All posts by Ron Beadle

Exploring Biblical Parallels to the Lean – the Leading Management System

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Nearly everyone in the corporate world has heard of Lean, which comes from the Toyota Production System, and which dramatically accelerated the performance of Toyota and countless other companies. Due to its impact, Lean has spread from automobiles to aircraft to nearly every industry. But it is not so well known and even less practiced in nonprofits and NGOs, let alone churches. In our article What Christian Leaders can Learn from Lean, Professor Don Pope of Abilene Christian University and I identify and explore seven similarities between the principles of Lean and Christianity. These similarities reveal that Lean has discovered some fundamental truths about growth that are already familiar to believers. Because of this, Christian Leaders should not consider Lean something foreign or only relevant for business, but can readily accept and apply Lean in their work (whether a business, ministry or church). Furthermore, we argue that Lean reminds Christian leaders of these biblical principles for spiritual growth that they may have forgotten or neglected.

I hope and pray:

  1. You will find this insightful analysis to be another evidence of the manifold wisdom of God gifted to us in the Bible.
  2. It will also encourage you and others to embark on a Lean transformation journey in your work.
  3. You will renew your walk with God by strengthening the Christian parallels in your life

I’ll be glad to hear your feedback.



comment on “Biblical Creationism”

Very sorry, Roy Squires, I’ve only just seen your comment on my article, 8 years after you wrote it!!  I can’t find any Comment facility at present under that article or anywhere on the site and so I’m using the open blogposts area.

Someting like this is stated several times in your article on Biblical Creationism”; “Genesis 2 and 3 should be interpreted literally as intended at the time of writing” How can you actually KNOW what was intended by the writers or the hearers of these creation narratives. Isn’t it a presuppostion which by its nature is not provable? Rather like a physicist having to assume cause and effect in his/her experiments but being unable to set up an experiment to prove cause and effect without assuming it to begin with. Regards

Thank you, Roy, for your very fair challenge.

There are two aspects of your comment to  consider.  One is your general presupposition that it not possible to know (really “KNOW’) anything without the claim being “proved”.  There’s danger here of the taking the position we only know something if it is certain.  Even mathematicians (and logicians) hesitate to claim that their proofs have absolute certainty. Knowing that “2 + 2 = 4” depends on presuppositions about the number series 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. (and about + and =).  A mre workable view of knowledge is as reasonable belief about what is true, where “reasonable” means taking account of available alternatives.  Thus, a hypothesis set within or presupposed by a theory accepted by experts the field it covers approaches definite truth if it survives testing that could refute it.  My article happens to give an example as general as yours about cause and effect (which is commonly denied in contemorary physics!) – the Principle of Uiversality, a reasobable basic pressopostion until is is consistently refuted by observation or experiment.

Your example is important to me because I believe that causal processes are what The Trinity creates and sustains – not just physical causation but also social causation (as I quote from Isaiah 40 and Hebrews 1), and in my science mental causation too.

The second aspect of your comment is the constraints on speculsation about what the original speakers, writers, editors, listeners and readers understood by the Genesis account.  I have sought as much information as I can over the decades about the history of the documents and the peoples in that region 2-3000+ years ago but I am merely an amateur scholar of that field. I cite a book for the general reader summarising the most releant literary history in the end notes – sadly the citations of note numbers in the main text were lost when the C-A-N- website was renovated – “3. For an exposition by a former research scientist who has long been a Christian academic scholar of the Bible, see Can we believe Genesis today? by the Rev. Dr. Ernest C. Lucas (IVP, 2001, 2005).”  Just before lockdown, the Sunday morning sermon by the traned leader of my home church invoke the understanding of the poetic strcutre of Genesis 1:2-2:3 as a parallel sets of 3 days giving us a home in which to focus on the Creator, Sustainer, Judge, Saviour and Inspirer.

I hope that is helpful.  Again, apologies for the very tardy response.  – David

Nativity Scenes: A Live Performance, London Catholic Studies Lecture

Monday 10 December 2018

Durham University’s Centre for Catholic Studies and The University of Notre Dame host:


Nativity Scenes: A Live Performance


The Catholic Studies London Christmas Lecture


Stefano Cracolici (Durham University) traces the history of the nativity scene as a seasonal display in art, cinema and popular culture. His lecture will also focus on its performative re-enactments as ‘living nativity scenes’ (tableaux vivants), in which real humans and animals interact. The presentation will also discuss two little-known admirable paintings by Franz von Rohden at Ushaw College, in which living contemporary characters are featured.


6.30pm at the University of Notre Dame (USA) in England, 1-4 Suffolk Street, London, SW1Y 4HG


More details and registration

G.K Chesterton London Lecture

Dear friends and colleagues,
The University of Notre Dame London Global Gateway warmly welcomes you to an upcoming G.K. Chesterton lecture at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 14. The talk will finish at 7:30 p.m. and will be followed immediately by a reception. The event will take place at the University of Notre Dame’s Fischer Hall (1-4 Suffolk Street, London SW1Y 4HG).
G.K. Chesterton spent part of the fall term in 1930 at Notre Dame’s home campus in South Bend, Indiana, during which time he gave 36 lectures in the Washington Hall auditorium with an average attendance of 500 people at each. (We should hope to have as many at Melanie McDonagh’s lecture!) At that time, Chesterton also received an honorary degree from the University of Notre Dame.
In the wake of the resurgent interest in his literary work, and because of his connections to Notre Dame, the London Global Gateway wishes to open an ongoing public dialogue about G.K. Chesterton, his work, and contributions to christianity, beginning with this lecture, presented by journalist Melanie McDonagh, entitled G.K Chesterton: Polemicist…and Theologian.
Learn more about this lecture, and register your interest hereWe’d be delighted if you could join us. Please don’t hesitate to pass this invitation along to anyone whom you think might be interested. 

Creation is the only explanation as regards to Medicine and Biology

I’ve recently read an article entitled: “Here’s why Stephen Hawking says there is no God”* the author denied to publish my humble opinion as an academic Christian physician and I’m honored to submit it to you:

“The fool has said in his heart, “[There is] no God” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good” (Psa 14 : 1).
Even if we accept that “something”or as Hawking has written “great many universes”  may appear out of “nothing” which has not been proved “scientifically” yet, a sane physician can never accept that this wonderful amazing cell, which is one out of more than 35 billions in every human body, came out of nothing! A sane physician can never accept that this unbelievable harmony among those billions of cells differentiated into numerous body organs and systems came out of chance! It’s as similar to accept that a computer came all of a sudden out of nothing, yet any cell of our 35 billions cells and more is much more complex than the latest generation of our computers.
A christian physician “believes” that these living miracles of interacting cells, tissues, organs and systems called creatures whether animals or humans can only be reasoned through creation made by the Logos (the Son) in the Holy Spirit for the glory of Father. Again, a christian physician sees the cross in this lovely creation and when he/she asks agnostics or atheists why the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body and vice versa, some may honestly reply that there’s no known reason for that. For them there’s no reason but for the believers there’s always a reason, as when one sees the neural decussation for the pyramidal tract or the optic pathway, an image of the holy cross of the creator came to mind as a finger print of the divine love represented in the miracle of creation. For a Christian researcher and solely from a scientific point of view, there’s no possible explanation to justify these wonders represented in all fields of medicine as anatomy, histology, biochemistry … etc other than creation.
Thus, the heart and mind of the believers will remain scientifically uncorruptable by the false claims of the corrupt scientists denying the Lord their Savior. “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him” (Col 1 : 16) “And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting” (Rom 1 : 28).       Dr. Mina Thabet Kelleni is an Assistant Professor at Faculty of Medicine, Minia University, Egypt; Coptic Orthodox researcher and the chairman of the council of Arakhna (elders) and Wise. Previous C.A.N. contribution: The amazing cell The pyramidal decussation The optic chiasm

Jesus and the superfluity of caesars

In recent months it has been noted that the head of the Catholic church, Pope Francis, has positioned towards what many have interpreted as a vehemently anti-capitalist stance. During the Pope’s recent week long visit to Latin America he referred to the prevailing economic system as a ”subtle dictatorship” which, with its ”greed for money”, amounts to the ”dung of the devil.”(1) It is also the case that recent theological projects, perhaps the most well known to the general public being that of theologian Reza Aslam, have found a Jesus with political impetus to his fervour. Reza’s thesis is that discourse level interpretation of Jesus does not match with the Jesus of history. Hence, requirement for historical understanding seems to entail. Where I disagree is in taking this disconnect as necessarily so, for it will be shown that by being attentive to a certain passage a Jesus just as politically aware is made apparent. The passage we shall determine is the following from the Book of Matthew, 22:15-22 :

15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.

16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21 They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

Jesus has entered the holy temple, and we should reflect that Jesus holds his ”father’s house”(Luke 2:49) , the cultic centre and dwelling place of God(Eze. 43:7), to have been desecrated through economic practices that he took as having turned this ”house of prayer” into a ”den of robbers”.(Mttw.21:13) Also of note is that on leaving Judah for Jerusalem, Jesus took his disciples to one side and prophecised that his journey to Jerusalem would have him, ”delivered to the chief priests and scribes. And they will condemn [me] to death.”(Mttw.20:18) It is with this latter note in mind that we can understand the predicament that the Pharisees’ question, given in order to ”entangle”, places Jesus in. ”Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?” ask the Pharisees, and as this is taken as a question which may entangle Jesus, we can infer that paying tribute to Caesar was not to Jesus’ favour.”Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. 20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? 21They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s”, and we are told how they marvel at this, going off on their way directly after-ward.

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary” has this to say on the matter: ”Jesus Christ was a faithful Teacher, and a bold reprover. Christ saw their wickedness. Whatever mask the hypocrite puts on, our Lord Jesus sees through it. Christ did not interpose as a judge in matters of this nature, for his kingdom is not of this world, but he enjoins peaceable subjection to the powers that be.‘(2) What seems to be implied is that Jesus submitted, and that this is what led to the Pharisees marvelling. Yet the early church were anything but submissive: refusing to give offerings to the Imperial Cult, under threat of death.(3) Can this really be the true interpretation to be taken? Surely the Pharisees would not have thought to have marvelled at such a defeat?

The Pharisees ask if it is lawful , within the temple, to give tribute; and Jesus asks as to whose image and superscription is on this silver dēnarion coin.Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.It is with the terms used, and knowing that Jesus’ pronouncement has the Pharisees marvel, that we find Jesus, in the Jewish temple, is referring the Pharisees back to the only law, holy law; the laws which Moses brought down from the Mountain.

”You shall have no other god(s) to set against me.” (Ex.20.3)

You shall not make gods of silver to be worshipped as well as me, nor shall you make yourselves gods of gold.” (Ex.20.23-4)

Jesus has shown the Pharisees to have asked for worship to a false idol in what was considered as the holiest place on earth. Jesus turns the very words of the Pharisees against them, having them set their own trap so to speak, and returns a charge of idolatry. What is quite magnificent is that he does so in a way that has the Pharisees unable to lay a charge against him. This was a truly great feat, a work of rhetorical cunning, and it is surely an act worthy of marvel.

Now it may be stated that in an earlier passage(Mttw.17:24-27) Jesus, the man who stated in Judah that we should worship God, not money(Mttw.6:24), did pay temple poll tax in Capernaum. And it is true: he got one of his disciples to fetch stater from the mouth of a fish. Jesus was actually held to have been exempt, an error by Peter resulting in Jesus advising him to go cast a hook in the sea, so not to ‘stumble’ the tax collectors. The crucial difference with this payment though, is that this tribute was paid to community leaders for the upkeep of the Temple, where as it is quite a different case in Jerusalem. In fact we can clearly find difference by being attentive to the language in our passage: ”for thou regardest not the person of men.”To understand what is being said we turn to a quote from the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer:

”There is an unconscious appositeness in the use of the word ‘person’ to designate the human individual, as is done in all European languages: for ‘persona’ really means an actor’s mask, and it is true that no one reveals himself as he is; we all wear a mask and play a role.”

The word ”person” is derived from the Greek ”πρόσωπον”, properly ”persona”, and refers to the masks worn by actors on Ancient Roman stage. Caesar, and caesars, were,we find, taken to be antithetical to human being and divine will.

David Khan is an analytic philosopher from Scotland. He is currently working on a project which looks to do two things: (1) contrary to Reza Aslan’s premise which holds that the discourse level disconnect between Jesus of faith and Jesus the man entails understanding to be sought out with scripture, my work seeks to show that by being attentive to scripture a Jesus, and faith, with both political impetus and egalitarian principles becomes apparent. In fact it is this understanding which informs his own Christianity.(2) David wishes to show that the dualism of secular/theological is a false dichotomy, both being predicated from the same point.


1.Pope calls on global youth to rise up against global capitalism, Common Dreams(News), July 22, 2015,,

Date accessed: July 22,2015, 16:29

2.The Bible Hub, Matthew 22:15 commentaries,, Date accessed: 22/07/2015, 16:59

3.BBC website, History, Christianity and the Roman empire,, Date accessed: 22/07/2015, 17:02

Further References

King James Bible

Samir Chopra (WordPress), Schopenhauer on revealing our true feelings,, Date Accessed : 22/07/2015, 19:52

“Holism in Epistemology” by Anna Djintcharadze

Anna Djintcharadze is Assistant Professor in the Faculty of theology, Dominican University College.
She would like share with us a paper on Christian art hermeneutics.

Please click here to read the paper (pdf format) entitled “Holism in epistemology and aesthetics: a breakthrough to Beauty”.
Djintcharadze, A., 2012. Holism in epistemology and aesthetics: a breakthrough to Beauty. Sophia Institute Studies in Orthodox Theology Volume 4