Jayhuck said, If you want to get into a discussion about theology, we should probably start another thread.

Would you be willing to start that thread, Jayhuck; especially, with hermeneutics as our tool?

Plus. This is how Fischer makes his living. He doesn’t mean a word of it.

In keeping with my nature to blame systems for the co-creation of problems highlighted by the bad behavior of a “leader,” let me suggest the following:

Christian Universities with highly qualified departments of Education, Psychology, History and Missiology could quickly and easily disqualify the absurd assertions of someone like Fischer.

Only recently have Christian Universities been willing to authorize funding for Public Policy centers to address such issues with Intellectual Rigor.

Please note the Public Policy Center which was recently created at Grove City College.

…hmmmmmm.

Each Gospel was written primarily to ‘make a point’ about Jesus: I would aver that in Mark’s Gospel, Jesus is portrayed as the Suffering Servant; in Matthew’s, he is New Moses and the Fulfilment of all the hopes of God’s people, of the Law and of the Prophets; in Luke’s, he is the Saviour of the World; in John’s, the Human Face of God. A proper analysis of the Gospels takes these themes (which are related to the social and historical context in which each account was written) into consideration; if we want to understand the messages they carry, we need to be aware of the linguistic, cultural and historical aspects, otherwise we are going to ‘miss’ things, or get things wrong (even more than we already do!).

Of course, the proper application of hermeneutics does not give us ‘neat answers’ (and perhaps one of the key psychological impulses behind fundamentalism is the desire for ‘neat answers’); instead it throws up real questions, with which the faithful must engage. For example, how should we understand the Mosaic Law in the light of the Sermon on the Mount (and vice versa)?