Uncategorized

Assumptions, Presuppositions, Filters

By John Immel

Furthering the discussion of bible interpretation also known as Higher Critical Methodology, I’m going to talk about…well, you saw the post title. And since I am loath to reinvent the wheel, I am once again going to dip into self-plagiarism of my previous literary work from where I took the post Like Tai Chi, Kung Fu, and Karate .

Anyway, read the Like Tai Chi, Kung Fu, and Karate post first and this post flows to this one.

*******

Let me show you the theology secret handshake; your ideas are not your identity. In the Arena of Ideas, it is not personal, though some will always try to make it personal. I have walked this path. Come with me young Jedi and let me show you Theology. Here is a light saber for your protection.

You read about candles under bushels in the New Testament. Your Historical Criticism helps pinpoint that a candle is strikingly similar in use to a flashlight. Now young Jedi, use your questions. Jesus is talking to a bunch of everyday folks, trying to explain a spiritual principle. What did they hear? What would be the application today? They heard Candle. But in today’s vernacular, it would be synonymous with Flashlight.

Jesus would tell us not to put our flashlight under a cover.

Aha, very good young Jedi. The resulting cosmetic interpretation yields interesting possibilities.

All right, another test. You have just read Matthew and noticed that he repeatedly says “Kingdom of Heaven,” and you notice that other Gospel writers call it “Kingdom of God.” Is there something to be drawn out here? Maybe. Ask your questions, young Jedi. Once again, your Historical Criticism reveals that Matthew wrote his book to Jews. But what does it mean? Young Jedi, use the force. What would the original hearers have heard? Matthew is making a theological translation because saying “Kingdom of God” would have put off his audience: Jews. The Hebrew for God was never spoken.

Excellent!!!!! Young Jedi, you impress me.

Now, the last test. Get this one right.

When reading Romans 10:4, you encounter “…Christ is the end of the law.” What is contained within these seven words, young Jedi? Is there a sermon here worth preaching? To whom was Paul writing? What would these men have heard? This one is hard, be patient with yourself. Cultural/religious interpretation is needed, young Jedi.

I submit that the rendering should be “ …the goal at which the Torah aims is the Messiah.” Study, young Jedi, and find out why?

Our questions really help us draw out some potent meaning. So, do we know we have the truth yet?

Ah, my young Jedi, we are getting the pith of the issues at hand. We are treading dangerously close to the dark side of the force, the conflict of our story. I first must show you the last part of the secret handshake so that we can fight off the perils ahead. The secret handshake is important because it helps identify those things that skew the process.

Assumptions, Presuppositions, Filters

I’ve never heard anyone else talk about these three things in context to Bible interpretation. So, you may be witnessing a first, an innovation, a wonder of the modern world. Or, maybe I just haven’t read that book yet. I’m sure somebody will set me straight. Anyway, you will remember that I zigged when you thought I was going to zag, right? And you remember that I talked about people’s reluctance to study theology, right? And you remember the reasons for the reluctance: people don’t know what they don’t know, mistake ideas for identity, and fear.

For most people, their beliefs, their ideas and their identities are the same. Deliberately walking into an Arena where people try to change your ideas is similar to walking into a lion’s cage and realizing he’s trying to change you into lunch: to have someone change their ideas is tantamount to death.

As a rule, people believe what they believe just because they do. Maybe they can make a case for themselves about why they believe, but believing for most people is an inexplicit function, that when pressured, is not much deeper than the polish on a dresser. Assumptions, Presuppositions, and Filters go to the root of human conviction, the bedrock of human belief. These words describe the visceral, the human part of the interpretive process and are therefore the stuff of fear, the stuff of ego, the stuff of self-worth, the stuff of intellectual myopia. We must then make ourselves use the tools of Higher Critical Methodology to pull back the veneer and scratch what is underneath. The art of interpretation is learning to identify your presuppositions and checking them against the intent and purpose of the Bible text and God’s revelation as a whole. Can you test your assumptions, young Jedi? Can you separate your presuppositions, your unstated foundational truths? Can you remove your filters from your ears and know that ideas are not identity? Many cannot. They will never be Jedi Masters.

A test on assumptions:

What do you think “Doctrine” is? Can you give a definition? Write it down. It is important to engage this here because we are going to compare notes later. What did you write?

A test on presuppositions:

Every time you read “Doctrine,” you have a nomenclature in your mind as to what the writer means. I am using the word nomenclature to describe your interpretive tradition: all the sources that have molded your understanding of the word. For example, when you read “Doctrine,” you automatically fill in the blank with what your pastor told you doctrine meant, your given bible understanding, and what books you’ve read, and your own personal prejudices. All of these sources get tossed into a pot to simmer, and what comes out is what you think the writer meant. This is the nomenclature of the word “Doctrine.” Now, go back and write down what you think the bible writers meant by “Doctrine.” This is your presupposition about what was in the mind of the writer.

A test on filters:

When you read, how do you process what you hear? Filters are like the lenses of a camera, shading, and coloring, preventing certain types of light from invading the picture.

Christian filters are the combination of assumptions and presuppositions that limit and bend ideas to conform to root/core beliefs. Certainly, you have encountered people who cannot change their mind, even though the product of their thinking is disaster. This is due to the filters on their thinking that bend, shade, and color the words and ideas being communicated.

So, when you read, how does your understanding of the word “Doctrine” bend, shade, and color HOW you hear?

If you worked through this little test, you will start to see your sponsoring thoughts that affect your believing.

Now, young Jedi, you’re ready to venture into the world of Theology; you now know the secret handshake. Go forth and do good. But beware, the subjectivity beast lurks ahead.

‘Cause now I’m gonna mess with your mind.

Boowwaaah ha ha haha hahah!

“I have you now . . .”

You read the bible.

You interpret.

You stand up and tell people you have the truth.

Do you teach rightly?

Do you have Sound Doctrine?

Are you sure?

Why are you sure? Because Paul told you to have it? Do you have Sound Doctrine because you agree with some 15th century thinker?

Are doctrine and theology the same?

Did Paul mean have sound Theology when he spoke to Timothy about sound Doctrine?

“… the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God …”.

–1st Timothy

What did Paul say doctrine was?

Did he say what doctrine was?

What are your presuppositions, Jedi? Look deep because you’ve got some.

Does it mean theology?

What nomenclature pervades your mind, Jedi, when you filter the word doctrine with theology? With that nomenclature in your mind, what does it do to the word “Gospel”? How does it shade the meaning?

What does “Gospel” mean?

Can you look past your filters to see the word “Gospel” afresh? Does it mean literally “Good News” or is it nomenclature for Jesus dead, buried, and resurrected on the third day?

Come on, Jedi, review your notes quickly because the men are coming and they are going to tell you that your beliefs are wrong.

Hurry!!!!

What are the questions to ask and what answers do you get? And when you get the answers, do you have the courage to hear the answers?

Jesus came preaching the Gospel, yes? That Gospel was Good News, yes? That good news was about a new covenant, yes? The New Covenant He brought destroyed yokes of bondage and lifted burdens, yes? So, what is the “Gospel,” Jedi? And how do you know you have apprehended rightly? Justify your doctrine, Jedi.

Did I mess with your mind?

I’m not done.

Read More
Uncategorized

Hide the Nails, the Community Organizers Are Coming

By John Immel

“Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor….”

I heard this adorable one-liner, quirked a corresponding smile, and blew it off assuming it would get the attention it deserved: coverage from the usual suspects and eye roll from Christians.

Suuuuprise, suuuuuprise, suuuuprise…  The hue and cry is being “organized” across the blog “community” like a medieval village pursuing a thief between the Crofts and Tofts: Earth to everybody, Jesus really was a community organizer and who would dare suggest otherwise.

It must be true, because Susan Sarandon and other Celebs are behind the bull horn affirming the gospel truth:  Rose of Sharon, Root of Jessie, Alpha and Omega, “Community Organizer.”

Hum! Who knew!

What exactly is a community organizer?

Well, part of the problem with this particular adorable one-liner is there doesn’t seem to be a strict definition. Or maybe better said, the definition is elastic fitting just about anyone talking to more than themselves about like-minded things. It seems that anyone who thinks their community effort is valuable in principle wants to be lumped in with Jesus and his rather extraordinary coattails. The result: I’ve read posts that insist the lofty title should be applied to everyone from Ant Farmers to Zoo Curators.

Okay, that was a bit of an exaggeration. But I was going for the A to Z motif.

The Free Range Librarian seems to think that Vets and librarians are community organizers…

As a Christian, I know Jesus was a community organizer. It’s hard work–he had a lot of trouble toward the end of his term of service–and it’s the kind of effort measured in agonizing small sips (not in honking big earmarks for projects you will later thrice disavow).

(Because Jesus did hard work, that makes him a “community organizer”?)

Still others suggest that his community organizing was because he was preaching the Kingdom of God. Jesus’ “community” was the church.

One poster on a blog said: “Jesus gave people hope, and that is what community organizers do.”

Others insist that since Jesus hung out with the poor and the social outcasts, that makes the King of Kings a “community organizer.”

Bryan McAffee’s blog www.rightpundits.com had a lively conversation about this topic.  One of his posters had this to add:

Chris: post 31 had this to add, “Jesus Christ took stood up for the little guy. He stood up for the people no one else would. He organized them towards a better life. He forgave them and never judged them. Jesus Christ WAS a community organizer, despite the biased opinion of the editor of this article.

Philosophically speaking, when words can mean anything, language means nothing. And yeah…that is a bad place for a culture to be.

I googled “what is a community organizer” to get an effective definition. Objectively and specifically, they are political reformers: people who set out to rally the masses towards political ends, social reform from the government. What is that social reform? It varies, but the common denominator is securing money/power FROM those who have it TO those who don’t.

The definition of what Senator Obama did in his mid to late 20s is exactly that:  he organized Chicago inner city folks for the express purpose of affecting government policy that would take money/power from those who have it and give it to those who don’t. This is the definition of “community organizer” in context to our 21st century thinking, and certainly the definition in context to our country’s unfolding political debate.

Senator Obama is an admitted disciple of Saul Alinsky, considered the historic mentor for social engineering, and grassroots community activism. Here is a quote from Saul about what it means to organize a community:

“… taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.”

In other words, Mr. Alinsky thought it his job to drive people to despair so they would accept any change, accept any idea, make any sacrifice, to bring about revolution.      Hummm… where have I written about that before?

To divorce the words “Community Organizer” from there current contemporary usage is at the top of the list of linguistic fraud.

Just to be clear, what folks think of Governor Palin or Senator Obama doesn’t matter to me at this point. As long as you can articulate the whys and wherefores that drive your vote casting, then go be about that. But this post is not about one candidate or the other.  The political realities are objective. The two candidates cannot divorce themselves from their own history. They have defined themselves by that history and words mean things.

This post is about evaluating a hijacked bible assertion and draping it around modern political discourse like so much tinsel: trying to put lipstick on a pig…or something like that.

There is a reason the Bible Scholars of old quit interpreting by allegory. It opens a whole Pandora’s thingy when you start applying similes to bible ideas.

For those of you wanting to interpret Jesus in light of the “Community Organizer” simile….caveat emptor.

Yeah, yeah, yeah…I know, you’ve read the book. Lots of people have. Reading the bible is an outcome of literacy. But Bible UNDERSTANDING is exponentially more than mere literacy of the “See Spot run,” variety.

The moment one starts applying interpretive methods to assert the “meaning” and “intent” of bible ideas, they have transcended the mere rigor of reading. By ascribing to Jesus the MODERN title of “community organizer,” folks have sped deep down the hermeneutical path. Hermeneutical is a big word that means: you’ve applied modern understanding to bible ideas, and in this case, done that not well at all.

Because Jesus gave people hope, that makes him a “community organizer”?

How short we have sold HOPE. Bible hope is on par with Faith… Bible Faith heals the sick, raises the dead, and moves mountains. I don’t care that we haven’t figured out how to do such things with regularity; THAT is the standard that Jesus proclaimed and demonstrated. HOPE and FAITH are twins of the outcomes of the Kingdom. To reduce hope to the level of Church socials and political action reveals a stunning amount of reductionism.

Of course, Jesus hung around the poor and the social outcasts. He also hung out with the social elite. And both classes accepted and rejected him with the same impunity. But by no definition did Jesus organize a group of people to bring about social reform even vaguely similar to modern parlance. Jesus certainly addressed the masses in the middle of their pain, but he did not advocate political thuggery to extract money/power from the haves to feed the have-nots. Jesus did not set out to emulate the Alinski model: “They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.” Jesus did NOT set out to “organize” the pre-Marxist revolt of 30 AD by infusing the masses with despair.

Jesus did create social reform, but not in the manner of 2008 political speak. The “change” was the product of his ideas. Those ideas that transformed the thinking of humanity; his sacrifice transformed the physical bondage of humanity to Death.

He liberated by the power of the Anointing:  Luke 4:18-19

18The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

And to demonstrate this anointing, Jesus did just that: he healed the blind, the halt and the maimed.  Liberation was a function of the event of FAITH mixed with God’s liberating word, NOT the political machinations of an organized populace.

Jesus did give hope; but not because people were going to link arms and sing Kumbaya while pressuring the government to give yet another handout.

And for those of you who have a mystical notion of “community” as something sacrosanct and virtuous, the penultimate location of fraternity of human existence, history proves a very different reality and this cute bible simile is about to bite you where the sun don’t shine.

It occurs to me that if Jesus really was a “community organizer,” he did a pi–oops… wrong crowd–a really bad job of it.

When Jesus was out “community organizing”–oops, I mean preaching and teaching–the “community” wanted to FORCE him to be president…oops, I mean king.  Leave it to the sacrosanct, virtuous, “community” to compel people by force. (John 6:14-15)

And then, insult to injury, when Jesus’ term of service was at an end, the “community” he was “organizing” killed him, which leads me to the rather obvious application of the “community organizer” simile.

Let’s see. Are there any bible characters that fit the objective definition of someone setting out to engage in political reform by applying mass pressure?

Think first century. Think Jerusalem. Think first century Judaism: Pharisees, Sadducees, Doctors of Torah, Chief priests and Sanhedrin. Judas was paid some silver coins by whom? The Chief priests AKA the Jewish “Community Organizers.” The soldiers took Jesus to the Sanhedrin? What was the Sanhedrin?

Sanhedrin: Greek meaning “sitting together” or council. The Sanhedrin is both a Jewish judicial and administrative body. The Sanhedrin was composed of local elites–including members of the high-priestly family, scribes (religious experts), and lay elders.

Said another way, the Sanhedrin was a cross between a Chicago-wide church leaders’ meeting and the Cook County Appellate Court.

Oh, this is rich… remember this is YOUR simile.

Pontius Pilate, the governor, said, “Why? What evil has He done?” But they [the Jews] cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!” When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.” — Matt 27:23-24 (see also Lk 23:13-16)

Notice that when Pilate saw a tumult rising, he relented. How many riots have been orchestrated by “community organizers” to influence government officials over the centuries?

By the definition of our modern language and objective understanding, the “community organizers” were the guys that turned Jesus over to Pilate.

And the sacrosanct, virtuous, pure, community that is the source of fraternity released a murderer. “Barabas! Barabas! Barabas!” The community shouted

When offered Jesus, they, “community organizers,” demanded: “Crucify him!”

The power of the mob is always the power to take and destroy. It is always the power to kill at the point of a sword or with the tip of a nail.

For those of you who want to be community organizers of the bible variety…I’ll hide the nails…

Read More
Uncategorized

Like Tai Chi, Kung Fu, and Karate

By John Immel

On occasion you will hear me (and hopefully others) talk about Exegetics and Hermeneutics when discussing bible ideas related to the post.

It occurred to me that some may not know what Exegetics might be.

There is no quick way to do this particular subject justice, but it is essential that this body of ideas enter the minds of as many people as possible. What follows is a bit of self-plagiarism from a book that will be published one day to achieve some part of my plan to take over the world. The following article is a very basic effort to explain Higher Critical Methodology as the broad category that Exegetics and Hermeneutics fall under.

****

Like Tai Chi, Kung Fu, and Karate

Trust me this is going somewhere. I like metaphors and we are already talking about the Arena of Ideas where fighting goes on. The following is a break down of the avenues of Theological combat, oops, I mean, studies; see it’s a cool metaphor…or maybe it’s a simile…who can tell?

Biblical Theology is similar to Systematic Theology (to be discussed in a moment) in as much as it compiles Scriptural references to gain a whole picture of God’s ongoing revelation. The difference is that Biblical Theology starts its inquiry with the scriptural roots, the cultural belief structure, behind the text.  With this starting place, Biblical Theology extracts pervasive themes and concepts. Interpretation is done by using these themes to filter what God is trying to say to man. For instance, the theme of covenant was suggested by some big Theology muckity-muck named Gerhard Von Rad. [1] Then he read every passage, every recorded action, to filter Bible literature. Some doubt the adequacy of this approach because it often seems to set aside portions of text. But that is another discussion. Some contemporary movements are based in Biblical Theology. For example, there are a whole host of Pentecostal churches that read every recorded passage through the day of Pentecost and the coming of the Holy Spirit. Word of Faith churches interpret the Bible placing their emphasis on God’s Word being alive and apprehended by Faith. 

Historical Theology is the study of Christian thought through the succeeding centuries of Church history. One can study the entire body of thought of say, the second century.  Or one can study the Theology of a given thinker or schools of thought, like Augustine and his intellectual children Luther and Calvin.

Practical Theology or Task Theology is really just a fancy name for “How the heck do we apply all these big words and big ideas to people living their life and paying their bills and raising their kids.” (The Scholar types reading this are going to luuuvvvv me.)

Systematic Theology seeks to give an ordered account of major themes in Scripture, taking each reference and compiling it with all others to form a rational picture of bible commentary. The major themes are designated by some big Greek words that are easy to get once you understand the root words. Logos means teaching, or words, or doctrine.  The prefixes tell us what the words or teachings are about. Theology then, would be easily translated: Doctrines of God. The remaining six themes are:

Anthropology: doctrines of Man

Christology:  doctrines of Christ

Soteriology: doctrines of Salvation

Pneumatology: doctrines of the Spirit

Ecclesiology:  doctrines of the Church

Eschatology:  doctrines of End Things

All right, we’re studying and studying and studying; we’re trying to compile our stack of scriptures to Systematically make our 20th century doctrinal point. Suddenly, lo and behold, (a little biblical language for you) some bright boy raises his hand and says, “But what did those Israelites think about God? I mean, they were closer to the source. Wouldn’t that make their understanding better?” So we say, “Oh, darn. Now we have to figure out what their culture and politics and so forth were to understand what they believed.” We have to draw out the meaning from their culture. This is called Exegetics.

Once we figure out what they thought and believed and practiced, we have to figure out how to apply it to our 20th century brains and make our own practice. This is called Hermeneutics.

Exegetics is the art/science of extracting biblical information. Hermeneutics is the art/science of interpretation.

Exegetics in Brief

Thomas Aquinas brought modern intellectual inquiry to the study of the bible, and from him Higher Critical Methodology has evolved with different influences.

What does Critical mean? It means that the Bible needs to be sifted through to establish its veracity, and to determine what parts are dependable for what resources. For about 1200 years men have employed an increasingly complex, science/art to draw out authoritative truth. Historical Criticism, Redaction Criticism, Textual Criticism, Literary-Source Criticism, and Form Criticism, are a few of the sciences.

Hermeneutics in Brief

Taking what you have drawn out of scripture and finding a way to apply it to your own life is the essence of Hermeneutics. Interpretation is an iterative process done by everyone.  Most people interpret by saying to themselves, “Well, this means to me.” The “This means to me,” approach to interpretation is of the flip open the bible and point variety. It is self-actualization at its highest expression; Henry David Thoreau would be proud. For most, this is not a terribly disastrous methodology. But trust me, it is very limiting.

(Oh, hey. I’ve got a really funny church trick. Walk up to a hard core Reformed Theologian and say, “I was reading the bible the other day and this passage means to me . . .” and watch the smoke roll out his ears.)

How people have interpreted has changed drastically over the centuries. The traditional method was allegory: a teaching device where each character, object, and event symbolically represented a moral or religious principle. Mostly these elaborate allegories were created for the ignorant masses, so that they could grasp complex spiritual truths.

As the masses became more educated, the learned bible teachers moved into the varied forms of Higher Critical Methodology.

When I use the words Higher Critical Methodology, think of a belt full of weapons. Having the right weapon for the fight decides whether you live or die. Or maybe those timid souls amongst the readership would like a more pacifistic metaphor or simile…who can tell?  Think of a belt full of tools. Having the right tools means you can build the right house.

The action of reading the Bible requires the action of interpretation. I don’t care at what level you are reading. From a child’s beginning effort to grasp John 3:16, to a Seminary graduate wrestling with Theodyssey (the problem of evil) you are engaged in some form of interpretation. And therefore, by default, you are applying some level of critical thinking to what you read so that you might understand.

Now back to Exegetics and Hermeneutics. The art/science behind the two words are the questions that a person learns to ask. The better one gets at asking the right questions, the better one becomes at getting the right answers from the Bible.

Are there basic questions that that average Joe Six Pack can ask without having to learn about all that . . . that  . . . that four-letter word stuff?

And by the way, I am assuming that your Joe Six Pack is drinking Coke or something.  Certainly, there is a Christian version of Mr. Six Pack. We’ve got a Christian version of everything else.

Anyway, back to this Theology stuff.

What are the most basic questions of Higher Critical Methodology? Take notes, there is a quiz later.

Here they are:

Who is talking/writing?

Who is listening? OR who is the Audience.

What is the occasion?

Say them out loud. Learn these questions. Live these questions. Love these questions.

[1] G. Von Rad.  OT Theology, 1957.

Read More
Uncategorized

Join in Theoretical Humility

By John Immel

All tyranny requires these elements to be successful.

******************

The next time you hear a church leader say, “I’m the greatest sinner I know…” the first thing you should ask him is to define his peer group. If he’s hanging around with Genghis Khan, Joseph Stalin, and Pol Pot, then maybe he’s got an interesting story to tell.

And if his peer group is Pope Benedict XVI, Billy Graham, and Mother Theresa, the finest advice is…run.

At BEST, the leader is afflicted with a case of the subjectives: a disease that creates hierarchies of evil–inexplicit ethics that turn natural tendencies into the greatest moral depravity and virtues to vice.  At BEST, the leader is parroting vain sophistry that he’s heard from those he admires, giving little thought to the true implications. On its face, “I am the greatest sinner I know…” is a comparative statement devoid of any real context or…substance. The lack of substance makes it more like air. At least that is what it must be, because we breathe it in just for oohhing and ahhhing at the leaders’ humility.

At WORST, the phrase is a deliberate moralistic slight of hand against intellectual scrutiny aided and abetted by our collective fraud. That is right, COLLECTIVE fraud.

In all varied forms and pretentious aspirations, the phrases below serve the same goal:

We are all fools before God…

We are all works in progress…

We are all sinners…

Of all sinners I am chief…

I am the greatest sinner I know…

The goal is to create a veneer of theoretical humility by forcing the acceptance of theoretical guilt.

For lots of reasons, Christian humility has been defined as self-effacing, anti-self commentary. The assumption is so embedded in most every expression of culture we accept the definition–and the corresponding actions that illustrate the definition–without scrutiny.

The loose logic goes like this: Adam’s sin sustains our theoretical guilty, therefore we should abase ourselves. Humility = self deprecation, anti-self commentary. Only truly humble people are qualified to spiritually lead. Spiritual leaders ascribe self-deprecating, self-effacing judgments to themselves to demonstrate their humility. We ooooh and ahhh when a “leader” demonstrates how we are to all act, fulfilling our assumptions and playing our part in the fraud.

We are sincere so the idea that our participation in a fraud catches us deep in our soul.  But hey, when you lay down your mind, you’ll believe anything you’re told you should.

Here is why it is a fraud. Humility cannot be about self-effacing, self-deprecating, self-denying, anti-self commentary because true humility requires a rigorous honest personal assessment. Guilt can only be ascribed to specific failings of ethic or law. Real guilt requires consequence: the cause and effect of justice and righteousness.   Everything else is mere pretense. We all know this. And we all act accordingly.

Notice: if someone TRULY is a great sinner. He TRULY is committing sin. And like our leader of “I’m the greatest sinner I know…” he confesses ACTUAL sin to demonstrate humility. Would this man of ACTUAL moral failing become the poster child for “Humble” leadership? Would we gleefully let him lead us to our own ACTUAL persistent sin so that we can demonstrate our glorious humility by honest self-deprecation?

By this definition, a homosexual pedophile priest who shoots his victims in the head would be the greatest spiritual leader amongst us as long as he demonstrates his humility by confessing his moral depravity.

Ehem….

Think Jimmy Swaggart. Think Jim Bakker. Think Todd Bentley. Todd Bentley has admitted (the last time I checked) to an “inappropriate emotional relationship”–whatever that is–and the cries of Heretic and False Prophet have filled the blogs, demanding that he cease his ministry. True guilt brings our outrage, the hue and cry goes abroad from the house tops. Real guilt requires consequence: the cause and effect of justice and righteousness.

If a leader confesses theoretical sin, theoretical guilt, we oooh and aaahhhh and applaud his manifest humility, and dive head-on into his moralistic slight of hand.

If a leader confesses actual sin, actual guilt, we put a scarlet letter around his neck and drive him from the pulpit soonest.

One we call humility. The other we call hypocrisy. What is the difference? One guy is being honest. Our reactions to REAL guilt reveal our fraud.

The only reason this schizophrenia exists is precisely because we lay down our minds and tolerate such absurdities–we willfully participate in the fraud.

Make no mistake. The reason the leader uttered the words had one goal: getting you to embrace theoretical guilt. He wanted you to accept utter personal fallibility so that you will overlook what he says next. As I said, his words are a calculated moralistic slight of hand against intellectual scrutiny. He wants a pass on his intellectual sloppiness because he cannot provide due diligence to advance his ideas. The words are platitudes and worse than lies because it is really moral exhibitionism designed to perpetrate a potent manipulation.

Remember at the beginning of the article I said run? I said that for a reason. This is just the beginning. The path he is leading you down is even more insidious. If the leader can get you to buy into your theoretical guilt, your implicit unworthiness, he will soon be holding out his hand…The word sacrifice will be on his lips.

And the sacrifice will only benefit one person–HIM.

Read More