What does the Bible say about dyeing one's hair?

“Gray hair is a crown of splendor; it is attained by a righteous life.” (Proverbs 16:31)

Alright, traditionalists and literalists, how many of you are going to support any policy that bans men and women from dying their hair dark to cover up their gray? Or is this just a cultural issue?

A Question on Church Discipline

Here is a nice ethical question with regards to church discipline:

Let us say that a man in a local church commits a particular sin. Following the Scriptural standards of church discipline as presented by Jesus and Paul, the leaders of the church go to the man and ask him to repent. The man replies that he does not believe that what he did was a sin but agrees to not do it again.

Allow me to restate this.

The man who has sinned believes and continues to believe that what he did was not a sin but, nevertheless, agrees to refrain from committing whatever the sinning act may be.

So my question is this:

What should the leaders of the church do?

Should they allow him to continue to think what he did was not a sin just as long as the act is not committed?

Should they discipline him unless the also agrees that what he did was a sin?

REVIVAL IS UPON US

Did you ever notice that the Bible doesn’t deal with issues like “alien baptism”?

Why is it we as Baptists will not associate with Christians who are not Baptize the Biblical way (immersion) but, nevertheless, will not associate with Christians who offer communion in the Biblical way (wine)?

Why do we ban churches that have women as pastors? Why do we not ban churches that have a plurality of elders or just one pastor?

Did you ever notice that God in Christ does not exclude people from church based upon bad theology? Indeed, those with bad theology are encouraged to go to church in order to correct that bad theology, right?

To this day no one has ever been able to show me in the New Testament where someone was excluded from fellowship because of bad theology.

I am sure we all recall those Christians believers in the New Testament who believed that one must be circumcised and observe Jewish “cleanliness” ritual in order to be a part of the people of God. We see these people in Acts and Galatians.

Now the apostles were forced to frequently address this issue in the early church. Unfortunately, even some of the apostles slipped into this type of error (Peter and probably James).

Now notice what the response of the Apostles. What did they do? They taught against this error and continued to do the work of Christ despite the criticism of those wanting to exclude.

Now I believe that many in Baptist life (not to mention evangelicalism and even Christendom itself) are making the same error of the Jewish excluders in the NT (see Acts and Galatians).

In what regards? Note the following: charismas, mode and method of Baptism, alcohol, women in ministry, ecumenicalism, second-degree separation, moderates and liberals, emergent churches, contemporary churches, evolution, secular politics, inerrancy, BWA, CBF, and on and on and on ...

Now some of you may agree or disagree that exclusion based upon one or more of these matters should be deemed as an error. But I’m sure those who disagree with me on this matter would agree that whatever it was that those in Acts and Galatians were doing that it was wrong. So consider the following:

The apostles did not exclude from fellowship those who were advocating exclusion! In fact, the excluders who were leaders in the church were not forced to resign or even told to do so.

Again, to this day no one has ever been able to show me in the New Testament where someone was excluded from fellowship because of bad theology.

Do you know what I think? I think revival is occurring. I think that the Holy Spirit is on the move in a significant and radical way. I think we are in the midst of another Great Awakening. I think that Christians across the world are coming together in new and amazing ways to spread the Gospel and make disciples.

The collapse of modernity and the perceptible mental and spiritual ambiguity of post-modernity, the communication and information revolution, the technological revolution, and the transportation revolution, have afforded the Christian (particularly evangelical) world a magnificent and unprecedented opportunity to carry out the Great Commissions (yes, plural).

Consider the situation, especially you who give considerable attention and investigation to the Sovereignty of God:

Technology, communication, information, transportation ... all these things come from God. God is the author of these things and gives them to man for stewardship. Look how fast they are coming – unprecedented! God is up to something, right? If God was going to break out in revival THIS would be great preparation.

But I do not even believe that this is necessarily preparation; I think it is the REAL thing. Revival! Heck, we’ve been praying about it for years; why couldn’t God be answering that prayer now? And do we think revival will just come to the Southern Baptists, just to the Baptists, just to the evangelicals, Protestants and non-charismatics?

Let me ask you: does revival come from better theology or does better theology come from revival?

Which brings me to this question: why are so many Christians unaware of this Great Awakening?

1) Many Christians are not involved due to personal sin, choice, faith tradition and lack of fellowship

2) Many are occupied with other matters (ala secular politics)

3) Many are preparing for “the rapture” and not working for the “millennium”

4) Many Christians are fighting against the revival when they think they are fighting for it (and in various degrees to be sure)

It’s the latter for which I am somewhat interested – at least for the purposes of this post.

Consider these passages:

For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's {people,} that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor 1:11-13)

For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not {mere} men. What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave {opportunity} to each one. (1 Cor 3:3-5)

And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand.” (Matt 12:25; cf. Mark 3:25; Luke 11:17)

"The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?' "And he said to them, 'An enemy has done this!' The slaves *said to him, 'Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?' "But he *said, 'No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. 'Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.'"" (Matt 13:27-30)

John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us." But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is for us. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as {followers} of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward." (Mark 9: 38-41)

Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following {them;} the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?" So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?" Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what {is that} to you? You follow Me!" (John 21:20-22)

“And He was saying to them, "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest.” (Luke 10:2)

And the book of Acts.

Now I know what you’re thinking: this cannot be what the Bible really means. How can the God in Christ allow this?

God is putting up with a fallen world.

God in Christ is putting up with lots of heresy in his Church.

Heck, God in Christ becomes sin so that we might be saved.

There are very important reasons why God is allowing heresy and bad theology to continue in the Church - Matthew 13:27-30 is one of the reasons. Remember: God can turn tares into wheat; he does it all the time. Just be patient and trust God on this one. Just continue to follow the example of Christ and the Apostles when confronted with heresy and bad theology: teach against it.

One more time: to this day no one has ever been able to show me in the New Testament where someone was excluded from fellowship because of bad theology.

Those who truly are not of us (or you) will leave on their own accord (1 John 2:19).

I know this is tough stuff to take and that it takes time to come around to accepting it, let alone agreeing to it. But, hey, the Kingdom of God is not of this world. Read the Sermon on the Mount. Indeed, the cross of Christ is foolishness to everyone, even to most Christians (1 Cor 1:18-31).

Now consider these positions:

Missionaries
Church planters
“Pastors”
“Elders”
“Deacons”
Professors
Widow
“Teacher”
Scholar
Theologian
Worship Leader
Server
Youth Director
Chaplains
Housing Hosts


Now consider these types of people:

Women
Men
Charismatics
Non-charismatics
Non-inerrantists
Non-non-inerrantists
Conservatives
Moderates
Liberals
BWA
CBF
Contemporary Worshippers
Traditional Worshippers
Alcohol Drinkers
Emergent Churches
Contemporary Churches
Fundamentalists
Landmarkists
Bible Church
Mainline Denominations
Free Churches
Republicans
Democrats
Protestants
Roman Catholics
Eastern Orthodox
Calvinists
Non-Calvinists
Open Theists
Jews
Gentiles
God-fearers
New Christians
Old Christians
Youth
Singles
Families
Senior Citizens
Rich
Poor
Middle Class
Black
White Hispanic
Asian
Americans
Non-Americans
The French

Is it not possible that the Satan is using issues like mode of Baptism, communion, alcohol and charismatic gifts, etc. as a means to divide the body of Christ?

Let me ask you: what does the Satan fear more - a unified body of Christ or a divided body of Christ?

Now I’m not asking any of you to accept all of this. It’s extremely difficult to do so and I continually struggle with it myself. I mean, we starting to get into Ecclessiastes ethics here. Qoheleth was a mad dog wasn’t he. Brilliant!

What I am urging is that you do not get in the way of the Holy Spirit on this one.

Remember: to divide the body of Christ is to be “unworthy” at communion.

Revival is upon us. Please be careful.

“All Israel shall be saved” (Rom 11:26a)

“All Israel shall be saved” (Rom 11:26a)

A highly misunderstood statement by Paul that has fueled pre-millennial dispensationalism.

ALL Israel.

All the Jews? ALL the Jews?

Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Albert Einstein, etc? How is it that they get to be saved when they died having never believed? Seems a bit unfair for us Gentiles.

What about those who are half Jewish? Which half is saved?
Because Paul Newman's half-Jewish, Goldie Hawn is too. Put them together, what a fine lookin' Jew!

What about those who convert to Judaism? Could I convert to Judaism, then lead a life of hedonistic abandon and still be saved in the end?

But maybe this verse doesn’t mean ALL in the way that we have generally understood it. Does it mean that all the un-believing Jews who do not die before the second coming of Christ will be saved? I hope so. I want to be in heaven with Woody Allen and the Fonz.

Doesn’t this seem a somewhat odd idea and doctrine if we interpret it as so many pre-millennial dispensationalists do, i.e., that “Israel” refers here to ethnic and racial Jews?

Of course, I do not have their problem. My focus and studies on the corporate nature of Christ leads me to understand in this curious phrase as referring to Jesus Christ as Israel.

Jesus Christ is Israel. And all who are in him shall be saved. All who believe are in him. Those who do not believe are not in him. Those who are not in him shall not be saved. He is Israel. (1)

Gentiles who believe in him are grafted into him (Rom 11:11-24). Jews who disbelieve in him are turned away.

Jesus Christ was a stumbling block for unbelieving first century Jews just as he is a stumbling block for many people today, both Jews and Gentiles. However, though Christ (like the Law) maybe a stumbling block for some, he is a more of a redeemer then the Law could ever be.

Those who come into contact with the Law and its ethical requirements to God and Man must then obey those requirements or suffer the punishment (or curse) for not obeying. But since no one can do everything that is required of the Law everyone is under its curse.

However, Jesus Christ came to save us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse himself (Gal 3:13).

Instead of attempting the impossible task of accepting and obeying all the requirements of the Law, one can simply accept and obey Christ alone who perfectly accepted and obeyed all the Law.

However, those who come into contact with Jesus Christ and reject him are under the curse of Christ. The first century Jews who rejected Jesus Christ came under the “curse of Christ”, which is why the New Testament writers so often refer to Christ as a stumbling block for the Jews. (2)

Is this what Paul means when he states in Romans 11:26a that “All Israel shall be saved.”

“There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob” (Rom 11:26b) (3)


Footnotes:

(1) Did you notice the nice chiasmus I put there?

(2) The idea that the “curse of Christ” means that God punished Jesus is ludicrous, unscriptural and the exact opposite of what Paul is stating. The “curse of Christ” means that God punishes everyone who doesn’t accept Jesus Christ.

(3) Witness to Jews, love the Jews, and treat them with equity, dignity and respect, but do not think that they will play some unique role in the unfolding of eschatological events. The Jews fulfilled their unique role in salvation history in the year A.D. 70. They are no more special that any other racial or ethnic group. But because they are “made in the image of God” they are special just like every other race, ethnicity and person. Let’s pray for a Jewish revival.

"Under God"?

How can a nation be "under God"?

How can a nation not be "under God"?

What nations today are currently "under God"?

What nations today are currently not "under God"?

Accuracy and the Five (or Six) Fundamentals

In much conservative Christianity there are 5 Fundamentals of the Christian Faith:

1) The Inerrancy of Scripture

2) The Virgin Birth of Christ

3) The Substitutionary Atonement of Christ

4) The Bodily Resurrection of Christ

5) The Physical Second Coming of Christ

I myself hold to all 5 of these “fundamentals”, though if the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ is understood as being limited to only that of the penal substitutionary variety, then I might have drop number 4. I would be 4.5 Fundamentalist. Or would I?

One thing I do not know concerning Fundamentalism is this:

In the truest sense of the movement, is a Fundamentalist one who believes these 5 “Fundamentals” are true or is a Fundamentalist one who believes these 5 “Fundamentals” are fundamental? Or Both?

If both, then must we add another Fundamental?

6) The 5 Fundamentals are fundamental

Of course, then we would have 6 Fundamentals and so it should be stated that “The 6 Fundamentals are fundamental.”

Again, I hold all 5 classic Fundamentals to be true. However, I am absolutely positive that the first 2 Fundamentals are not fundamental. The latter 3 I am not sure are Fundamental.

But let us assume that a Fundamentalist is one who believes these 5 “Fundamentals” are true and that these same 5 “Fundamentals” are fundamental.

It is probably not unreasonable to assume that most Fundamentalists believe that it is essential that these 5 “Fundamentals” are correctly understood by the individual Fundamentalist. One must not only believe that these 5 “Fundamentals” are true; one must also have an accurate understanding of their meaning.

Another thing I do not know concerning Fundamentalism is this:

To what degree of accuracy must the individual Fundamentalist have concerning the meaning of these 5 “Fundamentals”?

1) The Inerrancy of Scripture

There are numerous definitions and understandings of Biblical inerrancy, mine being one of the broader models. Indeed, so many definitions of Biblical inerrancy exist that a few Evangelical Christians got together in Chicago in 1978 to draw up a “definitive” declaration of what Biblical inerrancy is. This Chicago Statement on Biblical inerrancy then became the extrabiblical standard for all evangelical Christians. But what about those evangelical Christians who lived prior to 1978? How accurate must they have been in order to still be considered inerrantist and Fundamentalistic?

How accurate must one’s knowledge be of the Inerrancy of Scripture?

2) The Virgin Birth of Christ

The Isaiah prophecy that Matthew references with concern to the “virgin” birth is derived from the Greek Septuagint Scriptures. However, the original Hebrew version, of which the Septuagint is a translation, doesn’t designate the mother as specifically a “virgin” but as a “young woman”. It’s almost as if Matthew (or someone) based their theological understanding of the Scriptural prophecies of Isaiah on a bad, errant Greek translation of the original, inerrant Hebrew. Now can a person still be said to believe in the “virgin” birth if they do not take the New Testament accounts as “literal” but as a literary device derived their understanding of the episode from the meaning of the original Hebrew prophecy and not the Greek mistranslation?

Again, I myself believe in the classical, traditional and “literal” view of the Virgin Birth that Mary did not have any sexual relations with a man prior to the conception and birth of Jesus.

But how accurate must one’s knowledge be of the Virgin Birth?

3) The Substitutionary Atonement of Christ

There have been numerous views about the Atonement in the history of Christianity. The currently popular view among Roman Catholics and Evangelicals (Penal Substitutionary Atonement) has only been around for six or seven hundred years. What about the prior 1200 years of the Ransom Theory of the Atonement’s dominance? Are all the Christians who lived in the first 1200 years of Christendom apostate and non-Fundamentalists?

I myself hold to the view that Penal Substitutionary Atonement is absolutely and completely wrong. I believe that this view is not only not taught in Scripture but that it is actually condemned. Nevertheless, as stated above, the currently popular view among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists is that of Penal Substitution.

How accurate must one’s knowledge be of the Atonement?

4) The Bodily Resurrection of Christ

[This one was far too complicated to reconstruct and explain for the simple purposes of this post. I think that I make my argument known well enough by the other 4 Fundamentals to justify my choice of not needlessly laboring over a point not necessary to the building of my argument. Though in summation, let me state that the argument made would be more Socratic questions about individual details of the event of Christ’s resurrection. “Mr. Harris, what did you wrought?”]

How accurate must one’s knowledge be of the Bodily Resurrection of Christ?


5) The Physical Second Coming of Christ

We all know that there are myriads of End Time models. The current popular view held by the overwhelming majority of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists is that of Pre-tribulation Rapture, Pre-millennial Classical Dispensationism. This particular model first emerged in the beginning of the 19th Century. What about those Christians who lived for 1800 years prior to the emergence of Pre-tribulation Rapture, Pre-millennial Classical Dispensationism? Were they all apostate and non-Fundamentalists?

How accurate must one’s knowledge be of the Physical Second Coming of Christ?

In essence my primary question to Evangelicals and Fundamentalists is this:

How accurate must a Christian be in his or her understanding of Christian theology and the Christian Faith in order to achieve his or her own salvation?

“The Hokey Pokey”

At church on Wednesday night I participated in the weekly youth group meeting. The youth have been doing a summer series on the Christian Basics: prayer, worship, service, Scripture reading, etc.

This week’s Christian Basic was about worship and how one should worship God. Two of the verses we used were Romans 12:1 and 6:13. One of the great lessons taught was how Christians must worship with their whole body and not just parts. To stress this point to the youth, Andy, the junior high youth pastor, had all the students rise for a rendition of “The Hokey Pokey”.

Occasionally in life we are confronted with moments of sublimity that usually goes unnoticed by most if not all others. One has to be aware of these moments – aware that they can exist – in order to enjoy them. Of course, you may be the only one but do not let that keep you from the experience.

What was this moment of sublimity?

“The Hokey Pokey” is a game-song whose name derives from the word hocus-pocus. Hocus-pocus commonly references a “magical incantation”. The word itself derives from the Latin phrase hoc est corpus. This phrase comes from the Roman Catholic Mass where the priest holds up the sacrament of Christ’s body and says, hoc est corpus, “this is the body”. The idea that the Roman Catholic priest was changing the substance of the bread into the body of Christ resembled magic to many, thus hoc est corpus became hocus-pocus.

So when the youth were doing “The Hokey Pokey” as an object lesson of using your whole body as a living sacrifice to God, they were unknowingly referencing the body of Christ which became a pleasing sacrifice to God (in an obviously non-penal substitutionary atoning manner, I might add). And of course, just as putting your whole self into “The Hokey Pokey”, we can say the same about the corporate nature of Christ: “that’s what it’s all about.”

But the sublimity did not end there. At the start of the evening, we received a telephone call over the loud speakers from the group of youth and trainers who had gone on a mission trip. Where were they? You guessed it: Corpus Christi, TX.

It’s his sort of thing that makes my own life so much more enjoyable.

Proof for the Existence of God

If God does exist, then the very fact that humans know of his existence means that some form of proof has been offered and accepted.

If God does exist, then enough proof has been given to convince 95% of the world’s population at any time in history.

Those who do not believe in God claim the need for proof; those who do believe in the existence of God already have the proof they need.

Reassessing the Pre-Fallen World: Distinguishing Between What We like and What God Likes

Let us ask tough questions about what the world would look like if Man had not fallen into sin. As believers of God in Christ we should not fear difficult questions; we should relish the opportunity to expand our knowledge of God’s creation. Therefore:

- Would animals kill other animals? I’ve asked this question before with reference to the fact that God created most animals with the ability to hunt and kill and created most animals with the ability to hide from hunters.

- Would mosquitoes and bees exist? Would insects fly around sucking the blood of particular animals? Would bees have stingers? Would flies swarm around wallowing pigs?

- Would people get sunburns?

- Would calluses form on the bottom of people’s feet from continued walking?

- Would people get wrinkles? How about wrinkles under the eyes from laughing?

- Would the earth have strong winds, thunder storms, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc?

- Would meteorites fall from the sky?

- Our bodies were created by God with natural defenses against various foreign anomalies. If what these bodily defenses are resisting are solely outcomes of the fallen world, then God created our bodies in anticipation for this fall. If man had thus not fallen, our bodies would contain purposeless functions. Indeed, we would have body functions that could only find their fullness in a fallen world.

I ask these questions not necessarily to spur controversy or shake people’s theological conception in so much as I wish to incite thought on the part of the Christian.

We as Christians are like every other person created by God in that we will often see something that we personally do not like. In a fallen world this goes without saying. However, as Christian believers, we often see something we do not like and then assume that the Bible must have something condemnatory to say about whatever it is we personally dislike. In many cases the Bible is silent on an issue but we as orthodox believers will nevertheless misread into the text that which we wish to condemn. Certainly it’s easier to publicly condemn something if we have the Bible backing us up.

Unfortunately, we may often condemn that which we may personally dislike even when the Bible gives its approval. Relevant examples include: alcohol consumption, private prayer language, stringed instruments in worship, female pastors, women working outside the home, pacifism, etc.

Coming from a conservative background, there were many theological and Scriptural truths that rubbed against my grain (female pastors, women working outside the home, alcohol consumption). However, in order to be consistent with the Word of God I had to overcome this problem. In truth, the problem I had with women in ministry was my problem and not the problem of the women who minister. I had to pray for strength and understanding so that I could accept what God accepts, indeed what God commands.

I learned that I could not allow my personal, subjective tastes to govern my theology and inform me of what God likes and doesn’t like. To this day, there are many things in the Church which I dislike but which I can find no Scriptural basis to condemn. What do I do? I keep my mouth shut and try to get over it.

Therefore, I submit to you that there are many things in our world which we as humans and Christians dislike and think to be wrong but which God has absolutely no problem. “Animals eating other animals” appears to be one of them. Apparently God has no problem with pythons swallowing pigs. Indeed, God created pythons for that purpose.

Did God intend animals to never die? Where do the Scriptures make this assertion? Where does God state that he will give animals not made “in the image of God” eternal life with an incorruptible body? Nowhere that I can find. In fact, not only does God not seem to mind animals killing other animals, he does not mind humans killing other animals. Did not Christ prepare some fish for his disciples to eat (John 21:9)?

We may not like the idea of “animals eating other animals”, but let us not base our theology on our likes and dislikes.

Also, God apparently has no problem with a world where human beings have some modicum of pain or unpleasantness. My evidence?

To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you." (Genesis 3:16)

Notice that the Lord does not say I will give the woman pain in childbirth. Instead, the Lord states that he will multiply her pains, implying that even in an unfallen world a woman would have had childbirth pains.
We may not like the idea that “women have pain in childbirth”, but let us not base our theology on our likes and dislikes.

And let us not recreate paradise in our own minds based upon our personal likes, dislikes, annoyances, tastes, frustrations and human conception of what makes life good or bad. Such conceptions may not be God’s.

It is in this regard that I urge evangelical Christians to reassess some of the traditional conceptions of what the pre-Fallen world was like.

Such a reassessment must be based upon the witness of Scriptures, but our interpretation of the Scriptures must be tempered by historic traditions, human reason and human experience. Reason and experience (along with tradition) will help us interpret what the Scriptures teach but they will also help us in areas where the Scriptures are silent.

Factors of major consideration should include:

- The non-literal nature of both creation stories in Genesis 1-3.

- Jesus Christ as full revelation of both Man and God.

- God’s own direct statements about creation; the figurative poems of the prophetic books; the wisdom literature

- Various scientific evidence, formulations, theories and models

- Similarities and differences between Greek and Hebrew conceptions of creation

- Hard questions like the ones I asked above

I believe that if evangelical theology is going to have any relevancy or contribution for Christian cosmology, we need to base our theological conceptions upon an accurate reading of what Scripture says and what it does not say. Otherwise, we will continue to tinker with our own favorite, self-made toys.

Kierkegaard on the poor…

I am not sure why, but I have enjoyed two of Pastor Cole’s recent blog posts. This is a real good one. He references Kierkegaard.

If I had to name the greatest theological influences on my Christian education they would be Soren Kierkegaard, E.Y. Mullins, Emil Brunner, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Dale Moody. I love to read their works.

But Kierkegaard is the most influential. He is such if anything for the fact that Brunner, Niebuhr and Moody are all theologically indebted to him. Let’s include with them Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Frank Stagg, etc. Kierkegaard was the theological father of neo-orthodoxy and, I would argue, the man who saved conservative Christian theology from intellectual extinction.

So I am so thrilled that Pastor Cole mentions him and a particular book.

Ah, Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard. What a wonderful compendium! One of my favourite books. Theology, devotion, philosophy, criticism, kerygma and doctrine joined in a harmonious, counter-point concert. I strongly recommend this book, particularly as an introduction to his theology. I think this books presents a fairly accurate summary of Kierkegaard’s primary points of view about the Christian Faith and his significant contributions to the Church.

Provocations was one of the books I read on the Oxford Study Program in 2004. I think I actually bought it at the Barnes & Noble in Oxford. Interestingly, that year’s program was led by Dr. Yarnell who has left comments on the passage.


This, from the book Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard.

Disclaimer: Reading a single syllable of Kierkegaard is certain to set your little boat adrift, either to the right side of the river in ecumenism, or down the middle in neo-orthodoxy, or to the left toward liberalism. As with Liberation Theology, thar be dragons aplenty. Enter ye, who must surely meet their fate:

Christ was not making a historical observation when he declared: The gospel is preached to the poor. The accent is on the gospel, that the gospel is for the poor. Here the word “poor” does not simply mean poverty but all who suffer, are unfortunate, wretched, wronged, oppressed, crippled, lame, leprous, demonic. The gospel is preached to them, that is, the gospel is for them. The gospel is good news for them. What good news? Not: money, health, status, and so on — no, this is not Christianity.

No, for the poor the gospel is the good news because to be unfortunate in this world (in such a way that one is abandoned by human sympathy, and the worldly zest for life even cruelly tries to make one’s misfortune into guilt) is a sign of God’s nearness. So it was originally; this is the gospel in the New Testament. It is preached for the poor, and it is preached by the poor who, if they in other respects were not suffering, would eventually suffer by proclaiming the gospel; since suffering is inseparable from following Christ, from telling the truth.

But soon there came a change. When preaching the gospel became a livelihood, even a lush livelihood, then the gospel became good news for the rich and for the mighty. For how else was the preacher to acquire and secure rank and dignity unless Christianity secured the best for all? Christianity thus ceased to be glad tidings for those who suffer, a message of hope that transfigures suffering into joy, but a guarantee for the enjoyment of life intensified and secured by by the hope of eternity.

The gospel no longer benefits the poor essentially. In fact, Christianity has now even become a downright injustice to those who suffer (although we are not always conscious of this, and certainly unwilling to admit to it). Today the gospel is preached to the rich, the powerful, who have discovered it to be advantageous. We are right back again to the very state original Christianity wanted to oppose. The rich and powerful not only get to keep everything, but their success becomes the mark of their piety, the sign of their relationship to God. And this prompts the old atrocity again — namely, the idea that the unfortunate, the poor are to blame for their condition; that it is because they are not pious enough, are not true Christians, that they are poor, whereas the rich have not only pleasure but piety as well. This is supposed to be Christianity. Compare it with the New Testament, and you will see that this is as far from that as possible.

Allow me to make a few concluding un-scientific commments, he says with a self-satisfied chuckle.

Kierkegaard was from an infant-baptism church and, to my knowledge, never spoke against it.

With regards to his scathingly attacks on those churches that consider everybody possible to be a Christian, his criticism applies to both infant-baptism churches and believers-baptism churches. Indeed, a proper reading of Kierkegaard’s attack on Christendom will show that it stems from his studies on the subjective aspect of faith in God (see Philosophic Fragments and Concluding Unscientific Postscript). Kierkegaard’s problem was with a Christianity that taught that mere assent to the objectives truths of the Faith made one a Christian. He saw that such an objective approach to Christianity had no transforming affect upon the individual believer. Instead, Kierkegaard argued for a subjective approach to the Faith which involved a personal commitment on the part of the believer; an approach beyond mere assent to that of a transforming, personal commitment. The reduction of Christianity to mere assent to objective facts and elementary truths aside from any real personal relationship with God is a problem that plagues all church traditions regardless of mode and meaning of Baptism.

Thus, Kierkegaard would have liked the Emergent Church. He would have approved of its focus on the personal, relational and subjective aspects of that part of the Church.

In fact, I could make a case that Kierkegaard would have been thrilled with the works of E.Y. Mullins.

For prospective seminary students…

I like these suggestions. My own can be read here. Allow me to make commentary.

Please be advised of the following. Failure to observe and apply these helpful hints will deprive your seminary experience. We at Baptist Blogger would have enjoyed a more profitable seminary education if we had heard and observed all these rules. There are four or five or ten wherein we failed miserably and frequently.

1. There is no such thing as a tenant of Arminian theology.

2. There is no such thing as a tenet of Armenian theology.

3. When referencing the sixteenth century reformer, Martin Luther, it is not necessary to tell your professor that he “nailed the ninety-five theses to the church door at Wittenburg.” Your professor knows you are not referencing the 20th century Civil Rights leader. The same rule applies to all major figures in church history. Resist the temptation to explore obvious and overused facts in your writing. Write about something that few men know.

Well, that would be Christian and Baptist History, wouldn’t it?

4. John MacArthur’s commentaries are great for stealing sermons. They are unacceptable for exegetical research.

Shazaam!

5. Never, ever use an exclamation point for any reason whatsoever.

Never!

6. The unexpected death of a church member does not absolve you of weeks of procrastination.

But it does help to dilute it.

7. Learn Turabian early, and review her often. There is no excuse for submitting research papers with homespun formatting. Trust me, you cannot intuit Kate’s ways.

Of course, Turabian and SWBTS styles change with each semester and the with the temperament of the professor.

8. Footnotes serve nobler purposes than mere source citations. Use them to demonstrate that you have interacted substantively with a source by elaborating an explanation.

I agree. (1)

9. The Holy Bible is inerrant, infallible, and inspired. It is not, however, an occasion for bibliographic buttressing.

But it’s often an occasion for heretical buttressing.

10. Have someone other than your wife or roommate edit your major term papers. Ask your professor to recommend a student, and pay him for his labors. An excellent grade is worth a modest sum.

An excellent education is worth disproportionately large sum.

11. Learn to search for journal articles outside of JETS. If you don’t know what JETS is, do not try to find out.

She's got electric boots a mohair suit
You know I read it in a magazine

12. When choosing between professors, find one that has published at least one significant monograph within the past five years. Too many seminary professors are woefully incapable of rigorous academic research, and if your professor lists a Winter Bible Study or journal article from his own seminary journal on his curriculum vitae, pass on him.

And choose one quickly; such professors will not be allowed to hang around for too much longer.

13. Do not presuppose that you will learn what you need to learn from a seminary education. Seminary, if it serves its purpose, will equip you with some of the tools you will need, not all of them.

It will also equip you with some of the tools you don’t need.

14. Find a spot in the library away from high traffic areas and live there between classes. Stay away from the coffee shops. Do not waste your energies rutting with the spring bucks.

At SWBTS, I myself prefer a spot near the neo-orthodox theologians and the journal articles. However, at non-Christian educational institutions, I can always be found near PR 6019.

15. Purchase a copy of Hans Frei’s The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative and read the first 100 pages every semester.

But remember not to look directly at the words (joke).

I have read Frei (for German) but not this book. Having read the two blurbs below, I am now quite interested. My own studies have led me in the direction of handling the Bible as narrative rather than as symbolic or historical.

“Hans Frei argues that questioning the historicity of the biblical documents in the modern era has led to the loss of the integrity of the narrative structure. This has shifted meaning from the patterns and structure of the narrative itself to external reference. Frei argues that this takes two forms. Those who argued for the historicity of the documents found meaning in the historical events themselves, while those who denied the historicity found meaning in the symbolic ideas or concepts that supposedly lie behind the myths. Both locate meaning outside the text. In response, Frei contends that Scripture is a realistic narrative (i.e., history-like). A realistic narrative firmly sets its characters and actions within the context of their historical and social context. Even the miraculous episodes are realistic if they help render a particular character or story. The history-like realism draws us into the story with the result that the story shapes our lives. The power of narrative is lost when meaning is located outside the narrative: in ideals, doctrines, or historical facts. This is a must read for anyone interested in narrative theology. It is the classic text in the field, from which all other works owe their inspiration.”

“Frei's influence on fellow theologians is significant, particularly in postliberal and narrative theological schools of thought. (Narrative theology is a the theological movement with which I am most intrigued at present.) Frei doesn't see the authority of scripture as consisting either in its historical accuracy or in its role as 'life's little guidebook' as some would make it out to be. The stories, the narratives, are key to Frei. However, these must be treated with care, not simply as historical 'chunks' or as mere fables or fairy tales with a moral. Jewish rabbinical tradition has remained more true to the narrative aspect than the Christian tradition has, Frei argues.

Too much of Christian theology starts from the wrong basis, Frei contends. They start with overarching principles or grounded-in-the-present guidelines that try to relate the text either to the present day in artificial ways or to an historical situation of which we have very little knowledge and even less direct experiential access. Perhaps Shakespeare's pronouncement that 'the play's the thing' serves as a good encapsulation -- one must begin with the stories, the narratives, the play, and be led from those, rather than trying to fit them into preconceived notions of existential or philosophic paradigms.”

16. Expand your knowledge base of art, literature, and music. Visit at least one museum a year, and spend the day. Attend a symphony. Read Shakespeare.

Art, literature, music, film and history.

17. Serve one year as a professor’s grader. There’s nothing like reading stacks of horrible research papers to teach you how not to write.

“Nobody knows de trouble I seen ...”

18. Refuse to purchase every book your professor requires. Many professors think that their academic respectability among their peers is contingent on large reading lists.

That’s why God gave us libraries. But you gotta be quick!

19. Every semester, look over the doctoral reading lists. Spend the time you would have spent reading the frivolous assignments in your Master’s level courses to read the stuff of which Ph.D.’s are made.

Very good advice. I received mine this past Friday.

20. Listen attentively to the names of theologians — Evangelical or otherwise — most often criticized and ridiculed by your professors with flippant, unsophisticated one-liners. Choose these men as the subject of your major research paper for their classes.

Karl Barth
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
David Bosch
Emil Brunner
Martin Buber
Stanley Grenz
Stanley Hauerwas
Soren Kierkegaard
Hans Kung
Dale Moody
E.Y. Mullins
Reinhold Niebuhr
Origen
Clark Pinnock
Friedrich Schleiermacher
Albert Schweitzer
Frank Stagg
William Estep
Leon McBeth
W. F. Albright
Walter Brueggeman
Alexander A. Di Lella
Ralph Elliott
Nahum Sarna
Phyliss Tribble
Rudolph Bultmann
Oscar Cullmann
James D. G. Dunn
Kenneth Gentry
Michael Goulder
E.P. Sanders
N. T. Wright

21. Find a well-worn copy of Helmut Thielicke’s sermons on the parables. Devour it.
Ezekiel 3:1-3.

I have actually read a number of these. We had to translate a few of them for German.

I’d also recommend David Wenham’s book and that of Kenneth Bailey.

22. Befriend an international student. Listen to him.

Hopefully one that speaks English or one that speaks a language you know.

23. Skip chapel most of the time for early lunches off campus with friends. Hooky is liberating.

In truth, only go to those chapels which feature a speaker you want to hear. Those will be the best two chapels of your semester.

24. Search for nursing homes and retirement communities that will let you preach or teach Bible studies. The single greatest deficiency in most young pastors is the inability to interact with senior adults. Eat their cookies and pies. Take them flowers. Ask them to pray for you.

Very good.

25. Write at least one unassigned paper during your time at seminary.

Also, attempt to write one essay or sermon per week.
26. Tithe.

Unless you think that it is unbiblical. I do, but I tithe none the less.

27. If you are not pastoring, do not attend the church most frequented by seminary students. Find a church 20 miles out of town and join it.

Hmm, that would be Travis Avenue, Wedgewood and that other one off of 20. What is that one? Can’t think of it.

28. Do not huddle near your seminary president at the end of class or chapel. If you can manage to get through seminary without his knowing your name, you have truly accomplished something.

Dang.

29. Attend associational pastor’s conferences as often as possible. Drink coffee with older pastors. Ask lots of questions.

Always ask questions.

30. Date your wife. If you’re not married, date as many girls as will go out with you.

Date liberals, but marry conservatives.

31. Offer to babysit for a seminary couple so they can comply with #30 above.

Also, former seminary students; someone needs to date daddy’s little synthesis while we go see Harry Potter V.

32. Pay close attention in your church administration class. Keep copies of every handout. Compile a notebook of church policy and procedure manuals.

These can be used to fill the spaces left in the church office from all the paper that needs to be shredded prior to the church’s audit of your staff credit card.

33. Have a little wine for thy stomach’s sake.

Also consider martinis, Grey Goose or Absolut vodka, straight up, dirty and with a few olives.

And also beer, dark enough that light cannot go through it.

34. Smoke a cigar, preferably this one.

Nah! Not for me. No thanks.

35. Peruse every issue of National Geographic, Time Magazine, and Psychology Today. Cull them for sermon illustrations.

36. Ask no more than three questions in class per semester.

And only ask questions that you know will be beneficial to the rest of the class. All other questions should be asked either at the end of the class or in another venue.

37. Completely fill out all professor reviews at the semester’s end. Write substantive comments and honest appraisals of the professor’s performance.

Yes, please do so. All professors should want to read these (unless their close to retirement). Those professors who do not like student feedback should not be teaching.

38. Sneak into chapel alone at odd times and preach a sermon to no one.

This will prepare for ministry in the Church.

39. Wear shorts, flipflops, tshirts, and ballcaps to class. There’s plenty of time in ministry to wear suits, ties, and dress shoes.

Yes, but we must appear Christ-like and that means suits and ties. We want to dress our best for God. We do not want anyone questioning our witness. We do not want our Christian liberty cause a brother to stumble. You may think that I am simply stating my own opinion and personal tastes about what I think is best to wear and then finding various verses in the Bible to support my personal preference so that any one who disagrees with my personal tastes are actually disagreeing with God ... but you're way off.

40. Cultivate the closest relationships with students headed for the mission field.

Yes.

41. Avoid “accountability groups” of fellow seminarians at all cost.

Oh, God, yes! Find an “accountability friend” who either thinks relatively like you do on particular theological issues or one who is secure enough in his own beliefs not to be angry when someone has a belief different than his.

42. Contact the chaplain’s office of a local hospital. Offer to visit people who have no minister.

Very good actually.

43. Sit in a different spot every week.

In class or in church?

44. Invert the seminary course plan. Save classes like evangelism, the scripture introductory courses, pastoral care and counseling for the end of your degree.

See here.

45. Join the seminary choir for one semester. Learn to read music.

We have a choir?

46. Join a protest — at least once — in front of an abortion clinic.

No, I disagree.

47. Write anonymous notes of encouragement to fellow students. Slip a ten dollar bill in the envelope.

Is he soliciting?

48. Burn at least one textbook in a ceremony of private dissent. Most books on leadership make for good kindling.

If your Baptist History textbook is not by McBeth, then treat it like Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.

49. Dye your hair or shave your head or both. Do something counter-cultural.

I have a beard.

50. Pay all your bills on time.

Except bills designated for the government, educational institutions, and all other not-for-profit organizations.

Therefore, seminary housing is due at the very first of the month!



(1) I agree very much.

I Confess

My name is Nic. I am a believer and follower of Jesus of Nazareth, also known as the Christ. I am also referred to as a Christian.

I am an orthodox Christian, meaning that I take the Christian Scriptures (Old Testament and New Testament, though not the Apocrypha and a few passages in the Gospels of John and Mark) as authoritative. I am a conservative Christian, meaning that I take the Christian Scriptures as divinely inspired (“God-breathed” if you will). Because I am a conservative orthodox Christian who is not a part of the Roman Catholic Church, I am an evangelical. However, I am ecumenical in spirit, Baptist by conviction and Southern Baptist by tradition. I make my home in the evangelical Christian community and predominately fellowship with and minister with and for the evangelicals. However, because I am a member of the body of Christ which includes all believers in every tradition and culture from the first believer to the last, I will fellowship and minister with and for all Christian believers regardless of tradition, ecclesiology, and theology. The Church belongs to God in Christ and I believe that I have no authority to exclude others or myself from fellowship on account of tradition, ecclesiology, and theology.

I am a Baptist and thus hold to the traditional and Scriptural Baptist distinctives formulated under the greater doctrine of Soul Competency.

1) I believe in the freedom of religion.
2) I believe in the separation of church and state.
3) I believe in the autonomy of the local church.
4) I believe in believer’s baptism.
5) I believe in the priesthood of all believers.

Soul Competency Amongst 19th Century American Baptists

A friend of mine recently procured a first edition copy of Thomas Armitage’s, A history of the Baptists : traced by their vital principles and practices : from the time of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to the year 1886 (BX6231 .A7 1887).

Apparently, the vital principle is “Soul-liberty” which neatly summarizes all the Baptist practices and distinctives. Granted, he does not use the word “Soul-competency”, but the idea is still here. But how could it be here? E.Y. Mullins was not around to invent this doctrine out of the ether.

Yes, despite the current academic atmosphere of Baptist Revisionism, the evidence continues to “suggest” otherwise. Indeed, Soul-competency continues to be the overriding Baptist principle and distinctive.

Dr. So-and-so, it doesn’t matter how much you want it or how much you repeat it, Soul-competency will continue to be the historical and over-arching theme of being a Baptist.

Now the Conservative Resurgence has done a very good job of revising Baptist History and denominational knowledge away from those particular doctrines that did not conform to the goals and principles of the Resurgence.

Freedom of Religion
Separation of Church and State
Believer’s Baptism
Priesthood of the Believer
Local Church Autonomy

Sorry to burst your bubble guys. That goes for you Calvinists as well.

Sorry, Dr. Mohler. Keep studying.



Soul Competency, Baptist Revisionism, and Inerrancy

"Born-Again" Part Three: Subjective and Objective Truth

Points well stated. I would add one thing however to my previous post since it was elaborated on in reply.

In regards to truth and the nature of it: The bible is largely objective truth. Our experiences with it are subjective, but our beliefs and way of thinking must be brought in line with the objective standards of God's Word.

I agree to a certain extent, but let me add that the movement from “not being in line” with the objective standards of God’s Word towards “being in line” with the objective standards of God’s Word is a subjective experience. It is a subjective experience by definition.

Also, remember how I am using the word subjective (I know that you, Athosxc, know my use of the term, but for those who may not ...)

In our postmodern society, subjectivity is often understood to mean that “truth consists of the perceptions, arguments, and language of an individual point of view, and hence influenced in accordance with a particular bias.” In other words, subjective truth is “the ways things seem to one or another”. This is not how I use the term subjective. My use of the term is drawn from its more philosophical usage, particularly as it is expressed by Soren Kierkegaard. One can see such an understanding also in the works of Brunner, R. Niebuhr, Moody and Buber.

Kierkegaard argued in Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments that "subjectivity is truth" and "truth is subjectivity." This has to do with a distinction between what is objectively true and an individual's subjective relation (such as indifference or commitment) to that truth. People who in some sense believe the same things may relate to those beliefs quite differently.

Two people may both agree to the objective truth or fact that “salvation is by grace through faith”, but this agreement of the fact may lead only one of them to choose to actually accept this gift of salvation through faith. For the one who chooses not to accept this gift, the objective truth that “salvation is by grace through faith” is of little to no value.


A very simplified example would be John 14:6. When Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes unto the father but through me", that is an objective truth. It doesn't matter my examples of how I feel "closer to god" when I'm burning incense at the Buddhist temple, or praying towards Mecca 5 times daily as a Muslim, or anything else. If I don't come to God through Christ, I'm never going to get to God. My subjective experiences don't change the objective nature of the truth of God's word.

And this follows what I was saying above. Subjective truth in the Christian sense of the term involves a change in the individual through a personal relationship with God in Christ.

It is not merely about agreeing that the Christian Faith is true. Even the Satan may believe as much! And, as you said, it’s not about feeling close to God but by being close to God in a very personal and relational way.

Remember that the Hebrew word for “know” (yada) is a relational knowledge aside from the idea of c

John 14:6 itself emphasizes the personal relationship necessary. Jesus is a personal being in a personal relationship with God the Father (of whom Jesus frequently refers to by the intimate name, Abba) who is a personal being in relationship with the Son. All who desire to come into a personal relationship with God the Father must do so through the Son. Indeed, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the one in a personal relationship with God the Father. Believers are brought into the corporate Christ and it is in the corporate Christ that we come into a personal relationship with God.

But agreeing to this objective faith that Christ is THE way is pointless unless it causes the individual subject to act. There are plenty of people who unfortunately agree that Christ is THE way but who never make a personal decision to engage in a saving relationship in him. Even worse, many come into a saving relationship and then fall away by rejecting that relationship. These people agree with the fact that Christ is THE way but they nevertheless reject acting upon that knowledge.


I will agree with you that mental assent to intellectual points and arguments does not come close to being a proper definition of faith. However, without that same mental assent to those intellectual points and arguments, our subjective experiences are groundless and hollow, and ultimately lead not to salvation, but to death. I I claim to follow Christ, but don't believe the truth of scripture, then my claim is false. Why? Because the Bible is God's Word. You can't claim to follow someone, yet deny what they say and deny what they hold dear. It is a mental and logical inconsistency to try and is ultimately false.

Agreed, but we must also realize that even under the influence of the Holy Spirit there are going to be believers who reject certain teachings for selfish reasons. Other believers will stick to their traditions no matter the Scriptural evidence because it brings them mental comfort. They may use a “bad” set of NT texts. They may reject the epistle of James or accept the Apocrypha writings. Other people will just make hermeneutical errors and be honestly wrong. We all do such things at times: we’ve all done it, we all are doing it now, and we will all do it again. This in no way should keep use from either teaching the correct interpretation of the Scriptures or learning from them. Rather it should encourage us be merciful to those who are making the same mistakes as we. It should also encourage us to constantly review our theology and bring our thoughts to God in fear and trembling.


I wish I could remember the exact phrase, because it stated both our points excellently, but it was close to this:

"Truth without love is legalism, and love with truth is hypocrisy"...it's close to that. Anyway, the point is that if all we have is a mental understanding, we are, as Jesus said, no better than the demons who have a much better mental understanding of things than we do....they've seen God, they've fought him, they've lost, they're still fighting....and still losing.

But if we don't subvert our own will enough to accept the objective truth of God's Word, regardless of our own subjective experience, then our subjective experience will lead us falsely....or as the Scriptures say, "There is a way which seems right to a man (insert subjectivity), but in the end it leads to death (Lack of objective truth guiding their subjective experience)"....(Proverbs 14:12 and 16:25)


I agree. Of course, as you know, among orthodox Christians, the problem is not about believing the Word of God. We all want to do that. Rather the problem is about what the Word of God is.

We have the meaning of the Scriptures, but we also have the interpretation of the meaning of the Scriptures. Those are not always the same thing. We can all say that we believe the truth of the Scriptures but we may not all agree what the Scriptures are saying.

The problems associated with this are legion: sin, cultural bias, individual bias, bad translations, textual problems, cultural ignorance, peer pressure, doubt, human finiteness, etc.

And God (by grace!) sees fit to allow us to make both guilty and innocent errors of interpretation. Thankfully, he gives us all enough knowledge to be saved.

"Born-Again" Part Two: Connotations and Apathy

As for the 75% claiming to be "Christian", but not "born again" Christians, I believe this is a much more serious problem than is being given credence. If I asked you if you are a "born-again-Christian", you may not go by that term by your own descriptions, but you would immediately understand what I am asking, and your mind would surely be thinking "born above" instead, and you would answer in the affirmative yet with an explanation of why you don't use the term "born again".

I would immediately understand what you are saying because I am from a conservative evangelical background as are you. The term does not carry with it the kind of baggage as it would outside conservative evangelicalism. However, if I believed you were a moderate or liberal or I simply did not know I would answer quite differently.

Really, it is a term used predominately by Evangelical, Fundamentalist, and Pentecostal branches of Protestant Christianity. Those outside these more conservative Christian traditions of Protestantism do not use the term. Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians – not to mention the largest Christian group in the country, the Roman Catholics do not use the term.

Remember: while most American Presidents have identified themselves as Christians, Jimmy Carter was the first to publicly identify himself as such. In 1976, this was a big deal. Even now, no other President has done so. Even George W. Bush does not use to the term “born-again”. Indeed, while President Bush is well-known for publicly affirming himself as a believer, various members of his staff have said that the President considers the phrase “born-again” a big, “no-no”. Basically, he and his staff do not identify him as such. Why? Probably because of the connotation that it brings. Of course, President Bush comes from the Episcopal tradition and was married into the Methodist tradition.

For the majority of Christians in America, the designator “born-again” refers not to having received faith in Christ from God, but is a label that refers to non-Catholic conservative Christians (often regarded as fundamentalistic and or Pentecostals, i.e., “whoopee-churches”) greatly associated with or identical with the Religious Right.

An example would be the following:

“Do you take the Bible literally?” That depends. I take some passages literally and others figuratively depending on the passage, its characteristics and its context. Too often saying you take the Bible “literally” equates one with fundamentalism and other groups which damage the texts of the Bible.

Here is a better example: “Are you a Fundamentalist?” Well, I would never in a million years identify myself as fundamentalist, but I do believe in fundamentals to the Faith. There are many Christians (moderates and even liberals!) who also believe in fundamentals to the Christian Faith but would rather be shot than identify themselves as fundamentalists. Why? The term “fundamental” took on a negative connotation during the 20th century.

The term “Evangelical” is another such term. In America it means different things to different groups. For most non-Christians it can mean either “fundamentalist” or “conservative non-Catholic”. In Europe, the term is used among Lutherans who are overwhelmingly LIBERAL.

A secular example would be the question, “Are you an environmentalist?” Well, I believe in the preservation and proper use of nature but I would not use that label because it can associate me with groups that are environmentally intolerant and believe in apocalyptic global-warming scenarios. I’d rather call myself a conservationist and be done with it.

Here is one more Christian example: “Are you a ‘Creationist?’” For me this is a loaded and choppy term. While I certainly believe that God created everything and everything that came into being because of him and that the design of the universe shows the intelligence of a Creator, I nevertheless have absolutely no problem with the theory of biological evolution as it is popularly known. This agreement with evolutionary theory has never conflicted with my faith or my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. However, my answer to this question would depend on who is asking. One answer or another might be considered dishonest or deceitful by some.

Ultimately, an answer plus and explanation is preferable, but one seldom has that luxury in a poll. Polls are often like giving testimony in court: “Answer the question: yes or no.” “Yes, but let me explain.” “Nope.”

So Christians not calling themselves “born-again” is not an indication of spiritual apathy anymore than not calling one’s self a fundamentalist means that one does not believe in fundamentals of the faith or that one claiming to not take the Bible literally means that they do not believe that the Bible contains historical events and true miracles.


However, I think the point of the article is that most people are claiming to be Christians WITHOUT understanding of what being a Christian means. They aren't thinking "no I'm not born again, I'm born above" or anything similar to it. They are thinking, "I'm a pretty decent person", or "I'm not as bad as the guy down the street", or "I go to church", or "my parents were Christains and took me to church", or "I believe in God", etc, etc, etc, ....ad nauseum. The problem is, most people have no idea what it means to be a Christian, yet they understand that being a Christian SUPPOSEDLY means you're a good person, so they equate the two. But it's their own standard of goodness that they judge by, not God's. THAT is the issue I believe the article is pointing out. The church as a whole has dropped the ball on telling folks what the bible actually says about being a Christian, and being considered "good" in God's eyes, and so people think they're ok in God's sight because of any of the above reasons, and they'll die and go to hell because the church didn't do its job. "Christian" has become a watered-down term for "halfway-decent-and somewhat religious-human being", instead of someone who claims Christ as their Savior and Lord.

I think you might be reading more into the statement than is actually there. It’s always important not to allow our understanding of a term and another’s misunderstanding of a term askew our interpretation of reality. Like you, I am always quite careful of the terminology I use both for myself and for others. I do so because I know how precarious language can be. For example (and this might be helpful to anyone else who might read my other articles):

I use the term “Christian” to refer to anyone who identifies his or herself as a follower of Jesus whether they are truly “saved” or not. For me it is a general term which applies to the Christian religion and all those who are in Christendom.

I use the term “Believer” to refer to anyone who is an actual believer of God in Christ who follows him as Lord and Savior. While all Believers are Christians, not all Christians are Believers.

My reason for making such a distinction is based on what you yourself have said. “Christian” has been “watered-down term” and it has been since at least the time of Soren Kierkegaard (though, as we might all admit, probably from much earlier). Kierkegaard noted that people in Denmark (and elsewhere in Christendom) went to church and called themselves Christians simply because they were born into the “Christian tradition”. These people did not know what it meant to be truly Christian. They did not know how impossible it is to live like a Christian. It was Kierkegaard who articulated the position about the subjective nature of the Christian Faith. Subjective in that the Faith is something that is a personal experience that affects the person directly as a subject. This contrasted with what Kierkegaard saw as the objective nature of the 19th century Protestant church which neither preferred nor encouraged such a personal experience. For many, the practice of the Faith was an objective experience that occurred apart from the personal encounter of the individual believer. Such a believer could go to church each week, listen to a sermon, assent to the facts of the Faith and then go about his business without any affect upon his being. This was faith as intellectual assent to objective facts and not faith as personal experience and relationship with subjective truths.

So I do agree with you about the failings of the Western Church in this area. However, I see the problem not with the specific notion that a person who says, "I'm a pretty decent person", and goes along his or her merry way, though I think this might be a result of the greater problem.

I argue that the reason for “watered-down” Christianity is the Protestant and particularly the evangelical tendency to equate “faith” or “belief” with the mental assent to intellectual facts. This tendency causes two results: 1) the individual Christian thinks that all he has to do is agree to the facts taught by the Church and, as you stated, be a good person, and 2) the individual Christian equates genuineness of faith with accuracy of belief. With regards to the latter, this is not always the case. A person can have some messed up theology but still be a person of deep personal faith in his or her relationship with God in Christ. The reverse is also true: a person can have very accurate theology but be spiritually bankrupt.

Remember also that many Christian groups, particularly those amongst Fundamentalist and Pentecostal traditions claim that those who have not had such an intense conversion experience are not true Christian believers. There is a version of this tendency among moderate and liberal Christians as well. Yet even Kierkegaard who was vicious in his attack upon apathetic Christendom did not believe that such apathy kept one from being in a saving relationship with God. I agree with him on this point. Such spiritual apathy keeps one a “baby Christian” without the sort of fruit that is expected but still a believing Christian. At most, this sort of apathy can cause one to fall away from faith in God but this is not necessarily the case.


This must be corrected. That's our job as preachers of the Word of God.

And that’s what we shall do.

Thanks for the great comments.

"Born-Again" Part One: Replies on Translating anothen

I do like your arguments. I think there are two parts to your response to my article. If I may, I would like to address the first one now but the latter half next week.

I don't know man, I think you're being a just a wee bit overly critical in saying that the translators who used "born-again" misunderstood the very point Jesus was making just as Nicodemus did. I don't think misunderstanding had anything to do with it. In fact, I think the translators specifically used the term again, instead of above, to illustrate the point Jesus was making. By using that word, they conveyed Nicodemus' misunderstanding, but also allowed Jesus' later statements to be that much more effective when He explains the difference to Nicodemus. Being born above, or of the Spirit, is crystal clear because of the forced explanation.

That might be true; a good alternative to my argument. Allow me to consider it.

They could have considered both options and settled on “again” instead of “above”. I am certain this is what has occurred in the modern area. In English, there are too many chapters and verses that are too well known from the King James Version to be more properly translated.

The King James Version of 1611 uses “borne againe” (John 3:3, 7).

John Wyclif (14th century) also translates it as “borun ayen” (John 3:3, 7). Also, the Geneva Bible (1560) and the Bishop’s Bible (1568).

Martin Luther translated it as “new birth”: “Ihr müßt von neuem geboren werden” (John 3:3, 7). John Wesley also referred to it as a “New Birth”.

William Tendale (16th century) preferred “boren a newe” (John 3:3, 7). This is interesting because much of Tyndale’s translation was used in the KJV of 1611. However, while many used to think that Tyndale used both the Vulgate and Luther, it is now generally agreed that he used Erasmus’ Greek version (1522).

In the Latin Vulgate, Jerome translated the relevant phrase as nasci denuo. Denuo can be translated as “anew, again, a second time, afresh.” Therefore, it is from the Vulgate that we get Christian traditions meaning either “anew” or “again”. So we get from the Latin two traditional translation errors, “born anew” and “born again”.

So Jerome is the culprit (Augustine joke). In John 3:3, 7 he translates the Greek anothen as the Latin denuo but in verse 31 as the Latin supra (“above”) or in 19:11, 23 as desuper. Of course, though Jerome, like Luther and Tyndale, translated their Bibles from the Greek, they were already familiar with the Latin versions from birth. Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus in 382 to revise the Old Latin text of the four Gospels (the Vetus Latina) from the best Greek texts. So even he was familiar with a Latin version of the Gospel of John prior to his own translation from the Greek. I’m not sure how the Vetus Latina translates anothen.

Interestingly, Jerome translated 2 Cor 5:17 as “si qua ergo in Christo nova creatura vetera transierunt ecce facta sunt nova”.

I think “new” is a better or closer translation than “again”, though I still think they are both missing the point of Jesus’ illustration. In fact, the use of “again” may be more a misinterpretation of the Latin than one of the Greek. While anothen can mean “anew” but rarely ever means “again”, denuo can mean “anew” but quite often means “again”.

So you may very well be right that the original translators of the Greek (Jerome?) did not misunderstand the point Jesus was making in the Greek as much as they were interested in attempting to convey the idea more affectively into Latin for their readers. That would explain why they choose to translate anothen as denuo in John 3:3, 7 but as supra in John 3:31.

Yes, I think you are right. It’s far more likely that Jerome et al would have knowingly chosen to translate anothen two different ways than to do so unknowingly.

Nevertheless, I also think that using “again” instead of “above” doesn’t convey Nicodemus’s misunderstanding as much as it leads the reader into the same misunderstanding.

You have persuaded me that Jerome et al were not “mistaken” in their mistranslation.

I’ll address the second part next week. Thanks.

"Born-Again" Christians? A Short Article on Misinterpeting and Missing the Point

75 % of Americans claiming not to be born-again still believe in the resurrection according to the Center for Missional Research

When this report was made public this past Easter, I observed a friend wondering how it was possible for people who are not “born-again” to still believe in the resurrection and at the startling rate of 75%. My friend’s question stemmed from a misconception regarding the use of the term and label “born-again” as it is used by the majority of Christians. “Born again” is cultural-religious designation that is used by a certain segment of Evangelical Christianity to describe what God has done in their lives. Other Christians around the country and world may not use the term “born again” but God has done a similar thing in their lives. I myself do not use the term “born again”, mainly because I do not see the term in Scripture.

This is the focus of this post: the term “born-again” as used by Evangelicals, particularly those within the Southern States of America is a mistranslation or misinterpretation of the actual Greek.

Though many Evangelical Christians refer to themselves as “born-again Christians”, the actual term as it is found in many Bible translations appears only in two verses, both in John chapter 3.

“Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3)

“Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” (John 3:7)

This is the extent of the Scriptural basis for the Evangelical self-designation, “born-again Christian”.

The Greek word usually translated as “again” is anothen.

True, this word can be translated as “again”, but is more often interpreted as meaning “above.” Indeed, other than these two places, most Bible versions translate the use of anothen in John as “above”.

“He that cometh from above (anothen) is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all” (John 3:31)

“Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above (anothen): therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin” (John 19:11)

“Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top (anothen) throughout.” (John 19:23)

The Greek word most commonly translated into English as “again” (and the Greek word which most carries the Evangelical meaning of “born-again” as “renewal” and “anew”) is palin (John 1:35; 4:3, 13, 46, 54; 6:15; 8:2; 9:15; 17, 26f.; 10:7, 17ff., 31, 39f.; 11:7f., 38; 12:22, 28, 39; 13:12; 14:3; 16:16f., 19, 22, 28; 18:7, 27, 33, 38, 40; 19:4, 9, 37; 20:10, 21, 26; 21:1, 16).

There is nothing necessarily wrong with the term “born-again” in so much as it is implied in the text that one must be “born-again from above” to see the Kingdom of God. But while there is the implication of being “born-again”, such an idea misses the point of Jesus’ words. The primary importance of his use of anothen in his teaching to Nicodemus is that one must be born from above. It is the place of the birth that is of importance here and not primarily the fact that one is being birthed again. Those who originally erred in translating anothen as “again” missed the point of Jesus’ teaching and drew their interpretation from the response of Nicodemus:

“How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?” (John 3:4).

Ironically, the (mis-)translators of John 3:3 were under the same confusion as Nicodemus.

[I’ve found that Christians will often misinterpret a passage in Scripture and assume the very meaning that the Scripture writers are attempting to refute.]

Of course, the miscommunication and the inability of the people to understand the teachings of Jesus is a theme which runs throughout the Gospel of John.

Thus we get the people’s bewilderment at the teaching that people must “eat the flesh” of Jesus to receive eternal life (John 6).

[Thus we get Roman Catholicism which similarly misinterprets Jesus’ teachings.]

To receive eternal life one must be born from above (anothen). Again, it is the place from which the birth occurs that is important for Jesus’ point and not the implication that we are born a second time. Note John the Baptist’s statement regarding Jesus in verse 31:

“He that cometh from above (anothen) is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all” (John 3:31)

So while the designation “born-again” is not necessarily inaccurate, it is not complete. Certainly, it is not the point of the passage from which it is derived. Evangelicals would be more authentic to the witness of the Scriptures by referring to themselves as “born-above Christians”. I myself prefer the term “believer”.

Therefore, the fact most Christians believe in the resurrection but do not use the term, “born again” should not be surprising.

The Demythologization of Private Prayer Languages…

From the subtle mind of Ben Cole ...

Southwestern Seminary, the International Mission Board trustees, and a host of pastors have been lying. Private tongues, they say, is the limited practice and belief of the marginal periphery of Southern Baptists, who really aren’t Southern Baptists at all. Rather, they are Pentecostals. So dangerous is the practice of private tongues, in fact, that the practice warrants the exclusion of missionaries and professors from service in Southern Baptist life, they argue.

Well, with this latest report from Lifeway Research, we must ask our narrow cessationist and exclusionary brethren one question:

What half of their bodies are they willing to amputate?







Let the spin begin ...

Translating the Gospel

It's always good for some healthy reflection of what works and what doesn't. I can personally attest to why many of the churches in NC are doing so well as my dad served on the staff of many of them as the worship pastor. Those churches are people oriented, and they have a commitment to sound biblical preaching and making clear the whole gospel of Christ.

As for the churches in other states, I have some insight into them, as do you, due to my previous workings with contacting them, and they primarily fit the same billing.

The good thing about this list you've put up, is that it just goes to show that it doesn't matter if you're a "mega-church" or very traditional church (as some of them are), if you make the church about reaching people, and preach God's word accurately, and faithfully, GOD GROWS THE CHURCH!, ....but then again, it seems to me that He promised He'd do just that didn't He? :-) Good stuff man.

You've made some excellent points that I would like to elaborate upon if I may.

Yes, the Gospel of Christ is exactly it, but both in word and deed as Christ himself taught.

Yes, contemporary and traditional is all relative and can only be verified by the culture, personality and needs of a local church and the community it’s supposed to be serving. If the church is overwhelmingly traditional and only a few people want a contemporary-type church, then a contemporary church would be a horrible idea. Furthermore, if the community a church is supposed to be serving is contemporary and the church is traditional, generally speaking, such a church cannot expect to have much of an affect. But such would only be the “horrible” for the church, if that church is attempting to have an affect. If the church doesn’t want to serve, then witness and evangelize their community, there is no real need to explain the gospel to their community.

I noticed that Saddleback was not one of the churches listed

The form and method of communicating the Word of God is also important if not vital to the message itself.

Generally, a sermon screamed in anger is not as affective as a sermon spoken in love (again, generally speaking).

Preaching God’s Word accurately is also about expressing it clearly; hence, it’s all about translation.

The Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek and it was extremely effective in spreading the Word of God even among Gentiles.

The Bible as a whole was translated into Latin in order to communicate the Gospel in Europe.

The Roman Church held so much power over so many of the churches in Northern Africa, that they were able to prevent them from translating the Latin Bible into languages familiar to those people. Overtime, the gospel became foreign to the people of Northern Africa, and Islam became dominate.

The Roman Church continued to place the Latin Bible in prominence while the peoples of Europe began to speak non-Latin languages. Overtime, the gospel became almost as foreign to the people of Europe as those of Northern Africa. The people were ignorant and heresy spread thru the Roman Church unchecked.

However, the Renaissance brought a renewed interest in Hellenism and the Greek language. Wyclif was persecuted by the church for his English Bible translation as was Luther. But with Bibles being translated into common tongues and spread across Europe by Gutenberg’s printing press, the meaning of the Scriptures and the Word of God reached the common man.

Revival and reform followed.

In an increasingly un-churched and post-Christian world, we need to effectively communicate the Word of God both in word and action in a manner which the society can understand. We cannot afford to teach an unwilling and unsaved populace traditional Southern American Baptist culture as a means to communicate the Gospel. The Gospel is superior to Southern American Baptist culture and must come first.

Thus, if the community culture surrounding a church is traditional or the church has no interest in communicating the Gospel beyond their doors, tradition is the way to go. However, if we really want to see the Gospel transform people’s lives, if we really want to see Revival and Reform, if we really do not want to see America becoming another Palestine, Northern Africa, or Western Europe, people are going to have to abandon their selfish whims and comfort zones and sacrifice their cherished familiar for the salvation of the next generation.

It Was Good For Bach and Mozart ...

I’ve noticed that far too many critics of contemporary praise and worship music will dismiss such music as being far too repetitive. As someone who dislikes most of both traditional and contemporary Christian music, allow me to defend contemporary praise and worship music.

I suggest that you traditionalists read Psalms 136 and 150.

Also, I would recommend that you traditionalist critics of contemporary Christian music who argue that repetitive praise and worship songs are bad

Also the Baptist Hymnal standard song which continually repeats the word “Alleluia” as its lyrics.

Honestly, I do not know how you traditionalists can stand those old gospel hymns. The music and lyrics are so dull, somber and simplistic. It speaks to the world of a uncomplicated God, a creator with little imagination and an unsophisticated manner by which to worship him.

Do you not think that God deserves better worship music than Southern American gospel hymns? Or is any old music good enough so long as you like it?

Aren’t the classical pieces by Bach, Mozart and Handel better than those of George Beverly Shea, Cliff Barrow, and Bill Gaither? Of course it is. But if you don’t think it is right to give God your best then that is between you and hell.

Here’s another one:

Why do we in traditional churches sing 150 year old gospel hymns? Because people 150 years ago did not want to sing 200 year old songs.

Therefore, those of you in the traditionalist worship crowd who are mad that your musical movement is flailing and will ultimately go the way of the dodo should take comfort. In 20 to 30 years, today’s contemporary worship promoters will be just as mad that their traditionally “contemporary” music is flailing and will ultimately go the way of the dodo.

"Welcome To My Life, Tattoo"

The other day while I was waiting in line at the Post Office to buy eighty 2 cent stamps, I observed a gruff and muscled man in front of me. He was wearing a tank top and sandals. While he had toe nails that resembled Fritos, it was the tattoo on his upper arm that sustained my attention.

His tattoo was a large depiction of the shaggy head of a panther. The design itself was of no great interest, expect that the panther’s nose was drawn around what looked like an indention in the man’s skin. As I studied the tattoo more closely, I discovered that it was apparently designed and drawn to hide a scar on the man’s upper arm.

The man had a tattoo applied to upper arm to hide a scar on his skin!

How brilliant! I must be quite honest; I have never heard of such a thing before. I’m actually surprised that I haven’t! The idea seems so logically simple.

I think I might start studying other tattoos when given the chance and see how many other people have had this idea.

Recommended Religious Reading List

XXXXX,

You asked a few weeks ago for a recommended religious reading list. Here's mine. I'll also post these on my blog. Thanks. PC


Dogmatics (vol. 1 and 2) – Emil Brunner
Mere Christianity – C. S. Lewis
Transforming Mission – David Bosch
Philosophical Fragments – Soren Kierkegaard
Message and Mission – Eugene Nida
Customs and Culture – Eugene Nida
Cost of Discipleship – Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Word of Truth – Dale Moody
Either/Or – Soren Kierkegaard
Nature and Destiny of Man – Reinhold Niebuhr
Understanding Genesis – Nahum Sarna
The Concept of Anxiety – Soren Kierkegaard
Concluding Unscientific Postscript - Soren Kierkegaard
Axioms of Religion – E.Y. Mullins
The Christian Religion in its Doctrinal Expression – E.Y. Mullins
The Sickness Unto Death – Soren Kierkegaard
On Being Christian – Hans Kung
The Baptist Heritage – Leon McBeth
Fear and Trembling – Soren Kierkegaard
Works of Love – Soren Kierkegaard
The Epistle to the Romans – Karl Barth
The Polarities of Human Existence in Biblical Perspective – Frank Stagg
New Testament Theology - Frank Stagg
The Book of Daniel (ABC) – Alexander A. Di Lella and Louis F. Hartman
I and Thou – Martin Buber
The Message of Genesis – Ralph Elliott
The Divine Imperative – Emil Brunner
The Mediator – Emil Brunner
The Theology of Hope – Jurgen Moltmann
A Literary Approach to the New Testament – John Paul Pritchard
Provocations: The Spiritual Writings of Soren Kierkegaard
Apostasy – Dale Moody
Sexual Ethics – Stanley Grenz
Christian Theology – Millard Erickson
The Book of J – Harold Bloom
Genesis: A Living Conversation – Bill Moyers
Christ and Culture and Culture – H. Richard Niebuhr
Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally – David Hesselgrave
Baptist Confessions of Faith – William Lumpkin


Here are some “religious” works of fiction. Not all “Christian” and not all explicitly “religious”:

Before the Law – Franz Kafka
Waiting for Godot – Samuel Beckett
The Chronicles of Narnia – C.S. Lewis
The Wasteland - T. S. Elliot
Meditation XVII - John Donne
The Second Coming – W.B. Yeats
Four Quartets - T. S. Elliot
The Brothers Karamazov - Dostoyevsky
The Divine Comedy – Alighieri Dante
Paradise Lost – John Milton
The Last Temptation - Nikos Kazantzakis
Moby Dick – Herman Melville
The Castle - Franz Kafka
The Trial – Franz Kafka
Crime and Punishment – Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Head Coverings During Prayer: Applying 1 Corinthian 11:4 at Graduation

During my graduation rehearsal, we were told that during prayers the men must take off their hats while women were to keep their hats on. [pardon the preposition]

I myself think that such a by-gone tradition and unscriptural sexist discrimination is foolish. I considered keeping my own hat on in solidarity with the female ministers in my class. However, after quick consideration, I decided to honor these two “traditions” out of due respect of my position as a guest at this church (Travis Avenue Baptist).

Oddly enough, a lovely Korean lady sitting near me asked me why she and other women must keep their hats on while the men were required to take their hats off during prayers. I explained to her that this practice is due to the traditional misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians 11.

“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” (1 Corinthian 11:4f.)

Incidentally, 1 Corinthians is probably the most ironically misinterpreted book of the NT. I say “ironically” because there are several passages in this book so misinterpreted by evangelicals that they end up practicing these teachings in the very manner against which Paul teaches (i.e., “speaking in tongues”, women and authority, Christian liberty, communion and divisions, etc.) How odd.

But her question struck a thought.

“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” (1 Corinthian 11:4)

“Having his head covered?” Are we to take this commandment by God thru Paul literally? If that be the case, then shouldn’t men take off their toupees and hairpieces when praying at church? That’s what the Bible says, right?

Of course, we take the English word “covered” to refer to “hats” of some sort and not simply “covering”.

But if toupees and hairpieces were referred to as “hair hats” (ala the Seinfeld episode titled “The Beard”) would we then deem toupees to be hats and thus a covering which 1 Corinthians prohibits?

I do not know. I suspect it depends upon who in power among those who decide how we are to interpret Scripture has a toupee or not.