Okay, I don’t know why I am writing this. I am not a businessman, and some would say I am not even a very good theologian. This is certainly not a theological topic, but it is something that occurred to me over the course of the morning, so in order to get it out of my head I thought I would put it in a blog.
I have been a part of some really good companies, and some really dreadful companies. As I pondered over what made the good companies great and the bad companies really lousy, a very few characteristics came to my mind. I hope I have crystallized them succinctly and beneficially enough. Maybe you have another one or two to add. Feel free to push back or add to. Here goes:
1. Really good companies hire the best person for the job and then let that person achieve what it was that he or she was hired to do. That is, really good companies ditch the boiler-plate human resources department mumbo-jumbo run-around that sucks so much life out of new hires and, eventually, the entire company. Really good companies take risks, look for creative, hard workers, and understand that a spotless resume often means an empty brain, and a somewhat tarnished resume might also reveal a brilliant worker. This applies to churches far more than the average pew sitter would expect. I cannot tell you how many “boiler-plate” job descriptions for ministers are out there. Everyone wants the most successful evangelist, most spellbinding preacher, highest educated teacher, most devoted home leader, accomplished counselor and universally admired retreat/lectureship speaker. Know how many of those there are out there? Yeah, I thought so: exactly zero. But chances are a good man will have two or so of those traits, and many will have one outstanding trait among all of those. The fact is you cannot be 100% introvert and 100% extrovert, which is what many companies demand (or, at least, demand on paper). But, find the best individual there is available and then release him or her to do his or her potential!
2. Very closely related – do not micro-manage your company. If you release your employees (or your volunteers, if that is what you are working with) then allow them to succeed brilliantly and allow them to fail spectacularly. Great achievements are born from the ashes of previous failures. Let your good people take ownership of their work, and that means you have to get your long nose and oversized posterior out of their workspace. In the job where I had the best owner/boss, he let us make our own decisions and we knew that. We knew we would have to justify those decisions if it cost the company money, but we also knew that our boss would have our back if our decisions were questioned by his superiors. Folks, that is the kind of boss I would run into a burning building for. On the other hand, the most wretched company I have had the curse to work for made it impossible for me to do my job without the fear of my immediate superior calling me into her office for a periodic dressing down. It was brutal. Sometimes the best lessons are learned from the worst teachers, and, heaven forbid anyone would have to deal with a teacher like that, um, person.
3. Never, ever, ever issue instructions or demands that result in a “double bind.” A double-bind is a situation in which an employee or a volunteer cannot obey one command without violating another. For example, one company I worked for had one “bind” that we would obey every single regulation that the FAA handed down to a perfect “t” and there would be no questions asked. However, an unspoken but very clear rule was that we were to deliver our packages on time and precisely where it was to be delivered, also no questions asked. So, even though it was against FAA regulations we flew in weather we were not supposed to, in aircraft that were not airworthy, and carrying freight that we were not authorized to carry. There was no way we could obey one “bind” without violating the other. I hate to say it, but during the time that I was associated with that company 3 pilots lost their lives. In every situation the “official” reason was “pilot error” but those of us who knew the inner workings of the company knew better. And, by the way, yes I did make an official complaint to someone outside the company in an official position of authority (law enforcement). To the best of my knowledge, my complaint went nowhere.
4. Do not write checks on the bank accounts of your employees (or volunteers). This one has more to do if you are working with volunteers, but never commit your employees or volunteers to do something that is physically impossible, or strategically improbable, for them to carry out. An example of this would be to commit your volunteers to give more time than is reasonable, or expect higher levels of sacrifice than is realistic, or to expect higher levels of return than what your people can deliver. If it takes an hour to fly from point A to point B, don’t promise you can have a package there in 30 minutes. If it takes an hour to create a poster, do not demand that 3 be made in the same time period. If your people sacrificially gave $100.00 last quarter, do not demand $10,000 this quarter. There are so many ways in which this is done in business and in churches. Be honest, be fair, and work with what your people can give you. You would be surprised at how frequently they will willingly give you more!
5. To inspire loyalty, demonstrate loyalty. I could not leave Jezebel and the company from Hades fast enough. While I actually enjoyed the position, the company ethics and the office politics were in the process of killing me. It was a wretched experience, but, strangely enough, I am glad I lived through it. It taught me how not to treat people. There was no loyalty, and yet the ownership demanded absolute loyalty. Workers came and went on almost a weekly basis. Morale was low. To hear the owner speak, though, you would have thought his company was the happiest on earth. There are many former employees who would disagree with him on that point! On the other hand, I truly regretted having to leave the “pleasant” company. I had to for health reasons – but it was anything but an easy decision. It certainly was not a glamorous position – socially far beneath the excruciating company position – but infinitely more enjoyable and worthwhile. While the nature of the company encouraged a considerable amount of turnover, many former employees would come back to this company after their next adventure did not work out. We had a standing joke that our company was the embodiment of the Eagles’ famous song, Hotel California - “You can check out any time you’d like, but you can never leave.” We (at least most of us) loved the company and parted on good relations with the management.
So there you have it – my five foolproof ideas for how to create a winning organization, whether it be a company or a volunteer group.
Many happy landings!
This particular topic cuts into several hot-button socio-political issues being debated in the church today, so I know I am treading on thin ice, out on a broken limb and cruisin’ for a bruisin’. But I will share these thoughts anyway, maybe not because they offer any clarity, but simply because some things need to be discussed and since this is my blog I get to set the topic.
One phrase that I hear quite frequently in discussions regarding several different topics is something like this, “How can you tell me I cannot exercise my God given calling simply because I am (a) __________________?” and you can fill in the blank with any of a number of supposed “victims” of the status quo. That might be a female, a homosexual, a divorcee, a professional musician or dance performer, or a repeat sex offender. There really is no limit to a real or imagined victimhood. Rather than pick on one of these truly “hot as blue blazes” issues, I will shift the conversation somewhat and discuss a somewhat arcane question, but a question that I believe relates back to any and all of these other particular situations.
One issue that has divided Churches of Christ for about a century is that of whether a congregation should have, or even can have, a “professional” ministry staff or if they should operate on a “mutual edification” process in which every male in the congregation is allowed to, and often is encouraged to, lead in the worship service including teaching class and preaching. A “professional” preacher is defined as one who has been to a training school, either a college, university or preacher training school, and who receives full compensation for his service to the congregation. Most who serve in mutual edification congregations do not accept any payment for their preaching/teaching services.
To begin with, I want to say I share a lot of sympathy with those who believe in mutual edification. I think sometimes those of us who are “professionally” trained tend to look down upon, or otherwise overlook, men and women in the congregation who are both capable and qualified to lead in significant ways. As with virtually every profession, there can be a measure of hubris the creeps into the heart of every practitioner.
That having been said, however, I have significant issues with those who claim that there is no Scriptural warrant for a paid, “professional” ministry position (for reference see 1 Cor. 9:9-14 and 1 Timothy 5:18 where Paul quotes the Old Testament Scriptures and even quotes Jesus in proclaiming that those who preach the gospel should get their support for doing so.) One of my main concerns is that in my professional training I have learned just how easy it is to twist and distort any passage of Scripture to mean what you want it to mean. Racists have been doing this for years. So have those who advocate building nuclear bomb proof shelters in their backyards and hoarding 15 years worth of food in order to survive the coming nuclear war (I often wonder – if the destruction is that total, what good would 15, or 50, or 100 years worth of food do? You just cannot argue with stupid). Another concern is that just because you have an opinion, a poem and a verse of Scripture, that does not mean you have been “called” to share that passage, poem and opinion.
The point is, those who hold an extreme position have to do so by doing two things. One, they have to ignore, twist, or explain away many clear passages of Scripture that contradict their opinion. Two, they have to magnify their own personal sense of investment in the debate so that, if someone disagrees with them or, more accurately stated, disagrees with their conclusions, then that person is described as a “hater,” “phobic” or worse and so the objector’s point of view is discounted a priori. So, if someone attempts to defend the use of a paid, professionally trained minister, the discussion gets hijacked into an attack on the qualifications of the one advocating the mutual edification position. Now, the mutual edifier may truly be inept and unqualified to teach and preach. But his talents and qualifications have nothing to do with the passages of Scripture which allow for, if not support, a paid “professional” minister.
As I mentioned above, this scenario has specific applications with those who advocate for absolute and undifferentiated equality for females as males, and for those who advocate for the acceptance of homosexual behavior, and for those who advocate for more and more entertainment styles of worship. Are there spokesmen who defend such movements as Christian, Godly and Scripturally supported? Absolutely! But, before everyone simply nods their heads with these prophets of relaxed (or erased) doctrinal teachings, let me remind you of the history of false prophecy in the Bible. It started in the Garden of Eden and it continued right up to and including the desert in which our Lord was tempted and the Garden of Gethsemane where he endured his final battle with Satan. The apostles warn frequently and fervently for those who have been enlightened by the Spirit not to be taken by by a spirit of false prophecy. The prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel in particular had to deal with the effects of false prophecy. The historical books of the Old Testament recount many tragic stories where God’s people listened to and believed false prophets. Just because someone says, “Thus says the Lord” does not make him or her a prophet of God. We have to use our keenest senses to determine whether a prophet is speaking the words of God or the words of the Deceiver.
To go back to the main title of this post. I do not doubt that many are hearing a “calling” to do whatever it is that they are advocating. My question to them is, “How do you know it is the voice of God you are hearing, or the voice of a false and deceiving prophet?” God would not command you to do something that He has prohibited for thousands of years. The last time anything even remotely similar to these advocates are promoting did occur, it took a miraculous vision of a sheet and some unclean animals to convince the recipient. And, lest I be misunderstood, God was trying to get Peter to do something that God predicted would happen several thousand years earlier to Abraham. And if there are several, if not many, passages in the Bible which contradict this “voice” you are hearing, what makes you think that God has suddenly changed his mind? Is the voice you are hearing not, in fact, your own just cast in a different tone and amplified in volume?
I ask the question because the stakes are so high. If you are right and God has changed his mind, then I need to correct my thinking and get in line with God. But if I am right and the prophets of change are wrong, then there are many people who are at risk of following the thief as he leads them from the Good Shepherd’s safe fold.
We all are wagering something in this discussion. What is it worth to be wrong?
[Legal disclaimer: I am currently involved in the university teaching world. The school that I serve currently believes very strongly in the process of on-line teaching. Therefore, my comments should be interpreted strictly as my own, and in no way do they reflect the policies or opinions of any employer I have had in the past, or will have in the future.]
I do not think that it would be controversial at all to make that statement that education in the United States is in a crisis mode. It has been for several decades, but it seems to me that the passage of the “No Child Left Behind” act really put the education system in the US in a tailspin. Educators are finally getting the attention of the politicians, and there are some hopeful signs that we can correct the worst of the damage, but I’m not sure but that we have severely handicapped the better part of a generation with our “teaching to pass the standardized test” methods of the past several years.
DOWNWARD TREND #1: However, I see another trend developing, and as bad as NCLB was, I think this one is worse. And it has come not through the edict of congress, but through the evolution (or devolution) of the twin powers of developing technology and political correctness. That trend will ultimately spell the demise of what we refer to as “higher education” in the United States. It affects junior colleges, standard four-year colleges, and graduate programs. That trend is the seemingly unstoppable headlong rush into “on-line” computerized courses where the student has no face to face contact with his or her professor, nor any collegial contact with fellow students.
If you stay current with higher education trends you are no doubt familiar with “Massive Open On-Line Courses” (MOOC) that many universities and colleges are offering. If the university does not offer a MOOC, it is virtually certain that it will offer some or all of its catalog of courses via an on-line option. There are many reasons given for the option to allow on-line courses, but the bottom line is, well, the bottom line.
On-line courses save money, and that is their only benefit. Pious platitudes such as, “it allows the non-traditional student the ability to study and maintain their current position” is just that – a pious platitude. If the courses were limited to only those students who could not physically attend a local university that might be a legitimate argument – but even then I am not going to accept it. And, it is clear that more on-campus students take on-line courses than do off campus students. In the common vernacular, on-line courses are a crock.
From the founding of this nation until just a few decades ago, the attainment of a Bachelor’s, Master’s or Doctoral degree was the sign of exceptional perseverance, a dedicated work/study habit, and very often of great sacrifice. Our businesses, our corporations, our classrooms, and our courts are full of individuals who bussed tables, served as waitresses/waiters, mowed lawns, washed windows or mopped floors in order to put themselves through a college or university, and they did it by taking night classes or going to school in the day and working at night. Then a funny thing happened on the way to the graduation podium. Instead of a higher education being a tremendous honor and hard-earned accomplishment, it became some kind of a right that should be bestowed on everyone who wanted it. Exit hard work, sacrifice and dedication, enter the privileged class.
I am a part of that generation that felt it was “owed” a higher education. For my graduating class it was assumed that we would be going to a university. And, with very few exceptions, it was assumed our way would be paid by our parents – or with loans we would have to pay back, or by grants and scholarships supplied by someone else. That is just the way our world worked. Several of my classmates in college did have to work their way through school, but at least all of us had to do one thing in common – we had to leave our homes and travel to an on-site university where we had to sit in a class and actually pay attention to the professor.
Now, move the clock forward to the second decade of the 21st century. The right of a higher education has only been strengthened, but a profound shift has occurred in relation to the sacrifice and dedication it takes to obtain that degree. Today’s pitiful little high school graduates do not have to leave home, or even leave their bedrooms, to enter college. And, heaven forbid they actually have to pay for the degree they are supposedly earning. No, the mantra is that we want a full college diploma, but we don’t want to have to actually attend a class or pay full tuition, we want to stare at a computer screen dressed in our jammies and pay a fraction of what it costs to support a brick-and-mortar physical building.
I know I am being snarky. I’m sorry, but this issue is just too important not to express some of my baser emotions. But, intellectually, here is the real rub. education is more than the simple transfer of data from one computer to another computer. Education takes place in the give-and-take and the interaction between instructor and student, and between student and student, and that has always been the strength of a university setting. Students from all different backgrounds and all different belief systems are smashed together in a grand environment in which ideas and concepts and thoughts and issues are discussed in an (ideally) neutral context and out of the whole glorious mess an educated person emerges sometime later. Remove all of the educative environment and all you get is the transfer of a few thousand pixels of information and an isolated individual with no real connection to the instructor or their fellow students.
If costs are truly the issue, there are ways to address that issue. First and foremost would be the elimination of government guaranteed student loans. (Like that will ever happen.) But to cut the education nose off to spite the financial face is simply, in a plain old good English word, stupid.
DOWNWARD TREND #2: Lest I get too long-winded concerning the first issue, I have to address the second disturbing trend I see developing. In the grand and glorious state in which I reside the governor just signed into legislation a bill providing for the largest city to offer high school classes in which the students will be prepared to graduate with, get this, both a high school diploma and an Associate degree. Already many students are graduating from high school having earned enough college credits through dual classes to enter a college or university as a second semester freshman, or in some cases, even a sophomore. I remember as a high school graduate we could earn college credits, but we had to take a college equivalency test administered by a specific college or university to do so!
Now, either high school students today are just light years ahead of where we were thirty years ago, or something is seriously flawed about this system. Believe me, I grade papers produced by college sophomores, juniors and seniors. I have students who cannot compose a coherent English sentence, let alone a college level paragraph, or heaven forbid, and entire 10 page paper.
So, you are going to tell me that a high school graduate has learned everything he or she needs to know in order to graduate from high school and an additional two years of college studies to earn an Associate degree? Really? Really? I get to see the results of all our educational political correctness, and believe me, it is depressing. But it is NOT just me. Every instructor I talk to has the same experience. We are producing the most highly credentialed uneducated graduates ever in the history of this country.
Hey, Governor Martinez – I have an idea. Let’s just give every kindergarten graduate a full four-year Bachelor’s degree and cut the whole elementary, middle school and high school stuff out. That would save us a ton of money!
What is the solution to this madness? I really do not know. Maybe society will devolve so that spelling, the construction of a coherent sentence and the ability to perform fundamental math equations will no longer be necessary. Maybe with voice activated computer systems the human brain will shrink to the point that none of this will matter. Maybe when we fill our heads with hip-hop mush and utterly lose the ability to read Plato and Aristotle and Shakespeare and Thoreau we will no longer be aware of what we are missing. Maybe then it will be of no consequence at all.
But for some of us still alive it matters very much. And when I have a paper turned in with eloquent phraseology, perfect spelling and genuinely creative thinking, there is a little glimmer of hope that possibly the concept of education will not die after all.
I can only hope.
I want to return to the image that I have used for so many of my early posts, and the image for which this blog is named. Just for a moment I want to talk about the importance of using six main instruments in the process of flying in instrument weather conditions (abbreviated as IMC).
When flying in weather in which there is no outside reference to the horizon a pilot has to depend upon 6 primary instruments. (Technically there can be several others, but I will limit my comments to the process of keeping the plane where you want it to stay). As the pilot transitions into the landing phase of flight another set of instruments comes into play, making the process even more complicated. In modern aircraft several of these instruments may be projected on one visual screen (a “glass cockpit”) but I was never fortunate enough to fly in one of those.
The six main instruments pilots use in IMC are the airspeed indicator, the artificial horizon (attitude indicator), the altimeter, the rate of climb (or descent) indicator, the turn coordinator (or turn-and-bank indicator), and the heading indicator. These instruments are made of different components (either gyros or some other system) and are powered from different sources (either a vacuum system connected to the pitot-static system or electricity). All six instruments must be kept in a constant “scan” or serious problems can develop. The reason for the different construction and the different power systems is so that if the electric fails, or a gyro breaks, or the pitot-static system ices over the pilot still can keep the plan flying and can actually land safely.
The six primary instruments provide a system of redundancy so that if one instrument or even an entire system should fail, the other instruments not affected can be used for safe flight. Now, to be sure, an instrument failure constitutes an “in flight emergency” and the number one goal is to get the landing gear on the asphalt a soon as possible, but pilots practice flying by what is referred to as “partial panel” all the time, just so they can learn to use various instruments to keep themselves alive. For example, the airspeed indicator, the rate of climb indicator, and the altimeter can all be used to verify whether the plane is in a climb or a descent. The turn coordinator and the heading indicator (as well as the compass) tell the pilot if the wings are level or if the plane is turning. All of this information is displayed on the artificial horizon – so it is frequently used as the “fixated” instrument. But it is also prone to fail – I’ve had several fail on me, but luckily they always went out in visual flight conditions.
The trick is not to “fixate” on one single instrument. If you do, and that instrument fails, you can kill yourself and your passengers in a hurry. Even if that instrument is working properly, if you fixate on it you can still kill yourself and your passengers in a hurry if you are not paying attention to what your other primary flight instruments are telling you.
What in the world does this have to do with theology?
Today, as in every age, many theologians have decided that all they need for their system of theology is a reliance on a single verse of Scripture. I call this, profoundly enough, Single Verse Theology. I am very familiar with single verse theology because I am a part of the church that many have accused of only using Acts 2:38 for our theology of baptism. I do not feel like this is a fair accusation, and I can demonstrate that baptism is taught in virtually every book of the New Testament. However I will grant one argument: we have certainly fixated on Acts 2:38. That is a weakness in our theological history. But we are far, far from being alone in the single verse theology crowd.
- The “saved by grace through faith” crowd uses Ephesians 2:8 as their single verse. No other verse of Scripture needs to be quoted nor studied – Ephesians 2:8 trumps everything.
- Roman Catholics point to Matthew 16:18 as the “single verse” that justifies their teaching of the primacy of Peter.
- 1 Corinthians 11:22 is used to justify those who do not allow food in the church building. Actually, all they need is the first phrase of the verse.
- Hebrews 10:4 is quoted by those who believe that the sins of the pre-Christian faithful were “rolled forward” until the cross, because it is obvious (to them) that no one could be forgiven without the death of Jesus.
- Those who are agitating for women to take over the role of spiritual leadership in the church point exclusively to Galatians 3:28 for their reason of existence.
It does not matter to the proponents of these single verse theology proponents that many other passages of Scripture can be used to counter-balance these verses. I do not deny that any of them are in the text, although I certainly deny that they are always being used by their defenders as the context in which they are found dictates that they should be used. So really what we have here is not simply the reliance upon a single verse for an entire theology, but frequently a misuse of that single verse.
The point is not that these are bad, “satanic” verses that need to be cut out of our Scriptures. The point is that they need to be read in context, and also in light of many other passages of Scripture that show another aspect of the truth of God’s word. For example, I believe completely that Christians are saved by grace through faith. I believe that because Paul teaches us that in Ephesians 2:8. But I also believe that baptism is an essential response of that faith, and that it is in the rite of baptism that we are saved (1 Peter 3:21, and that dreaded Acts 2:38 passage among many others). I believe that Peter had a special place among the 12, but that no single apostle had the “primacy” of all the rest (the book of Acts and Paul’s rebuke of Peter in the book of Galatians teaches us that), and that Matthew 16:18 in no way teaches an unending apostolic succession. You cannot read Hebrews 10:4 in the way it is frequently used if you have read Leviticus 4-6 (10 times in these chapters we are told the priest will make atonement and the guilty party will be forgiven. I don’t make these things up, folks. Read it for yourself). And finally, Galatians 3:28 is a wonderful statement of equality of salvation within the body of Christ, but it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with service in the church or responsibilities of spiritual leadership. Other passages in 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians and 1 Timothy and Titus ARE specifically dealing with the responsibilities of spiritual leadership. These passages cannot be ignored or explained away simply because Paul says in Galatians 3:28 that there are no multiple layers or ranks of blessedness when it comes to our salvation in Christ.
Fixation on a single instrument has killed many pilots. It is dangerous even in good conditions. When systems or instruments fail it is almost always fatal. Single verse theology is dangerous even when the verse is used in context and is correctly defined. When that verse is taken out of context, or when that verse is bent or twisted to fit a theologians cultural understanding, that single verse theology becomes fatal. Remember, Satan quoted Scripture to Jesus during his 40 days of temptation. Simply being able to find a verse in the Bible that supports your opinion does not mean that you have discovered that God has blessed your position.
It is a far safer exercise to find out what God has said throughout his history of salvation that has to bear on a specific subject. Difficult, yes; time consuming, for sure; frustrating (because we are so frequently challenged to amend our position) absolutely! But if you want to keep your wings level and your nose flying straight and you want to land your little aircraft safely on the ground that never shifts, it is the only way to fly.
Keep your scan going. Lose the single verse theology. Fly safely, with every instrument you can possibly use to make sure you are hearing the true, and entire, Word of God, and not the lie of the evil one.
In my last post I wanted to make the following points: (1) The Boy Scouts of America is not a Christian organization, and it should not use claims of Christian doctrine to support its denial of membership to young men who claim to be homosexual. While the Boy Scouts may teach such concepts as honor and respect, in many other areas the teachings of the Scouts are clearly antithetical to Christian beliefs. I know mine is a minority conclusion, but I cannot help but see the logical implications to many of the core disciplines within the Scouts. (2) The fact that the militant homosexual lobby was able to coerce the Scouts into accepting young Scouts who are openly homosexual is just a precursor to the process of forcing the Scouts to accept adult leaders who are active in the homosexual lifestyle. It is well documented that a majority of Scouts and Scout leaders are opposed to the homosexual lifestyle, but that means nothing to those who would force their deviant views onto others. I closed with a question – at what point does this evolution of societal norms call the church to proclaim the concept of heresy again? A related question would be, what exactly is the meaning of heresy?
I want to begin by drawing a parallel to another issue facing the church today, one that many have accepted as just a normal progression of what the church needs to do to be “relevant” to the predominant western culture today. Notice the argumentation that is used to defend and to promote the position that women are to have equal roles in the spiritual leadership of the church:
- References to Old Testament norms of male spiritual leadership are invalid because we live under the New Covenant.
- Jesus clearly involved many women in his ministry.
- The apostles lived under a patriarchal society, therefore their teachings regarding male spiritual leadership are not relevant in our egalitarian society.
- In at least one instance (the Pastoral letters) it is argued that the author was not Paul, was not apostolic, and therefore not authoritative for the modern church.
- In regard to the Corinthian letters, Paul was confronting a pagan culture where the role of women was vastly different from what women would be doing in the church today. Therefore, the letter of 1 Corinthians is not relevant to the role of women in the church today.
- Galatians 3:27-28 clearly redefines relationships within the body of Christ, therefore we are to count everyone as equal.
- How can you possibly deny the freedom of a woman to serve in a capacity she feels called and gifted to serve the church?
Now, note how the militant homosexual lobby has picked up on those very points to advance their agenda:
- References to the Old Testament are not relevant, as laws concerning homosexual behavior were addressed to Canaanite fertility cults, and we are not living under the Old Covenant today anyway.
- Jesus did not condemn homosexuality in any of his teachings – in fact he taught love and acceptance of all people.
- The apostles lived in a Jewish culture that was homophobic due to the influence of the Levitical purity code, therefore their teachings against homosexuality are culturally bound and are no longer relevant to our more permissive society.
- It follows that Paul’s teachings against homosexuality in Romans and 1 Corinthians are directed against the pagan fertility cults practiced in the first century, and since those cults are no longer relevant today, the condemnations of those behaviors are no longer relevant today.
- Galatians 3:27-28 clearly redefines relationships within the body of Christ, therefore we are to count everyone as equal, and we are certainly not to exclude those who live in a committed, loving, monogamous relationship, whether it be homosexual or heterosexual.
- How can you possibly deny the freedom of a gay man or lesbian woman who feels called and gifted to serve the church, especially since their sexual nature is a gift from God himself, and something that should not be ridiculed or condemned?
Many people get angry when these parallels are pointed out. While they are all for women being put forward as ministers, preachers, deacons, and even elders within a congregation, they are morally repulsed by the idea of two men or two women marrying each other and publicly promoting their union in the church. When the parallels are pointed out they stammer, “But the equal position of women is just different than blessing the sin of homosexuality. Homosexuality is condemned in Scripture, women using their God-given gifts is not condemned!”
Different in degree perhaps. But I question whether the arguments for blessing the homosexual lifestyle and for promoting the elevation of women over men in the church are all that different in substance.
Just a question, but if you accept those seven points in regard to women’s role in the church, how can you deny those six points in regard to accepting practicing homosexuals as members and especially leaders in the church?
If you question my logic or my sanity, simply consider the path of the Episcopal/Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, and the Presbyterian Church (USA). Each of these denominations long ago accepted the increased role of women in the work and worship of the church. Each did so with the aforementioned reasons front and center. They wanted to be relevant, they wanted to be sympathetic to the needs and gifts of the women in their churches, and they wanted to be seen as being responsive to the changing culture. And each of these denominations are now facing the battle of what to do with practicing homosexuals who use the very same arguments to promote the elevation of homosexuals as priests, bishops, and even archbishops. It is not surprising to many analysts that the more expansive and “affirming” these denominations become, the greater the losses in their memberships. While some former Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians simply drop out of church altogether, it is fascinating to me that many of them are “returning” to the Roman Catholic church. They see in Roman Catholicism something that their denomination surrendered a long time ago – an adherence to the word of God and to the power of church tradition.
When you base doctrine on Scripture alone (Latin, Sola Scriptura) you have a very solid foundation. But, it is not without its weakness. When you allow every person and every group to interpret that Scripture in any way they see fit you are bound to have disagreements and sometimes serious divisions. However, when you add the power of church tradition to the equation you brace that written foundation with a historical foundation. That is why, in the discussion of what books were to be considered a part of the canon and which were to be discarded, one primary “rule of thumb” that was used was “that which is believed always, everywhere, and by all.” Here you have the expanse of time (always), geography (everywhere) and general agreement (by all). Those who refused to accept this three-fold criteria were labeled “heretics.”
What an old-fashioned, out of date, hateful and derogatory word. Heresy – it even hisses when you say it. I would argue that if the church is to survive with any degree of health we had better learn how to say the word and apply the word judiciously and effectively.
In the New Testament the word is used to identify a division – even the church was labeled as a heresy of the Jewish faith. But soon the word came to mean not just a division, but a dangerous and rebellious division – one that was anti-Christian as much as it was un-Christian. It meant that a church, or a group of churches, was forced to examine a teaching, and those who promoted it, seriously and if it failed to meet the three-fold criteria of “everywhere, in every place, and by all” it was deemed to be an “evil spirit” and it was repulsed.
Today we do not speak of heresy very much, if at all. We are told, “do not judge, lest ye be judged.” We are told to be loving and kind and affirming and welcoming. We are told to never, ever, ever offend anyone, lest our good name be drug through the mud. We frame all of our decisions on how they will be viewed by a very narrow group of non-believers, instead of how they will be judged by God.
Somewhere in this path the concept of truth and fidelity to Jesus and to his church, that which has been believed “always, everywhere, and by all” has been forgotten, or consciously discarded. I am deeply concerned with the direction of the Church of Christ today. The scuffle over worship styles has degenerated into a fight over the role of women, and it will become a war when the issue of homosexuality finally explodes.
If we do not return to an understanding that some teachings are sound and some are heretical, that some teachers are healthy and some are destructive, that some practices are truly matters of opinion and some are matters of critical obedience to Jesus and his commands, the church will continue to lose members and, more important, lose its purity in the sight of God (see Rev. 2-3). That means we are going to have to call some teachings heretical, and some teachers heretics. Some people will be offended, many will leave. Or, perhaps the faithful will have to leave.
But if the church ceases to be the church, what difference will it make if everyone stays?
Before I begin, this is the first of two posts along a very wide ranging subject.
The big societal news this week was the decision by the Boy Scouts of America to allow openly homosexual boys to join, or remain, in their scout troops. I have written several blog posts concerning the intersection of culture and religion (and the fog that modern Christians must fly through in order to make Christian decisions) and so this is not a topic that I energetically seek, but it is also not one that I shy away from. It is part and parcel of being a leader in a group that seeks to be a discipling group for Jesus Christ.
I have a couple of reactions about this decision, reactions that may be surprising to some. First, on one level the decision does not really surprise me, nor does it deeply bother me. The reason for this is quite simple and has nothing to do with why so many other people are upset about this decision. I just do not regard the Boy Scouts of America as being anything related to a Christian organization, and I am somewhat offended when defenders of the BSA push Christianity as the basis for keeping openly homosexual boys out of their group. The BSA is an organization that is antithetical to Christianity in many respects. It is a meritocracy where one earns respect and standing by accomplishing certain tasks and winning certain badges and honors. Disciples of Christ lead by serving others, and there is no such thing in the New Testament as “earning” merit badges or attaining higher levels of power through climbing the next highest step on the ladder of rank. I seriously doubt Jesus would bless the Boy Scouts.
The Boy Scouts were started as, and continue to be, a junior para-military group, complete with various ranks; the doctrine that is drilled into the troop members has little to do with New Testament Christianity. Americans shudder when we read stories of the “Hitler Youth” and how the Nazis were able to indoctrinate an entire generation of young people with the National Socialist propaganda. Well, all you have to do is create a youth organization that promotes a certain belief system, fluff it up with all kinds of badges, medals, patches and awards, cover it with a veneer of religion, nationalism and patriotism, and voila, you can teach those young people anything you want them to believe. Now, membership in the BSA is voluntary whereas the Nazi Youth was mandatory, so the parallel is not exact, but the basic pattern is the same. The marriage of religion with the quasi-militarism of the BSA has always made me squeamish. I have always questioned its validity, and no one has ever been able to show me how joining the Scouts makes a boy a better Christian. A better soldier some day – possibly. A better Christian? I cannot see it.
Finally, and I admit this is a personal issue, but I have never been a witness to a very positive example of Boy Scouts. I grew up in northern New Mexico, and on more than one occasion while my family was up in the woods camping we would be witnesses to a troop of Scouts on a weekend camping trip. No sooner would they pile out of their pickups and vans than they would pull their BSA approved hatchets out of their back packs and start flailing away at any Aspen or pine tree that happened to be in their path. That, and other examples of hooliganism convinced me that I never wanted to be a part of the Scouts, and I have never had any experience that has convinced me that what I witnessed was out of the ordinary. Scouting leaders may claim that the Scouts produce fine upstanding citizens, but my guess is that Scouting had very, very little to do with the production of those citizens. Families and churches…absolutely. Boy Scouts – nah.
(Now, before some Scout decides to rip into me, I realize my experience may be in the minority – your mileage may vary.)
So, please, defenders of the BSA – do not use Christianity as a reason to be upset about this decision. You let that train leave the station a long time ago.
But, there is another aspect of the the decision to allow homosexual males into the BSA that does trouble me. Stay with me here, this will take some time to work through. The BSA has always said that it is a private organization, and as a private organization, it reserves the right to set membership standards they feel are necessary. The homosexual lobby/promoters have viewed the prohibition against admitting homosexual youth to be discrimination. Up to this point the BSA has been consistent in not allowing either youth or adults who profess a homosexual desire to be a part of their membership. As a result of this recent decision, young men who are sexually drawn to other young men must be allowed to be a part of a troop. Here is where things get tricky. The BSA still will not allow an openly homosexual adult to lead a troop. So, intentionally or not, the BSA has set up a dual standard. Young men may be openly homosexual and they are to be welcomed, but openly homosexual adults are not allowed. Therefore, as any freshly minted lawyer can easily point out, the BSA has rejected their earlier claim of a uniform moral standard. The upshot of this is that no judge in the United States is going to rule in favor of the BSA when the next lawsuit is brought against them for discriminating against adult homosexuals. The BSA just shot themselves in the foot with a shotgun, whether they intended to or not.
It is one thing to admit a young man who is struggling with his developing sexual urges. It is another thing entirely to allow an adult who is actively living a homosexual lifestyle to lead and mentor these confused young men. The militant homosexual lobby just won a huge victory, and it was accomplished with the compliance of the group that was supposedly opposed to the practice of homosexuality.
Now, this is what upsets me – what we have just witnessed is the forced capitulation of the majority of BSA members because of the vocal agitation of a few very powerful lobbyists. And my question is, where will it stop?
I am not at all convinced that the BSA should have a question on their application regarding the sexual tendencies of pre-adolescent males, period. But, that having been said, if you do not like the rules of one particular group then go start a group that befits your belief system. Membership in the BSA has always been optional. If a family does not like the prohibition against homosexual behavior (or inclination) then they are free to start an openly gay scouting group. The ability of the militant homosexual agenda to force compliance with their belief system upon private organizations is deeply troubling to me, as it should be to everyone.
I must end this post here, but this leads to my next question: at what point must the church disavow certain departures from its established doctrine as heresy, and what will happen to that church when it is challenged by the evolving norms of the society in which it finds itself?
And the Lord said: Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment of men learned by rote; therefore, behold, I will again do marvelous things with this people, wonderful and marvelous; and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hid. (Isaiah 29:13-14, RSV)
I wish I had a dollar for every book and blog post that has been written describing the decline of the church of Jesus Christ today, or the prescription of the one single magic potion that would reverse this decline. Depending on the theological worldview of the author the church either has to become more modern or it has to go back to a pristine form of some past era. The worship needs to become more vibrant, relevant and “hip” or it needs to become more contemplative and dignified. The church needs to surrender the reigns of leadership to the younger people (whether in actual roles of leadership or at least in terms of the direction of the church) or it needs to “put the young ‘uns in their place” and reject any and every call for modernization. Just about everyone has a silver bullet or at least a silver plated bullet that will bring the church back from the brink of destruction to a full blossom of youth and vitality.
I am struck with the realization that most of these suggestions, while every one might be good intentioned and even healthy in some respect, can be described simply as window dressing. Hiring a younger minister, recruiting a praise time or removing the praise band altogether, removing the pews, creating a prayer labyrinth, lighting candles and incense – all of these external changes will amount to nothing if there is not a substantial change somewhere else. That change has got to be in the heart of the individual, and the collective heart of the congregation, or nothing anyone does is going to amount to anything at all.
I am also struck with the realization that the one voice that most people refuse to allow to be spoken in the church is the voice of the prophet. Hence, I turn to the prophets with increasing interest. I am convinced we cannot hear the voice of the Messiah correctly if we refuse to hear the voices of those who prepared for his arrival. I believe our focus on surface religion and our avoidance of the prophetic message are inextricably related. If we want to restore our church, we must learn to hear the prophets once again. No, that is not a “magic bullet.” But it is a necessary beginning.
Notice in the passage above – Isaiah did not say the people were not honoring God. Oh, they were honoring God all right – dressed in their finery and exuding all kinds of spirituality they worshipped with great pomp and circumstance. But, and this is a common theme throughout all the writing prophets, God would not be mocked with their false worship. He saw straight through their empty and vain ceremony. As Isaiah stated it, the process of worship that had devolved by the time of his writing was simply, “…a commandment of men learned by rote.” How many of our worship services can be described by that one dreadful line?
I have been involved in multiple ministry situations in a relatively broad sampling of congregations and there is one characteristic that defines virtually all of them. (Note: I have not been to every congregation, so if your congregation does not fit this description, simply move on). That characteristic is a lack of commitment. I am not accusing every member of every congregation – some members are amazingly committed. There is, however, a disturbing number of individuals who simply could not be any less interested in the mission of the church.
I have known members who would not miss a softball practice or game to save their life, but who cannot manage to get out of bed early enough on Sunday morning to attend a Bible study. I have known dear sweet little old widow ladies who would not miss their weekly card game if they had double pneumonia, but let them be afflicted with a case of the sniffles and they are nowhere to be found on Sunday morning. I know men who can quote the batting averages of the complete roster of their favorite baseball team who could not find a Scripture if they were handed a Bible with thumb indexes for each book. I have known church leaders who had a chest full of pins from their social club honoring their recruiting prowess who never, ever invited anyone to attend a worship service. I have known salesmen who would drop everything to make a sales call for their business but who were always “booked solid” when it came time to make an appointment to study the Bible with a friend or neighbor. I have known brilliant teachers who were always “too tired” to teach a class. I have known retirees who had plenty of time for the golf course, for the fishing stream, or for the lunch room at the senior center but somehow never had any time to volunteer for a congregational ministry.
Why is it that the auditorium will be full on Sunday morning, but on Monday or Tuesday night when the “rubber is meeting the road” there is only a handful of members show up? And why is it that even though they are so worn out, so tired, and so distracted, that they would not be any other place but the Bible study table, the prison visiting room, the nursing home, the soup kitchen? Is it not because deep inside their heart they have the love of their Lord burning brightly?
Somehow or another the softball diamond, the card table, the bowling alley, the social club, the Senior Center – all of these can make absolute demands of our time and we do not even flinch. But let the Lord’s servant speak the words “total commitment” and watch the fur fly.
How dare you expect me to be totally committed to the church! You are not my master. I have more important things to do.
And so Bible studies go untaught, lonely people go unvisited, critical ministries wither and rot when the willing servants finally get burned out or die. And the members who only know the “fear of the Lord as a commandment learned by rote” wonder why their country is “going to the dogs,” wonder why no one seems to have any moral values anymore, wonder why no one is attending their church anymore, wonder why there is no teacher for their class, wonder why no one will ever come to visit them. And they dream up such wonderful ideas as adding PowerPoint projectors to their auditoriums and building a prayer labyrinth in the weed patch behind the building. And, if they are really radical, they might even recruit a praise team to make their vain worship more relevant.
Sometimes I really have to wonder – Is God through with us yet? When is he going to do something marvelous with this generation? And will we have the spiritual eyes and ears to become aware of it when it happens?
God, revive us again, and please give us eyes to see, and ears to hear when your Spirit starts working in our desperate world.
Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the LORD your God gives you. (Exodus 20:12)
I did not specifically plan to write about parents just before Mother’s Day. I guess that was just serendipity. But it does allow me to get something off of my chest. More of that in a moment – but first, let us look at this command.
Have you ever wondered why, after four commands that specifically relate to God and how we are to honor Him, that the first command that relates to our fellow humans is a command to honor our parents? This is not just important, I think this is critical to stop and ponder.
Our culture is respect phobic. Just think about what passes as humor today, what gets the biggest laughs. If a comedian can make a joke about any authority figure the house goes crazy. We disrespect the office of the President of the United States. We disrespect the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court. We disrespect the courts and our police officers. We disrespect spiritual leaders (especially if they are conservative Christian spiritual leaders!) and we disrespect school teachers.
And all of this disrespect begins in the home. We, as a culture, have virtually dismissed the concept of respecting our fathers and our mothers.
Unfortunately, I fear a great deal of this situation began with parents who decided they did not need to be respected. Somewhere back in the 1960′s or maybe a decade or so later the latest and greatest philosophy was that parents were not supposed to be authority figures, they were to be their children’s best friends. So, respect went out the door and it was replaced with a faux friendship, something that was neither friendship nor was it parental leadership. A generation deprived of parental guidance then went on to raise their children without any real understanding as to how to be parents. Now, at least the third generation of children is being raised by parents who do not know how to instill respect, and more tragically, will not support those adults who are left who are capable of teaching respect.
Respect must be learned, but if there are no teachers, how can it be taught?
Strangely enough, it is exactly during this time that the “Hallmark Card” holidays of Mothers Day and Fathers Day (and now Grandparents Day and who knows what other day we will choose to celebrate) exploded. I think there is a telling sociological process going on here.
Simply put – we are not honoring our parents throughout our normal year, so when that one “special” day comes along we have to assuage our guilt and so we buy flowers, or an expensive necklace, or a fancy gizmo for dad, and we pass that off as “honoring” our mother or our father. How many times will you be told just before Mothers Day or Fathers Day to “honor” your mom or dad by spending a lot of money on something that is either basically pretty trashy or on something that will wilt and fade away within days if not hours? That is honor? Excuse me, but that is buying forgiveness to mollify a guilty conscience.
We don’t honor our parents by giving them some cheesy gift once a year. We honor our parents by respecting and obeying them while we are in their homes, and by continuing to honor and respect their guidance throughout our adult years. We honor our parents by raising our children to believe in and to respect the teachings that our parents instilled in us. We honor our parents by working hard and by doing our best in everything that we do. We honor our parents in the way we treat other parents who are both older and younger than we are. We honor our parents by mentoring younger parents in the craft of raising children – and that means that we demand respect from those tyrannical three year olds who absolutely refuse to offer it. We honor our parents with our words, our actions, and our thoughts. Everything that we do communicates either that we respect and honor our parents, or that we could not care less about those who raised us.
We honor our parents when, at that point we must disagree with them, or decide that we must act or believe in a way that our parents would never act or believe, that we still honor and cherish the guidance that brought us to our adult decision. No parent is ever perfect, and in a way it is no dishonor to disagree with our parents. But it is a huge sign of disrespect to mock or disparage the thoughts and beliefs that our parents held deeply. We can disagree in a most holy and honorable manner.
Our “retirement centers” and “nursing homes” and other facilities have become nothing more than warehouses for abandoned and disrespected parents. I know that many older adults can no longer take care of themselves and require specialized attention. I am not speaking about those individuals. I am speaking about those parents whose children cannot be bothered by the physical demands of taking care of an older parent and who simply ship them off to some out-of-the-way institution so that they can maintain their upper middle class lifestyle of soccer games and ballet recitals and country club events.
When we disrespect and dishonor our parents the land will vomit us out. I think that is pretty much the message of Exodus 20:12.
I do not think that day is in our future. I think it is here and now. We live in a land of mockery, abandonment, disrespect. Do not be deceived. God is not mocked. That which a man sows, he shall also reap. I think that is pretty much a New Testament principle. And, sadly, I think we are living it out right now.
“Holy God, as our eternal Father – teach us how to respect. Give us the courage both to respect our elders and to instill respect in our children. Help us to once again live in a land blessed by the sweet odor of respect and honor. Help us to see the error of our way, and lead us back onto the path that we have forsaken so long ago.
One thing I can say about Postmodernists – they sure love to talk about culture. Everything, it would appear, is connected to and limited by one’s place of birth, and especially one’s time of birth. If you were born in a patriarchal age, you were doomed to slave under a patriarchy. However, if you were born in the late 20th or early 21st century you are blessed to be an egalitarian – and a postmodern as icing on the cake.
Postmoderns do not like anything to be authoritarian, but they are especially opposed to having an ancient text provide any type of authority. For disciples of Christ this poses somewhat of a dilemma – because Jesus certainly used an ancient text (the books we refer to as the “Old Testament”) as an authority in his life. It was not a “god,” but it certainly contained the words of the true and living God; and he used the Torah not only as example but as it was designed – as a light for his feet.
Those who wish to claim a Christian lifestyle while challenging the role of the written text have come up with some ingenious methods to deal with the texts that, at least on the surface, appear to be authoritarian. Many simply deny that they belong in the canon that we call the Bible. (The word canon itself means “rule,” implying authority.) Thus, for many the letters that we call the “Pastoral Epistles” (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) were not written by the apostle Paul as the texts claim, therefore they are not authoritarian for the life of the disciple today. Others, while not willing to remove entire books, will remove certain verses within those books.
Finally, the “trump card” that many Postmoderns use is the “culture card.” Briefly stated, this argument posits that, because the authors of these ancient texts lived in times so far removed from our advanced culture, the texts they wrote cannot possibly be thought of as being an authority for our life today. Thus, these exegetes can keep the objectionable books in the canon, but they simply ignore the verses that have been found to be patriarchal, homophobic, capitalistic, militaristic – the list is almost inexhaustible. In the Postmodern setting the text is not the judge of the reader or listener, the reader or listener is the judge (and far too often, the executioner) of the text.
The Postmodern interpreter can do wonders with certain texts by pointing out the cultural differences between the time period of the various biblical authors and our own, but they have a significant problem when they come to the letter we know as 1 Corinthians. This letter is also a major point of emphasis for Postmodern interpreters, as they have issues with the apostle Paul’s apparent homophobia and male chauvinism. Thus, the letter of 1 Corinthians provides both a test case, and, in my opinion, the rock on which the ship of Postmodernism founders.
As I see it, in order for Postmodern exegetes to win the battle of interpretations they must prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the ancient texts of the Bible were written for one specific audience, and that the only way for the texts to be valuable today is if they are “re-contextualized” to meet modern (or, better yet, Postmodern) sensibilities. On this point I will offer partial agreement. Especially in regard to the writings in the New Testament I will agree completely that they were written as “occasional” pieces – they were written to address specific questions or issues in concrete situations. However, that is where the Postmodern ends his or her exegesis, and it is at that point that I offer my strongest disagreement. And, as evidence exhibit “A,” I offer the letter of 1 Corinthians.
In terms of specific situations, we can learn that the letter we know as 1 Corinthians was written to the church of God in Corinth in approximately the middle of the first century. It’s author, destination, and approximate date are among the least debated in New Testament studies. Paul specifically mentions the issues that “occasioned” the writing of the letter – division, sexual immorality, issues of congregational life and spiritual giftedness. Therefore, the “concrete” and specific questions that the letter addresses are not to be debated. We could argue, if we so desired, that the answers that Paul gives to these issues and questions were to be used solely by the congregation in Corinth and only during the time period the original readers were alive. That is the path that Postmodern interpreters want us to walk. That would be a very easy conclusion to make – and in fact it is argued by a great many brilliant minds.
The only problem is, as I see it, the whole argument is destroyed by the text of the letter itself. Four times in the letter Paul tells the Corinthian disciples that what he is writing to them (and what he has taught them previously in person) is what he teaches “everywhere and in every place” (see 4:17, 7:17, 11:16 and 14:35). That means that in Jewish Jerusalem, in Gentile Ephesus, in Greek Athens and Corinth, and soon to be in Latin Rome Paul preached the same message and made the same points. Across multiple cultural platforms and in reaction to multiple socio-economic and political situations Paul did not “contextualize” the content of his message, although he may have contextualized the manner in which he presented it. The mode of communication may change, the content cannot be changed.
I once heard a lecture by an individual whose classical scholarship cannot be questioned. He is perhaps one of the finest scholars the Churches of Christ have produced. He was lecturing, oddly enough, on the letter of 1 Corinthians. I will never forget his conclusion. He stated that the doctrine of the living church should never be limited by the aberrations of the first century congregations to which the bulk of the New Testament was written. I was dumbfounded. If the doctrine of the church cannot be limited by the writings of the apostles to address those very aberrations, to what can we appeal for the formation and limitation of our doctrine? I had not heard of “postmodernism” at that point in my life but I have come to understand that speech in an entirely different light now than when I first heard it. What I understand now is that this scholar, who in my estimation is beyond questioning in his knowledge of the Greek language and the history of the New Testament, came to a conclusion that was in direct opposition to the words of the text. Therefore the ancient text had to be “re-contextualized” to fit his new conclusion. All he had to do was anchor 1 Corinthians to the city of Corinth in the first century, and he could advocate basically any interpretation he wished.
I have no problem accepting the fact that our Bible, and the New Testament in particular, was written by very human beings in concrete, specific situations. I would even argue that is true of the Old Testament as well. I have been taught and I believe that the more we come to understand those cultures and time periods in which our ancient texts were written we can understand and interpret the books more faithfully. I am all for learning more about the ancient world in which our Bible was written.
But I refuse to accept the conclusion that we are to leave our Bibles in the dust of those ancient civilizations. The writers of the New Testament certainly did not think that the texts of the Torah were to be left in the musty caves of Mesopotamia, Egypt or Arabia. Those texts were alive and brought life to the early church. So today, we do not abandon our New Testaments on the pillars of ancient Rome, Ephesus or Jerusalem. The text is living, it speaks to today – the spirit of God is breathing out of the text just as surely and the Spirit of God was breathed into it as it was first written. The heresy of the Postmodernist is that of turning the living and active Word of God into a dead and decaying clump of leather, papyrus or clay.
Surely we need to speak God’s word in a manner that is appropriate to the audience that is called to hear it. We must not transport our western culture into places where it would be harmful and confusing to do so. And we must be careful not to read into the text concepts that are not there, but that we wish were there, due to our specific culture and issues.
But the content of God’s revealed word is not up for negotiation. God does not change his mind simply because the calendar changes or because the reader moves from a democratic culture to a dictatorial one, or from a patriarchal culture to a matriarchal culture. God’s will and His words are eternal.
And that is a situation the Postmodernist simply cannot contextualize.