The Disappearing Art of Communication (Or, Why it is Important to Listen/Read Carefully)

The digital world has increased our ability to communicate with each other, and has also made exponentially easier to totally misunderstand each other. Never before in the history of mankind has it been this easy to talk around and beyond those who are supposedly our communication partners. To illustrate, I will use myself as an example.

I am on record as saying I do not believe the Bible can be used to prove the age of the earth. Because I have said (or written) that, I have been accused of denying the inspiration of Scripture, of being an evolutionist, of having my Christianity questioned, and worse. I have never said I do not believe in a young earth, or that I believe in evolution; I certainly have never denied the inspiration of Scripture (quite the opposite, in fact); and, to be honest, I do not know any human who is qualified to judge what is in another person’s heart. So, what did I say (or write) that was so controversial?

To repeat – I do not believe the Bible can be used to support either a young earth, or an old earth. It matters not one little bit to me that people believe one way or the other – what bothers me is that the Bible is being used in a manner in which it was never intended to be used. And, in that sense, I feel like God’s word is being abused.

I am a stickler for consistency. I would much rather argue with someone who is tediously consistent than someone who constantly changes the rules of the discussion. And, to a large extent, I believe that is what is happening in the current debate over whether Genesis should be read “literally” or not. For many, the fact that Genesis 1 speaks of creation in six days means that you have to accept six literal, 24 hour periods of time, or you deny the inspiration of the Bible. But here is the fly in that ointment – the sun was not created until the fourth “day.” Now, logically and scientifically, you cannot have a “day” without a literal, physical sun. Without a solar time-table you cannot have a 24 hour cycle. It is true that light was created before the sun, and that you do not have to have the sun in order to have light. But you cannot have an “evening” and a “morning” without a sun.

So, in order to have creation in six, 24 hour periods, there has to be a suspension of literal, “scientific” accuracy – you have to suggest that a method of keeping time existed before the only method of keeping time that the ancients were aware of. Now, this is perfectly acceptable to me – but it has to be clearly understood that a suspension of a literal and scientific understanding of time has been suggested here. If there was a method of keeping time before Genesis 1, it was not mentioned or described in Genesis. Therefore, a “literal” and scientific 24 hour “day” did not exist before the fourth “day.”

So, in order to prove that the world was created in six, literal 24 hour periods, you have to re-define the meaning of the word “literal” (or, “scientific”) to mean something that supersedes literal, scientific precision.

Which is exactly the point I am making when I say that you cannot use the Bible to prove the age of the earth. In order to do so you have to make some statements that were never intended to be used with scientific precision to be scientifically precise, and you have to take some other statements that appear to be “literal” in very non-literal (i.e., metaphorical) ways.

How old is the earth? It simply does not matter! I cannot stress that fact enough. The Bible nowhere states how old the earth is, and to make a belief in the age of the earth a measure of someone’s faithfulness is to become the most pharisaic of Pharisees. It goes way beyond straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. There are really good Christians who believe in a 6,000 year-old earth, and there are really good Christians who believe in a millions-of-years-old earth.

What does matter, and what should concern all of us, is how the Bible is being used, both by its “friends” and its enemies. Those who claim to believe in the Bible, yet use that Bible solely to promote a conservative political or social agenda, are no more friends of the Bible than those who openly ridicule it. In both cases the result is the same – the Bible simply becomes a pawn in a vicious power struggle.

I have a much better solution: let us speak where the Bible speaks, as the Bible itself speaks, and for the purpose for which the Bible speaks. That way we can hold our private opinions, and can even try to convince others of the correctness of our opinions, without treating the Bible with contempt or disrespect.

Speaking of communication – I think that is the way God wants his word to be read and understood – as HE intended it, not as any old way we want it to be understood!

Definitions – Scripture

I love words – a gift I gratefully acknowledge that came from my father. If a lover of books can be called a bibliophile, then I am a logophile. I love words for the power that they have, for the humor that many contain, and for the manner in which we use them. I also find it both amusing and frustrating that, especially in religious conversations, we cannot come to a common understanding about what words should mean.

I have previously discussed the word baptism. Today I take my pitchfork to the word scripture to see if I can sift out anything concerning that word. Spoiler alert – not much of a chance. Just like baptism, the meaning of the word scripture is totally in the eye of the beholder, but maybe I can cause us to think more deeply about what we mean when we use the word.

I begin by noting that there are a number of ways in which we differ when we use the word scripture. For some it is a matter of ecclesial, of church, dogmatics. For example, in the Roman Catholic church, many books are considered as part of Scripture that are not included in the Bibles used by Protestants. These books are identified by Roman Catholics as deuterocanonical (added second to the canon) or by Protestants as apocryphal (hidden). Thus, which branch of Christianity you claim to follow can have a bearing on what you consider to be scripture.

There is another manner in which a person can identify scripture, and that is purely utilitarian. In this process one sifts the wheat from the chaff by deciding if the book, or passage, in question actually works in real life. Thus, for an increasing number of egalitarians and feminists, much of what Paul wrote is simply not scripture because it is outdated, patriarchal, and sexist. Great swaths of the Old Testament are removed for the same reason, or because God is pictured as being a warrior, or for his seemingly unquenchable desire for ethnic cleansing. Although it would not be defined in quite so bluntly, this method of identifying scripture can be labeled, “It’s not scripture if I disagree with it.”

Then there is the paring down of the totality of scripture through either ignorance or avoidance. In his category I place many “New Testament” Christians, who avoid much or all of the Old Testament because it is unfamiliar, or because it challenges them too severely (very similar to the utilitarian approach discussed above). Genesis is okay, because there are some really cool stories written therein, but the rest of the Pentateuch (Exodus – Deuteronomy) is verboten – too much law and not enough gospel. Heaven forbid any sermon or class come from the prophets – especially those pesky (and incriminating) minor prophets. So, while they are technically included in the canon of scripture, these books are carefully and intentionally excised in order to preserve a level of safety and comfort.

So, how do you determine Scripture? (and I now return to the practice I believe is proper, that of capitalizing the word when used to refer to the entire and normative Word of God.) In my opinion, we can only stand under Scripture when we confess that there are many teachings within that canon with which we are going to disagree, and therefore we are faced with a decision. We can either allow those passages to be normative, or we will use some other point of reference to decide what is Scripture and what is not. If we use some other point of reference, we are no longer standing under Scripture, but we are standing over it – the as-yet-unidentified point of reference then becomes normative, and Scripture becomes its servant. For some that point of reference is their gender, or their understanding of gender. For some it is their idolatrous understanding of who and what God should be (idol in the sense of something created that is less than God). For some it is their wealth, which has displaced God. For some it is their nationalism, their racism, their philosophy of economics, or any one of a dozen more issues which compete with a person’s view of Scripture.

I will admit I am biased in certain directions. I just do not understand how we can appeal to Paul for his powerful exposition of God’s grace and at the same time utterly dismiss his directives for congregational polity. I do not understand how we can fawn over Jesus’s words of love and forgiveness and blithely reject his commands regarding justice. How can we adoringly quote from 1 Corinthians 13 and just completely disregard Amos?

I will also admit to being imperfect in applying my hermeneutic of Scripture – which is why I am all the more adamant that Scripture remain normative. If I get to decide what is Scripture and what is not, I have, in the immortal words of Pogo, become my own enemy. I will further admit that it is not always easy to determine what is normative for all time and across all cultures, and what was recorded because it was normative (or simply descriptive) of one time and in one culture. I think we can have those conversations, but only if we first agree that the words of the Bible must be their own judge, and not any aspect of our temporally limited understanding of such.

So, just as with baptism, the issue remains clear – as mud. I believe with all my being that there is a way forward – but it can only be successful if we first agree to ascend lower in our search for the meaning of Scripture.

What Are We Left With?

I got to thinking the other day. What started it was the ever-present demand by those who want to re-construct our understanding of biology (and especially of the roles of male and female) to eliminate from Scripture any reference to gender differences and the roles attached to the separate genders. So, if they cannot explain away certain passages, they just eliminate them as being the uninformed opinions of bigoted males – the apostle Paul being the chief culprit. It the author of a particular passage was a male chauvinist homophobe, then we do not have to listen to anything that he said, or wrote.

So, in the spirit of this line of thinking, I got to thinking – why stop there? Let’s continue and remove any language that can be deemed to have roots in a patriarchal society. Let’s purify the Bible of any semblance of male superiority. That would mean excising all references to God as “Father” and Jesus as a male. In fact, let us be done with all the male/female binary language in the Bible. Eve should not be singled out as the “mother of all living,” as that reduces her to a mere object for male dominance. In fact, the language extolling any kind of human attraction and love needs to be cut out – think of the horrid descriptions of the female body in the Song of Solomon!

While we are at it, let us not forget to eliminate any references to a hierarchal/dictatorial culture. The chief offender here is any idea that God or Jesus could be “Lord,” as that is the pinnacle of a repressive society. The warrior language is especially galling – who wants to worship a God who wields swords and who commands his people to utterly destroy their enemies? Gone also will be any views “from below,” – words like obey, or submit, as they merely work to institutionalize systems of dominance and power.

Let us not forget that the people who first received the Bible were highly superstitious, and so to purify the Scriptures it is also incumbent upon us to remove any references or suggestions regarding the supernatural. This would include cutting out all the references to spirits, (including the Holy Spirit), demons, miracles – and even prayer itself. Closely related, since these people are considered to be “pre-scientific,” let us be done with all the incorrect and misleading language – all that talk about the sun rising and setting, the four corners of the earth, etc. Think of all those silly metaphors in the Psalms that compare thunder to the voice of God, and the majestic human to a smelly sheep. Surely we can do better than that.

The only question I have after we do all of that is this – what are we left with?

You see, when we (our 21st century culture) start editing the Bible to fit the world in which we live, where do we stop? If we want to eliminate certain verses from the pastoral letters or the Corinthian letters, why limit ourselves to just one segment of our society? When we proclaim that “Jesus is Lord” we are making a politically subversive statement: we are bound to obey Jesus as our supreme leader, not some elected official. In reality that is far more offensive than stating that males and females have been given different gifts and ministries in the church! Yet, because we have so neutered the word “Lord” in our language, we can sing about Jesus being our lord with sublime expressions on our faces and utterly miss the significance of what we are saying.

I have to be careful here because I too have wrestled with the question of what are timeless truths and commands within Scripture and what is culturally limited. There are many questions for which there are no easy answers. But my anxiety and my questions cannot overturn what basically amounts to 4,000 years of accepted teaching and interpretation.

Standing under Scripture is difficult, because it cuts against every fiber of my rebellious nature. I don’t want to submit to certain texts because it means that I am no longer the master of my life. It means I have to uproot the idols in my life and return Jesus to the center. Idols are idols precisely because we love them and are comfortable with them. Removing them is painful for those very reasons.

But if we no longer have God at the center of our life, what are we left with?

Why is a Knowledge of History so Critical?

Last year I posted an opinion that one of the major issues facing the Churches of Christ in the coming year (and in fact, the coming decade) is the deficiency of knowledge regarding our history. Over the next three posts (at least) I want to expand that thought to include higher education in general, and the study of theology in particular, as particular weaknesses of the Restoration Movement.

Whenever I have mentioned teaching church history, and Restoration Movement history in particular, I typically get the same eye-rolls and groans. “Why do you want to study that stuff?” is the question, and “stuff” is spat out with enough venom to make sure I understand that the speaker is somewhat disinclined to join in with the study. The same is true when the word “theology” is used. A theological education is almost universally dismissed as being either unimportant or even detrimental to a Christian life.

Well, to make this as brief as possible, there are two reasons why studying “that stuff” is so important.

[As a brief aside, I am not suggesting that such knowledge is critical to become, or to remain, a Christian. Heaven will be full of people who had no understanding of church history during their lifetimes. However, I hold teachers and preachers to a higher standard, and I am fully convinced that a greater understanding of history/theology does make us wiser and more thoughtful Christians.]

Reason number 1: a sound theological education makes it less likely that we will make statements that are factually incorrect. NOTE: This is not the same as a lie. A lie is a deliberate misrepresentation of facts as known by the speaker/writer. If we say something that is factually wrong, and we do not know that it is factually wrong, we are not guilty of lying, but we are guilty of perpetuating a falsehood. Why would we want to do that?

I use as one example my own ignorance. I believed for a number of years that it was Thomas Campbell or some such Restoration leader that came up with the phrase, “In essentials, unity; in matters of opinion, freedom; and in all things, love.” Turns out I was only wrong by a few hundred years. I loved to attribute the quote to Restoration leaders, and I’m certain they used it, but it was not original with them. I was not lying when I attributed it to Campbell, but I was factually wrong.

A second example comes from my preaching experience. A preacher friend of mine got red-faced, spitting mad in a preacher’s meeting  as he recounted an experience visiting a church while on vacation. It seems that during the communion service the congregation sang a song. “You cannot perform two acts of worship at the same time” the preacher roared. I wasn’t going to say a word, but I immediately thought of the song “Father Hear the Prayer We Offer” –

Father hear the prayer we offer,
nor for ease that prayer shall be;
but for strength that we may ever
live our lives courageously.

Let our path be bright or dreary,
storm or sunshine be our share;
May our souls in hope unweary
Make thy work our ceaseless prayer.

Now, the song is clearly a prayer. If he had ever sung this song, he was doing two things at the same time – he was singing, and he was praying. [Note: the Psalms are Scripture and many are prayers, so when we sing a prayer Psalm, we are participating in three acts of worship: the reading/reciting of Scripture, the singing of a Psalm, and praying.] But somewhere in this preacher’s training he was taught that a person can only worship performing one task at a time. Bad theology or bad history? I would argue it is both. I do not question his motives or his integrity – but his theology is definitely skewed.

Reason number 2: a healthy theological education opens up the possibility that we will view our own particular history with more humility and view others with less loathing. Again, I will illustrate with my own experiences.

First, at one time I was adamant that there was no such thing as the “Sinner’s Prayer” (note the capital letters) in the Bible. Not only was I convinced of that fact, I was utterly contemptuous of anyone who suggested otherwise. My ignorance was matched only by my feeling of superiority. Imagine my chagrin, then, when during a class on prayer I discovered the “sinner’s prayer” (no capitals) in Luke 18:13, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner.” Although placed on the lips of the tax collector, the teaching comes straight from Jesus. [It is with no small amount of irony that I have to point out that when I arrogantly denied the existence of the “sinners prayer” in the New Testament I was guilty of the exact sin that Jesus was condemning in his parable. Hmmm]

Now, please hear me out – I am NOT defending the manner in which the “Sinner’s Prayer” is used today. The application in which the tax collector’s prayer is used today (in relation to eternal salvation) is a gross distortion of the context in which Jesus told the parable (i.e., humility in prayer). That truth does not absolve my ignorance, and certainly not my arrogance. Now, whenever anyone uses the “Sinners Prayer” as a path to salvation, I have a much better understanding of (a) where they might be coming from and (b) a much healthier way to help them understand the passage.

The second example I have is more technical, but no less powerful. Growing up I was taught repeatedly that the Greek preposition eis must mean “for the purpose of” and that’s it. This is because Acts 2:38 reads “be baptized for (eis) the forgiveness of sins.” In fact, not too long ago I read an article that stated that out of the thousands of uses of the preposition eis in the New Testament, not one single time can it mean “because.” Wow! Talk about skating out on thin ice. (Pardon the pun.) Many Baptists, and a number of other groups, however, do believe that the preposition eis in Acts 2:38 must mean “because,” because they have been taught the forgiveness of sins precedes baptism.

The fact is that the preposition eis must have some sense of the meaning of “because” in at least one usage – Matthew 12:41, “The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented eis the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.” Now, there are a number of ways you can translate eis here, (The ESV uses the word “at”), but you cannot get around the fact that Jonah preached, and the men of Nineveh repented! That is, the repentance was subsequent to, or because of, Jonah’s preaching. Their repentance was certainly not “for the purpose of” Jonah’s preaching. The point is not that eis must mean “because of” in Acts 2:38 (I certainly believe it does not, and I know of no committee translation that so translates it that way!) The point is that by not knowing some basics of the Greek language a person can draw some conclusions that are factually wrong. Once again, I am not questioning motives, but only the correctness of some of our statements.

To summarize: is a knowledge of church history or Greek grammar absolutely necessary? Not, as I mentioned above, in the sense of one’s ultimate salvation. We can believe many incorrect things and still be saved by God’s grace. However, for teachers and preachers a greater degree of accuracy is critical in one respect – we must not be found guilty of promoting error just because it fits our “doctrine,” and we must certainly not be arrogant and dismissive of others who hold differing, although incorrect, beliefs.

In other words, we ascend to healthy or “sound” doctrine by descending into the grit and grime of history in order to make sure that what we are teaching is, indeed, God’s truth.

Eugene Peterson, Homosexuality, and the Cult of Popularity

[As I note at the bottom of this piece, Peterson has since recanted his statements in the first interview. I have attempted to locate the full text of his correction. In the original interview his statements seem lucid, reasoned, and not forced in any manner. Now he claims confusion and the equivalent of being misunderstood. I am sure in the days and weeks to come this story will continue to develop. As more information comes to light I will update as appropriate.]

Yesterday my twitter feed exploded as word got around that Eugene Peterson publicly admitted he supported gay marriage and the homosexual lifestyle in general. Peterson is an evangelical pastor/author hero, perhaps best known for his translation, or paraphrase, or misinterpretation (depending on your theological position) of the Bible called The Message. Now, all kinds of other evangelical pastors/authors etc., are all agog trying to figure out how such a paragon of evangelical virtue could risk becoming a pariah. I, for one, am shocked that everyone else is so shocked.

Like just about every theology student who attended school in the late 20th century or early 21st century, I was handed a steady diet of Peterson books (I think the total number of his books is over 30). My memory is kind of hazy, but I think my first exposure to Peterson came with his book, Working the Angles or maybe The Contemplative Pastor. Having read Peterson I am struck with a couple of observations. One, he is a wordsmith, of that you cannot deny. He can say absolutely nothing in such flowery and impressive language that you really think he has said something. But his content is much like cotton candy – sweet, but nothing there. Second, his theology begins with his feelings and ends with his emotions. To wit, he defends the right of women to preach and to lead in churches. What is his evidence – to what does he refer in defense of his position? His mother was a pastor. That’s it. Well, not entirely. His mother was a much maligned pastor, those who disagreed with her “pastorate” were “bullies.” So it was doubly incumbent upon Peterson to defend her (and every other woman’s) right to be a “pastor” and lead a congregation. It comes as absolutely no shock to me that his defense for accepting the homosexual lifestyle and for approving of gay marriage is – he knows some really, really nice homosexuals.

Peterson is just another in a long line of individuals who illustrate the truth that “narrow is the path that leads to eternal life, and few there are that find it.” Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Eugene Peterson – unmistakable luminaries in the evangelical and/or emerging church fold who have “shocked” the religious world with their “discovery” that homosexual behavior is something to be embraced and promoted. Their paths are  unique to each individual, but share some remarkable similarities. That is to be expected. When you sell your soul to the cult of popularity, there really is very little room for originality. I expect there will be many more to come – and increasingly there will be progressives within the Churches of Christ to join their ranks. Too many of “our” luminaries have hitched their wagons to the McLarens and Bells and Petersons of this world to risk denouncing them now.

Earlier today I posted a long quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, asking a serious question: why is the church so insipid today? Why has the church lost it’s power? His answer is compelling – and indicting. The news that one of the most popular evangelical writers today has rejected the plain teaching of Scripture, as evidenced by 2,000 years of near-universal consent, is simple evidence as to the truth of Bonhoeffer’s reflection.

To borrow a phrase from Peterson’s The Message, enjoy your fame, folks, because when “all hell breaks loose” on the day of God’s wrath, there are going to be some really “shocked” best-selling authors – and disillusioned followers.

NOTE: Within minutes of posting this original article, I happened to check my twitter feed (again) and lo and behold, Peterson is renouncing his aforementioned declaration. HOWEVER, in reading his “retraction” I am thoroughly unconvinced. His answers in the original interview were direct and unequivocal – he welcomed a practicing, unrepentant homosexual to lead his congregation’s music ministry, and he unequivocally affirmed that he would perform a same-sex marriage. Now, he is claiming some sort of misunderstanding due to all of the “hypothetical language” that was used in the interview. Really? Is it too difficult to answer a simple question – would you perform a same sex marriage? Whether his original declaration or his retraction is genuine, it is going to be really, really interesting to see how the LGBTQ lobby handles this brouhaha.

As they say in the news bidness, stand by for updates.

Undeniable Truths for Theological Reflection, #2

Continuing my explanation of my “Undeniable Truths for Theological Reflection” –

2.  The books of the Bible, even the most difficult sections, were written for the purpose of being understood.

Um, this should be painfully obvious. I guess for some, pain just does not work. I was tempted to add, “. . . by the original audience” but I decided not to, for the very real reason that if the Scriptures are inspired (and I believe wholeheartedly that they are), then the authors of the Bible intended that their words could be understood years, even hundreds of years, after they were completed.

I find this truth being violated most frequently in terms of the prophetic and apocalyptic writings in the Bible. There seems to be among many theologians an unwritten rule of interpretation: “If you can point to an obvious fulfillment of a prophecy, the prophecy has been fulfilled; if not, then it relates to the second coming of Jesus.” Just a curious question, but don’t you think Isaiah was writing to his fellow countrymen in the “. . . days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah”? If so, don’t you think that his hearers, or readers, could understand what he preached and wrote? Now, I have no doubt that Matthew (and other N.T. authors), writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, could not see a “fuller” and “more complete” fulfillment of many of his prophecies. Matthew’s vision does not erase Isaiah’s original intended purpose, however, and it is especially dangerous to read the Old Testament ONLY through the glasses of a New Testament perspective.

My biggest issue with this “misinterpretation” of Scripture relates to the book of Revelation. The piecemeal manner in which passages are used as proof-texts for virtually every bizarre and sometimes incomprehensible theory of the end-times is just infuriating. It is almost as if people think that John muttered to himself, “I have no idea what all this means, but I’m going to write it down and somebody living in the 21st century will be able to figure it all out.” Hogwash and balderdash, I say. John intended his readers to know EXACTLY what he was writing, or he never would have put pen to paper.

All of this relates specifically to Undeniable Truth #1. If we do not approach Scripture with humility – if we just treat the Bible as some ancient book of folklore and whimsy – then we will completely miss its intended purpose. In other words, we must first come to Scripture with the question, “What did it mean?” before we can ask the question, “What does it mean?” How did Isaiah’s hearers (and readers) hear and read his prophecies? How would a church reading the gospel of Matthew understand his use of Isaiah? And, how would one of the seven churches in Asia have interpreted John’s majestic apocalypse? Only after we come to the Bible with those questions answered can we sit down and say, “Okay, what does this have to say to me today?”

If the meaning of a passage of Scripture we derive is completely foreign to the meaning that it’s original audience would have derived, then I would suggest that our interpretation is completely wrong. Jeremiah was not prophesying that God has mapped out every single detail of our human existence (Jer. 29:11). Jesus was not prophesying about the rise of Muslim terrorism in Mark 13. And the anti-Christ has absolutely nothing to do with Adolph Hitler or Ronald Reagan. (1 John clearly states who the anti-Christ is, to the chagrin of many Christians).

As the old sergeant on Hill Street Blues used to advise his officers at roll-call, “Let’s be careful out there.” Let us be extremely careful with the words of Scripture, because they are God’s words, not ours. Let us ascend higher, by first descending lower, that we might know as fully as possible what God intended for us to know.

It’s Not About Truth – It’s About Fairness – (Bonhoeffer)

It is often suggested that if you really want to know about your church, you need to have an outsider come it and tell you about your church. When we look at something we love, and especially if we are invested in that thing, we will never see it dispassionately.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer spent almost a year in New York attending Union Theological Seminary. When he returned to Berlin he sent a report to the officials who sent him to America. His report is not a happy read for those who claim American exceptionalism. His praise is effusive for those aspects of American life he appreciates. His criticism is withering for those aspects he finds, well, let us say, less than admirable.

One particular comment I find particularly appropriate for the religious scene in America today is the following:

This characterizes all American thinking, something I observed especially with regard to theology and the church; they do not see the radical claim of truth on the way one structures one’s life. Community is thus based less on truth than on the spirit of fairness. (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “Report on My Year of Study at Union Theological Seminary in New York, 1930/31” in Barcelona, Berlin, New York 1928-1931, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, vol. 10, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, p. 306).

This was written in 1931, long before the “Postmodern” scare of the late 20th – early 21st century. Let that sink in – 1931!

If such was true 85 years ago, how much more true is it today? Matters of theology and church do not depend upon truth – they simply are decided based on “fairness.”

I’ll let you apply that observation – or not – to your own situation. But for me, it is a rather chilling observation and one that, quite frankly, scares me.

That is the problem with inviting guests to evaluate what you hold dear. Sometimes they goad you where you least want to be goaded.

Touché, Dietrich.