you go your way and i'll go mine?

we were talking about worship, and i was drawn to something i wrote long ago as i tried to articulate these things that were so out of my depth
(i know i've posted this online before- here we go again)...

worship isn't a designated time or place

it isn't a calculated emotional curve or a mosaic or isolated holy moments
no, although these can all be part of worship, it a gestalt of all of them for the earnest servant of God... it is a day by day, hour by hour, breath by breath, heartbeat by heartbeat song to God. it begins at the foot of the cross, through the moment of acceptance and straight on until morning. it is both active and passive and therefore all consuming. it is the reason that all creation exists- to reflect back the glory and the love of almighty God.

worship is saying 'you are' to I AM

one of the things that we take from the scriptures is that
worship is sacrifice… but what is sacrifice?

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
sac·ri·fice /ˈsækrəˌfaɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sak-ruh-fahys] noun, verb, -ficed, -fic·ing. –noun

1.	the offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage.

2.	the person, animal, or thing so offered.

3.	the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.

4.	the thing so surrendered or devoted.

Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God says, "Out on Highway 61."
(bob dylan, Highway 61 Revisited, 1965)

Highway 61, the main thoroughfare of the country blues, begins about where I came from… Duluth to be exact. I always felt like I’d started on it, always had been on it and could go anywhere from it, even down into the deep Delta country. It was the same road, full of the same contradictions, the same one-horse towns, the same spiritual ancestors. (bob dylan, Chronicles Volume 1, 2005)

in Genesis 22, God commands Abraham to sacrifice his certainty, his hope and his future out on the road that begins at WHO YOU WERE and travels to WHO YOU WILL BECOME…it is a story of origin, journey and revelation.

that dylan chooses to explore this biblical story in what some have called his most perfect song, is interesting. at the heart of this song and, indeed this biblical story, is an acknowledgement of how we are often called by God to release the things of which we are most sure, and to do so as an act of worship. paul's letter to the romans, chapter 4.1-3 speaks lovingly of abraham's life, sacrifices and faith, reminding the readers that these were 'counted to him as righteousness.'

further on in romans 12.1-2, we are challenged to present ourselves as living sacrifices. it appears as though faith and opportunity meet out on highway 61- the main thoroughfair of our lives, the place where everything on the journey happens- and the decisions we make at this crossroads are crucial to our moving forward, even when this particular usage of the word 'forward' is a foreign one.

Highway 61 Revisited, with Dylan squeezing a police-car siren in what is probably his most perfectly written song, is sung as the ultimate tall tale. You find out that not only can anything happen on Highway 61… it already has… carrying runaway slaves north before the long highway had a single name and, not so much more than a century later, carrying Freedom Riders south.
(Greil Marcus, Like A Rolling Stone- Bob Dylan at the Crossroads, 2005)

see, the road from any here to any there only becomes meaningful when we choose to engage with it… when we redeem it from being simply a means of traveling from one place to another to being a place in and of itself… by becoming intimately involved in the journey itself, we come to recognize the grace and the wisdom afforded us by every step, every sign-post, every rest stop…

in canada, hitch-hiking the No1 is much different than driving it, which is much different than sleeping it away in the backseat, and much different than flying over it. The slower the mode of travel, the greater the opportunity to grow intimately acquainted with the road itself and to gather fruit from the journey…

I find when I'm always going, or thinking about going,
or trying to go I have a tendency to miss things.
(hineini)

as i thought more deeply about the implications of abraham's story, i was reminded of my friend, who blogs under the name hineini, and some of the things that he has shared about this, one of his favourite passages of scripture in the whole bible. rather than presume that i was afforded some higher vantage point, being the preacher in the room, i invited my friend to reflect upon where these scriptures take him- especially when it comes to embracing this notion of sacrifice.

Genesis 22, or the story of the binding of Isaac, has always been one of the biblical passages that has spoken most strongly to me and what its said to me has changed as I have grown older and most recently, now that I have a son of my own. Most of us have heard it so often it has become, like many of the stories we find in the bible, familiar to us, but it is a terrible story, a story that makes me tremble, a story about the costs, the incredibly high costs, of love.

The story begins with God calling to Abraham and Abraham answers “Here I am” This is the same “Here I am” of Moses, of Samuel, of Isaiah, and of others. It is a greeting but it also means “I will” or “I stand at the ready”. God goes on to request of Abraham saying, “Take your son, your only son, the son whom you love, Isaac”. Its as if we are hearing only one side of the conversation. God says take your son and Abraham replies I have two sons Ishmael and Isaac. God says take your only son to which Abraham replays but Ishmael is my only son with Hagar and Isaac is my only son with Sarah. God says take the son whom you love most and Abraham replies I love my sons equally. And so God chooses for Abraham...”Take Isaac”. Take Isaac and offer him as a burnt sacrifice. Its a frightening request, its horrible, unimaginable. But we know Abraham's response, we know what Abraham's great faith leads him to do. He agrees. He gathers a few things, splits some wood for the sacrifice and with two servants and his son Isaac, heads out to an unknown place, a place that God will show him. It must have been a long trip. Much longer than the two days it took to travel. I can't imagine what he must have been thinking, God's request echoing through his head with each step.

God shows him the place for the sacrifice and Abraham leaves his servants, loads up the wood for the sacrifice on Isaac and together they climb. It must have been a quiet climb. At one point Isaac asks his father. Dad, we have everything we need for a sacrifice except the animal, where is it?

What can Abraham possibly say? Surely he wants to answer his son, and he does. But yet he can't answer his son, not with out terrifying him, maybe causing him to flee. Abraham says only “God will see to God's sheep for the sacrifice” or in another translation, “God will provide”. Something we may say fairly often, daily even.

The story continues, Abraham and Isaac arrive at the place, Abraham builds the alter and lays out the wood and then his eyes move to his son. Was there a struggle? Did the boy try and get away? We don't know but I cannot even imagine that scene as I look at my son. The text says that Abraham bound his son and laid him on the altar on top of the wood and drew back the knife to slaughter his son. What was he thinking? How could he? But yet Abraham knew that there can be no holding back when God makes a request. That even our most cherished, those things we love the most, can not be held in reserve and that at any moment God might ask of us, out of love for God, to sacrifice what we love.

To me this begs the question “what about now?” What if my friend comes to me relating a similar demand placed on them by God. What if they tell me they think God is telling them to sacrifice something precious to them, maybe some of us have heard this before, its not unheard of. But what if they were to come and tell me “God is asking that I sacrifice my son, or my daughter”. Surely I would intervene, I would have too. I would try to help them, or stop them or both. Love demands it. Maybe that’s why Sarah isn't told, why she is kept out of the loop. Its too terrible to tell her, the mother of the sacrifice. Surely she would have forbid it, fought tooth and nail in the name of love to save her son. Who wouldn't? Maybe that’s why Abraham remains in Beer-Sheba after the ordeal while at the beginning of Genesis 23 we are informed of Sarah's death not in Beer-Sheba but in Hebron. Maybe it was too much to bear, her husband sacrificing her only son. The stakes are so high.

So too with Isaac. The text tells us in verse 6 that after leaving the servants “the two walked off together”. Abraham and Isaac climbed to the site of the sacrifice but in verse 19, after God stops the sacrifice, stops Abraham from slaying his son, Abraham is the only one mentioned who descends to rejoin the servants. Isaac isn't mentioned. Did Isaac return with his father? Could he have? We don't know, the text doesn't tell us, in fact we never see father and son together again in the text. Maybe this is the cost of love. The stakes could not get any higher. It cost Abraham his son and his wife.

I'll be the first to say I'm not up to the task. The demands of love are hard enough as it is when it demands my time and my attention, but my son? I don't think I could, and that’s what scares me. Knowing that at any moment God may arrive, demanding of me, for loves sake, that I sacrifice what I love. It makes me wish there were rules, or limits, someway to say “God would never ask this of me” “I can keep this certain something to myself.” But the story of Abraham reveals this isn't the case. Of all the things Abraham should have been able to keep for himself his son should have been it, a gift given to him by God. Of all the things which should have no part in Love surely murder is one. But even this is asked of him. The stakes are high, the highest, love is life and death.

In verse 14 Abraham names the place of the sacrifice. He calls it Adonai-yirch, or “The Lord will see”. God will see what our response is to the demands of love, to the demands of those around us who are in need and from which we can hold nothing back if we want to truly love. How can God not see? If, as the text tells us in 1 John that God is love then how can not see each and every demand of love placed on us. But God is not only the one demanding as in the story of Abraham and Isaac and not only the demand itself as love but is also the recipient of love for Jesus tells us in Matthew that whatever we do for the least of those around us, whatever we do for those who confront us and demand we love them by their very presence with us, whatever we do for each and every person we encounter we are doing it to or for or with God. And we can call each and every one “Adonai-yirch”, God will see. (hineini)

so what do we do with this?

what do we do if God steps into the story and asserts that it is God’s desire that we place the one thing that matters most to us- our certainty, or grip on the way things are supposed to work out, our picture of progress, our sense of stability and order- upon the stone table of sacrifice?

what songs shall we sing together then?

our original self is created to bring honour and glory to God through our involvement in and realization of God’s dream for us all together:

“That they would be my people and I would be their God…”

the realization of this dream involves
daily worship, daily sacrifice... are we up to it?

atlantic crossing

recently at a silent auction for my son's school band, i bought a lump of coal.

not just any coal, mind you- this was actual r.m.s. titanic coal (bearing its own numbered certificate of authenticity and everything) that had been collected from the bottom of the atlantic ocean by entrepreneurial excavation crews. i bid against another pastor and eventually won the auction- which, of course, meant that i was no obligated to buy the item... sure showed him!

however, like with most things, this led to that which led to something else and i found myself pondering an image in my heart: all those people, floating in the cold…

romans 7.14-25 speaks of the writer's exasperation with being a sinful man. he has already acknowledged back in romans 3.23 that 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' but what seems to really be getting his goat is the fact that he feels powerless to break his habitual 'falling short'...

no matter how hard he tries
no matter how strong his resolve
he cannot save himself.

if it were an email, he would probably hit the caps lock button before typing verse twenty four, where his frustration with himself comes to an explosive climax:

WHO WILL RESCUE ME FROM THIS BODY OF DEATH?

who indeed?

all those people floating in the cold...

speaking of atlantic crossings, emma lazarus wrote an invitation that has been immortalized by its placement upon the statue of liberty, but which could be very appropriately placed upon any church sign:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

this seems to paraphrase Jesus' words in matthew 11.28-30 about the weak and the tired finding rest. the problem is that, were we to place either the poem or Christ's words on the church sign, the question that would still hang in the air for me is who would come in response to this?

or perhaps, more cynically:
what right have we earned to invite?

rick mckinley, the tattooed pastor of imago dei in portland oregon, said recently to someone from leadership journal that

Our goal is not to create a community of volunteers; the goal is to glorify the king by doing what he’s called us to do. We’re in a story that’s been going on for thousands of years… The story of Jesus putting the world back together through the gospel.

all those people floating in the cold, with a small, fortunate few sitting in lifeboats; fear over what will happen if the lifeboats go back and try to rescue those in the water; dismay of some over the self-centred reticence of the rest in the sparsely filled boats to go back and rescue the perishing; frustration of those in one boat going back with how many have been lost because the rescue took too long to organize, with help and hope coming too late to all those people floating in the cold...

(note: this youtube clip was the best i could find... however, it has been hacked a little and misses some important dialogue between molly brown and the people in her lifeboat regarding social responsibility and fear. it also has, for some reason, been edited to no longer contain the lifeboat leader's key line of regret: "we waited too long". just rent or buy the movie and watch it- the clip serves as a loose reference only! ha ha.)

perhaps this is what Jesus meant when he said
the harvest is plentiful but the workers are few...
(matthew 9.37)

in any event, i don't think i'll ever be able to watch the final moments of titanic without feeling a sense of urgent responsibility for all those people floating in the cold.

are you smarter than this 5th grader?

we were talking about bible school classes and which ones were for whom. the discussion turned around a simple question of order: which course should someone take first- an intro to the bible course, or a biblical study methods course? the study methods course is a 150 class, whereas the intro to the bible class was a 100. i proposed this idea:

i'll ask some little questions that are basic bible knowledge/ literacy and if you feel that you can confidently answer them then perhaps the 150 course would be the right one to take right now. if not, then a brushing up on the broader approach to the word first might serve you better at this time.

ready? (remember, you can't use your bible to look up the answers and none of them are 'trick questions')

1) How many books are in the pentateuch and who is the presumed author?

2) Is Hosea considered to be a major or minor prophet?

3) Who wrote the book of Titus?

4) How many sons did Rachel have?

5) What public office in Israel did Samson hold?

6) Who is the king in the book of Esther?

7) Which of the Patriarchs did God rename as Israel?

8) Which of the four gospels is written by the same guy that wrote Acts?
9) Solomon's mother was: Michal (Saul's daughter) or Bathsheba (Uriah's widow)?
10) How long did Moses live in the wilderness after being driven from Egypt for murdering a man?

okay, so there you go. hope this was helpful. write the answers down on paper so that you are committed to one per question, then look them up answers on your own afterward to see if you were right...

ha ha- thanks for playing our little game!

tongues of fire

You learn to speak by speaking, to study by studying, to run by running, to work by working; and just so you learn to love God and man by loving. Begin as a mere apprentice, and the very power of love will lead you on to become a master of the art. (St Francis de Sales, 1567-1622)

okay, now apart from the fact that it has to be one of the most entertaining commercials on television right now, the DQ Flamethrower commercial is also a rich illustration of how important it is to be deeply mindful of the necessity of learning how to express love carefully, lest we destroy each other with our good intentions…

see, we were talking just the other day about excellence in service of others, and it occured to me that, apart from all the quality control filtration that we employ to the things we do in our quest for the ultimate offering of our best, there is one crucial element that can establish or blow the whistle on the level of excellence of any service endeavor:

it is the investment of love.

if we explore romans 12.9-21 together, in particular the bit about heaping flaming coals upon the head of another (the writer of romans is citing proverbs 25.21-22) , we can conclude that to love is to be more than merely hospitable... it is to give the gift of fire.

the exciting affirmation comes when we dare to look at the story of pentecost recorded in acts 2.1-4 through this lens.

in acts 2, we see God living by example, pouring out love upon those who, steeped in sin, would be the enemies of God if it were not for their acceptance of the grace and forgiveness that God has offered. we read an account of a mighty rushing wind and tongues of fire lighting upon the heads of the faithful gathered in that meeting place, as God gives food to the spiritually hungry and drink to the spiritually thirsty, affording them the kind of spiritual nourishment that they will need to speak openly about the life-changing power of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection in the same town that, a month and a half earlier, orchestrated the execution in a surreal kangaroo court. we read about miracles and wonders and acts of service and healing performed on that day. we read about people from every region and dialect hearing the message in their own language.

what are the languages that people speak around us today?

how might we share, with this heavenly anointing, the gospel with the needy?

how might we speak life with a heavenly accent?

***
In Chapter XVII of his Rule of 1221, Francis of Assisi (different francis) told the friars not to preach unless they had received the proper permission to do so. Then he added, “Let all the brothers, however, preach by their deeds.”

The great (and very catchy) quote, very Franciscan in its spirit, but not literally from St. Francis seems to say the same thing...

Preach the gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.
(http://www.americancatholic.org/messenger/Oct2001/Wiseman.asp)

traces of an encounter

weird

i failed to save the words that i prepared for a recent talk. then i threw away the 'manuscript' when i was at a network meeting out of town. all i have are the scribblings in my journal... and these are sketchy at best. it's as if i'm not supposed to post them- that God intended for them to be used in only one context, and that those in attendance are to be the testimonial living out of these words, these ideas, this truth...

it began with a question that was posed in a book that i've been reading called The Deity Formerly Known As God by Jarrett Stevens. the question was this:

If you had to describe the God you've found floating in the wake of your parents' presence in your life, what would this God look like?

the time we spent together looking at the scriptures was rich and meaningful. at the end, people came to the cross of Christ in prayer...

• moved to embrace the reality that our picture of God is very strongly influenced (dareisay distorted) by the picture of our own earthly parents;
• moved to embrace the reality that God desires to be known personally without all the stereotyping that we've done as we've clambered through life and relationship trying to sort it all out;
• moved to embrace the reality that scripture promises joint heirship with Jesus Christ, but that this clearly doesn't have anything to do with living a charmed life- on the contrary it probably has to do with enduring suffering in faith and hope that somehow this endurance will be of use to someone somewhere;
• moved to abandon the expectation that God needs to be there in a state of perpetual intervention in order to be real and in order to prove love;
• moved to moved to leave the many preconceptions of who this God-person is at the tree of pain in order to move forward in the relationship with a clean emotional slate...

that i have lost all written record of this just makes that time more precious to me. to try to retype it would be like trying to rephotograph and eclipse.

all those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain
(roy baty- rutger hauer's character in blade runner)

the scriptures we explored together were:
romans 8.15-17
luke 11.9-13
philippians 3.10-13

in and out

"I agree that our focus as a church should be connecting everyone together... How do I connect with people I don't know with in the church?" (crazy mom)

these two ideas were posted in the comment box for an earlier post. i think that they invite a whole new post. i am hoping that this kind of spinoff will happen regularly on this blog and will be its lifesblood.

anyway, first off i think that we might have a couple things backwards here. whereas mission and ministry are great connectors, the focus of the church is not to be missional in its ministries in order to facilitate connection between its members. that feels really contrived to me, like the church is somehow using the needy to serve some kind of in-house social agenda.

ew- put that way any ministry loses its beauty. the glory of ministering to anyone is the fact that it is for the benefit of the other- a kindness given away, no strings. believers get accused of making people 'love projects' and such in order to bolster their numbers or in some way self-serve.

perhaps a better way to view this would be to first identify the focus, which is to be missional (outward rather than inward)... and then to acknowledge that a nice biproduct of doing ministry together seems to be connection between those ministering BUT that ministry to others will be our focus whether connection takes place within this context or not.

now the thing i was getting at a week ago or so was that there is a need in the church for both OUTreach and something i have been calling 'INreach'.

we have varied ideas and strategies concerning OUTreach- as we attend to Jesus' final words about making disciples and baptizing people, we are thinking OUTreach and it challenges us to look away from ourselves.

great- but what does INreach mean?

INreach is still ministering to the other, except that these others actually walk through the doors seeking community. they are easily spotted: for those interested in 'other-spotting', they are the people who linger after a gathering rather than make a mad dash to their cars. they are waiting for something social to happen that doesn't happen when they are sitting in the big room. that is why they are still standing in the lobby.

these are people who know no one (or very limited numbers of someones) and have no real means (apart from introducing themselves around which is not particularly comfortable for most) of establishing connection with a bunch of complete strangers who all seem to know each other well and are on their own turf.

INreach is attending to the need for community that a person expresses simply by walking in off the street and remaining in the facility for longer than the duration of the basic gathering.

so back to the big question posed: how to connect?

(note: i don't really feel comfortable blogging like an advice columnist, but i can't figure out a way to answer the question without suddenly sounding all stuffy and detached, so here we go with 'personal.')

"just be you and remember that you are much more comfortable that the other is, and so you have an opportunity to share that comfort around.

buy a coffee for someone, introduce them to somebody you know- now they know twice as many people and it's only their first day."

they linger for a reason.

we'll have to do a few more tests

in a talk i gave recently, i began with a little quiz.

the idea was to establish that, with regard to the Bible, we all have defaults within us that are imprinted through our socialization, and often these defaults affect us the way 'blind spots' do... our picture of things (in this case, our interpretations of passages of the Bible) is distorted by them or, perhaps more accurately, riddled with holes by them.

the challenge is to know ourselves- to know where we tip in this way or that- so that we can more objectively (if that is possible) deal with the revealed word of God and receive the blessings of grace, wisdom, insight and perspective that are to characterize our every thought and action...

at least that's the plan.

so anyway, i presented a couple questions from Scot McKnight's Hermeneutics Quiz as presented in the winter 2008 leadership journal (volume 29 no.1)... the idea is that a (1) for any given question represents a more conservative spin, whereas a (5) represents a more progressive approach. (3) would indicate moderation- somewhere in the middle.

there are no white hats or black hats here. it is not that (1) is Christian and (5) is heretic, or that (5) is cool and relaxed while (1) is uptight. these questions are posed mainly to raise some key issues regarding how we interact with scripture. in scot mknight's words:

This quiz is designed to surface the decisions we make, perhaps without thinking about them, and about how we both read our Bible and don't read our Bible. Some will want to quibble with distinctions or agree with more than one answer. No test like this can reveal all the nuances needed, but broad answers are enough to raise the key issues. On a scale of 1-5, mark the answer that best fits your approach to reading the Bible. (If, for example, you fall between response 1 and response 3, give yourself a 2.) Then total the points and your score will reveal where you land on our hermeneutical scale. (mcknight)

ha ha- important to indicate that it is, in fact, the writers' scale. the results of an instrument like this are largely inconclusive, but they do provide us with a picture- even if the picture is drawn in one's wrong hand using crayon!

anyway, here is the rest of the quiz. take it with someone fun.
see it as an alternative to playing scrabulous for hours on end!

feel free to take it on your own and then log onto www.LeadershipJournal.net (http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2008/01/the_hermeneutic.html)
to compare your perspective place in the hermeneutical cosmos to some 'big names' in the parallel universe refered to as 'the church.'

***

A. The Bible is:
1) God's inspired words in confluence with the authors.
3) God's inspired words that arise out of a community and then are written down by an author.
5) Words of an author who speaks out of a community's tradition, but which sacramentally lead us to God.

B. The Bible is:
1) God's exact words for all time.
3) God's message (instead of exact words) for all time.
5) God's words and message for that time but need interpretation and contextualization to be lived today.

C. The Bible's words are:
1) Inerrant on everything.
3) Inerrant on matters of faith and practice.
5) Not defined by inerrancy or errancy, which are modernistic categories.

D. The commands in the Old Testament to destroy a village, including women and children, are:
1) Justifiable judgement against sinful, pagan, immoral peoples.
3) God's ways in the days of the Judges (etc): they are primitive words but people's understanding as divine words for that day.
5) A barbaric form of war in a primitive society, and I wish they weren't in the Bible.

E. The story of Hosea (the prophet) and Gomer (his wife) is:
1) A graphic reality that speaks of God's faithfulness and Israel's infidelity.
3) A parable (since, for example, God would never ask a believer to marry a prostitute).
5) An unfortunate image of an ancient prophet that stereotypes women and too easily justifies violence against women.

F. The command of Jesus to wash feet is:
1) To be taken literally, despite near universal neglect in the church.
3) A first centruy form of serving others, to be practiced today in other ways.
5) An ancient custom with no real implication for our world.

G. The gift of prophecy is:
1) Timeless, despite lack of attention in the church today.
3) An ancient form of communication that is seen today in proclaiming scriptural truths.
5) No longer needed and dramatically different from today's preaching.

H. Prohibitions against homosexuality in the Bible are:
1) Permanent prohibitions reflecting God's will.
3) Culturally shaped, still normative, but demanding greater sensitivity today.
5) A purity-code violation that has been eliminated by Christ.

I. The unity of the Bible is:
1) God's systematic truth that can be discerned by careful study of the Bible.
3) The gospel call to living by faith that is expressed in a variety of ways by different authors in the Bible.
5) Not found by imposing on the integrity of each author in the Bible to conform to overarching systems; the unity is in the God who speaks to us today through the Word.

J. The Holy Spirit's role in interpretation is:
1) To guide the individual regardless of what others say.
3) To guide the individual in tandem/conversation with the church.
5) To guide the community that can instruct the individual.

K. The injunctions upon women in 1 Timothy 2.9-15 are:
1) Timeless truths and normative for today.
3) Culturally-shaped but, with proper interpretation and transfer, for today; e.g. we can learn from how Paul address a situation with uninstructed women in Ephesus.
5) Need for early Christians, bound in the first century, but not for today.

L. Careful interpretation of the Bible is:
1) Objective, rational, universal, timeless.
3) Dialectical, relational, culturally-shaped, timely.
5) Subjective, personal, culturally-bound, time specific.

M. The context for reading the Bible is:
1) Solely an individual's responsibility.
3) The individual in conversation with, and respect for, church traditions.
5) The confessional statement of one's community of faith.

N. Discerning the historical context of a passage is:
1) Unimportant since God speaks to me directly.
3) Often or sometimes significant in order to grasp meaning.
5) Necessary and dangerous to avoid in reading the Bible.

O. The Bible:
1) Can be examined and understood without bias.
3) Can be understood but with biases.
5) Can be partially understood by a reader with bias.

P. Capital punishment:
1) Should be practiced today because the Bible teaches it.
3) Should be examined carefully to determine if it is the best option today; some instances of capital punishment in the Bible are no longer advisable.
5) As delineated in the Bible, pertains to ancient Israel; such practices are no longer useful and should be universally banned.

Q. Tattoos:
1) Are forbidden because of Leviticus 19.28
3) Are forbidden in Leviticus as idolatrous marks, which we know from study of the ancient Near East.
5) Are permissible because the purity codes are not for Christians today.

R. The requirement of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 5.29) not to eat any meat improperly killed (strangled instead of having the blood drained properly)
1) Is a permanent commandment for all Christians today.
3) Is for Jewish Christians only.
5) Is a temporary custom for first-century Jewish Christians, and is no longer a concern for Christians.

S. Adultery
1) Deserves the death penalty, as stated in the Old Testament
3) Was not punished by death when Jesus confronted it, and therefore death is not a Christian punishment.
5) And divorce were governed by Old Testament laws from a primitive culture, very different from our own; just as these concepts developed within Bible times, our understanding of proper punishment has been improved.

T. Sabbath
1) Was never eliminated by New Testament writers and should be practiced by Christians (on Saturday).
3) Developed into a Sunday worship observance for Christians, and Christians should not work on that day.
5) Turned into Sunday for Christians, who need to worship together (weekly, on any day) and can work if they think they need to.

so there you have it.

there are some guidelines and such at the end of the article, but being that Leadership Journal is a rather tough magazine to find anywhere, i will summarize and then encourage anyone reading to go online to find out more... intellectual property what it is and all...

(note: i have tried very hard to not project my own opinions on the followup here, offering instead a 'zip file' of the article- an 'executive summary' of sorts. remember that the results are skewed if you started working the numbers creatively by going off the scale- higher than 5 for 'extreme-sports progressive' or integers etc for 'radical right wing' responses! ha ha)

idea: count how many 1's, 3's and 5's you marked... the category with the highest number of responses is probably your default.

idea: add up the points... the total scores range from the low 20 to a possible high of 100...

then consider:

• the conservative hermeneutic group scores 52 or lower, with an emphasis on the authority- ongoing and normative- of scripture, tending to hold to the maxim if the Bible says it, that settles it. literal readings can lead to rather literal applications.
• the moderate hermeneutic group typically scores 53-65, and could be seen as the voice of reason and open-mindedness, being conservative on some issues and progressive on others. moderates can often be open to charges of inconsistency because of a flexible hermeneutic.
• the progressive hermeneutic group typically scores 66+, but there is quite a dramatic difference between 66 and 92 in perspective. the progressive tends to see the Bible as historically shaped and culturally conditioned, but still considers it the Word of God today. the challenge to the progressive is to not allow the Bible to be swallowed by a quest to find modern analogies that sometimes minimize what the text seems to clearly say.

Wherever you land on this scale, it is my hope we all will engage the seriousness of how we read the Bible- and don't read the Bible

(Scot McKnight, professor of religious studies at North Park University in Chicago, blogger on JesusCreed.org)