Couldn't Help Noticing

Letters from the sub-editor III

There are plenty of examples of editor's headings inserted into the Bible, where they say almost nothing. They are an exercise in pure redundancy, a bit like the bit of plastic wrap that you must remove from the package in order to get to the wrapping. But a more egregious type of Bible heading-gone-wrong is when the editor's addition has nearly nothing to do with the text that follows.

So, “Head Coverings” are the least important issue mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Why even mention them unless you were attempting to attract the eye of a (presumably) bored reader in much the same way as the editor of The Daily Tabloid attempts to grab your attention and get you to “Turn to page 8!”

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is about how the very nature of God as he is in himself is reflected in the relationships between men and women and the way they behave in a congregation. So a better heading for these verses might be “How the Very Nature of God as He is in Himself is Reflected in the Relationships Between Men and Women and the Way they Behave in a Congregation”. Not “Head Coverings”, for heavens sake, which for all its attention grabbing value ends up being weak, wimpy, and tangential.

Although once we realize that it may take more than two words to summarize the extended theological thought of one of the finest minds that Christendom has known, we may perhaps be able to sympathize with the poor old subeditor's dilemma. It is a real challenge to encapsulate serious ideas in a way that doesn't completely trivialize them.

Indeed it is so consistently hard to do this with Paul's thought in 1 Corinthians that it almost makes you want to give up trying and not have subheadings at all! Wait a minute...

In decline

The mainstream media, and especially the broadsheet newspapers, are never shy of publishing the latest ‘church in decline’ story, especially figures relating to falling attendances. They are somewhat less forthcoming in reporting their own decline. Newspapermen all over the world are nervously watching their circulations fall (along with their profits), especially among younger readers.

According to Jospeh Epstein, writing in January's Commentary magazine, in the decade 1990-2000 daily newspaper readership in American fell from 52.6% of the adult population to 37.5%. Among those aged 18-34 the figure was down to 19%.

This sort of decline is evident in Australia and the UK as well, and papers have rushed to slow the decline through new features, layout changes, giveaways, and the like.

Like most commentators, Epstein laments the slow and seemingly irreversible decline of newspapers, but he also thinks that many of the mainstream papers deserve to be taken less and less seriously by fewer and fewer people. He says:

The self-proclaimed goal of newsmen used to be to report, in a clear and factual way, on the important events of the day, on subjects of greater or lesser parochialism. It is no longer so. Here is [American news-anchor] Dan Rather, quoting with approval someone he does not name who defines news as ‘what somebody doesn't want you to know. All the rest is advertising.’

‘What somebody doesn't want you to know’—it would be hard to come up with a more concise definition of the target of the ‘investigative journalism’ that has been the pride of the nation's newspapers for the past three decades. Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein, Seymour Hersh, and many others have built their reputations on telling us things that Presidents and Senators and generals and CEO's have not wanted us to know.

Besides making for a strictly adversarial relationship between government and the press, there is no denying that investigative journalism, whatever (very mixed) accomplishments it can claim to its credit, has put in place among us a tone and temper of agitation and paranoia. Every day, we are asked to regard the people we elect to office as, essentially, our enemies—thieves, thugs, and megalomaniacs whose vicious secret deeds it is the chief function of the press to uncover and whose persons to bring down in a glare of publicity.

All this might have been to the good if what the journalists discovered were invariably true—and if the nature and the implications of that truth were left for others to puzzle out. Frequently, neither has been the case.

Epstein goes on to show how the culture of the modern newsroom, built as it is on leaks and ‘sources’ which cannot be cross-examined or checked, and driven by the agenda of the journalists themselves, has led not only to the politicization of ‘news’ and the polarization of public opinion, but also to reputable newspapers losing whatever reputation they once had. Journalists are “more and more regarded as unnaccountable kibitzers [meddlers] whose self-appointed job is to spread dissension, increase pressure on everyone, make trouble—and preach the gospel of present-day liberalism”.

All of which rings fairly true to the mainstream press in my part of the world as well. Interestingly, and ironically, it's the big mainstream, liberal denominations that are in decline with Christendom; it seems that their natural counterparts in the newspaper business are suffering the same fate.

The Lawkeepers’ Laws of Leadership

Following in the footsteps of that very successful author, John Maxwell, I am in the process of writing a new book called The Ten Biblical Rules of Leadership taken from the Pharisees. So far, I've only been able to work out a handful of the ten rules; but I'm confident I can get it to the magic ten needed to turn my book into a best-selling management/leadership text.

Here's a sneak preview (all references are to John?s Gospel):

Rule 1:

Always make shoring up your own position the number one vision and priority (11:47-48). It is, after all, all about you (12:19).

Rule 2:

If another leader is showing you up, do all you can to undermine his leadership. Below are some key strategies in achieving this outcome:

• Exploit legal technicalities to accuse your rival of wrongdoing (8:13, 9:16).
• Lying is a key tool in any process of undermining, so learn the art from an expert consultant (John 8:44, 48, 55), and then use the tool to good effect (10:21).
• In particular, always understate your rival's abilities in public (8:53), and wherever possible try to discredit him by ignoring his good work, and focusing on trivial things that you can portray as major failings (9:16).
• Make false accusations wherever possible (9:24), and if the actual evidence doesn't support your position:
  1. seek to recruit people who might contradict it (9:18);
  2. attack those who are supporting that evidence by accusing them of collusion (9:28) and by slandering them, eg. by bringing the legitimacy of their birth into question (9:34); and
  3. if possible, destroy the physical evidence altogether (12:10-11) so that it doesn't undermine you on an ongoing basis going forwards.

Rule 3:

Threaten others with unpleasant consequences if they support your rival (12:42). Generally most people will be too weak not to succumb to that sort of pressure (12:43).

Rule 4:

If Rules 1-3 don't solve the problem with your rival, and your own leadership position remains under threat, plot and conspire to remove him from his position altogether using more drastic measures (11:53). Don't be afraid to use physical intimidation along the way (18:22). If this all gets a bit distasteful for you, delegate and ultimately pass the job on to an ‘outplacement agency’ who can do the job for you (18:24, 28), and then stand by ‘innocently’ watching—glad that it is not you who is getting blood on your hands. Make sure your rival is not honoured as he exits; rather, make sure you get the last word (19:21).

Here comes the … groom?

The other day I had a thought. If marriage is a picture of the heavenly reality of Christ one day being united with his bride, the church, then why don't our wedding services reflect that? Why is it the groom is kept waiting up the front while the bride swans down the aisle to beautiful music, all eyes fixed on her? Wouldn't it be more correct, theologically, if things were the other way 'round—if the bride was waiting up the front, decked out in her splendid finery, and everyone awaited the coming of the groom so that, at his appearing, “every eye will see him” (Rev 1:7)?

Brokeback Mountain

The new film Brokeback Mountain looks set to be highly influential in changing attitudes towards homosexuality. Already I am hearing the sort of glowing reviews and tributes that have come to signal danger for Christians. In this case the danger for Christians is in their stand against same sex marriage and the acceptance of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle choice deserving of full support from our society. (Is it any coincidence that such a film is being released now?)

One review describes the film as “the rape of the Marlboro man”, suggesting that the marketing success of this new film will be even more profound than the success the Marlbaro man campaign achieved for a tobacco company 50 years ago:

[The Marlboro man campaign] was all part of the modern marketing revolution, which meant that, instead of touting a product's actual benefits, marketers instead would psychologically manipulate the public by associating their product with the fulfillment of people's deepest, unconscious needs and desires ... The ‘Marlboro Man’ campaign launched 50 years ago. Today, the powerful cowboy image is being used to sell us on another self-destructive product: homosexual sex and ‘gay’ marriage.

It is a strong and challenging review, and, whilst I don't necessarily agree with his views about our “God-given consciences” that supposedly know intuitively that homosexuality is wrong, it is worth a read for its analysis of how the story and the manipulative cinematic techniques can so powerfully “change” people's attitudes.