Troublesome Responsibility

post 214

Matthew 14:22-34, Mark 6:45-53, and John 6:16-21.

Oh I know in my spirit what we (Christ in me) are doing, and I agree with my heart it is good but my head just won’t be done with the worrying of that illogical bone! I am pressed with the responsibility to bail the boat as long as possible even if there is no reasonable hope!
But is this not what I have accused Glenn Beck of doing in America and now in Israel in my analogy of the Titanic? (The foolishness of hope in hope like faith in faith, or faith in un-regenerated fallen man which works out to be the same thing.)
But to stop bailing is the action of a coward, a quitter, a part of the problem. So how can I declare I am none of those things yet toss in the bucket and walk away?
Through the spirit of prophecy I have shown in scripture that the appointed time is now and by the mathematical calculations of reality this ship (age) is going down as we speak. Therefore to continue to bail is a waste of precious resources that can be used to aid others to secure themselves in the Lifeboat Jesus Christ.
So why does the captain “go down with the ship”? Have you ever asked where this concept came from?
* * *

Regardless of the cause, the full weight of responsibility rests upon the shoulders of the captain. Not until all life is safely extracted from the sinking ship does the captain have the choice to also step from his sinking vessel. Going down with the ship is his physical representation of having given his all to succeed in his job as he dies with the failure. Today the military phrase meaning the same concept is “No man left behind”. This concept is what sent Jesus to the cross to redeem us from the sin of death we got ourselves into (John 3:16) and is the same reason the first Adam ate of the fruit which his wife could not resist.
Why was Jesus called the second Adam? (Romans 5:12,14b, I Corinthians 15:45-47) What did their two stories have in common? Adam brought the world under sin by his act and Jesus saved us from that sin by his act, both as "forefathers" of their actions affecting those that come after. but wait, there is more (a concept from Chuck Missler); “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” I Timothy 2:13-14
This is not a gender blame thing, Eve represented humanity and Adam represented the Christ that was to come who sacrificed himself because of his love toward us “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8
The comparisons of two Adams was not in the redemption, it was the willingness to join his spouse in their condition because of love. “You fall I fall”. Jesus the sinless God took upon himself the sins of humanity just as Adam did for eve, though not a God; he could not redeem her and so Adam the “captain of the ship” took on the weight of responsibility as he should. Adam went down with the ship and the second Adam did likewise, but being sinless God, his Adam like act brought redemption to his love. (oh that is going to take a month to explain)
This is the understanding and meaning of responsibility extracted from scriptural concept;

“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel (unbeliever)” I Timothy 5:8.

This is why the captain goes down with his ship.
* * *

But just what does it mean to provide for those under your responsibility? Does bailing to the last breath while people drown count as providing, or does tossing in the bucket and getting them to lifeboats count? These are complex questions with complex answers.
If there are enough lifeboats and enough time to fill them, then the answer is easy; go help.
But if there are not enough lifeboats or not enough time to fill them, then bailing has new advantage and is reasonable responsibility as it either extends the time to fill the boats or is the last fruitless effort that can be done before those left on board drown in hopelessness but knowing that all possible effort was made by those responsible.
This creates contention in the stress of foundering between officers with different ideas. Some should prep the boats, some should round up the passengers, and some should continue to bail. I confess I may have been slightly hasty in my public rebuke of Mr. Beck’s actions but only because I know there is no hope of saving the ship and so all effort must be given to saving the passengers that can be saved rather than falsely encourage them that we can keep it from sinking. (There were many empty seats in the lifeboats of the Titanic because the passengers were not made fully aware of the imminent danger and in confusion of hope that the ship was not actually sinking they elected to stay on board.)
The difficulty comes when the answer is not so simple. Mr. Beck knows there are not enough lifeboats and a lot of, in fact most, the passengers are going to die. What do you do then? You play beautiful music on deck to keep the passengers from panicking as long as possible and you bail the boat with all you have in your last effort to keep it afloat to the very last second. There is nothing really dishonorable in that though it is fruitless and hopeless hope in hope itself. But it frustrates me that the soothing music designed to keep them from panicking is also what encourages them not to get into the lifeboat! A deceitful feeling of security by a pleasant environment.

Yet this is all there is to be done in this fateful moment in time… for those not fortunate enough to find a lifeboat. But the same world; the same event, is a very different place for those who do!
For those in the lifeboats drifting not far away, the horrible scene before them is unspeakable. Yet surrealistic as what their eyes witness might appear, the fact that they do not experience the horror they witness makes the surrealism that much greater. But those going down with the ship don’t see it as surrealism; to them it is actually life and death.

So the captain goes down with his ship and the souls that do not escape, but the crew has responsibilities too. Theirs is the safety of the passengers that do survive; let the captain care for those who don’t (Matthew 8:22, (Matthew 25:8-9, a hard saying)).
Jesus is the captain who in self sacrifice went down with the ship on the cross, two thousand years ago, We the ministers of the Gospel of Christ are sent to the perishing showing them that in resurrection from the dead Jesus provided the Lifeboat by which they can live. “…Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” Acts 16:31
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” Romans 10:9 Unlike the Titanic there are no classes here, all are equally encouraged to get into the Lifeboat (Colossians 3:11)
* * *

Responsibility is not actually a hard thing to carry out when you have no doubt of its application to you, history is littered with the bodies of faithful soldiers who carried out their clear responsibilities. But when the responsibility becomes questionable or confused it becomes a troublesome burden that plagues the mind and must be worked out to understanding.

When everyone but you can see clearly your responsibility, you are called a coward or irresponsible. This is because what should be clear to you is not because of a double mind (James 1:6-8); Two Masters.

When you once knew your responsibility but it has been mostly but not completely forgotten by the greater desires of a double mind, you are called timid or wishy-washy as you approach the responsibilities you simply cannot run away from but would like to (Luke 9:62).

When you take up your responsibilities with commitment, you are called courageous or dependable because you have the ability to face whatever comes regardless of your opposition or likelihood of success (James 2:22, 1:3, II Corinthians 5:7-9).

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” II Corinthians 5:10

If every child of this generation in America was to have memorized this single verse and be instructed to meditate on what it means, the entire nation would not be sinking today.
I go further to declare that if only every child from a Christian home of this generation in America was to have memorized this single verse and be instructed to meditate on what it means, the entire nation would still not be sinking today.

Where is the scripture that declares to be saved by the blood of Christ removes your responsibility and thereby your accountability? This verse states clearly that WE ALL MUST APPEAR to be held accountable for our actions. Yet today’s gospel of cheep grace has instructed our Christian children to be irresponsible fools under Grace alone!

Christians love to quote Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
But to stop reading the whole thought is to become useless couch potatoes in God’s house. These verses are the prepwork for the next verse; Ephesians 2:10 “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained (OT) that we should walk in them (good works).”

So knowing my responsibility, how can I of all people push responsibility as I just declared my desire and intent to let my boat sink as I think to “walk on water” in my real life analogy!?
This is the bone that my mind refuses to let go as it worries it to bits while my heart and spirit look back and laugh saying “give it a rest already”.
I believe this is something like the doubt which caused Peter to begin sinking after starting out so successfully in simple faith.
* * *

Troublesome Responsibilities.
When is it ok to stop bailing without being irresponsible?
Reason, of all things, seems to come to the answer explaining that there are two considering factors:

1st - The awareness of the futility to continue.
2nd - A greater responsibility.

Assuming we have already established that the specific is indeed your responsibility and not just a self-imposed illusion, both of these factors must be in place before abandonment of your responsibility is proper.
The doom of those under your care is irrelevant to the evaluation if factor 1 is in place; To continue or not will not change the outcome and therefore you are free to abandon the effort and in fact should, but to then play cards is to abandon responsibility all together, No, factor 2 must also take affect for it to be proper.
If a greater responsibility does not present itself then find one. Responsibility does not evaporate (Matthew 10:14-15+16-22=23). But although the first portion of the passage tends to suggest their mission was then over, we see by context of instruction concluding in Matthew 10:23, and in their obedience to the instruction in Acts 13:51-52, that they were to continue to another place of effort to the cause.
Isaiah 52:2 informs us of the principle that freedom from that specific responsibility is the reason for this act of “abandonment” of those who will not be helped, but not to then run without responsibility but rather freedom to be responsible elsewhere. Therefore stop bailing if it is pointless, so you will be freed up to then continue saving lives in another way; caring for those the general bailing was actually supposed to help but couldn’t. The common concept is to find those who will be saved among the many that won’t.
In triage it is heartbreaking to walk away from the dying you cannot save to aid those you can, but if you cannot bring your emotions under control to do this, many more will die while you fruitlessly bail the sinking boat through fixation.
* * *

In my present case similar to the Disciples personal adventures while in the same boat, there are no passengers; I am the single occupant and owner of my boat free to respond without complex responsibilities to cloud the scenario.
Yet I struggle with factor 1 as it seems clear that by laboriously bailing I may at least save part of the boat if things fall in my favor by trying, better described as picking my crash landing site to minimize the damage. Therefore is it not reckless abandonment to choose to let the very expensive boat sink without resistance? I must conclude that it is… except for factor 2 (“But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead” Matthew 8:22).

If the captain calls the crewman to stop bailing and use the radio, to refuse to heed the instruction would be punishable even if the crewman was sure that his bailing could save the boat. And once again we have a Two Masters problem that we have already addressed as unacceptable; the master says “do” and you obey.
But what if the captain is not the one who made the order? What if the crewman is the one who asked permission to stop bailing to use the radio to which the captain agreed? Now where is the responsibility if the crewman felt that continued bailing could save the boat? Does it not still remain in the hand of the captain who gave permission to do something else? If the ship sinks is the crewman to blame? No, the burden of responsibility remains with the captain even if he allowed the crewman to play cards instead of bail. Where is the scriptural support for such an idea?
Peter did exactly that (well, except for the playing cards part exactly). He asked the Lord if he could take a walk instead of bail/row to which the Lord replied with a single word; “Come.” Matthew 14:28.
In like manner by analogy I saw the Lord on the sea and the possibility, and so made the request to which I received confirmation, and so I began my venture in faith but am really struggling with the wasteful and needless loss/irresponsibility of the boat.

Here is my turmoil: by abandoning the responsibility of the ship to work on my calling, I have made my choice and set my course. but until the consequence of that choice actually takes affect it still remains a strange surreal event as if I watch from the Lifeboat still being lowered onto the sea; still a part of the ship but clearly disconnected to the events aboard. I think I’m impatient as once having made my decision I want to just get on with it; “Sink already, I have other things to do!” as I wait trembling with the conflicting excitement and uncertainty of the unknown affect of my choice.

In my feelings of troublesome responsibility I simply hate to see the perfectly good boat sink with thoughts that I could sell it and use the money for the mission the Lord has given me or some other such plan.
The unshakable dilemma is that at this time continued bailing still has a theoretical potential of working… at least until the next wave hits to finish it off, and not naturally given to surrender I am compelled to keep fighting to keep it afloat. Yet even to me, this is really sounding a lot like burying the dead which Jesus already covered.
* * *

In further study of the scriptural event it is clear by the immediately previous event of feeding the 5000; showing the disciples the impossibility of actually doing what they were told to do (“give ye them to eat” Matthew 14:16), that this is the same boat trip shown in Matthew 14:22, Mark 6:45, and John 6:16. Each rendition gives unique bits of additional information to the whole event.

First I notice that in this adventure, the disciples did not want to leave the Lord and the “responsibility” they felt was their duty, so the Lord himself constrained 315 them to go. It appears they were placed by God himself in an environment without a responsibility to others; This scenario was personal to their faith without conflicting encumbrances, for a specific reason.

Constrain 315 anagkazo; from 318; to necessitate; - compel.
318 anagke; from 303 and the base of 43; constraint (literal or figurative); by implication distress:- must needs, (of) necessity, needful.

It seems Jesus had a plan they were not aware of and it was necessary that they make this trip without him or others in their presence, and so he compelled them even against their perception of what they felt was their responsibility. Very curious.

Next reading all three narrations I notice that although the seas had greatly kicked up and were contrary, it does not suggest the boat was in danger of sinking or indicate it needed bailing as before, it was just very hard going and making little progress. So in this trip the issue of responsibility changes from bailing to rowing. For this reason Peter did not abandon his duty to save the boat or others in favor of a walk on the sea, this seems significant as there were others in the boat. But since the only occupants were equals in the faith I think we can reason that they were each on an equally personal adventure of faith in this specific scenario with meaning. This was not a “you’re letting your team down” kind of thing. I believe each of them may have had the same opportunity Peter did, he just saw it as the Father moved him.

Next I notice that Peter’s personal great adventure was only recorded in Matthew and completely ignored in the telling of the other two gospels. Why in the world would his fellow disciples entirely leave out something as great as that, as if it never happened!?
Note that Peter was not given extra praise, the other disciples were not told to wait in the boat as Peter and the Lord went into the village to do some greater work of faith; there appears to be virtually no advantage for Peter’s experience. In an earlier post I suggested that this boat trip represented “crossing over” as in death. In this way every believer who calls out to Jesus arrives on the “other shore” regardless of his exploits or lack there of. Note too that Jesus repeatedly stated “No man can come unto me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him…” John 6:44 and also 65. Clearly Peter was called of the father to come unto Jesus and responded in faith. This was Peter’s special private event with the Lord completely unrelated to the others to the point they never even mentioned it in their narrative much as we don't seem to even think about how Pet traveled back to the boat. This suggests that while there are some believers who can and will do great works in Christ, most will not and are not rebuked for it beyond noting their little faith, which Peter was also made aware of.
But on another level we must note that because it WAS mentioned in Matthew, it has a significant meaning which we will cover in a later post.

What I am saying here, is that to get caught up in the detail of mental confusions is to loose the singular sight of the Lord. Follow the Lord in simplicity and don’t stress over the doubts and confusions that try to trip your walk. This is exactly why Peter began to sink; he began to fear in doubt, and this is what I am trying hard to shake.

I am ashamed to still be struggling with this troublesome responsibility as I question my actions perhaps much as Peter did once he set out. Drat that little faith through doubting!