Truly a great scholar, theologian and a man of God.

(Obituary)

I had actually wanted to post this earlier, but was a little unsure. See here.

If you're familiar with the going-ons in the Reformed blogosphere, then you'll know there has been a slight debate about the Gift of Tongues between Dan Phillips of Team Pyro and Adrian Warnock.

It is not in my interest to make a contribution of any sort for either side, but I have some thoughts about Charismatic-Cessationist debate.

• Both sides ought to realize that both are members of the Body of Christ, and as such ought to know that they are united in bigger things while keeping in mind that they are divided in the smaller ones.

• Both sides would do a service to each other to be always charitable and not overly argumentative. (Forgive the bold words, but I think it's important to emphasize the two).

• Charismatic-Cessationist debate is not futile. Everyone should know that! Such debate needs to bring into open the arguments of both sides and let discerning Christians (who have or have not chosen a side) decide which is the most biblical.

• Both sides should know when to stop. Especially if the discussion is going in circles. One side will have to take the initiative, however.

• Both sides have bad arguments and both sides have good arguments. But only one side can be right!

What? Me telling other people how to behave? Not by any means, but these are just my thoughts on how people ought to behave. I may be wrong, but I think most would agree.

It is almost impossible to (especially when discussing the issue of spiritual gifts) "debate" one side into accepting your view. When both sides of either view (Charismatic and Cessationist) are willing to debate each other, it already goes to show their absolutely firm convictions in this regard.

The arguments presented will almost always appeal to those who have leanings towards a certain side. But it helps to seriously evaluate the arguments given, and not just dismiss them as "nope, just won't fit with my beliefs".

Logical and exegetical accuracy and lucidity must prevail. Also, it is very important not to ask questions or present arguments that have already been answered or responded to. Even if the response or answer might not have been convincing; if so do offer an appropriate rejoinder.

What I notice is that some have been asking questions and presenting arguments that have been dealt with over and over again by both sides as if those arguments/questions have never really been dealt with at all!

Well, that's it. Feel free to take issue with me on anything above here. I'm certainly far from being as knowledgeable as many people in this debate.

And where does my allegiance lie? Hehe, that's hard to say. My views have been changing quite a bit since I wrote my "Plea to Charismatics" and my response to John Piper (see the Index of Posts). I still do stand by most of what I've wrote, though.

My views can be best summarized like this:

People like Gaffin et. al. I think, stretches it a bit exegetically (or it could be my ignorance- I'm still learning!). On the other hand, people like Grudem et. al. are not convincing when they advocate their view of "fallible prophecy" or other related things. I still hold to cessationist definitions of spiritual gifts. As to whether the gifts have ceased, I am still undecided.

Call me open but very cautious.

Timothy and I have been conversing on this issue for a while now. (See our earlier conversation here.)

I'm glad he has responded. And my reply is as follows:-

By circularity, I'm assuming your are NOT referring to the original charge of circularity, but the second:

"Regardless of any of these, I wonder- who does the interpreting of these verses? The Roman Catholic church? If so, how can we know that their interpretation is the right one? Because they are infallible? By what grounds to they claim infallibility? The Bible verses you cited?

Notice the circularity."

Yep.

Your charge of circularity is false because the origin of the scriptures and the interpretation taught to the Church was ommitted.

Recall that both the Old and New Testaments were given to the Church in unwritten form by God. The words that were written in their hearts were passed on orally until transcribed into written form. First by the Jewish church and later by the Christian church. The Jewish church, in the form of rabbis and priests, interpreted the Old Testament. Thus, the precedent is set with the OT that the Church interprets scripture, not individuls.

I disagree. The OT and NT were not the OT and NT until it was written down. Until they became scripture.

Is the precedent set? No, I don’t think so. The Jewish rabbis/priests may have done the majority of the interpreting and expounding, but laypeople also had access to the scriptures and could understand them for themselves. Also, you can see how the Jewish interpreters came to different conclusions. The Pharisees and Sadducees illustrate this.

What is the church? Individuals. Individuals are the ones who do the interpreting, be they Catholics or Protestants.

When Jesus came, He taught the apostles and the other disciples (the Church) the right interpretation of the scriptures. You surely do not claim that Christ taught the wrong interpretation of scripture?

No. But I do not see any reason why he thought everything there is to know to the apostles. I believe the apostles learned many other things by the exegesis of the OT- things which were probably not taught to them by Jesus.

The apostles and their disciples faithfully passed along the Gospel and the interpretations of scripture taught by Christ, first orally and later in writing. You surely do not claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke, Peter, Paul, James or John erred in teaching or writing the NT scripture and its interpretation.

Therein lies the problem. What makes someone infallible? Apostolicity? But how about people like Luke? Surely you do not claim that what he wrote was fallible. The truth is, the Bible is infallible and absolutely correct, but not always our interpretations of it. The apostles and some others might have had access to Jesus’ infallible teachings as well as good skills in interpretation, but we must also remember that the early church also had its share of heresies and bad interpretations.

The early Church faithfully recorded the teachings of the appostles and their disciples. Ignatius of Antioch wrote about 20 years after the death of the apostle John and was himself the disciple of one of John's disciples.

The Catholic Church has faithfully preserved and taught the same teachings and interpretations of the early Church. The written records are available for all to read.

Since there were a variety of opinions held by different church fathers, would you care to tell us which segment of the early church has faithfully preserved the correct teachings?

Whenever there is a question of the true interpretation of scripture, the Church, through its magisterium (bishops, priests, and lay scholars), carefully reviews the scripture and the interpretation taught and recorded by the early Church.

The same thing happens with Anglicans, Methodists and Presbyterians. As for the interpretation taught and recorded by the early Church, there were many differing ones. Care to tell us which is is correct? (And how do we know it is?)

Thus, I and fellow Catholics may have the utmost confidence that the Church's interpretation of the scriptures is true. (If something is true, it's also, by virtue of being true, infallible. How can truth ever be fallible?)

I do not have your same level of confidence in the Church.

Note that there is nothing circular in the above, until there is a question regarding an interpretation. Then and only then does the Church "circle back", but it circles back into Church history (sacred tradition) to make absolutely certain that the Church teaches the truth (infallibly).

It seems to me that all you have argued is that the RC church follows the Early Church- and that is itself debatable. Which early church father, for example, should we follow? Why? Are they truly recording the “apostolic” teaching of old? How does one know?

(I have seen no such care in the interpretations of non-Catholic churches. Where are your safegaurds against teaching a false interpretation, especially in light of the fact that at no time does your church nor do its pastors ever claim infallibility?)

Our safeguards usually lie in our creedal confessions (or the ones we adopt) and/or our statement of faith.

Claims to infallibility are meaningless unless proven. Sometimes infallibility can be an artificial construct we put upon things.

Even then, the apostle Paul (being infallible, as you hold) when preaching to the Bereans, had his teaching checked with the Bible. If his teaching was infallible, why bother to check the Bible? The point is, although Paul was probably teaching the truth, we should always check back to our foundation, the Bible.

Is that because they know that they are teaching errors?

It’s because they know that they might be wrong; that they are human.

If non-Catholic churches teach the true interpretation of the scriptures, why are there so many churches with contradicting doctrines?

Some churches teach correct hermeneutical principles, others don't. Some follow them, others don't follow them good enough. It all depends on how hardworking, meticulous and accurate we are.

Was this Christ's intention? Did Christ establish a single Church with one true (infallible) interpretation of scripture or did He establish many churches with as many differing (false, fallible) interpretations of scriptures?

What do you know, I wonder, of Christ’s intentions?

The church in the NT were riddled with doctrinal problems even with all the "infallible" resources at their disposal. It is interesting to note that Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, does not argue with them using his infallibility by saying "I'm an apostle, I'm infallible, and that settles it". Rather, we see him correct the straying members of the Corinthian church by reason and by expounding and intepretation of scripture.

To summarize:
1) God teaches the Church the truth.
2) The Church first teaches orally.
3) The Church later writes down the truth.

God -> Church -> Scripture -> Us

Nothing circular.

There’s a problem with (1). What is the “Church”? There were many churches with different interpretations of scripture and doctrines. Which one is right?

Now demonstrate to me that all the doctrines you hold were taught by the early NT church and held by Polycarp (disciple of John), Ambrose, Augustine, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and/or Cyril. Where's your proof that the interpretation of scripture you hold is the true (infallible) one?

Regarding these men, they were not infallible. They had fallen into many errors and held differing opinions. Tertullian, for example, was caught up with Montanism. He also held to creation ex nihilo. Others like Origen taught that God created from pre-existing matter. Augustine taught predestination. The Roman Catholic church does not.

I can’t give you proof that my interpretation is the infallible one because there is no infallible interpretation. Again, which of these people should we see as teaching the “true” doctrines?

"Prayer...yeah, that's a good idea. Mormons ask us to pray too."

First, that's an attempt at guilt by association. Bad form...

No, it’s an attempt to show that prayer alone doesn’t get things solved. People who pray sometimes are led into different things.

Second, what are you afraid of? You believe in the divinity of Jesus, that you may pray directly to Him and ask for guidance, and He is faithful and will answer you.

Agreed, but Jesus is not a vending machine wherein you pray to him and get your answer the next day. He has given us the Bible for that. Pray to Jesus to show you the truth, then go to his Word and find it.

Here's some additional food for thought by the reknown Christian G.K. Chesterton:

"I could not understand why these romancers never took the trouble to find out a few elementary facts about the thing they denounced. The facts might easily have helped the denunciation, where the fictions discredited it. There were any number of real Catholic doctrines I should then have thought disgraceful to the Church . . . But the enemies of the Church never found these real rocks of offence. They never looked for them. They never looked for anything . . . Boundless freedom reigned; it was not treated as if it were a question of fact at all . . . It puzzled me very much, even at that early stage, to imagine why people bringing controversial charges against a powerful and prominent institution should thus neglect to test their own case, and should draw in this random way on their own imagination . . . I never dreamed that the Roman religion was true; but I knew that its accusers, for some reason or other, were curiously inaccurate."

(The Catholic Church and Conversion, NY: Macmillan, 1926, 36-3)

That’s real bad form from you- quoting generalizations and vague statements. For that matter, switch the words "Roman" and "Catholic" with "Protestant" and you get some damning statements against the RC church.

In the end, Tim, the fact that you try to establish infallibility by arguing to the early church is revealing. It shows that you can't establish it from the scriptures (but if you tried, then that would have been circular).

Should we trust the early church? The fact is, we don't know. There might've have been some true statements made, and some false ones. But how can we know for sure which is the "truth"? I say we have the Bible for that. Granted, people interpret it differently. But they do so to many other things as well because we are all fallen creatures.

Instead, we better start learning how to understand the Word of God.

God bless you as well.

See this conversation and decide. (About what should be our final arbiter of truth)

Other than posing questions, are there other ways we can teach theology? I don't really know, but I did manage to get this far through self-study.

Teaching oneself theology, as I can personally attest, is a minefield. And it can only be effective if the learner puts in the effort and has the desire and discipline. This, I think, can be very hard for many people. Hard for those who don't have the time, and hard for those who don't have the interest.

I also find discussion groups to be helpful, especially when they talk about the media (how it reflects some aspects of Christianity, and how it doesn't). But this, again, must depend on participation. Some people just don't have anything to say about (or would like to say, but don't for various reasons). In the end, such groups are only as effective as the people participating in them.

At this point, I confess that I do not have the answers. There may be other ways of teaching theology, of which I will look out for. But, ultimately (and I place large emphasis on this), it is the individual that counts. It is the person that must take the initiative to learn these things for him or herself.

And I think once we have the desire to learn the Bible, to learn theology for our own benefit, there is no limit to how much we can learn or how far we can go. It is only then do we have thinking, informed believers who know about the Bible and everything it has to say about our lives and the world around us.

Why teenagers? Because, as I said, they are the ones who we will be counting on in the future. They are the ones who will be exposed to all kinds of challenges to their faith (especially in the intellectual climate of the university).

But it will also give them a new found appreciation for God's word, and it's depth and richness. I think that is something everyone-children, teens and adults- ought to have.

There is an element of danger here, of course. At the risk of exposing my theological bias, we could easily have these answer seekers end up with a shady, open theistic book claiming to have the (wrong) answer to the problem of evil or a shoddy website proposing universalism. Now, we always ought to stress discernment. Yet, for some, they could easily come to their own conclusions through this unbiblical sources or, although not convinced, might be very disturbed. I've read about people who suffered nervous breakdowns because of this, and this certainly is a testament to how serious this issue is.

However, should this be the reason that we ought to shy away from theological education for teens? Not at all. Rather, it should be this very reason that we ought to educate them. For, when it comes to a point where their faith is questioned or challenged (especially during their college/university years), they either will not have an answer or they will be ready with one. Let us hope that it is the latter.

Coming back to how we should teach theology to teenagers, I would like to state again that one way to do it would be to first challenge them, but also at the same time point them toward the answers. We should always try to shy away from spoon feeding and emphasize the importance of thinking for oneself, but we must also be wary of the danger of leaving Christians to fend for their own.

This is not to say that the churches have done nothing to educate us about theology. They have, but unfortunately they tend to be extremely basic. A little about Jesus, about God, and about the Trinity and it stops there. If you want to know more, you've got to go to some select seminars or Bible college (shudder) or worse, seminary (gasp). I am writing from a teenage standpoint, of course. You see, most of us wouldn't like to be thought of as a holy person, a preacher-to-be, especially by their less than holy peers. And that happens when we express our interest in such theological schools.

So most youths I know wouldn't want to be known as the holy-of-holies. How then do we make serious theology accessible to Christian youths without involving them going to "schools" or "seminars"?

Before we start thinking about involving a theological curriculum in our weekly youth services, I would suggest that we start in our cellgroups. The cellgroup leader could ask questions pertaining to our faith, such as "Why does a good God allow evil and suffering?" or "What happens to unevangelized unbelievers?"

These are very deep and challenging questions to many Christians, youths included. And they require answers. Now, they don't have to be absolutely convincing. But they ought to be reasonable. The CG leader could then give out some answers and also ask them to think about it, and send them searching for more detailed answers of this own. (We also ought to point to a place where they could start, not only in the Bible, but to books and websites which they can refer to.)

But isn't theology an exercise in the esoteric? Of course it is! But that shouldn't stop us from trying. Theologians didn't coin those -isms for nothing. They express something in a single word what would require half a dozen sentences.

I admit I was initially lost in the maze of words like nomism, traducianism and the like. Not to mention those Greek words. But eventually I managed, and as a result I now entered a world of wonderful concepts and ideas that were expounded and believed by Christians since the beginning of the church. I have never looked back ever since.

Alright then. Enough of trying to justify my proposal. So let's assume that we should teach teens theology. And this brings me back for the last time to the first question: Will theology fit well with teenagers?

Well, it does fit wonderfully with this one here, though of course I might merely be a rare case; an anomaly. There really isn't a lot of Christian teenagers I know who express a deep understanding (or even regard) for theological study.

I certainly don't think the church should force theology onto its members, but it certainly should strongly stress its importance. So, then, how should we get our young generation to pick up the study of theology?

Well, I don't have all the solutions. But one that got me started was a challenge. It was a challenge that got me thinking about how little I actually knew about the faith I was suppose to trust my entire life with. And strangely enough, I found that despite all the years since I was first challenged, no pastor from all the churches I've been to ever talked about it. Sure, there were some seminars held, but those seminars were only here and there, once in a while. In fact, it wasn't until the Da Vinci Code hoo-ha got going did I see anything resembling a serious expounding of historic Christian beliefs being done in the churches here.

That said, it would be better, when encouraging young (or new) believers to start learning theology, to tell them that such a venture ought to be done with caution and discernment. Logical and analytical thinking must also be encouraged.

Coming back to the first question, it raises a good point- we have trouble enough getting our Christian youths to study the Bible, but theology? Isn't it asking too much?

Before I go on, let me digress a little by defining what I mean by Bible study and theology.

Bible study is, basically, (whether done with oneself or a group) consists of a reading of selected Bible passages, and then usually discussing (whether with oneself or others) its meaning and how it can be applied today.

What are its uses? Many, to say the least. It gives a good grip of what's going on in the Bible (Though I would hesitate to say that it would give us a good understanding of the Scriptures. I think that is theology's job. But more later.). It also gives us good instructions on how to live as a Christian today. But then again, theology does that as well.

And what is theology? Someone who edited "Theology" in Wikipedia defined it as such:

Theology refers to discourse concerning religion, spirituality, God, and other religious topics, that attempts to be reconciled with both the language and concepts of belief as well as those of reason and rationality (cf. Western empiricism).

That is one side of it. Theology is also the study of the Bible with the aim of knowing God & His Word deeper, and better. It aims to piece together the ideas found in the Bible to make a coherent doctrine. You don't get the doctrine of the Trinity through Bible study, you learn it through theology. Theology is also the combining of exegetical understanding of different Bible passages into a certain category.

Hence, theology creates such things as Soteriology (consisting of everything pertaining to salvation) to Eschatology (consisting of everything the Bible has to say about the end times). I'm having in mind Systematic Theology at this point, though.

Theology, I think, is something every Christian ought to learn as soon as they are able to grasp such concepts. Teenagers are the ones who are primed and ready to go, in this regard.

I think in regards to the Holy Spirit and interpretation, Dan Wallace's paper on this says it all. Thus, I won't be discussing this issue any further, for now.

Let me end with some of my remaining thoughts on wether it is right for us to proclaim that we have the truth (or to say that we are right) about a certain Bible verse.

Some would say that, because of the plethora of interpretations out there, we ought to shy away from pronouncing that we are right. I think that this claim is basically unfounded.

I think that we have the right to say that we have the truth when we are convinced that we do so. One's convictions, however, musn't be merely feelings. Rather, it must be backed up and be defensible.

How do we arrive at that sort of convictions? Well, we study the Bible. And let me stress that it is not enough to superficially read and compare verses. We must comb through everything- the grammar, what it would've meant to its listeners, context and many other things.

This may be daunting, but that doesn't mean we can laze around and still interpret the Bible like experts. It is our responsibility that when we say we are right, we can truly tell or show others the effort we went through to come to our conclusion.

But shouldn't we still be careful when we make truth proclamations? Yes, but not to do so would be against everything the Bible is. To not say that the we are speaking the truth goes against Truth itself. Namely, God and His Word.

Everytime a preacher says "the Bible says", he is making a claim that what he is telling you right now is what the Bible means. And I think that to say that he instead should be careful when making such proclamations and instead say "the Bible might mean this" or "There is a probability that Jesus could be telling us to do this" is ludicrous.

We may be wrong, but that doesn't mean we can't say that we are right when we are convinced that we are. Convictions can wary from feelings of certainty to certainty spawned by study and effort. And we should always strive for the latter kind of conviction.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - 2 Timothy 2:15

Soli Deo Gloria.

Secular scientists tend to point out how the massive, great universe has displaced man's place in the universe.

Are we unique to this universe? Is life limited to this planet alone? Why would God create such a huge universe if only to focus us?

I would say that it is not necessary that he has created other beings than us, in other worlds. Rather, I think that the grand universe He has created is to show us His grandeur. A magnificient God would require something that would at least match up to Him.

And it would be reasonable to assume that God's focus on this earth (in contrast to the rest of the universe), would even more emphasize our special standing with Him.

(I wrote this in response to this newspaper article.)

Matrimony can be many things- both good and bad, but I can't help but notice that the only thing Ms. Tong Ching Thing wants marriage to be is bad. 

Starting with her grossly generalized assertions that marriage is "opression" and a "formality".

Was marriage made to be nothing more than a mere bastion of male supremacy? Maybe, but so what? Good things can be used for evil, too. Also, what I think the writer fails to see is that marriage was also started so that women could be under the care and protection of men.

And as repugnant as that may be for the writer's concept of "gender equality", women, in the early years of civilization, were hardly adept at fending for themselves. Not even a feminist would deny this. Of course, this has changed in recent years- but it still holds true in many places today.

This besides the part where marriage is something that happens when two people love each other and want to continue doing so the rest of their lives. And judging from the continuing cases of marriage throughout history, I don't think we see any problem with such an institution.

But is marriage about male dominance? It doesn't have to be. I see marriage, instead, as two different individuals coming together to work as one.

So what about cohabitation? It certainly can't be any better (and I would say it can only be worse) than marriage. Besides the problems it raises in regards to legal issues (and I think that the best laws for this area would be nothing other than a mimic of matrimonial laws), it certainly fares much worse when it comes to clamping down on partner hopping. And, may I add, STDs, Abortion, and what have you. (Which, by the way, are most common in "partnerships" than marriages)

I do agree with the writer's statement that "the more mundane an institution, the more people take it for granted".

Which is why we need to make marriage sacred and beautiful (we have done very little in this regard) once again.

Regardless whether religion or society is the one responsible for safeguarding marriage unions, it ultimately starts with ourselves.

Theology has it's foundation in Bible exegesis, but it also supplements interpretation. Bible passages are exegeted. Those exegeted passages tend to have some relationship to other verses. Thus, the interpreted passages are brought onto those other verses.

So I think it's reasonable to assume that how we interpret the Bible has everything to do with all the theological debates we have today. Also, the issue of theological presuppositions (usually acquired through tradition) colouring our interpretation would be important as well. Since the its scope is way to large (with some bits far beyond my ability to handle), I'll avoid discussion on this one for now.

Leaving hermeneutics aside, the question would be then:

"Can we be absolutely accurate when we interpret the Bible?"

No, not all the time, but most of the time (with the proper tools and work) we get there. Skeptics of the Christian faith point out that the multiplicity of interpretations of the Bible undermines the claim that we are the one true people of God. How can there be objectivity?

But then, the claim that since "we have so many interpretations, which is the right one?" cannot be used to disprove the fact that truth (in theology) can be achieved. To insist otherwise would be to undermine the foundation of disciplines like science, where although there is a multitude of theories, we still do not believe that science is a futile effort. Likewise with theology.

The process of how we come to truth is a rather complicated one, but the analogy of the hermeneutical spiral helps:

We start going in circles lower and lower towards the truth, as we study the scriptures. Although we never really get there immediately, we still end up winding closer and closer to the center until we get there.

(I gleaned this from Don Carson's "Foundations of Knowing" lecture, which I recommend. He laid down two other analogies, though I think the one above is the simplest to understand.)

The next post would, God willing, be dedicated to discussing the Bible verses highlighting interpretation, as well as the claims of some who say that the "Holy Spirit hath told me so".

This article is a classic example of argument by outrage. Or argument by "what cruelty"!. Or argument by the imposition of my moral standards.

Well, whatever it is, Desolate Paladin, who complains (or asks, apparently) that God is a "Sadistic Monster". Nevermind where his concept of sadism and monstrosity comes from (The Bible? Heh.), but in his attempt to show that the Biblical God is flawed, Paladin desolates himself by presupposing the God of the Bible (with his Hell and Punishment) without counting in His Holiness and Justice.

This is hardly an internal critique, for once Paladin establishes the God of the Bible (whom he abhors), he then procedes to critique it using his flimsy standards of morality.

I left a "I don't take you seriously comment" at his post, and my response (this post notwithstanding) reflects the level of his attempt at showing God to be a sadistic monster.

You've got to do better than that, Mr. Paladin.

Here's someone's take on a Christian forum

I think the whole clothing thing is a product of your life.

If you were raised around nudity then nudity would not tempt you.

I think the human body is the most beautiful creation that God has created, it should NOT be used for sinful gains, but often times is.

A thong is a double edged sword, as all clothes are. Some harlets were them, some don't. Some harlets were full body coverings as well.

I do understand that you are not suppose to tempt others, but you are also not suppose to do the opposite either.

I wear thongs and go topless on beaches and I think it is fine. My body was created by God and is a temple of God. Why cover the temple of God?

I think that if you are offended by my wearing of a thong (not to get attention) then you probably need to pray so that you are not tempted. Women can tempt men no matter what they wear, no matter where they are, no matter what their motives are.

I guess women should stay at home, out-of-site and never be in public. That would not tempt men, right?

Men/Woman GROW UP and be Godly! God made us in his image and he has given us a way to live our lives. Clothes are a crutch for mankind, and a poor one at that.

I grew up in a very strict Christian environment with many males around. I never had sex until I was married, neither has my daughter or son.

I am sorry that I have a female body and God made it attactive to men. It was Gods design and it is what brings the genders together. Nudity (for me) is never to distract, but to be comfortable with the clothes that God provided me with. If God intended that I would not be attractive to the other sex than I wouldn't be.

I think the whole clothing thing needs to be addresed when we are children. Children need to be exposed to the nude human form. If all were nude from the start noone would look at another with lust anymore than if one were clothed from head to toe.

my .02cents

Abby

I find it interesting, to say the least. For the record, my position on modesty is similar to that of C.S. Lewis, that it differs from culture to culture.

Your thoughts?