course, in the index position, we know that we are not alone at the omega point (unity with the knowledge of God) as we have described it in other studies. It is a column of unity between the eternal and the temporal built upon the work of the Spirit of God. We stand on the shoulders of the revelation that the Holy Spirit has made available to us. We are linked to the absolute propositions of God revealed to us on the basis of faith. We manipulate symbols shaped by the revelation with the purpose to interject the spiritual reality of God’s presence and his truth into all situations. These things are expressed into the universe to call the world to be reconciled to God by seeking to humble our minds so that our thoughts and our language are creations of the knowledge of God.

Therefore this position of standing at the axial role brings the two worlds together in a very unique way. The lines of contraction move from the non-situational up toward this point of unity. The lines of contraction from the situational move up to this point of unity. We refer to that point of unity as the omega point: where pushed intelligence in the axial role and the knowledge of God are brought together. This would be the point at which knowledge is unified in the universe in which we live, linking the two worlds together. Direct application and the logic of direct application would forever prevent that unity of knowledge. It would rather always maintain a disparity between what is considered to be religious and the secular; between what is often thought of as the spiritual and the material. Such disparity is in effect maintained and insisted upon without qualification among many of us in the churches of Christ. However, this doesn’t make sense from the biblical point of view. We need to analogize the things of the material order. We need to analogize the present. We need to analogize the visible. We need to make analogies of the concrete side. We need to analogize experience. What we have analogized is our direct relationship in understanding to the non-situational intelligence and then that has been related to the world of experience to the present, to the visible, to the concrete, to the world of experience. This brings it together and completes this whole understanding of the concept of the unity of knowledge.

E. O. Wilson in his book that has been published recently entitled Conciliation: A Unity of Knowledge said that the great sweep of experience cannot be included just and only in religion or in biblical statements, and that the world that we are examining simply cannot assimilate anything other than an approach of conciliation, which is bringing together all the empiric sciences. It’s an examination, which really depends upon the situational intelligence. Of course, we dissent at that particular point and categorize that as an error because of the assumptions that he has made about direct relationships to the material world. A situational response and a non-situational response are very different. The situational mind responds on the basis of observations. It operates in terms of business concerns and what we generally refer to as religious expressions. In dealing with agriculture, chemistry, physics, and relationships, the situational mind seeks for isomorphism. We look through the eyes of induction and predictions about experience.

But, a non-situational intelligence seeks to operate on something that is entirely different. The little stick figure that stands in the index position that we described earlier has redefined for us what we can refer to as "the great pinnacle of achievement." In this particular case the zenith of achievement would be the scripture that applies to the mind of the individual and therefore transforms it and reshapes it. It is that mind that then has the ability to embrace all observable reality and make sense of it. I would suggest that achieving that would be something that we would have to recognize as the "zenith of achievement" recognizing that it is the mind of the Lord that God has shared with us that enables us to bring non-situational meaning to bear upon the world in which we live. E. O. Wilson is quite wrong. It is the mind prepared in such a way that analogically embraces the observable world in which we live. That poses an entirely different basis for epistemology and the understanding of contemporary experience.

Direct application and the logic of direct application produces an inference that the bible is dated, doesn’t really have a lot to do with contemporary experience, is periodicized, is written outside of our cultural framework, and that our ways are very different than those ways. We might conclude that there was a time in which God acted directly upon the world of experience but he doesn’t do that anymore. It gives the inference in many cases that a large part of the bible is useless for our investigation. Some people have referred to the scripture as a kind of folk knowledge. It is suggested that perhaps human intelligence is beyond the limitation of scripture and the expanding modern knowledge that is part of our contemporary human experience.

We would dissent from that for a lot of different reasons. Part of it has to do with what we are trying to outline as the three-place logic. When you draw the left hand circle (the non-situational intelligence of God), the stick figure in the middle and the right hand circle (the world situation and material content of human experience), we are suggesting a three-place logic that will allow us to understand the thought processes of anybody in terms of why they think what they think and how they are going to relate to both sides of these dimensions—the non-situational and the situational. If we were to depict this in a drawing, we might try to capture the nature of what this means in terms of our embracing the observable universe because it too constitutes a kind of analogic relation to the world of things.

Let’s continue this study of personal righteousness and do so with another drawing. On the left-hand side of the page we draw the non-situational intelligence. We draw an axis that leads to a little stick figure, which represents the human mind. Notice that there is action moving down this axis from the non-situational and so what results is a "pushed" intelligence, directly "pushed" into us. When we open the pages of our bible, we are being exposed to the thinking of God. We are being exposed to the processes of a mind that stands outside the system. From the little stick figure let’s draw two large arms. It is this pushed intelligence then which turns and reaches out and embraces something. That something we will write between the two arms and call it the observable universe. It is this pushed intelligence that purports to embrace the observable universe. That doesn’t mean that we have all of the secrets about the universe at our disposable. But it does mean that we understand the nature of its governance. We understand to a greater degree that nature itself is not a unity of its component parts, was never created to be a unity; but that all parts are held together by the centrality of God himself. A non-situational intelligence is the only kind of intelligence that could possibly grasp that fact.

However, let’s go back to the terminology on the left hand side of the page (non-situational intelligence) and let’s draw even larger arms reaching out and embracing both the little axis and the stick figure and the opened arms that embrace the observable universe itself. So these are larger arms that embrace all of that. You can draw a line down the middle of the axis from top to bottom and to the left-hand side that is the arc of direct relation and to the right of the stick figure becomes the analog. Pushed intelligence is an analog of the non-situational intelligence. Our embrace of observable realities would be an analog of the way in which the Lord himself embraces literally all of the observable universe, including human intelligence within it. Once again we have a recursion of this analogic relationship to the world of temporal reality. That’s another reason why the axial role is so indispensable in our understanding of all material terms—everything that has material content.

We might be able to say, if we drew the index column as a little a-frame. At the top of the a-frame, the left-hand side represents the eternal, the right hand side of the a-frame will represent the temporal. Now we are going to entertain ourselves with the index column. These are four entities that run from the bottom to the top. This really constitutes the favored position of the human mind in the universe. The person that has the role of linking the eternal with the temporal has always been the Holy Spirit of God. Anywhere in scripture that we find him operating, he is always doing precisely that particular action. He is always linking the two worlds together. His work is analogized and that analog shows up as revelation. Revelation is an analog of the work and the mind and the will of the Spirit of God as he brings the eternal to bear onto the temporal. Without his work no revelation would be possible. Now above revelation stands faith. Faith is an analog of revelation. Faith is something built on the nature of revelation and therefore it has a signature. It bears the marks of revelation and the marks of the presence of the Spirit of God. It is an analog in other words. It is an analogization of the work of the Spirit of God and the presence of a revelation. That is the way we function in order to unite the two worlds together in precisely this same way. All of this is being built upon the nature of the trinity (God, the father, the Holy Spirit and Jesus, the son). In fact, it turns out that the three-place logic that we have suggested is another recursion of the trinity. In fact it is going to be a mentalization of the trinity as it has been depicted in scripture. Built upon faith is the action of manipulation of symbols—being able to think and to speak using symbols, words, ideas and concepts based on faith. Our words, our manipulation of symbols would be an analog of faith, which is an analog of revelation, which is an analog of the Spirit of God. So what happens at the index column is this massive analogization of the knowledge of God. It is not a rationalization of experience. Rather it is being in a position to receive the pushed intelligence. It is a transformation.

Let us make some other circles to try to extend the significance of the difference between this idea of analogic relations and pushed intelligence with its antipode in the logic of direct application. Let’s draw two circles on the left-hand side of the page and we’ll describe that as the "role of scripture." On the right-hand side, we draw a circle that we’ll call the "relation to experience." Make an axis that connects the two together and we put a stick figure in the middle. It turns out that the way in which we see scripture will determine how we are going to relate to experience. If we believe that we can trust in common sense and trust in human situated intelligence, then that will of course demarcate our particular understanding of the role of scripture. It will be perceived as a moral treatise, as a doctrinal offering, and as the source of some soteriological keys so that we can enter into the kingdom. But beyond all that it won’t shape an understanding in us about how to relate to experience. However, if we determine that the role of scripture is to shape in us directly a pushed intelligence, then that’s also going to determine how we relate to experience and that relationship is certainly going to be one of an analogic nature. The role of scripture becomes a principal issue in our discussion about how we are going to deal with the world of experience or the world of situations or what we have described as the visible world or the present or the now.

Let’s draw two other circles. On the left-hand side let’s draw a circle and inscribe it with the "logic of direct application." On the right hand side we draw a circle and write inside it "morality and performance." We draw an axis and put a stick figure in the middle. If we think that the logic of direct application is to be adhered to and plugged into directly into the world of experience, then another and almost unquestionable unity takes place. I say it’s "unquestionable" because its appearance is of such a nature that it almost defies questioning in spite of the fact that it really would turn out to be an error of the first order. If we create a unity thusly composed of the logic of direct application on the left-hand side and on the right-hand side morality and performance. Once those things are put together in a unity, it becomes a grand base for argumentation. For instance, if we have supplied and fulfilled the need for direct application and once that’s linked to morality, as long as everything is of a moral nature, things are going along well in someone’s life. There are no moral deletions; there are no moral discontinuities. Then no one is going to question the logic of direct application as a basis for our understanding of the gospel. If you add to that the question of performance. I mean to say by that we’re going to church, we are involved with the life of the congregation, we are contributing time, money, efforts, enthusiasm, interest, etc. As long as morality and performance are wedded inextricably to the logic of direct application, if there is no moral lapse, then there is really no question of whether or not we are operating on the proper kind of spiritual base. If there does appear subsequently moral infractions or moral discontinuities or where performance falls off then perhaps we begin to question the effect that this is having on an individual. But we never question the unity and the value of the unity that is set up between the logic of direct application on the one hand and our following of the moral code and our participation in terms of performers in local church life.

We can draw this in yet another way. Draw a circle to the left-hand side and call it the "logic of direct application" and a circle on the right-hand side marked the "doctrine of postponement." Again the stick figure representing human intelligence is the linking axis between the two. I know that it has often been suggested that it is really very easy to become a Christian. It is not all that difficult. We don’t have to be theological geniuses in order to be saved, which I would certainly concur. We don’t have to be theological geniuses to be saved by God. However, the logic of direct application has fostered the idea of the doctrine of postponement, which is very popular in a lot of circles in Christendom. This view purports that the most important thing is to get people baptized or admitted in some way or another into a supposed relationship with God. And we can postpone some of the weightier and meatier and more challenging aspects that are involved in their faith until later. But once they’re in then perhaps we have a basis from which we’ll be able to work and to shape them and they will be able to mature and come right along in the system. I submit that it is the logic of direct application that has fostered this doctrine of postponement, which really has no basis in the scripture.

Often I’ve heard it said that when we talk about such things that we tend to give the impression that we are eliminating grace. So suppose with the same circle that we just drew, we draw another axis to the right and another circle and in that circle, we write the word "grace." It is very interesting as well as perplexing to me that the logic of direct application can be associated in our minds with the application of grace so that the logic of direct application becomes the very basis for our understanding of grace. I have often had it said to me in discussions of this variety, "Mike, where is the grace? I don’t hear you speaking about grace." My personal impression is that we have been mistaken in our interpretation of grace because we have been mistaken in our understanding of the role of scripture. Because we have believed in the logic of direct application we have associated grace with it so that it becomes the grand sponsor of grace. I think we should seriously rethink that along with the logic of direct application and reconsider the impact that this kind of thing has on our thinking even about human salvation. I would like to suggest again that what is called the "simple" gospel is a gospel that has been robbed and looted of its representational power and of its ability to produce in us the axial role of human intelligence.

Let us draw two other circles. On the left-hand side of the page we draw a circle and inscribe the "logic of direct application." Draw an axis and to the right connected to that axis is another circle and we inscribe in it "appeal to common sense and logic." In our discussion under the general title of the vine corollary, we suggested that there is a connective theory of truth that is advanced over the correspondence conception of truth and the customary isomorphism that must accompany it. When you create a unity between the logic of direct application and an appeal to common sense and logic, it seems that we have created in other respects another unassailable kind of unity. But yet I suspect that it is this very unity that is the source of many things that we call contradictions. The appeal to common sense and logic is of course a situated intelligence. I would purport to include the logic of direct application itself under the general rubric of situated intelligence. In other words, I’d draw a canopy that would take under its dominion the "logic of direct application" on the left-hand side of the page and the "appeal to common sense and logic" on the right. It is just such a situated intelligence that is still trying to deal with these absolute abstractions by applying them supposedly directly to personal or to particular circumstances in the world situation. If that unity prevails, it will be because we believe that truth is rooted and that it is anchored in human logic.

However, from a biblical point of view it is not tenable to maintain the fiction of that persuasion. Absolute truth is in effect not rooted, nor is it anchored in logic. It is rooted and anchored in only one thing and that is in revelation. So it comes down to us that the logic of direct application is now synonymous with the gospel. We have fancied ourselves to be preaching the gospel if we have gone out and disseminated the logic of direct application. Then once that’s installed we sit back in schools of missions and other such points of analysis and wonder why is it that we see the same recurring problems in congregation after congregation whether it’s in this country or whether it’s abroad. We question why is it that we preach and we teach and yet it seems that we reach points of maturity beyond which we never grow. Or that there are constant sources of conflict and friction and irritation and potential disruptions and discontinuity within congregational life. Well I can explain that at least to myself. It is because we have defined the logic of direct application as the "gospel."

But I don’t think this is the gospel. But it is something that is rather fraudulent built on the logic of direct of application, which is nothing more than a brainchild of situated intelligence. The revelation of God, the non-situational intelligence, can never be reduced to an appeal to common sense and to logic. Yet in our history for the most part we have insisted that the revelation of God must agree with human rationality. That’s the same kind of circles that we have just drawn. Any association between scripture and its supposed agreement with the appeal to common sense and logic is a fraudulent, error-fraught presentation of what we think of as the gospel truth. I would suggest that we depart from the logic of direct application as being one of the great banes in our church history, expunge it and rethink our role in the grand scheme of things between the two dimensions. We first and foremost have an obligation to relate directly and uniquely to the non-situational intelligence, which produces in us this unique capacity. A capacity that is of an analogic variety that allows us to not just "cope" but to relate biblically and correctly to the world of material circumstance, to the world of material content. This kind of thing is demonstrated in scripture from Genesis all the way through the book of Revelation and without variation.

My suggestion is that we have not always caught this because of the way in which we have read scripture. It behooves us little to read the scripture repeatedly with a mind that never challenges the unseated, the unquestioned authority of situational intelligence because we have ascribed to it a rather unique presence because it was created by God. We must instead recognize that situational intelligence is supposed to be corrected, is supposed to be humbled, shaped, transformed and in fact redeemed and resurrected by the Lord into an analog of his non-situational intelligence. Certainly the intelligence of Christ when he was here was an intelligence that was dependent upon the eternal one that he came to represent, symbolize and to serve.

Let’s draw two other circles. On the left-hand side of the page write "the insistence on synoptic experience." Anything that is synoptic is repeated or shows up in more than one case. We talk about the synoptic gospels because they are very similar. In terms of a synoptic experience, we in the churches of Christ sort of insist on a synoptic experience in terms of salvation, which is directly connected to another circle, which we will draw to the right-hand side inscribed with the term "logic of direct application." This is why we have approached the whole question of soteriology, salvation in general, the way we have done so. There is an insistence on a synoptic experience and once that experience has occurred, then we can cleanly pronounce ourselves Christians—hear, repent, confess, believe and be baptized. Those are the synoptic experiences that are directly connected to the logic of direct application. Once those experiences have been had, then we simply pronounce ourselves subjects of grace and salvation.

It has been written by representatives of the situational order in the world and it has been echoed down through the centuries in various writings and in various manifestations that the ultimate purpose of human intelligence is to know the universe. To that we would make a definitive rejection and say that that is not the case at all. I quote to you from page 13 of the book by E. O. Wilson, a well-known entomologist, an elderly man of scholarship, Conciliation: A Unity of Knowledge, in which he makes this statement. "A balanced perspective cannot be acquired by studying disciplines and pieces but through pursuit of the conciliation (the unification of all these branches of learning) among them. Such unification will come hard, but I think it is inevitable intellectually. It rings true and it gratifies impulses that rise from the admirable side of human nature. To the extent the gaps between the great branches of learning can be narrowed, diversity and depth of knowledge will increase. They will do so because of not despite the underlying cohesion achieved." (He is describing unity of knowledge). "The enterprise is important for yet another reason. It gives ultimate purpose to intellect. It promises that order not chaos lies beyond the horizon." An interesting way of stating something that Christians who are operating on a pushed intelligence would definitively reject. The ultimate purpose of human intelligence is not to know its own experience nor to try to gain perspective and in some ways administer a kind of benign governance as is suggested by our friends in the environmental movements. But it is rather to know the Lord. Now the concept that we are describing here stands at variants against the way in which situational intelligence operates by definition.

In Chapter 1, we see that Daniel refused to be "defined by the world system." When he stood against the requirement to eat the king’s food, he was rejecting any definition offered to him by the world system or specifically by the Babylonian system. His was uniquely in a position of isolation, not physical, but certainly mental isolation. The relationship of the non-situational intelligence to the man in the middle between the two worlds, who is graced by direct relationship to these divine propositions will have to be shrouded in the kind of isolation from the definitions provided by the world system. Such a mentality is shaped by forces off the planet. Such a mentality is not defined by the world system. But if we turn ourselves over to the world system in an unquestioning way, it will be because the role of scripture has not been acted upon. That is to say the role that it was given in scripture by the purposes by God, or manifested in scripture and has been documented as being part of the agenda of the Lord. We would have been operating on an entirely use of scripture. I would expect that being defined by the world system is manifested in the logic of direct application.

A logic of direct application is the antipode to "connectivity." We believe that connectivity to these absolute propositions is the real source of ultimate truth. Ultimate truth can only be located in one place. It has only one venue. That is the Lord himself. Daniel in Chapter 2 as he prays to the Lord giving thanks for the fact that he knows their lives will be spared because the Lord has consigned to him the extended meaning of the dream that Nebuchadnezzar had in Chapter 2 makes this very clear to us. He writes in vs. 20, "Praise be to the name of God for ever and ever; wisdom and power are his. He changes times and seasons; he sets up kings and deposes them. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning. (It is a question of connectivity). He reveals deep and hidden things; he knows what lies in darkness, and light dwells with him. I thank and praise you, O God of my fathers; you have given me wisdom and power, you have made known to me what we asked of you, you have made known to us the dream of the king."

At one point in Chapter 4, after having direct contact with the propositions of God, he urges the king to act analogically. He expresses the nature of the dream and its significance and in Chapter 4:27, he urges and even requires the king to respond analogically to the situation in which he finds himself. He writes, "Therefore, O king, be pleased to accept my advice: Renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed. It may be that then your prosperity will continue." That verse would have been built on the three-place logic. A man who would be operating in the middle position who would have surrendered his dependence upon situational understanding in favor of a connectivity to the absolute propositions made available to him and then explained and given their greater significance. He would then analogically apply that relationship to all of his circumstances. He would find himself being much more benevolent. He would renounce, he would be repentant about his wickedness and he would be reversed in so many of his actions. However, I’m afraid that it’s worth considering that the logic of direct application has now become in our minds, or in the minds of many synonymous with what we call the "truth." This is an unfortunate unity that bears no resemblance to the way things are depicted in the scripture itself.

David as he faces Goliath did not operate on the basis of direct application but on the basis of his relationship to God. The exodus, in which we see Moses leading the people of God out as an analog of their proposed relationship to the unseen displaces any dependence upon the logic of direct application. Abraham of course stands in opposition to the logic of direct application as he marches on (even after his unfortunate episode with Hagar) believing that God is the God that displaces human intelligence as a means of understanding the nature of material experience in any kind of direct way. He did operate on the logic of direct application, thinking that he could apply human intelligence directly to the world circumstance during that unfortunate alliance with Hagar. He suffered for that. Later, quite to the contrary, we see this man’s willingness to sacrifice his own son, because his mind is prepared, not because he’s crazy, not because he is irrational, but because he is operating analogically.

In the book of Ephesians Chapter 5 and Chapter 6, marriage between husband and wife is considered to be an analog of the relationship that exists between each one of those parties and the unseen God. The relationship between children and parents is considered to be an analog of the previous relationships that two of those parties have toward the unseen God. In Chapter 6, the relationship that must exist between servants and masters is to be understood as an analog of the previous relation that each one of those parties has toward the unseen God. In other words, neither in marriage, nor in relationships between parents and children nor in such social circumstances as slavery and slaveholding would there be any attempt at direct application or direct relations to the material circumstance. Quite the contrary, as Christians we would operate uniquely analogically.

The concept of analogic relations that we are describing here would be very vectorial. They influence and determine things. On the other hand, we would consider the things that we would refer to as "teleological"--setting goals, establishing goals, trying to achieve self-actualization, our own purposes and trying to develop our own talents and capacities. This is illustrated in James 4:13, but it is also demonstrated in the lives of other people in the text. But in this case, certain Jewish businessmen have decided to spend a year at a particular place and make money. That is purely a teleological consideration built on the logic of direct relationship to the temporal side. They were rebuffed in that attempt as being guilty of the sin of pride. The vectorial is very different. The vectorial is a course that has been chosen by the Lord himself and perhaps in these circumstances, the end will not be known by the believer.

In Daniel Chapter 3, it is doubtful that these three men knew exactly what the end was going to be in spite of their hopes. In Daniel Chapter 6, it is quite doubtful that Daniel knew that he would survive being placed in the lion’s den. But he knew he was following a vector. In the book of Genesis, Abraham was told to get up and go to a land that God would show him. This is vectorial. So his march through the desert was not carried out by the logic of direct application. His mind was shaped in such a way that he left Ur of Chaldea and his march through the desert could be correctly understood as an analog of his previous relationship to these propositions that had been made known to him. Later when Moses is prepared by the Lord to go into the land of slavery and to free his people from this unfortunate condition, he tells the people that the Lord has come to bring them out. They don’t know everything that will await them but they do known that they have been approached by God through Moses because he is related to them analogically resulting from his primary relationship to what the Lord has revealed to him about their situation.

Earlier when the Lord spoke to Abraham at great length, he promised to make him a father of a great nation. And all through the scripture we have statements that the Lord is going to bring about his eternal kingdom. In the book of Daniel, especially in Chapter 4 and in Chapter 6, there are statements made by kings that were pagans that had no proximity to the kingdom of God, to the effect that God’s dominion is eternal, his kingdom endures from generation to generation. Darius has come to the same conclusion. In other words, we discover that the way in which the Lord leads us is purely vectorial. We are going to have to assume a position of humility before the vector that God has established and abandon pretense at teleology if we are to follow him in faith.

Let us also draw two other circles to make yet another application here. On the left-hand side of the page, we’ll draw a circle and we will write the word "God" or "Lord." To the right-hand side of the page draw a circle and write the word "self." Draw an axis that connects the two circles together, put a stick figure in the middle. It would be very unfortunate if our self-knowledge forced a kind of detrimental posture on the scripture or on our understanding of God. We can avoid that. If we have a direct relationship to the Lord through the propositions that he has given to us in revelation, then the knowledge of self would grow out of an analogic relation to the self built upon that previous relationship of our knowledge to the Lord himself. This is very different, I submit, than what is generally constructed as the theory of therapy among those in the therapeutic community among us in the church. I would suspect that an understanding of personality begins not with the personality, but rather with the Lord. And as we stand between the two dimensions between the Lord and self our first obligation is to relate directly to the Lord. Now no one can literally relate directly to God—that’s not possible. We have sandwiched between himself and us all of these propositions, the rich propositions in the revelation. But because we are willing to relate directly to these propositions the Lord has told us that he considers it to be a direct relationship to him. Therefore, that arc of direct relationship would then foster the reach of analogic relations to all other things including the "self." We would come away with an impression that we would never relate directly to self under any circumstances nor to other selves or to a collectivity of selves. But we would rather relate only analogically, which is a relation that bears similarity or a likeness to the previous direct relationship to the propositions of God.

Let’s suggest that there are two other circles that might be interposed here. To the left-hand side of the page, we draw the circle and write the word "non-situational." To the right-hand side of the page, we draw a circle and inscribe the world "problems." Draw an axis that connects the two circles together and put a stick figure in the middle. In this particular scheme as in all the others, the little stick figure has a primary obligation and that is to find insight and penetration into the non-situational. That is afforded to us because of the revelation of God. On the basis of that penetration into the non-situational intelligence, then we have an analogic relation that grows out of that which is the way in which we relate to the world of problems. It shows up in terms of punctiliar engagements—the way in which we handle problems.

It might be worth consideration that we should perhaps abandon the whole school of problem-solving in favor of analogic relations. The world has had ample experience at this thing that we call problem resolution. In fact, in so many ways we in the churches have adopted this product of socialization and made it our own property and employed it in our understanding of problems personally and of course within the body of believers themselves. My suggestion is that this recognition of the way in which Daniel handles his circumstances—the way in which he related to God and then rolled that relationship over into an analog that could be applied to the word situation--would teach us that it’s wise to reconsider the whole school of problem resolution in favor of developing an understanding built on analogic relations. Our actions ought always really to declare the purposes of God.

The little stick figure acting in this axial position, as he relates analogically to the world of problems, to the world of the self, to the world of situations, to the world of concrete realities, to the world of the present, to the world of experience, has an obligation. That obligation is this: His or her actions ought always to declare the purposes of God. As Daniel faced the lion’s den, as he contemplated how he would respond to the edict that had been issued, he knew very well that his actions could have only one profile. His actions were analogs of the way in which God relates to the world of situations. His actions there were uniquely and purely created to declare the purposes of God within the situation. I would submit that the logic of direct application will deny that ever taking place because the mind would not achieve the axial role, because the mind is not in a position to understand how it must relate to these two dimensions. Because of that, those actions, as noble as they might be, perhaps will not declare the purposes of God relative to any particular situation.

Ultimately, and finally, it must be respected that punctiliar engagement boils down to this one statement: Are our engagements, the particular punctiliar ways in which we touch the world of temporal reality, calculated to be actions of such a type that will always declare the purposes of God or not? To return to the statements in chapter 6:22, when Daniel said, "I was found innocent in his sight nor have I done anything wrong before you, O king," he was stating that his relationships and his actions relative to the king, to his duties and to his responsibilities were always calculated to demonstrate something unique. They were intended to declare the purposes of God in the mainstream of the world situation in the midst of everyday circumstances and especially in moments of great exaggeration, moments of danger, moments of threat, moments of potential death, moments of potential loss or even actual loss.

It seems reasonable to think that a mind that is in direct relationship to the non-situational intelligence and that has been transformed by that connection is the only mind on the face of the universe that could turn its attention to the world of temporal realities, to the world of material content, and connect in such a punctiliar way as to leave no doubt about the purposes of God within the situation. Perhaps it would be reasonable to reconsider some of the things that perhaps we have favored and thought as being the basis of rationality and a rational understanding of experience as well as the place of scripture among us. It would turn out to be the case that under no circumstances must we be guilty of the rationalization of the revelation of God. It seems very clear by Daniel’s example here and the examples throughout the scripture that he absolved himself from any such error and sin.