I can't wait to read this conversation when the new Journal comes out. There is no way we can equate "business-corporate" leadership to the church as a 1-to-1 ratio and remain faithful. It's like a recent event I spoke at where a pastor invoked Leviticus to justify institutional/corporatization of the church in America.

Look the church of Jesus Christ and Ford Motors or Starbucks are not synonymous, nor are their modes of being and function! I honestly could not believe that someone would use Leviticus to support God as justifying free-market institutionalization?

Do we let our land be fallow every seven years to remind ourselves that it is God's and now ours? In other words, do we consider how our techonology and obsession with ease of consumption actually shape us out of being the people of God? The corporate paradigm is good for turning profit, but we must realize if we are reading the Scriptures that profit is not the goal of the church. Perhaps we should revisit the notion of a 5-fold functional leadership where all the offices are supporting the ministry of the ROYAL PRIESTHOOD!

Should it not be that the business world looks at the church in envy because of the way in which we exist as a "contrast-community"? At some point our churches are going to look so much like Starbucks and McDonalds that we will forget the high call to follow Christ and get conformed into the world from which we are to be transformed!

May God's Spirit awaken us to this call to point towards the Kingdom come, not Fortune 500 expansion.

Spiritual leadership?
How about all of life is spiritual and when we lead it is in the realm of spiritual leadership?
How about if we take spiritual out of leadership we suggest that it isn't really a spiritual gift?

I'll have to wait to read the article before I can form a solid opinion.

It does seem that leadership has become the idolatrous spiritual gift of our time. It seems comparable to 1Corinthians 12-13 where Paul dealt with the church making distinctions because of spiritual gifts. The be all end all at that time seemed to be speaking in tongues or something of the like. Today the be all end all is leadership.

"Leadership is the hope of the church. Without leadership the church will fail. Without leadership..." I don't know - something seems a little off in this way of thinking. Time to stop worrying about Maxwell's 21 laws and focusing a bit more on the Boss's 10, which Jesus simplified to 2 - love God, love your neighbor as yourself.

The institutional forms we choose to use from society are not nuetral. The early church mirrored the only form their was in their world, the Roman Empire. It was structured to mirror the Empire because the Empire was everything. It was so big, powerful, and dominated every aspect of life that there was really no other form to consider. But, the empire form wasn't nuetral. It ultimately would hurt the church. The church isn't mean to function like an empire, empire's conquer through force and heavy handedness. The Church changes through grace and mercy. We started an empire and we ended up with an emperor, the Pope.

So when we adopt corporate structures, as the church, we understand we inherit the dangers and temptations of corporations. Corporations focus on the bottom line. Corporations focus on the big picture not on individuals. Corporations are ruled by money. Corporations can be driven into the ground by overcontrolling or unethical leaders if there is no accountability.

So if that is the model we choose for our churches we must acknowledge the inherit risk involved. And we need to stop thinking that the way Jesus lived and asks us to live makes good business sense. I am tired of Christian leaders acting like Jesus would have been the ultimate CEO. Following Christ is foolishness to the world and the wisdom of God. Let's not cofuse the two when it comes to serving God.

Would it be wrong for someone with the gift of "hospitality" to read secular cookbooks? Would it be wrong for them to adopt interior decorating practices that are used by secular event planners? I don't think so...

Why then is it wrong for Christians with the gift of “leadership” to learn all that they can from secular organisations?

Maybe we should stop talking about spiritual leadership and just talk about being spiritual people. Some of us spiritual people happen to lead, and have a gift in leadership.

Why do we care so much about the source of our leadership principles? All of our churches use electricity. Does anyone care if the power company is a Christian organisation, or if the electrician who fitted our lights was a Christian? Why then do we care who gives us leadership advice?

Maybe we should care less about our source of leadership advice, and more about loving God, loving our neighbour, and extending the Kingdom.

People’s eternities are on the line. By the power of God, we need to do whatever we can (short of sin) to lead people to Jesus.

Why do we care who gives us leadership advice? Um...if I am not mistaken, because we are called to be the people of God, not fortune 500 executives! Its not that all leadership or "secular" theory is bad, its not. However we cannot just assume because it is "successful" for corporations that it is the same for the church. Perhaps our modern-techno-capital-corporate economy does not operate with the same purposes as God does in the way he forms his people??? Just like the church is called to be a called out "contrast-community" so too is its way of leading and forming people!

There once was a day (for most of Christian history) where people actually thought their spiritual health could be damaged by a mal-formed clergy. But then again they were not immoral atheist-diests. For a long time it was the theologians, not the scientist and business professionals that people came to for wisdom. Perhaps because in that time people believed the cosmos could not be boiled down into 21 irrefutable laws.

We're not called to espouse leadership theory, but we are called to be disciples and form disciples. And contrary to Andy Stanley or any other "big name," this is inherently spiritual.

I think the CEO=Pastor model is what might allow us to conclude that leadership is leadership. Executive decision-making verses community-saturated leadership is really the issue. Where does the spiritual even touch us as being leaders?

I agree with Collins and Stanley about the dangers of unanimity - even spelling it is hard! Sometimes it seems that we hold out unanimity as a god to which we must sacrifice good sense and an honest discussion of our differences. Majority rule can be just as dangerous, yet thousands of "congregational" churches employ it. The only times I see the majority voting in the Bible, trouble followed.

Collins wrote: "I’ve never found an important decision made by a great organization that was made at a point of unanimity."

What about Acts 15?

The problem is that we feel we have to take sides. Is it impossible for us to say that they are both somewhat right? Leadership is leadership. There are techniques used outside of the church that are beneficial to the church. There are also some that detract. There are people with no Christian spiritual leanings that are far better leaders than many in the church now. Many of the spiritual gifts are simply abilities empowered by the Holy Spirit. Some gifts look no different, they are just empowered in that individual by the Holy Spirit.

But I also think that something about leadership in the church is distinctively spiritual. Most of the time it is the direction and the purpose. It should also affect the way we serve. I don't agree that leadership should be a communal thing. Ephesians says that God gave "some to be pastors and teachers." There might be unanimity, but there might not, and someone has to make the tough calls. There are too many churches dying because they have too many people who think themselves leaders. And they refuse to live in submission to the leaders God has provided to the church. I don't think the leader should be a dictator, but someone does have to have the authority to make decisions and follow through.

But as one one commentor already said, most opinions should probably wait until the entire context and explanation can be heard. Also we should not listen expecting the worst of the person, but give them the benefit of the doubt.

Show me a successful model where "leading people ..." is accomplished by corporate means. The New Testament model was one-on-one, one-by-one. "Follow Me ..." are the words I recall, not "Join my corporate model and tap into my satellite feed."

One of the most spiritual books on leadership I've read was Andy Stanley's, "Visioneering." It was centered around the book of Nehemiah. Please don't accuse him of being "anti-spiritual."

I want nothing to do with a leader who claims leadership is not spiritual. But I think I get what Andy is saying. I think he is saying, stop analyzing everything and get to work reaching some people. That is a leader. Sometimes "big names" as one of the previous posts declared, say things to get us to wake up and stop complaining. Is Andy's leadership spiritual? I think he would requalify his statement if he knew what he really said.

Nothing about his leadership is spiritual? How about, everything about his leadership is spiritual! When he makes that comment he is denying his heritage and his own integrity. Even 'secular' leaders will tell you that character is where leadership begins. If as Maxwell says, leadership is influence, nothing more nothing less. Character is a spiritual condition, nothing more, nothing less. God created leadership, let us not forget.

Thank you to those who have written about the "unanimity". Thanks for the reminder of Acts 15. I know there is a difference between unity and unanimity, but it's not dangerous to expect unanimous decisions when you have men full of the Holy Spirit in leadership.

Didn't Acts 7 say to find seven men full of the Holy Spirit just to be in charge of some logistical things? I think the biggest challenge is that we can't find seven men FULL of the Holy Spirit in the 21st century church.

Please don't think that I'm putting myself up at the top of spiritualality, but I do think over 80% of our leaders are not meeting the expectations of the New Testament. Am I off base here?

Since when was the corporate CEO model bent on servanthood? Since when did CEO's 'die to self' on a daily basis? I seem to recall something about a seed falling into the ground and dying...

Well, Jesus , as we believe is seated at the right hand of God the Father, in a position of power and authority.
In scripture, John 14,15,16 , talk about the Comforter, Who is the Holy Spirit of God. In one verse, John 16:13, 'But when he, the Spirit of truth , comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come'.
In another portion of Scripture, John 14:17, 'the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.' Jesus when he was on earth, told this to his disciples.
So, when we talk about a personal relationship with God, we mean a personal relationship with the Holy Spirit, who has been given us; who rests upon and who desires to have fellowship with each and every one of us, God's Children.

Good discussion/debate. I personally am involved in the secular realm of leadership via public education. Just yesterday our administrative team participated in group discussion on learning strategies for the classroom. I was delegated to read a chapter on small group settings involving John Dewey's perception of community in the classroom evolving to create collaboration among the students and teachers in every existing classroom. Amazing that my superiors were discussing a topic straight out of scripture, Exodus 18 "Jethro Principle" and Acts 2:42-47 "Community begins in the NT Church". They were being spiritual and did not know it. I am sitting in the midst of them thinking these are God's principles for leadership, direction, wisdom and vision. These men are not professing christians and not realizing their presenting biblical principles of learning and leadership. Are they being spiritual? I am curious on this blog how many people work in the secular realm or have worked in the secular realm because in my business of education those that are successful have a strong foundation on biblical principles.

As a consultant to churches on leadership, the reality is that decisions have to be made, actions have to be taken, judgments have to be given and plans implemented. All of this has to be done through a governance structure that organizes the time, talent and monetary resources of the church. The conflict I often find in churches is the impression that to be a spiritual leader requires minimal organizational structure, policies, practices or no governance at all. That we'll just leave it up to God to work through people on their own. I've seen the Spirit of God work in extraordinary ways through people outside of the governance structure of the church. But I have not found a church that was healthy in all respects that did not have a clear leadership and governance structure. So, when I hear the charge that church is not a business, I hear confusion between organizational structure and the spiritual calling of believers to disciples of Jesus Christ. Too many churches, by over-spiritualizing leadership end up with a cult of personality. Collins work has much value of ministers. As with any writer, it has be interpreted and applied in the context of one's own life and organizational context.

It seems that there is a bit of confusion on the issue. On the one hand, I agree with Andy Stanley. There is no sacred vs. secular, spiritual vs. non-spiritual. There is just the material God gave us and how we use it determines it's "redemptive potential", if you will.

On the other hand, that does not logically mean that any system (i.e. corporate America's structure) is by de facto a GOOD system. As Christians, aren't we to be more concerned with what is good as opposed to what works?

I don't mean to imply that Stanley is an unthinking pragmatist, but I do question a corporate model transposed directly into the life of the church. A church needs SOME structure or it will collapse (think of rose without a trellis: It's beauty lies flat on the ground to be trampled).

When I was ordained, I was charged to "order the church." As I understand it, that means that I must employ a structure that is both good and helpful. I think there is an inherent virus in the evangelical water that causes us to question anything from "business" as inherently evil. That seems misguided. A large church requires a carefully honed system or it will descend into chaos and ugliness and lose any redemptive potential it had (or has). I think this is what Andy is after.

That said, we should question ALL systems and ensure they are good before adopting them (that means some ecclessial structures must go as well). Does the system allow for redemption? Does it create a hospitable environement conducive to the welcoming nature of the Gospel? Does it respect the dignity of people? Can people become holy in it? We are, after all, in time and space, and that calls for some particular expression that will be both limited and fallen.

There ain't no perfect system!

Did we forget Matthew 20:20-28? Sometimes when I read these articles I think we have abandoned our Bibles altogether. Since when did Biblical pastoring ever occur in front of a screen? We are so far, far away from Him right now that it is downright scary. I travel to the nations now to see more normal pictures of Biblical Christianity, Church and leadership. As much as I love my country and its church, it is in Latin America and Asia that I am being revived and seeing Biblical revival and renewal. How much farther will we fall???

"One of the criticisms I get is 'Your church is so corporate...' And I say, 'Ok, you're right. Now why is that a bad model?"

Here's why:

* Church is not business. They have fundamentally different purposes: business exists primarily to make money; churches exist to reflect the character of God. Sure, they overlap - you can have a business that also reflects aspects of God's character if it's run well, and you can have a prosperous church, but it's harmful to confuse the primary purpose of the two.

* People are crying out for a church that supports them in doing what God has called them to do - being salt of the earth, wherever they find themselves - rather than being cajoled, pushed and pulled into various administrative positions to maintain the machinery that is 'church', while making those who aren't 'serving the Lord in full time ministry' feel less spiritual.

* Businesses of necessity have to have a strong brand identity to differentiate themselves in the marketplace. A church should be very careful about their own brand. Nothing should be more important to us than our Lord Jesus. He's the one that gives us our identity, we don't have to go creating our own religious brand.

* Businesses are goal-oriented, both short-term and long-term. People are paid to work in businesses toward these goals. I believe churches should not be goal-oriented. Yes that's right; I know that flies in the face of much current teaching but I have thought about this over many years. Churches should aim not to do but to be - to be a facilitator for the fantastic potential God has given individuals and groups of people within the church. Trying to channel everything through 'church' leads to wasted resources and burnout among the leadership.

So what am I saying? It's not that churches can't learn anything from the business world, but they have to have a relevant, contemporary AND biblical understanding of what church is for. And I believe that is to equip God's people for works of service - and releasing them into it. So that means flatter management structures, looser structures altogether, and a laser-sharp focus on the church's reason for being.

On the one hand this should take the pressure off pastors, I mean elders. They don't have to do everything or be some visionary who's going to change the world.

On the other hand it introduces different pressures for ministers. They have to be very emotionally aware of their people, and available to them. I guess what I'm talking about is the old idea of a vicar.

I see true pastoring in our pastors. I've never heard them talk about Vision with a capital V, or going out and changing the world. Instead, their actions speak very loudly when they recognise us laggards, who only attend once every three months, and still welcome us with open arms. When they know their people by name and always have an encouraging word that's not generic, but specific to that person.

Sad to say, this is the first time in my life I've seen genuine pastors like that. May there be more in our time, Lord.

First of all, leadership in a narrow and technical sense is only needed in a large organized churches. For those churches with less than 150 members do not need leaders. They need shepherds. The core competency of church leadership needed for the large churches is not much diffent from those of large corporations.

Still there is a time when we can see fundamental diffence in the ways church leaders and corporate leaders operate. When corporate leaders are asked to make executive decision, they do so with a certain amount of risk taking. It is the nature of what the executive decision is all about. However, corporate leader's job is to minimize the risk associated with their decisions. In church setting, leaders sometimes are urged by God into faith decision. The executive decisions church leaders make are different from corporate decisions in the sense that church leaders are making faith decision with full knowledge of exposed risk and uncertainty which are very often at their peak.

The last comment. Reading on the subject which never fails to attract heated debates and oppions, credibility issue always bothers me. People with a strong opinion from either side seldom had any experience on the other side. Experts on corporate leadership do not really know the reality church leaders are facing everyday. There are not many church leaders who had first hand experience or knowledge on corporate leadership. I want to hear from those who crossed over from corporate to church leaderships or vice versa. Too often, people make mistake in their judgement when they are uninformed and therefore misinformed.

Some things that would have been different in churches we've attended if those churches had behaved more "business-like":
~Catty, dishonest employees of the church would not have been retained just because they're a part of the church "family."
~Conflicts would have been dealt with in truth, instead of with the attitude that we're all sinners (so we must all be "guilty").
~Conflicts would have been dealt with period.
~Pastors would have been treated with respect, but also would have had some solid guidelines for evaluation in their jobs.
~On-paper policies would have been adhered to.
~Sound financial management would have been a priority.
~Give-more-than-they-take families like ourselves would have stayed.

It seems that the concepts used here are way to generic. Spiritual, corporate, pastor, etc. The reality is that a church is an organization that requires resources just like a business. Just because money isn't the goal doesn't mean that money is not important. It is one of principal areas of stewardship. No money. No ministry. So, to over spiritualize the church by saying it isn't a business is really to obscure how the church functions. For example, I'm working with a church that must cut $50k from its personnel budget. How does it do that spiritually? Just pray? Of course, pray, then make the hard business decision based on the church's mission and goals. Churches has to make real business choices. The fact that those choices involve determining whether a ministry is viable is a part of the reality that pastors have to deal with. In fact, this notion that churches aren't businesses, and pastors are only concerned with spiritual things is blatantly unspiritual. Why? Because it is a denial of the reality that Christ's calling to us to be stewards in the church is concerned with real resources. My point is that this false dicotomy between spiritual and material is dangerous for the church. Leadership happens at every level of the church, not just in big churches. It is about dealing with real issues that affect people in the context of environment where we are all seeking to live faithfully as Christ's disciples.

Wow, excellent summation, Mr Brenegar! Thank you for that!

It seems to me we ought to be asking if the person leading knows how to pray. Whether they are 'spiritual" shepherds or "corporate" CEO types, the validity of their leadership rests in whether or not they have actually heard anything from the Lord, are moving forward in the power of His Holy Spirit, for the ultimate purpose of glorifying God Almighty.

Spiritual or corporate: no prayer, not biblical leadership.

Corporate leadership versus church leadership?

Stanley and Collins offer brilliant insight into leadership in the world and in the church, and I have read (and recommend) them both. Both men offer insights suggesting leadership is neither simple, nor easy. A blossoming leadership theory with roots nearly 2000 years old gathers steam today called of all things, Servant Leadership. A little digging will challenge your leadership perspective and offer a paradigm of leadership capable of changing the world. Could it be that the church’s too minimal impact in our western world stems from too few and too poor of leadership?

At the risk of sounding simplistic, Jesus Christ modeled a paradigm of Servant Leadership where his kind of kingdom leadership diametrically opposed the heavy-handed rule of the Jews and the Romans. When we watch Jesus' leadership (including both what he said and what he did), we see that his kind of leadership was both incredibly humble and doggedly determined to do God’s will, God’s way. Did he not share power with socially marginalized people and develop them to change a world? Do we not see him getting his hands dirty; reputation soiled, and be rejected by common people and people of "authority"? And popularity? … He died a despised and rejected God/man. … And so, how does God evaluate our leadership?

I do not believe Jesus ever intended to offer two kinds of leadership in this kingdom we seek to establish on earth. It is not the form of governance as much as it is the heart of leadership that Jesus critiques. Imagine “secular research” from Jim Collins in Good to Great offering that HUMILITY of all things as a cornerstone to the greatest leadership in the business world today!

You have witnessed church leaders pulling power plays, playing control agents, or conversely exhibiting laissez- faire “leadership”. Those leaders evidence carnal and pagan roots in their leadership. Jesus exposed such attitudes and behaviors as antithetical to the Kingdom of God … from all who use this kind of leadership including Peter, James, and John. So what kind of leadership flows from within you?

I need to hear more from Stanley, but from what I've read in 7 Practices made me a little suspicious. Now I need to hear more. I understand that leadership can learn much from corporate world, but should only be supplemental to what our church leaders are about.

the thing is is leading the church diffrent to being a persons or groups spiritual leader

and more so do we need both

do we in church need good leaders just like in buisiness as well as needing spiritual leaders.

lets be honest many pastor's aren't pasters in a five fold model, they are church managers, team leaders with maybe a bit if spiritual leader thrown in.

Now is that all wrong

maybe we just need to balance

churches are big community and if our big communities want to not just be a group of people with shared intrestests and relationships but people with shared vision and goals (hopefully something to do with the kingdom of God and resoration and reconcilliantion for the world through the power of christ) then maybe we need good leadership in the buisiness leader style (maybe just the same as the nation of isreal needers guides through the deserts as well as priests moses aaron) to help us achieve our goals as a people.

but also as a group of people hopefully modelleing reconcillition restoration and intimacy with God we need within ourselves spiritual leaders (real pastors doing real pastoring ie interacting with people their hearts and souls and helping them grow and heal both) a good team leader/church manager hopefully knows this and so does their job well as too free pastors to pastor people. and so to function fully God would want we surley need both. and so for team leaders maybe the rules and ideas are the same as there buisness counterpoints

Eric, I’ve read your article and the quotes you’ve given to support your contention. It seems clear you are trying to create an artificial divergence between the two. On top of it you’re doing it leaving fingerprints all over the place. Your surprise to Andy’s response shows your belief on church leadership and what your personal agenda is. You hoped Andy would back up your leadership perspective and when he didn’t you run to Jim to save you. It may look to the untrained eye he did indeed succeed, but on a closer scrutiny he didn’t. What Jim Collins did is to make yet another brilliant observation but this time on the “church world”. What he is saying is true. The way the church in America is being structured makes it impossible for a pastor to function like a CEO, therefore he has to “be adept” to the “church organization”. Jim is indeed making a valid remark. The question is, is that the way things ought to be? If church would be organized differently (see North Point Community Church model) would Jim Collins sustain his statement? I doubt it. What Andy Stanley says is we have to think and do church differently. It’s not just about the leadership style; it’s critical how the church is being structured.

When Andy Stanley and Jim Collins are speaking on "church leadership" they do that referencing totally different realities, consequently they cannot be compared and forcibly made to disagree.

The responses to the interview with Andy Stanley and Jim Collins seem to contain more heat than light. It all kind of reminds me of people swatting at gnats while the building is burning down around them.

I'm a member and a volunteer leader at North Point Community Church, which means Andy Stanley is my pastor. I also work with ministry leaders in other churches around the country. I've been doing that for 35 years, so I'm not wet behind the ears. I don't close my eyes to things I don't want to know, either. I've been around the block a few times and I usually know when things aren't right.

Having said that, I have never known Andy or North Point to lead in a way that conflicted with Scripture or sound principles of any kind. I haven't always agreed, but I usually turned out to be the one who was wrong.

Does my church resemble Starbucks, Ford or General Electric? Hardly. Our stated purpose is to lead people into a growing relationship with Jesus Christ. Everything we do has to have a piece in accomplishing that or we don't do it.

Does my church (and Andy) provide wise and effective leadership? You bet they do. Smart leadership is smart leadership, whether you find it in Luke or at General Electric. All wise leadership has its roots in Scripture, anyway.

Leadership is helping people capture a vision and follow it successfully. Leadership doesn't care whether you're a pastor or a CEO. CEOs have a Board of Directors to guide them; pastors have the Holy Spirit to guide them. Leadership is more about who you're listening to and what your vision is.

It doesn't really matter whether we all buy into a "corporate model" of leadership. I'm not even sure what that looks like. There are millions of corporations and they all operate differently. What is important is knowing our purpose, remembering who's in charge, and being wise about what we do and how we do it.

Maybe if we paid less attention to the gnats and more to the building that's crumbling around our feet, we would do a better job of winning people to Christ and leading them into a growing relationship with Him.

I think I understand Andy’s comments about there being nothing spiritual about his leadership and I agree with the point he’s trying to get at. Organizations need structure. Every organization we find in the Bible has a structure of some kind. It helps to eliminate confusion and keep things moving. However, people in those roles are to be or should be governed by God’s principles regarding relationships. When they don’t we have problems. As followers of God’s way, there should be something spiritual about everything we do regardless of the setting. Spiritual leaders must make “business” decisions as good stewards of what God has given them to work with. It is a skill can be learned and should be by anyone claiming to be a spiritual leader. There has to a balance. You can over-spiritualize just as you can over-secularize. Both have their pitfalls.


In any event, my take on it would be to say that there’s something spiritual about what “secular” leaders are doing as well. I believe all leadership is spiritual. Many people dislike authority, let alone talk about it, yet all authority is derived from God. All of leadership is about relationships. God’s law and His book dictate how those relationships are to be governed. To the extent that we don’t make them a part of what we are doing we become less effective or downright bad leaders. Leadership itself is not complicated, but it is difficult to carry it out as God intended and apply it to our ever-changing contexts. God’s laws and principles apply and work in both secular and religious settings whether the participants know it, understand them or not. We have been created by Him and He’s knows what makes us tick and how we work.

Andy Stanley is my hero. I love pretty much everything i have heard him say, until I read the article in the latest Leadership Mag. Andy could not be more wrong in saying that the shepherding model needs to go away. What would you replace it with? The CEO model? The corrupt corporate America model? The get all you can while you can model? There is no better description of what pastors and churches should be about than thinking of ourselves as under shepherds. God used the illustration in the Old and New Testaments to describe Himself as well as the church. If we no longer understand what it means to be a shepherd, we should find out, rather than trying to translate it to something that clearly does not fit.
However, I do agree that the parable would probably be different and have a business edge to them, but not the descriptions of pastors.

Collins and Stanley are right on. I have been a pastor in the "congregational setting" and have seen congregational polity destroy the movement of the Spirit. Francis Schaeffer once stated that "all truth is God's truth." We certainly can learn truth from a variety of sources!