Too Many Questions, So Little Time

My Prologue:

My thoughts spun and spun for a while.  You'll see that I craft my final answer from a lot of spread out thoughts (mostly seen in bold through the blog post) with which I hope to have said something succinct.  For my Intro to the New Testament class, this week, I have to answer this student posed question:

Drane shows that, while the book of Matthew reflects a “strong Jewish interest,” nevertheless it has “a great emphasis on the universality of the Christian message” and “a striking emphasis on the missionary work of the church” (p.196). As an example, he points to the Great Commission (Matt 28:16-20), where Jesus commands his disciples to go, teach and baptize “all nations” (vv.19-20a). Jesus also says, “this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (Matt 24:14; also Mark 13:10). The book of Revelation shows a multitude of ransomed in heaven “from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev 5:9).
The Greek word translated above as “nations” is ethnos, which has been defined as “ethno-linguistic people groups” (thecgcs.org). 11,755 people groups have been identified worldwide, of which about 60% are classified as “unreached” (imb.org). In light of the above Scriptures and this definition/understanding of the Greek word ethnos, what does it mean today for the church to be (as Drane puts it) “universal in its Christian message?”
Does it mean targeting anyone and everyone in all geographical areas, as Paul and his coworkers appear to be doing in their missionary journeys? Or does it mean targeting particular people groups at home and abroad, like some mission agencies are busy doing today? Are some people groups being neglected in our evangelism and discipleship efforts because, for whatever reason, we are not crossing ethnic/linguistic lines? Is there another way to translate/understand the Greek word ethnos or interpret the above Scriptures, and thus arrive at a different conclusion, with different implications, regarding home and foreign missions? Is “the end” of the age really pending our completing the Great Commission? Didn’t Jesus’ disciples complete the task when they received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and became his “witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8)? What does Paul mean when he says, “from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ; and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on someone else’s foundation” (Rom 15:19-20)?
Are all these questions and issues relevant to the church today, such that we need to be concerned with them? I look forward to your responses.

My First Attempt:

Wow!  Great questions.  I have a "love/hate" relationship with evangelism.  I feel guilty whenever the subject comes up.  Is it me? Or is it the way it's presented? Something else?

I have found that more people talk about evangelism than actually do it.  Are we missing the mark as a church?  Are all members hands only, feet only, mouths only, etc.?

I have stood on a street corner (a couple of times) and handed out tracts and/or talked to people about Jesus using "The Way of the Master" stuff, which is pretty neat by the way.  I have shared my faith with people at college, work, bars, etc. (I went to sunday school at a Pentecostal church, so I had the fire put in me as a kid, haha!)

I have read through the scripture and come to some conclusions, which may or may not be correct or popular.  Please let me know if you think I am off-base or there are other things I need to think about.

My working thoughts:

The average Christian is commended to be ready to have an answer for the hope that is within them.  Study to show yourself approved and live at peace with your neighbor as much as possible.

In a pastoral epistle Christians leaders are commended to do the work of an evangelist.  They are on the "pointy end of the spear" and should lead by example, not by prodding (which may be how a few actually apply "equipping of the saints"!).

The church is a body made up of many parts.  Some are called to be evangelists and if that's not you, it's okay.  But we have a responsibility to support each other, so if you're not evangelizing you should be praying for those who do, give them encouragement, and if possible support (i.e., food, shelter, clothing...money(!), rest/furlough from fieldwork, etc.).

Evangelism isn't very different from discipleship, or at least it doesn't have to be viewed so differently.  If my basic message is one of repentance, that message applies to the believer as much as it does the non-believer.  The depth of the call is different, as much as the response we would expect to receive based on the work of the Holy Spirit in someone's life.

So the vision I have looks like this.  Missionaries go out and evangelize, raising up local leaders who really do the work of discipleship with their people.  The people are taught to live a life worthy of the calling and encouraged to share their faith.  From their midst, God calls some to be evangelists and the process continues.  Visually it's like what strawberries do.

Naturally it would spread gradually across the geography.  But in this age of transportation, we can of course go much further than a strawberry's stolon/new plant can!  This is good.

But we can't all be evangelists, it would subvert the building of the kingdom.  Not all citizens are in the military at the same time, it would be unsustainable.  And like Jesus said, the poor you will have with you always (I'm not against the poor!  We just can't get them all help at this exact moment, I have to feed my kids first).

I like what Jesus said, go and preach and if they accept the message, stay in the same house, don't move from house to house.  But if they do not accept it, leave that city and shake the dust off of your feet (I take those words like this, try and pass on the message but if they're not ready, move along.  Someone else will come by when they are ready to hear!).

I was raised on a fare of Christian stories.  I loved the story about the leader of a tribe in Papua New Guinea who became a Christian and converted his whole family.  They prayed for bible teachers.  People who wanted to evangelize the tribal peoples of Papua New Guinea came over and worked with this leader to teach them the bible!  This fills me with hope that IF WE LISTEN, the Holy Spirit will direct our missionary efforts.

The reality is that we cannot “target everyone”.  With human limitations (i.e., time and space), we are forced to make choices, which would seem to be life or death in some salvific sense.  If we do this continually and learn from our choices, my suspicion is that as we look back, we would see that the Holy Spirit was always involved.

God does not override our choices and we cannot subvert the will of God.  With this in mind, we need to evangelize in faith and not worry.  We can seek the best use of our time, for sure.  I would absolutely be in favor of conversations which would seek to maximize effort.

But unfortunately, I usually see these kinds of questions leading to “conclusive answers” which are then used to judge other Christians for not doing it “the way we decided to do it, because our motives are pure and if yours was, you’d do it our way”!

I don’t think you mean it that way.  At least I hope not.  Some of the hardest people to talk to are the spiritually proud.  And it’s not always easy to spot.  “Everyone should be evangelizing!” goes the common refrain.  Why?  “Because it’s all about Jesus and if you’re not aggressively evangelizing, you must not have a burden for the lost.”

My burden is for “the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”  I grew up in the church and see the brokenness in our own ranks.  Judgment must first begin at the house of God.  My version of an evangelistic program looks like what most people would call discipleship.

When the flock is healthy (in the process of healing, at least), other sheep which are not of the flock will be drawn in because of the Great Shepherd!  I truly believe that we need to focus on growth in maturity, and that will take care of the growth in numbers.

Are people more concerned about numbers for the sake of the kingdom or the budget?  If people knew what it took to “save a life”, they would not be so quick to say “we need more people!”  Helping one or two is grueling work.  Why would you want to help a hundred?

Are you equipped to lead a hundred sick sheep to the great healer?  I’m not.  I’m trying to learn how to be a leader to my wife and six children.  I am a terrible leader.  Some may think me a good or even a great leader, but I’m not...yet.  I want to be one.  I want to follow my master.

“Who do I evangelize?” seems like the wrong question to me.  For most of us, the scriptural paradigm is to “bloom where we are planted.”  If we thought about the people in our lives who “need Jesus” we could come up with a few names.

The first task is to start praying for them by name, asking God to send someone into their lives.  The next task is to start asking who that person may be, while praying for them, so as to prepare the way.  Then you should ask, “Lord, is it me?”

To me, this is the normative process.  How do we apply this process to the “ethnos”?  I don’t know.  How do we apply Jesus’ advice to his apostles?  I don’t know.  Maybe we’re already doing it.  It’s easy to criticize what other Christians are doing if it doesn’t fit our mental model.

It’s a preeminently more difficult task to seek out how they are already fulfilling the mission to which they have been called.  This is the task of ecumenism on the denominational scale.  This is the task of irenicism, at any scale.

My Second Attempt:

Presuppositions matter.  I think I may disagree with how you frame the discussion, but we can come back to that later.

"What does this mean?"

"How may this be applied?"

These are two separate questions.  Confusing them will get us into a lot of trouble (for example, "is Jesus present? how is Jesus present? in the Eucharist"; sadly we have division over the "how" when most would exclaim "Yes!" to him being present).

"Ethnos" means "a race (as of the same habit), i.e. a tribe; specially, a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually, by implication, pagan):—Gentile, heathen, nation, people" if Strong's Definitions can be trusted.  It is used 162 times in 150 verses of the NASB.

It can be applied as generally as the word was used, but it can also be applied as specifically as the Holy Spirit leads you to do so.  If there are groups trying to ascertain the will of the Lord, God bless them!

I don't expect them to impose their view on me; neither will I attempt to impose my specific application onto them.  But the basic understanding of the intention of the text must not be misconstrued.  It is not intended to be a manual on how to conduct evangelism.

It is merely a commission to go and do evangelism!  Furthermore, it's a commission to evangelize every individual person of every nation on earth!

My Third Attempt:

If we are commanded to go to all nations, should we skip any?  No.  We should go to all nations and preach the gospel.  If it is accepted, we stay and teach.  If it is rejected, we move along.  It may be that someone else will come along and try again when they are ready to hear!

My Final Answer (drawn from the material above):

Wow!  Great questions.  "What does this mean?"  "How may this be applied?"  These are two separate questions.  Confusing them will get us into a lot of trouble (for example, "is Jesus present? how is Jesus present? in the Eucharist"; sadly we have division over the "how" even though I think most would exclaim "Yes!" to him being present).

"Ethnos" means "a race (as of the same habit), i.e. a tribe; specially, a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually, by implication, pagan):—Gentile, heathen, nation, people" if Strong's Definitions can be trusted.  It is used 162 times in 150 verses of the NASB.  It can be applied generally (which is how I believe it was used), but it can also be applied as specifically as the Holy Spirit leads you to do so!

If we are commanded to go to all nations, should we skip any?  No.  We should go to all nations and preach the gospel.  I like what Jesus said, go and preach and if they accept the message, stay in the same house, don't move from house to house.  But if they do not accept it, leave that city and shake the dust off of your feet (I think it also means that someone else will come by when they are ready to hear!).

I have more extensive thoughts, and if you read them, please don't take them as combative.  I tend to be sharp in my analysis, but I don't intend to be sharp with people, if that makes sense.  Anyways, God's peace be with you. (Go to the following link for my extremely "long answer"! https://michaelsei.blogspot.com/2019/06/too-many-questions-so-little-time.html)

My Epilogue:

I really want to address the eschatological (last things/end times) questions.  

Interpreting prophecy and parable, I believe that the church will grow and grow to fill the whole world until the earth is full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea!  I believe that one day swords will be beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks!

I believe that Christ is reigning now and that one day all nations will "bow the knee" to Christ (not a utopian vision, mind you).  At which point, he will deliver the world to the father, so that God may be all in all.  I believe that the apostles did fulfill the call to evangelize the nations as it says in scripture.

But that is the "here now, but not yet" paradigm.  Their work will continue, however Christ could return at any moment.  We are to "occupy till he comes".  These questions are relevant because they reflect our (mis)understanding of the purpose of the church.

We understand it in broad brush strokes, "It's all about Jesus!"  But we misunderstand it in the details as he said we would, "Jesus when did we love you with our whole hearts?  When you properly nurtured your children, you were nurturing me" for instance.

If you are still reading, feel free to comment on this in the Google classroom.  Every topic is deep and wide, but we only have so much time.

-- 

Peace and Grace,

Michael Sei Davis

St. Charles Anglican, Bremerton

Diocese of Cascadia (ACNA), Washington

My Terribly-Stream-of-Consciousness Answer

Michael, I also appreciated your blog post. I am curious about the danger you see in studying too deeply the arts of the Enemy. Do you mean something along the lines of what Jerome meant when he dreamt that Jesus told him, "thou art not Christian, thou art Ciceronian?" Do you think there's danger in learning about Greco-Roman culture because it can lead to what happened in the Renaissance, a turning away from Christian orthodoxy to classical ideals? (Extreme, gross simplification, but just wondering if that is kind of what you meant.) Or do you mean we should be careful about immersing ourselves too deeply in contemporary culture or philosophy that is un-Christian or anti-Christian, in secular learning, etc? I think that would be a very fascinating discussion!

Yes. Haha! I think all of those are dangers because there as many ways to stray as there are people! The way of truth and life is narrow and found in a person. Jesus was scrupulous, ethically and philosophically. It behooves us to mimic him. 

Lara, generally speaking, I'm thinking of what we often do to quantify sin and measure our success in overcoming it.  Some groups I've been in seem to be preoccupied with sin and cannot seem to get past staring at the thing as they fall into it.

As regards intellectual pursuits, specifically, I must warn that nothing is ingested without some influence.  Maybe I'm easily influenced or maybe I'm very sensitive to feeling the influence.

I've read things from secular philosophy or eastern religions that I thought presented interesting (dare I say useful!) categories of thought.  The danger here is in the framing of the discussion, what we might call presuppositions.  If the enemies of God are allowed to dictate the field of battle, they are nearly ensuring a short term victory.

We know God wins ultimately, but why should we lose so many battles?  If God is for us, who can be against us?

I prefer, where possible, to get my categories of thought from scripture.  I like to start with a holistic philosophy that is theologically informed and a theology that is philosophically valid (factually true and internally consistent).

There are only two holistic philosophies that can be derived from scripture.  All others entertain inconsistencies in order to present as suitable alternatives.  To illustrate, at the root, you must ground your holistic view in God's foreordaining of all things or not foreordaining of all things.

Whichever starting point you choose, a consistent philosophy will develop along certain lines detailing the implications of these starting points.  Many people like to include in their thinking ideas that come from both camps.

This undermines consistent reasoning.  If we had all of the time in the world, I would love to sit with everyone and work through the implications of what they believe, but alas we don't have that time.

Given limited time, I say start with scripture and go to the furthest extent possible without consulting extra-biblical sources because you will be grounded with ideas that conform to a consistent worldview even if not interpreted in that manner.

In an even more dramatic way, secular philosophies or eastern religions, which do not acknowledge God, do not reason out conclusions that consistently conform to the idea of the existence of the Christian God, let alone debating over whether or not he foreordains all things.

If we have a hard enough time as Christians figuring out a rigorously consistent theology with the biblical account, how much more difficult will our task be if we fill our minds with the vain philosophies of the world?

The task of filtering and integrating is one best left to those specifically called to it.  They have to be mature Christians, who will not lose their faith as they read through literature produced by fools and scoffers.

I made the decision at 18 to delay reading Greek philosophy to ground myself in the word of God.  I'm not saying I've lived perfectly because of that decision.  I have succumbed to worldly pressures in my twenties, but otherwise held onto my faith even in the darkest days.

I still don't think I am ready to enter a PhD program.  I want to be so thoroughly grounded, that as I learn the Greek categories of thought at the highest academic levels, I can challenge them and propose alternates.

I would still be required to be conversant with accepted theological definitions of words, but they are so inadequate sometimes.  As an eschatological postmillennialist, I believe the church will be around for millennia more.  Let's fix our categories of thought in scriptural (more or less, Hebraic) ones instead of Greek ones.

After we have exhausted resetting the ancient landmarks, we may begin the task of filtering and integrating.  This is in part a speculative tasking, but one that derives from empiricism.  In the world of cause and effect, we can apply theology and see if it works.

If it doesn't work, then our theology is bad or the way in which we applied it is bad.  That will teach us to improve our theology and/or how we apply it.  This nets us, relevancy and efficacy, which is not something we have to strive for singularly.  Instead it will be a by-product.

Knowing that secular philosophies are like bad maps from the outset should always allow us to have a healthy skepticism of every aspect they present.  Do leftist ideologies really result in saving the world?  Do far right ideologies preserve a holy way of life?  Only  Christ does these things and yet you will find Christians on both sides of the political divide saying "Yes" to one my questions.

Secular philosophies and eastern religions are even more treacherous.  They tend to "feed our flesh" and seem 'so right' at times.  When they do, we tend to be disarmed and accept what is being presented.  Rhetoricians have been practicing these methods for thousands of years.

Do we fashion ourselves to be too clever to be beguiled?  You betcha!  And it is then that we are taken.  Every time.  Whether as an individual "Hey look guys, we were wrong this whole time..." or as a body "Miracles were their way of explaining..." (at least the part of the body that chose "science").

Some may consider me uncultured.  Sour milk is cultured, well, it's on its way to be!  But I believe strongly in reading the bible devotionally, primarily and critically in support of devotion.  And I am a critic.  I will take the word of God to task, but as a son demanding to understand his father.

That is the only safe premise, or as safe as we can be with the God of the universe!  Academic theology is a waste of our resources when we are producing  PhD theses on the "cutting edge" which are not internally consistent.  These guys are convinced they are right because of their much studying.

Their depth exceeded their breadth.  I am too broad, which is why I am trying to gain some depth by working through the MDiv (and a masters of theology? I don't know).

I know what I subscribe to and I have barely plumbed the ideas core to my theological camp.  I may never get around to reading the pagan literature myself.  I trust those whom I read who have done so.  If God sees fit to promote me to the service of slogging through the swamp to rescue some pearls, I will do so.

But we have so much work to do with what we already know we are supposed to be doing.  Why entertain fantasies?  Are we so good with love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, gentleness, meekness, faithfulness, and self-control (did I get 'em all? ha!). 

Once we have mastered (as a church) all virtues, let the speculative theology begin!  We will be so grounded in the truth that we will never accept speculations which would turn our hearts away from God.  But maybe I'm describing our life in glory.

I think we should be very careful how much time we spend advancing our knowledge while our character remains underdeveloped.  Character first; knowledge second!  Tree of life first; tree of the knowledge of good and evil second (if at all).

Our thought life has a very real impact on our moral life.  If we cannot discern truth well, we have a good chance to be swept with every new teaching (Eph 4:14, the first part of that chapter is on 'unity in the body', which should be our premier task).

I do believe we should interact with the world, but how we interact matters.  We should influence, not be influenced.  This proposition is not a simple one to implement.

--

Peace and Grace,

Michael Sei Davis

St. Charles Anglican, Bremerton

Diocese of Cascadia (ACNA), Washington

The Long Answer to a Fairly Complex Question (Short Answer is Bolded)

NT 500:  Introduction to the New Testament
Dr. Cletus Hull
Starter Question (in italics) - Week 1 (posed by a classmate)

My first question is: I wonder if there is anything instructive for us today in looking at how the Hellenistic world received the gospel.

Do we know such things?  Can we homogenize the Hellenists that came to faith into a single group in order to do such things?  If so, we should figure it out and employ what we learn.  

We are saved as individuals and a body...Yes, but can we really talk on grand scales?  I see balance between objective/corporate faith and subjective/individual faith, but I have a hard time talking about overarching schemes at the expense of the introverts of the world.

I think we need to be careful about viewing our efforts on the grand scale.  Did the "Hellenistic world" receive the Gospel, or did individuals receive the Gospel?  I ask these questions, but as I come to the end of these thoughts, I realize that half of people (possibly more than half) are extroverts.  

But this thought only complicates matters.  Some people align themselves along social norms.  Are they to be condemned for doing so if they are aligning themselves with the Christian faith?

Does this bear out the necessity of the Christian nurture of our covenant children?  If so, shouldn't we be fighting for Judeo-Christians ethics as the basis for civil law? More than that?  I think I raise more questions as I attempt to share my thoughts!

Are there any similarities with how people are inclined to hear the story of Jesus today? 

I hear your question about similarities, but first I have to address a dissimilarity so that I can move past it to your questions.  The Greeks and Romans lived in a time before Christ and the ascendancy of the Christian church.  

We, in the West, live among pagans who know that Christianity is/was the dominant religion of the West.  I think it's important to keep this in mind as we talk about the enemies (aka, the mission field) of the cross.  It is especially important if/when we discuss a special case: militant/hostile ex-Christians.

"It's all about peace man."  I feel like a lot of people (in the Pacific Northwest) hold to the idea, "It's okay to do whatever you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone."  Partnering with the idea of peace, we can talk about the Prince of Peace.  

People will resonate with the idea that Jesus was "all about peace."  It gets tricky when we have to talk about forsaking all else to follow Jesus (i.e., the point of what Jesus was saying in Matthew 10:34).  Ultimately Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers."  

We will eventually have to teach ethics, which will run contrary to "do whatever you want."  I think we need to learn how to understand, then teach the concept of accountability as a tool for promoting peace (cf. Matt 18:15).  I believe there is a way to have these discussions with pagans, ex-Christians, "unchurched," etc.

Could we describe certain aspects of our culture as neo-pagan, and should this impact how we minister and bear witness in our own present day?

Absolutely!  Self-consciously so, in fact.  People in the West are purposely throwing off the "schackles" of Judeo-Christian ethics.  You don't have to look far to see the cultural fascination with pre-Christian paganism.

Before we got rid of Netflix, there was a whole slew of new shows coming out which heavily featured pre-Christian paganism.  While we had Netflix I watched/knew of several shows featuring magic (the practice of which was a capital crime in the OT).

As the ideas which are diametrically opposed to the Gospel spread, we will come to face violent opposition (until/unless revival really happens; I'm neither a doomsdayist nor a revivalist).

Understanding where people are coming from will always help in how we frame the discussion.  Ultimately, that's what we're talking about, right?  How should we frame the discussion knowing what people believe?

See Matthew 10:16ff.

I wonder what their experiences of living under oppression and waiting for a messiah can teach us about bearing witness to Jesus in our own age, in which we wait not for a messiah but for his return. 

As long as we understand a few things.  Jewish captivity came as a result of covenant breaking.  We are not under severe oppression in the West, though it could happen.  Anything can happen!

Did they obey the law of God?  Did God bless them as He promised to do so in the law?  I think these would be strong indicators of what model of faith to follow.  Even after God could have rejected them for breaking covenant with Him, he continued to bless them when they were faithful, even in the years of captivity and oppression (brought about by their own disobedience!).

But this is the pattern shown to us by scripture.  God's mercy endures forever!  He wouldn't bring back the Israelites from Egypt too soon.  He wouldn't bring judgment on the Amorites before their time.  God is gracious and we should not presume on His kindness.  

He left a Priestly order in the city of Salem (Melchizedek, cf. Hebrews 7:3) calling them back to repentance.  How many generations scoffed and God was patient?  We don't know.  We only know the bits we have in scripture.

So we wait.  We occupy till He comes.  No matter what.  I believe that's what the faithful Jews did.

Overall, my question is: What is important about the religious and cultural milieu into which Jesus was born? 

For me, understanding this milieu helps me tie in even more strongly to what Jesus did and said.  If he had grown up in an ascetic community, it might be easy to write him off as a product of his upbringing.

However, he astounded people because a "person of the land" was not 'supposed' to live a holy life or speak with such authority/doctrine.  But he did.  We would be wise to hear him.  I am encouraged that what I learned as a Pentecostal youth still applies.

I can live for Christ with abandon!  If this statement does not make sense, try to follow Jesus words explicitly and see what opposition you find.  Apply Jesus' words principally and even more resistance will develop.

Jesus grew up around people like us.  He gave us an example of holiness we can follow.  He gave us an example of learnedness that we can follow!  Praise be to God!

Should we study it purely to understand the history of the early church, or can we see in that world a parallel to our world, especially now that we are living in a society that many are calling post-Christian?

History is as bad as memory.  We can learn from it.  We can also "rewrite" it.  How we frame the narrative matters a lot.  I think we should study history so that we can learn from it.  In my mind, there would be no greater purpose for "understanding" the history of the early church.

Of course, I'm a fish in water.  I live in a "post-Christian" world (haha).  Transport me to a different time and place; maybe I would think otherwise.

Dr Hull chimed in:

I would love to hear about the methods people in the class are reaching others for Christ in a neo-pagan and post-Christian world. What can we learn from how the apostle Paul dealt with this situation?

See Ecclesiastes 12:9-12.  I think there is wisdom in understanding Greco-Roman culture and beliefs but there is also a danger.  I think there is wisdom in learning what people today believe, but there is also a danger.  

As Tolkien said in the Fellowship of the Ring, “It is perilous to study too deeply the arts of the Enemy, for good or for ill.”  Be careful in trying to integrate worldly philosophies/ideas (note: I am an "integrationist" according to the Assoc. of Certified Biblical Counselors; though I consider Biblical counsel 'alone' to be the starting point.  I know, I know, we always read from our context!).  Colossians 2:8 may apply here.

See Ecclesiastes 12:13-14.

Truth is truth.  Philosophers will eat me alive for saying what I just said but [T]here is a simple truth (wisdom) in obedience.  It is not complex, but it is true.  

Growing up in fundamentalist circles, I have seen the misuse of Scripture as pretexts for whatever rules seemed right.  And yet, I also see that the scriptures may be reduced to principles and adapted/applied.  

However, I have come to learn that a lot of people do not read things the way I do.  For those who can get to the principles of scripture using an English bible, the study of languages, history, and culture will move us from reading "black and white" to reading in "technicolor"!  

For our more linear thinkers, these studies are indispensable.  They must get to the original mindset of the writers with more effort (they have incredible strengths elsewhere, but intuitively getting to the writer's mindset is not one of them.  The ability to predict what someone would say is reason enough to assume you understand them.  Take 'em or leave 'em; those 'er my thoughts!).

-- 

Peace and Grace,

Michael Sei Davis

St. Charles Anglican, Bremerton

Diocese of Cascadia (ACNA), Washington