God is holy.  All His actions and pronouncements are holy.  They must not and do not deserve to be compromised.  The above represent subtleties in that they do not appear to be active or aggressive evil attitudes or acts.  At least, that is how they might appear to us.  But how do they appear to a holy God?  Slighting or taking lightly His holy character, actions, perspective, or pronouncements dishonors and disrespects Him in every way.

Unholy darkness is so subtle that it may compromise relating to words or actions out of either ignorance or insensibility on the part of some Christians.  Due to the subtleties, a greater need for holy sensibility or awareness needs to be encouraged.  A first experience to this need for me came through another language—French.
My first two years of language studies for missionary service were spent in Montpellier, France: French in my first year and Arabic in my second year.  Members of the French church I attended would invite me to dinners in order to assist my proficiency in the French language through conversation.  One evening, I had dinner with two sisters.  After dinner (Where I had to learn to eat potato chips with a fork and knife!) they pulled out a word game named Diablo (Devil).  It was akin to Scrabble—composing words with lettered tiles.  Unlike Scrabble where an unlettered tile could be used for any letter foregoing a score, this game had the image of a devil on the tile to be used similarly.  One of the words needing another letter was “CHR__ST.”  It was one sister’s turn to add a letter where she could.  She placed the deviled tile in the blank space, spelling “CHRIST” with the devil’s image in the middle of it.  Looking on, I was shocked and thought to myself, “I could never spell such a holy name using a devil to score.  I would forego a turn and lose points rather than combine the unholy with the holy.”  To me—without judging her, I thought such a move lacked holy sensibility.  It was a compromise.
I was also confronted with a frequently-used French exclamation by even some believers.  Coming from the States, I was familiar with commonly uttered profane usage of God’s or Jesus Christ’s name in vain, which is prohibited to all.  It was a while before I recognized the French use of the word God in vain appearing at first innocuous because it didn’t damn anyone or wasn’t used against someone.  It was simply, “Mon Dieu”! (“My God”!).  Eventually, it came to me as virtually calling on God without really wanting Him.  In effect, it is simply an exclamation calling on God in vain.  It too represented a compromise.
Do these relate to holy sensibility vs. compromise today and here?  There are an infinite number of ways, but following are a few.
Perhaps the greatest compromise of all is misnaming murder as a woman’s right, health care, or abortion.  The term abortion originally related medically to natural miscarriage, not coerced miscarriage.  It comes from Latin, “abortionem (nominative abortio) ‘miscarriage.’” In French, avortement (abortion) was still used for natural miscarriages when I was there.  Not realizing this until later caused misunderstanding on my part.  Please note holy sensibility so rampantly missing in regard to this unholy act against the most vulnerable and innocent numbering in the millions.  Unfortunately, many claiming to be Christian fail to see it for what it is, i.e., killing a genuine human being in an early stage of life.  This is compromise.
Another prolific compromise relates to identifying an immoral propensity, temptation, or acts to one’s position and union in Christ.  The usage and acceptance of the term “Gay Christian” by so many is a compromise involving an unholy association with a holy union between a believer and Jesus Christ.  No other sexual propensity, temptation, or sexual acts ever become an identity factor of one’s position or union in Christ.  This, too, compromises the holy with the unholy.
One other compromise is accepting the rainbow colors in a flag or diverse objects—God’s holy promise and sign following severe judgment for evil on earth—for activism representing ungodly attitudes and actions. “I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be eliminated by the waters of a flood, nor shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth . . . I have set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall serve as a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. It shall come about, when I make a cloud appear over the earth, that the rainbow will be seen in the cloud . . .” (Genesis 9: 11, 13-14. God’s holy covenant sign must not be compromised with unholiness or sin.
God is holy.  All His actions and pronouncements are holy.  They must not and do not deserve to be compromised.  The above represent subtleties in that they do not appear to be active or aggressive evil attitudes or acts.  At least, that is how they might appear to us.  But how do they appear to a holy God?  Slighting or taking lightly His holy character, actions, perspective, or pronouncements dishonors and disrespects Him in every way.
Let’s pray for and exercise “Holy Sensibility” by not compromising even in the subtlest of offenses against God. “But like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written: ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy’” (1 Peter 1: 15-16).
Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa.
Related Posts:

If you start with the oppressor-oppressed worldview and then add the proceduralism of the HR mindset, you end up with the modern organizational leader, exemplified by the elite university president. They don’t have the moral authority to lead or educate the “children without chests.” The best they can do is establish a new policy, such as “Calling for the killing of Jews violates the university’s code of conduct,” and then wait for HR to resolve the situation. Christians can offer a better way. We can be salt and light (Matt. 5:13–16) by committing to two related tasks—exemplifying moral leadership and making men and women “with chests,” that is, helping them develop the emotional heart needed to act morally and be fully human.

“Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate [your university’s] code of conduct or rules regarding bullying or harassment?”
That was the question presented to the presidents of three elite universities—Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania—in a recent congressional hearing. Each of the three women took turns answering the question but their responses were the same: it would depend on the circumstances and conduct. None of them was willing to directly say students calling for genocide of Jewish people would violate their school’s code of conduct.
Most congressional hearings pass without much notice, but the backlash to this event was swift and angry. School alumni, politicians, and business leaders have called for the immediate resignation or expulsion of these university presidents. “Why has antisemitism exploded on campus and around the world?” asked Bill Ackman, a Harvard grad and billionaire hedge fund manager. “Because of leaders like Presidents Gay, Magill and Kornbluth who believe genocide depends on the context.”
Rule by HR
How we should interpret speech often does depend on the context surrounding the speech. That principle applies not only to the speech of students on campuses but also to the speech of university presidents testifying before Congress.
What was their context? In a word, proceduralism. Proceduralism “justifies rules, decisions, or institutions by reference to a valid process, as opposed to their being morally correct according to a substantive account of justice or goodness.” As economics professor Tyler Cowen says, “Their entire testimony is ruled by their lawyers, by their fear that their universities might be sued, and their need to placate internal interest groups.” And as Katherine Boyle noted, “This is Rule by HR Department and it gets dark very fast.”
“Rule by HR Department” is an apt phrase to describe a type of proceduralism where an organization—a business, college, or even religious denomination—is excessively governed by its human resources (HR) policies and procedures to the point that these policies overshadow other considerations. While HR departments play a crucial role, an overemphasis on HR-style processes can lead an organization to forget the purpose is to serve people.
This was a problem for these university presidents, who seemed to have misunderstood why they were being called to testify. They thought their role was to justify their school’s “valid process.” They were being called before an HR proxy (the House Committee on Education and the Workforce) and proceeded to give the type of response one gives to HR in such situations: a defense of one’s actions based on compliance with written policies.
In that sense, from an HR mindset, their answers were likely to be legally and technically correct. What they overlooked, of course, were the people—their Jewish students who feel threatened and their students who are promoting genocide.
HR Mindset vs. Moral Leadership
In her clarification video, University of Pennsylvania president M. Elizabeth Magill talked about the mass genocide of Jews and said, “In my view, [a call for genocide] would be intimidation and harassment.” Yet instead of calling out the students who were making pro-genocide statements, she shifted back into HR mode. She said that because of signs of hate across college campuses and throughout the world, the university must “initiate a serious and careful look at [their] policies.”
While a policy change may be necessary, her response leaves the most pressing questions unaddressed: Why are there so many antisemites on your campus in the first place? Did they come as hateful freshmen, or were they radicalized at college? And how are students spending years at your school and yet still comfortable calling for genocide on campus?
It’s understandable why these university presidents were caught off guard. They were appointed to their positions to be administrators, to ensure the college complies with the rules, both the written policies of the school and the unwritten expectations of their students. Yet what they were being asked to do, perhaps for the first time in their careers, was to be moral leaders.
Moral leadership can be defined as the ability of a leader to attract others by virtuous character and lead them toward a specific objective based on commonly shared moral principles. For almost a century, such moral leadership hasn’t been a requirement in most organizations, whether in business, government, or academia. Indeed, aside from a few exceptions—such as pastor or football coach—it’s rarely the expected form for a leadership role. The most organizations expect today is for their leaders to adhere to the same basic standard of ethics as the people they lead.
Read More
Related Posts:

The problem here is that this basic structure of reality is at odds with ascendant transgender ideology, which says that being a man or a woman is entirely disconnected from biological realities but rather is rooted in what a person thinks themselves to be at any given moment. If a biological male thinks he’s a woman, then he is a woman. If a biological female thinks she’s a man, then she’s a man. Thinking makes it so!

The video at the bottom of this post is queued up to an extraordinary exchange that occurred at yesterday’s [03/22/22] Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Senator Marsha Blackburn asks Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson if she can define what a woman is. Here’s a transcript of what they said, and you’re not going to believe it.
Blackburn: Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg that there are physical differences between men and women that are enduring?
Jackson: Um, Senator. Respectfully, I’m not familiar with that particular quote or case, so it’s hard for me to comment as to whether…
Blackburn: Okay… Do you interpret Justice Ginsburg’s meaning of “men” and “women” as male and female?
Jackson: Again, because I don’t know the case, I don’t know how I’d interpret it. I need to read the whole…
Blackburn: Okay. Can you provide a definition for the word woman?
Jackson: Can I provide a definition? No.
Blackburn: Yeah.
Jackson: I can’t.
Blackburn: You can’t?
Jackson: Mm. Not in this context. I’m not a biologist.
If there is a better exemplar of our times, I don’t know what it is. Here we have a Supreme Court nominee who either can’t or won’t offer a definition of what a woman is. Why? Because she claims that she’s not a biologist. Really? I guess that explains why I couldn’t make a sandwich today. I gave up when I realized that I wasn’t a baker and couldn’t confirm the identity of the bread in my pantry.
Okay, okay. I know I’m descending into the absurd here, but you get my point. Do you have to be a vet to recognize a dog? Do you have to be a butcher to recognize ground beef? This line of reasoning is indeed absurd, but here we are. And it’s probably a good time for us to take the full measure of the moment we are living in.
Have we really come to the point that a sitting judge and nominee for the highest court in the land cannot define what a woman is? Think how fast transgender propaganda has taken root in our culture that this very basic question would produce a blank stare and an “I don’t know” from a sitting judge.
Read More