Modeling God's Wills

Preface

Modeling God’s Wills is the second edition of a three-part series meant to pick up from where the first edition, Modeling God, left off. Modeling God, like this edition, also consisted of two books. The first of the two books (“Modeling God and Salvation”) identified four tools for determining a comprehensive worldview (way of looking at reality) that presents and proves the only possible explanation for a supreme being and salvation. The second book (“Christian Living, Modeling Life”) applied this worldview to everyday interactions and presented the meaning of life. 

The overall goal of the three-edition series is to present a model that explains God’s eternal plan, how God operates in order to bring about His plan, and how the concepts people talk about when expressing their beliefs fit into this worldview. 

In this second edition, the first of the two books (“God’s Wills”) shows how God brings about His eternal plan, which we are calling God’s will. The second book (“Determining God’s Will”) shows how we can determine if we are in God’s will to the point we can help God bring about His eternal plan.

The importance of this topic can best be appreciated by understanding systems thinking. God created systems. He didn’t create the universe to stand alone and not affect anything else. He didn’t create man to stand alone and not affect anything else. Everything God created was in relation to a system and how they relate to other systems. If we want to understand God’s will, we need to understand systems.

Let’s begin by understanding the definition of a system according to a pioneer and innovative expert: Dr. Russell Ackoff.

1. System: A whole made up of two or more essential parts.

I hope you can see that everything appears to be a system. For example, you are a system made up of skin, bones, organs, etc. A car is a system made up of thousands of parts. Let’s look at the next point from Dr. Ackoff.

2. The defining property of the system can only be exhibited by the whole and it is not exhibited by the parts.

For instance, the defining property for a car is transportation; however, no part of the car can provide transportation. In fact, the engine can’t even transport itself. The next point is immediately understood from the previous point.

3. When you disassemble the whole, it loses its defining property.

The moment you take a car apart, you cease to have a vehicle that can provide transportation.

Dr. Ackoff didn’t invent the perspective that results from the first three points. In fact, we have a record of the Apostle Paul making the same three points in I Corinthians 12:12-26 when he spoke of members and the body in place of parts and the whole:

Paul saw the church as a system made up of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and believers, with believers consisting of two parts: Jews and Gentiles. The defining property is exhibited by the whole and not the individual parts. Focusing only on the individual parts would hinder the whole from achieving its defining property in God’s eternal plan. (We will cover the defining property of the church in the second book of this edition.)

The fourth and final point concerning systems thinking is:

4. The way to improve the system is to improve the interaction between the parts.

Notice, Jesus said this in Matthew 5:29-30:

Systems thinking believes the profitability is not in the part. The profitability is in the interaction between parts. Likewise, Jesus saw you as a system and stated that if one of your parts is controlling you and sinning, its interaction with the other parts will cause the whole body to be unprofitable enough to go into hell. Notice, if you are unable to get control over the faulty part so it interacts in a righteous way where the whole body profits, then you ought to remove it.

Jesus is a systems thinker, shown by the amount of focus He put on our interactions with others. Whether it is giving to the poor, forgiving others, or having your cloak taken, Jesus is very focused on the interactions both between people with other people and between people with God the Father.

Modeling God showed salvation is dependent on our interactions with God, while reward is dependent on our interactions with other people. Modeling God showed that uniqueness is what made profitability possible because profitability only results from the interaction between two people who value things differently.

Dr. Ackoff would pose a scenario to accentuate the importance of interactions over the intrinsic ability of the individual. Imagine a group of engineers working together to determine the carmaker that made the best engine, transmission, brakes, etc. For example, Mercedes may make the best transmission, while Ford makes the best brakes.

Dr. Ackoff would then ask what would you have if you gathered together all of the best parts of a car. You wouldn’t even have a car! Why? Because the parts wouldn’t fit together.

While Dr. Ackoff’s perspective was on making the interactions better, the Bible (including the two passages above) came from the perspective of destructive interactions. In order to illustrate the Bible’s perspective, imagine a company made up of two employees (Ann and Beth). 

The profitability is completely dependent on the interaction between Ann and Beth. Let’s say the profit from Ann and Beth is only able to deliver 95% of what the company needs, so we need to hire another employee (Curt) who would easily be able to deliver the last 5% by himself. Unfortunately, it turns out the company is now only delivering 50% of what it needs to in order to survive. What happened?

How many interactions are there now that we added a new employee? There are seven. There is one interaction where all three interact with each other at the same time according to their own beliefs (Ann-Beth-Curt). There are three one-on-one interactions (Ann-Beth, Ann-Curt, Beth-Curt). That’s only four total. What are the other three interactions?

Have you ever seen this situation? You get along with one friend when it is just you and them. You get along with another friend when it is just you and them. However, when those two friends get together, you don’t get along with either of them? When your two friends become like-minded, they become a system that is unique from each of them individually. So, there are also three interactions where two of the employees are like-minded (AnnBeth-Curt, AnnCurt-Beth, BethCurt-Ann).

How many interactions is the new employee involved in? Six. If these additional interactions are a -45%, the profitability of the company drops from 95% to 50%. This is the reason behind the truth of the saying, “One bad apple spoils the whole bunch.”

Now, imagine a community of millions with one bad apple. How many interactions involve the bad apple? Hundreds of millions. Remember what Jesus said about the part that is a “bad apple” in the body. If God’s eternal plan involves creating more over time with a body made up of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and millions of people, He can’t afford to have even one soul present who isn’t interested in interacting with others in a profitable manner. Now we see Jesus’ advice about the body spoke to God’s perspective on His eternal plan.

Modeling God stated the people who wanted to be in God’s eternal plan would focus on growing in taking more direction from God via grace, and confess and repent when they didn’t. That means “bad apples” would try to do their own plan and avoid admitting they were wrong and/or avoid repairing the damage they did.

Before we close this preface, we need to contrast two approaches: analysis vs. synthesis.

The analysis process consists of three steps:

1. Take the whole apart

2. Improve/understand each part

3. Put the system back together

For example, when it comes to fixing a car, we follow analysis. We take the problem area apart, fix the malfunctioning part, and reassemble the area. 

Notice, the process of analysis requires the system (the whole) to cease to exist during steps 1 and 2. More importantly, this process focuses on the tangible, which means when it is used as a first step, at best, it can only restore the system in the moment and delay the inevitable destruction resulting from an intangible cause. Modeling God called this approach the “Survival Philosophy.”

Our brains naturally follow the analysis process as a first step according to four attributes resulting in categories:

• Compression: Identifying a subjective category so you can treat unique members the same.

• Amplify: Categories result in an amplification of differences between artificially created groups.

• Discriminate: Categories result in groups being valued preferentially, while justifying the devaluing of other groups.

• Fixed mindset: Categories hinder future creative approaches and revelatory perspectives.

The reality is this analytical, categorical process works great on inanimate objects. For example, while looking for a used headlight for our car to replace our faulty one, we are going to sort through a series of headlights according to brand, age, etc. However, when it comes to applying analysis to people according to skin color, we amplify the fixed mindset of stereotyping and discrimination. We become racist. For example, at what skin color does a person become “white”? Good thing there is another approach!

The synthesis process consists of three steps:

1. Look to the next bigger system.

2. Define the purpose of the next bigger system.

3. Define the (purpose of the) original system within and relative to the next bigger system.

For example, when it comes to a car being the original system: 

1. We identify “transportation” as the next bigger system.

2. We understand the purpose of transportation as transporting something from one location to another.

3. We define the purpose of a car as a personal, autonomous, safe-against-the-weather way of transporting an individual.

Notice, the process of synthesis keeps the system intact while we look to the greater system in order to improve or revolutionize the original system. More importantly, this process focuses on the intangible, which means it can repair the system while also avoiding the inevitable destruction resulting from an intangible cause. Modeling God called this approach the “Life Philosophy.”

The only way to fully understand a system is to move to the next greater system. For example, people tend to only be able to learn 25% of information when they are taught directly. This is why people are told to repeat something three times or apply it three times before they can be sure they learned the information. 

What is the next bigger system from learning that includes learning as a part? Teaching, which is pretty easy to see because it is a cause of learning. It turns out, when people teach a subject, they learn four times faster. Dr. Ackoff tells the story of an elementary school class that spent half a school year teaching mathematics to a computer and when they were tested at the completion of the project, it was found the students had learned two full years of mathematics.

I didn’t realize it at the time, but the first analogy in the preface of Modeling God demonstrated the power of synthesis vs. analysis! It began with ​​imagining a wall that is 200 miles long and 50 miles high. The wall is made up of tiles that are hundreds of feet square. As you read the following excerpt from Modeling God, realize the wall is God’s eternal plan:

Most people focus on becoming experts on the details of a belief system. They walk closer to the wall. These books are attempting to take you far enough away from the wall that you get the big picture. This first book will only show you the wall isn’t entirely blue. As you make your way through the books, the concepts in the first two books should begin to present an image. No doubt you will notice some tiles are missing, however, not enough to take away from the overall image. I will leave the filling in of these tiles for subsequent books.

If one continued moving away from the wall, they would find the vast number of tiles overwhelming. It would appear the wall is nothing more than a random collection of colored tiles. At this point, the individual must make a hard decision—continue this uncomfortable journey away from the wall or return to the comfort of the crowd.

If they persevered and moved further from the wall, they would find the tiles make up a picture of a man standing on grass. It now appears the wall is a mural and is actually trying to portray an image. 

The previous edition left the reader at that uncomfortable halfway point where they couldn’t pick out the tiles nor the greater images. This edition will take you further from the wall so you can understand the images that represent God’s will. I’m sure many people will not fully comprehend this preface or the first book of this edition during their first read-through as they will still be at the uncomfortable stage. However, I have found if the reader continues to choose a growth mindset and venture further from the wall, they will have an epiphany as an effect of being transformed.

This is not easy because it goes against how our brain naturally works. In fact, every time the reader finds themselves wanting more information as to how something specifically works, they are taking a step towards the wall. This is analysis.

Remember, this edition is intended to step you away from the wall to show how the entire picture connects: synthesis. This will be done by bringing all the images on the wall into focus since the images represent God’s will. The reality is these individual images are made up of several parts (chapters) and each of the individual chapters could be an entire book. It is very understandable that you may want more information, especially if the chapter presents a concept that is completely new to you.

The other reason the reader may want more information is they don’t understand what has been presented. My advice is to first make sure the answer to your question wasn’t already presented previously in the chapter. In fact, sometimes the answer may be in the previous paragraph!

Otherwise, the answer is ahead of you, much like when you watch a movie, after all, a movie is a system. Do you stop watching a movie the moment you don’t understand something? No, you embrace the tension that comes from waiting for more information. Likewise, this book presents a system, and the full answer requires all of the parts, which means, they are ahead of you.

Joel Swokowski’s Commentary

Editions and Books

People can get confused with the introduction because the author sees Modeling God as the first edition of a three-part series, which consisted of two books: “Modeling God and Salvation” and “Christian Living, Modeling Life.” The wall excerpt above came from Modeling God, so the reference to the first book referred to “Modeling God and Salvation.” The third edition will be titled “Modeling God’s Plan.” Also, all scripture passages presented in this edition, unless otherwise noted, are from the King James Version of the Bible. All definitions for words from the Bible will come from Strong’s Concordance with their reference number, unless otherwise noted.

God’s Plan and God’s Will

Although the terms “God’s will” and “God’s plan” are often used interchangeably, they are different and will be used in specific fashions throughout this edition. Here are the definitions of each term:

• God’s plan: the result of what God will accomplish, both in the moment and His eternal desire. This is the wall in Lenhart’s analogy.

• God’s will: how God accomplishes His plan; not “what He does,” but the methods, manners, guiding principles, or processes for accomplishing His plan, both in the moment and according to His eternal desire. These are the images on the wall in Lenhart’s analogy (e.g., a man teaching a man to fish).

For example, my plan may be to get a quart of milk from the store. However, my will (method) would be that you get it for me, but I pay for it. You getting it for me and you paying for it would not be in my will, but it would still accomplish my plan.

Plan: having milk.

Will: you get it, I pay for it.

Or how about this example that many of you would be familiar with: my plan may be to sit on a warm beach drinking cocktails with umbrellas and fruit. However, my will (method) would be to retire with enough money to make that happen.

Plan: sit on a beach and relax.

Will: retire with enough money to accomplish my plan.

Fundamental Christianity

As we venture into this edition and see the complexity of God’s will and God’s plan, it’s important to note the foundation of what has been set from Modeling God: 

• We learned that God’s Nature is always completely Righteous and always completely Just. No matter the complexity of where we go from here, that remains true.

• We learned that humanity’s connection to God is by grace through faith. Christians are meant to grow in taking more direction from a God they can’t see in the hopes of a benefit they’ve yet to receive. This remains true as we unpack the ultimate benefit: God’s eternal plan.

• Doing bad things doesn’t make you a bad person. We all do bad things. How we respond to our behavior is more important than the behavior itself. A Christian is someone who responds to their bad behavior with confession and repentance. This remains true from the day a person becomes born again and as that person grows in making disciples of all nations. 

Fundamental Christianity is simple but not easy: 

1. Do what God is telling you to do.

2. Confess and repent when you don’t.

This doesn’t change just because what we’re learning and what God is calling us to do becomes more complex.

Systems Thinking: Analytical vs. Synthesis

We were presented systems thinking with two different approaches: analysis and synthesis. As you read this for the first time, this may seem foreign or new. I assure you, it will become more clear as you read the ensuing chapters. For now, I will try to keep it simple and remember the “wall” analogy that Lenhart taught in the first edition. As much as you may be tempted to take a step forward to get details about a specific part, try to equally consider that your issue is that you’re not seeing the whole picture. Take a step back before taking a step forward.

Now, I also want to clear up one more thing: there is nothing wrong with analytical thinking, in and of itself. Synthesis and analysis are both necessary. What Lenhart repeatedly stated is that synthesis ought to be the first step, followed by analysis. I hope no one thought that analysis was wrong, after all, the third step of the synthesis process is analysis! (Likewise, the third step of the analysis process is synthesis.)

The problem is that our brains naturally work according to analysis, and when we work with anything that does not involve humans, we can seem to get away with analysis as a first step. However, believing that understanding something requires analysis is the concept that has deceived people for thousands of years.

This deception would mean that if analysis is the key to understanding, then complete analysis is the key to complete understanding. But what happens when you take everything apart to its fundamental elements? You end up with nothing! What Lenhart taught in the very first analogy of Modeling God’s preface was that the only way to understand anything completely is to use synthesis as a first step.

Even when it comes to inanimate objects, if analysis is all we do, we end up breaking the system instead of repairing it. Taking apart an engine is great in order to find out what’s wrong with it. But if I keep breaking down the engine and putting it back together (even if I do it right), I’m adding undue wear and tear to the engine that will actually limit its life in the long term.

The best objective, or goal, with analytical thinking is when we use our understanding of the individual parts to facilitate restoration in the system, now and in the future. Yet, it’s synthesis that will lead to us understanding all systems, from the smallest to the greatest system. 

Analysis, even at its most beneficial, will never result in us understanding God’s will at the level God desires. This means analytical thinking ought to be done as a second step, with synthesis thinking being the first step. Whenever you get uncomfortable while reading this edition, I suggest you ask yourself what the first step you took in your thinking was. Was it analysis or synthesis?

This second edition continues the synthesis approach. The third edition (“Modeling God’s Plan”) will finish this three-part series with the analysis approach by filling in the missing tiles Lenhart spoke about in Modeling God.

Chapter 1 - The Party

The analogy guiding each of these three editions was presented in the following manner at the beginning of Modeling God, Chapter 1: The Invitation.

IMAGINE YOU ARE invited to a party where you will be able to participate in any sensual pleasure you desire for as long as you want.

It’s an exclusive party, but the invitation I hand you simply says “Admit One” and has a place for you to fill in your name. As you look at the invitation, you notice it contains no other information. The first question you would probably ask is, “When is the party?”

You are relieved to find out the party was several months away and you had plenty of time to fit it into your schedule. Your next question would probably be, “Where is the party?”

To this, I might say, “Chicago.”

As I turn to leave, you stop me so you can ask, “Where in Chicago?”

When I answer, “In a building with a sign in front. Why do you ask?” you may begin to show frustration.

“Why do I ask? I want to know how to find it, that’s why!”

My answer would depend on where you are coming from. If you are a great distance away, I’d tell you to first take a plane. Then, I’d tell you to drive a car. As you try to interrupt, I say, “Let me be more helpful— when you drive the car, one pedal is the gas. That makes the car go. The other pedal is the brake. That makes the car stop. There is also a steering wheel. That helps you direct the car.”

If you haven’t given up, you may ask, “What am I supposed to do, drive every street until I find it? Could you please give me an address?” The reason you want an address is to know exactly where the party is so that you can find it intentionally. Another benefit of an address is that it allows you to measure your progress.

Up until you get the address, this process would be totally unacceptable for directions to the party. However, these are the same type of directions we get from people when we ask how to get closer to God. Think about it—the most important desire of your heart and you settle for directions that you’d consider ridiculous for something less important.

Modeling God Review

The refusal by “experts” to explain how to be intentional with our growth in God fueled Modeling God. We found the address was Right and Just because this is God’s Nature. Basically, the party was located at the corner of Righteous Street and Justice Avenue and we can measure our progress towards God’s party with whether we are growing and becoming more right and just.

When we incorporated salvation by grace through faith into the model, we realized salvation is actually the same process as improving our relationship with God and intentionally getting closer to the party. So, the party is not salvation. Salvation is part of the journey to the party. We called it “The Door.” The party represents a relationship with God that is perfect (maximum profitability), and it appears to be something we will continue to work on once we are in His presence because the profitability grows infinitely.

Book 2 focused on answering the question, “What is the journey?” and on how we intentionally make and measure progress, because it looks like we need an objective way to measure progress. We saw that profitability is God’s universal measure for determining whether people are allowed to continue the journey once they die. Our ability to make it to the party depends on continual improvement in our interactions with Him. We need to let Him continually direct our actions via grace and faith. It is a process, not a one-time event. 

This explained why our success in getting to the party depends on understanding Jesus more, not less. Consequently, for the rest of the journey, we will measure everything using profitability to ensure our progress toward the party—that is, to make sure we are “good.” God is not looking for us to be without flaw. He is looking to see if we are growing.

Another implication for this explanation is that all of us are going to eventually get the maximum profitability out of our ARE. (Remember, from Modeling God, your ARE is who God created you to BE specifically.) This is the party. How is it possible for all of us to achieve this at the same party?

We’ve seen that Paul compared each of us to a part of the body. When each part does its role perfectly by having God flow through them, then the whole body benefits. We are supposed to develop the unique ability we were given by God (our ARE) in order to do our job perfectly and fit in perfectly with others who are doing their job, which results in maximum profitability. This is the journey we continue after we physically die.

This is God’s plan. This is what it is all about. This is why we are here. This is the meaning of life! Your ultimate goal is to find and operate in your ARE, which is God working through you. This is your calling. This is your purpose.

God’s plan in eternity is the party, which will consist of beings in covenant with several other beings through their ARE. This will require the ultimate in intimacy and communication. Every being will know what they are valued for and how much they value every other unique individual. There won’t be jealousy, because everyone will be growing in perfection in his or her uniqueness. 

GPS Analogy

This current edition will look at some of the characteristics and details of how God’s eternal plan will work. In keeping with the analogy, this edition is focused on some of the characteristics and details of our journey.

Verses 8 and 9 are the foundation of salvation and were covered in depth in the first edition. Look closely at verse 10. 

It appears God set out the good works He wanted you to progress in before you were born. In our analogy, God had a specific route He wanted you to take to the party! More specifically, it appears your car has a GPS system with a programmed route. The directions are being sent all the time, which is grace.

In keeping with our analogy, these directions are sent to our car and picked up by an antenna, which converts the invisible information into tangible actions that are communicated to us via the GPS. What is the antenna? Let’s look at John 3.

In verse 3, Jesus stated that unless a person is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. The word again (G509) is better translated as “from above.” Jesus was more specific in verse 5 when He said the person needs to be born of the Spirit, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. I Thessalonians 5:23 states:

You are a whole that consists of three essential parts: spirit, soul, and body. Your eternal soul is what is being saved. This is the eternal you. Your intangible soul interacts with this world through your physical body, which includes your brain. Just as your brain is your soul’s connection to the physical world, your spirit is your connection to the spiritual world. It is through your spirit that the Holy Spirit communicates into your brain. In order for the Holy Spirit to do this, your spirit must be born (activated). As for our analogy, in order for your car to get a signal to the GPS, your antenna needs to be activated.

I see everyone as having a spirit that is unborn. As Romans 10:9 states and we covered in Modeling God, when they confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in their heart that God raised Him from the dead, they birth their spirit through which they are supposed to get direction from the Holy Spirit via grace in order to grow in salvation.

Going back to our analogy, God’s plan involves getting you to the party. The specific route God has for you is God’s will, and it is done by following the specific directions God gives you. Hence, this book is focused on helping you understand God’s will well enough to know if you and others are following their GPS or not.

Calvinism Comparison

God’s will is a complicated topic, which is why about five hundred years ago, a simple answer to understanding God’s will was widely accepted. Not only did this simple answer not align with the Bible, it is in opposition to the Bible, yet people have accepted it. While I’d rather not deal with this, the belief has so infiltrated Christianity that it is the biggest reason this topic has become more complicated. 

One of the hardest things to do is unlearn. One example is that many “Christians” were made so uncomfortable by Modeling God because it required them to unlearn their traditional man-made beliefs that they attacked me rather than resolve their contradictions. The man-made belief is Calvinism, named after John Calvin. I’m going to give a brief overview of Calvinism in this chapter, and a more detailed explanation will be given later in Part I.

Calvinism: A Protestant theological system that has roots in the philosophical system known as determinism. Determinism is the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will of the individual. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.

The belief in determinism has roots going back more than 300 years before Christ came to earth. This was not a belief presented in the Old Testament. Is this yet another example of a man-made tradition being put on the word of God that makes the word of God of none effect (Mark 7:13)?

In Modeling God, Joel Swokowski’s Commentary made the following points when speaking about Calvinism as “the other explanation” from what the Bible stated:

The other explanation cannot support how a right and just God would create beings who were prevented from heaven and destined for eternal torture. Again, the discussion focuses completely on the explanation for this process because its existence is presupposed. The most destructive explanation is determinism: the future has already occurred and we are simply living out an existence that has been limited to only one possible day-to-day experience. Basically, God already knows what is going to happen and we not only don’t have free will, we don’t have freedom of choice. There are many passages that contradict this (Genesis 22:12: God saying “...for now I know...” when Abraham tries to sacrifice Isaac. Isaiah 7:15: Isaiah’s prophecy about Jesus saying what He will do until He is able to choose the good and refuse the evil, etc.), however, the response is that we just can’t understand it, which would make God unable to explain Himself to us. 

The issue is that people can’t separate out responsibility and credit. It looks as if everyone either believes God gets all the credit and is responsible for their salvation, or the individual gets all the credit and is responsible for their salvation. Why do we lump these two when it comes to God?

People tend to lump these two concepts, resulting in “experts” thinking there are only two possible explanations for salvation. If we get all the credit and have all the responsibility, then we are God. Clearly, this isn’t a “Christian” explanation. If we get none of the credit and take none of the responsibility, then either everyone goes to heaven or God is unjust. This confusion between the concepts is where the two possible explanations that have caused division in Christianity occur. 

Humanism/paganism believes we get all the credit and have all the responsibility.

Calvinism believes we get none of the credit and have none of the responsibility. 

Fundamental Christianity, according to the Bible, believes we get none of the credit (it all goes to God), and we have all of the responsibility when it comes to our salvation.

The Biggest System

In the preface, we covered analytical and synthesis systems thinking. We saw the way to completely understand a system is to look at it from the perspective of the next bigger system. Dr. Russell Ackoff spent his life modeling business (or the corporation) by looking at it from the next bigger system: education. However, his ability to accurately model education depended on his ability to model the next bigger system. 

In the true spirit of a synthesis systems thinker, he spent the last fourteen years of his life modeling the biggest system in order to be able to accurately model every system. He identified the biggest system as “God.” Dr. Russell Ackoff believed the person who could model God would be able to model every system accurately, allowing them to repair every problem.

The issue is that God is not the biggest system. Remember, a system is a whole made up of parts. God is Holy, which means “of one substance.” God does not have parts! God is not only the smallest system, God is the only entity in the universe that is not a system! This makes God always existing and sufficient because nothing else existed outside of Him to support His creation or existence. In short, this proves God is the Creator. Everything would be created by God from outside of the created thing, just like a man creates a car. Notice, the car only works with a man as part of the system. Likewise, everything would only work with God being a part of every system He created.

If God is the smallest system, what is the biggest system? Albert Einstein said he wanted to know God’s thoughts; the rest are just details. What Einstein was saying was that while God created everything for a purpose (His plan), He has a specific way He handles the parts of His plan. For example, how God allows bodies to move in space is guided by the system of physics. While, how God allows the human body to operate is guided by the system of biology. Einstein said all of these fields of study are lesser systems from the only system He cared about: God’s will, that is, how God allows His plan to come about!

Notice, Calvin, like Ackoff, believed God is the biggest system. If God is the biggest system, He would be outside of everything, including His will, allowing Him to make anything happen because it would be a part of Him. This book believes God is the smallest possible system because He doesn’t have any parts, while His will is the biggest system, a system that God Himself is a part of, just like a human is a part of operating and enjoying an automobile. 

Let me be clear: God is sufficient. He doesn’t have any parts and doesn’t need anything in order to exist. However, God has a plan, which is a whole made up of parts, and God is one of the parts. My analogy is that God’s plan is a party, and He very definitely wants to attend this eternal party. We will have to wait until the third and final edition to understand how that eternal plan works.

Part I of Modeling God showed how Jesus provided infinite value for salvation. Part I of this edition will show how God needs reward (spiritual value) to bring about His plan, which means God needs people to bring about His plan, AND God is sufficient.

Summary

• God’s eternal party requires us to make progress toward an address, which is God’s Nature (Right and Just).

• Our progress is measured by profitability.

• The best way to make progress is to allow God to lead you via grace.

• We are a mind/soul (ARE) driving a car (physical body), and grace is the GPS received through our spirit (antenna).

• Salvation is the door to the party.

• God’s plan: The party itself is the ultimate in intimacy and communication accomplished by covenanting with others through our AREs.

• God’s will is how He brings about the party through you.

• Understanding God’s will allows you the ability to understand everything else in the universe.

Joel Swokowski’s Commentary

Lenhart did a great job ensuring we understand the implications of what it means that God’s will is the biggest system and how God Himself is the smallest. We’ll see more and more of those implications as this book progresses. Allow me to join Lenhart in bringing some clarity and assurance. 

God being the smallest system does not mean God is small. It is a result of God’s holiness! It is an effect of God’s purity. Something and/or some person that is made up of only one substance cannot have any impurities: no dust, no dirt, no darkness. The effect is they are separate or set apart.

None Effect

We know the Bible (the written words) is only truth when it’s used with a right how/why. However, God’s word is truth because God cannot help but use His words in truth (right how/why). So, why does the Bible have what seems to be an unending number of interpretations? Jesus gave the answer: “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition…” (Mark 7:13a). In other words, man takes God’s word and turns it into man’s word.

God’s word is truth. God’s word is powerful. God’s word brings profitability. 

Man has a way of hindering God’s truth, power, and profitability.

Tradition (habitual practices for the sake of habit) can stop God’s word from bringing forth the benefits that God intended.

Here’s a quick example. Let’s say a church participates in communion (The Lord’s Table) every Sunday. When the pastor proposes to limit this ordinance to once a month, they receive pushback from the elder board. Their reason: we have always done communion every week.

This gets to the heart of man-made tradition. We forget the God-given reason behind a behavior, and the focus becomes the behavior itself. Communion at that church lost its power when the reason for doing that ordinance became: because we always have.

Tradition in and of itself is not bad. Man-made tradition that takes the place of the word of God is hindering the power of God, hindering His will, and hindering His eternal plan.

GPS

The GPS analogy is familiar and practical, at least, it is for me! My son Jack is a devoted volleyball player. He plays in two separate leagues over the twelve months of the year. For most of that time, he’s playing for a travel league. We end up going out of town for the weekend at least once a month over eight months of the year. I use my GPS for every trip, to and from the city where the tournament is hosted, and all the driving in between. 

As often as I use my GPS, as familiar as I am with it, the steps for using it remain the same. I put in my destination, and without fail, it asks me to “choose a starting point.”

In order to get where I want to go, I need to know where I’m starting and where I’m located. As much as I want to go to Italy and bask in the sun of the Amalfi Coast, if I buy a ticket to fly there, I’m going to be required to tell them what airport I’m flying from. I need to know where I’m going and where I am currently located. 

The first edition, Modeling God, gave us the tools we needed to determine where we’re going (God), where we each uniquely reside (current beliefs/definitions), and how to intentionally and uniquely close the divide between the two (grace through our ARE). 

This book helps us get a specific view of what going to God looks like and how to intentionally journey towards God’s plan. The more we grow in our ability to hear from God, the more efficient and effective a path we’ll be on towards God’s plan. But don’t fret, even if you do take a wrong turn, the GPS is quick to send you a re-routing message to get you back on the right path.

In fact, check this out from the end of “Chapter 5: Applications” of Modeling God:

How do you apply what we’ve learned in Part I in order to make progress toward God? In our party analogy, you would be constantly aware of how close you are getting to Righteous Street and Justice Avenue. Likewise, you must measure everything you do with respect to righteousness and justice. It is a process.

1. Establish where you are today.

Recall from the analogy that the first thing I asked was where you were coming from. The sad truth is that most people don’t know where they are coming from. They don’t know what they believe. It’s no wonder they can’t make progress. Once you establish what you believe…

2. Actively try to prove your personal beliefs wrong by identifying contradictions.

With respect to the analogy, this would be the same as figuring out if the street you are driving down is getting you closer to the party or further away. That leads to the final step.

3. Change your beliefs in order to remove the contradiction.

That’s it! That’s the process of growing closer to God! However, you may decide you like the street you are driving on even though you know it is taking you further from the party. Even though you are moving and know you are on the wrong street, progress still depends on your actions.

In order to make progress, you must choose to pursue growth instead of comfort. 

Progress starts with determining where you are. A GPS won’t work if you don’t input your current location.

Do you know what you believe about God’s will well enough that you can state it?