THE STATLER BROTHERS

We’ve all had the experience and it’s a turn-off. It goes like this: we ask a question of some expert-know-it-all and his answer turns us off because it’s too smooth, too pat, to glib, too superficial. Whatever our problem is, his answer makes it sound as if it’s no problem at all. His answer comes across as, “You’re stupid; I’m smart.”  

We weigh his answer in the balances and find it wanting; it doesn’t fit real life—the question and the answer are more complicated than he’s making them out to be because life is more complicated than he’s making it out to be.

This is an occupational hazard with pastors. Their solutions come packaged in three bullet points or six steps. They tell us in 30 minutes or less that if we just follow the three points or do the steps, whatever the problem is, lo and behold, it’s solved. All is neat and tidy, no loose ends, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Books on the Christian family are also chief offenders because they make it sound like raising children and building a good marriage are a snap, like a walk in the park. They aren't because we're dealing with fallen humanity here, a collection of sin natures in close quarters.

THE STATLER BROTHERS

But as Warren Wiersbe points out, life isn’t lived by an outline. Life is messy; Our sins and the sins of others complicate our lives. Things aren’t as simple as an outline makes them. The outline, the steps are simple, but when the steps collide with life, things can get complex. As the Statler Brothers sang, “Things get complicated when you get past 18.” But we pretend they don’t.

SHOT IN THE FOOT

And this is where we sabotage evangelism, shoot ourselves in the foot--when a person asks us a difficult question and we answer as if his question can be dismissed quickly—if he’ll just listen to us.

Let’s take a real life scenario: somebody asks a question about the Trinity. We take the normal course and use the illustrations of water which can be liquid, ice, or steam, or an egg (shell, yolk, white) or a person (wife, mother, teacher). Really? Hold on. The explanation of the Trinity isn’t that simple.

The doctrine of the Trinity isn’t like one person’s being a wife, mother, and teacher because the Trinity of the Bible is three separate and distinct Persons, each possessing the same attributes as the other. The wife-mother-teacher metaphor was rightly condemned as heresy hundreds of years ago because it’s Unitarianism. The egg and water illustrations won’t hold up because when ice is steam or water, it doesn’t have the same attributes of ice and the yolk doesn’t have the same characteristics of the white of the egg or the eggshell. Neither have the attributes of the other.

WE SOUND SO SUPERCILIOUS

We’re claiming to be able to explain something that’s unexplainable and that’s a turn-off because the other person knows we’re being superficial and dismissive; we come across as arrogant.  

Many great biblical thinkers, theologians one and all, have wrestled with the doctrine of the Trinity and the outcome was like Jacob at Peniel. (Cf. Gen. 32:22-31)

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer writes about the Trinity,

The fact that there are three Persons in One is a revelation which belongs to the sphere of Heaven's perfect, understanding (1 Cor. 13:12), and while we can now believe and receive all that God has said to us, these truths cannot be compressed into the limited sphere of human understanding.

The Trinity is a doctrine beyond the scope of man’s finite mind. It lies outside the realm of natural reason or human logic. Dr. Walter Martin pointed out:

No man can fully explain the Trinity, though in every age scholars have propounded theories and advanced hypotheses to explore this mysterious biblical teaching. But despite the worthy efforts of these scholars, the Trinity is still largely incomprehensible to the mind of man.

The reason for this is that the Trinity is beyond logic. It cannot be made subject to human reason. Because of this, opponents of the doctrine argue that the idea of the Trinity must be rejected as untenable. This objection, however, makes man’s corrupted human reason the sole criterion for determining the truth of divine revelation.

John Wesley, who had a way with words, said, “Bring me a worm that can comprehend a man, and then I will show you a man that can comprehend the triune God.”

 Kenneth Boa has pointed out:

It follows from all this that we cannot and should not expect to understand the Bible exhaustively. If we could, the Bible would not be divine but limited to human intelligence. A very important idea comes out of this, something over which many non-Christians and even Christians stumble: Since the Bible is an infinite revelation, it often brings the reader beyond the limit of his intelligence.

FOUNDATIONAL

B. B. Warfield gave a balanced and concise biblical definition of the Trinity when he wrote: “There is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence.”

However limited our human minds are, the doctrine of the Trinity is foundational to Christianity. We can see why it’s important—because without the revelation of the truth of the Trinity we would have a lonely God, not sufficient within Himself, needing man. Without the Trinity, we have no grounding for love and communication.

Yet when we’ve reached the limits of our intelligence, Tony Kritz suggests we be honest with the questioner and say, “These ideas are so beyond me that if God did reveal them to me, I am pretty sure my brain would explode."

That would be honest evangelism, honest conversation, and the result would be, more often than not, that the questioner would realize that he’s talking to a person who speaks on the up and up, authentically, and with humility.

And maybe he’d want to hear more.

TO BE CONTINUED

THE LESSON OF THE PAPER PLATES

Each one of the little girls is busy at church on this Wednesday evening making something out of a paper plate at the direction of their teacher. The teacher doesn’t know it, but she’s a legalist. The teacher doesn’t know it, but she’s training the little girls to be legalists too. The little girls are around 8 years old, impressionable, their minds like wet clay, malleable to the molding of the lesson of the paper plates.

The teacher has supplied something else in addition to the paper plates—green material cut in the shape of a circle, a circle smaller than the round paper plates; they fit perfectly in the area where we’d put our food if we were eating one of those ubiquitous green bean casseroles filled with cheese at  a church social.

But these plates will carry no portion of sister Martha’s casserole; they have a different purpose—indoctrination into legalism. (By indoctrination, I mean that neither the girls nor their parents will be allowed to question what the lesson of the paper plates. To question the lesson of the paper plates would bring scorn and ostracism from the church.)

The teacher has brought glue to affix the green material and that’s what the little girls do--perfectly, right in the center portion. The transformation is almost complete.

Now, with just one more addition, they’re ready to learn the lesson of the paper plates.

The little girls have transformed the plate from a cheap, ordinary food-bearer into an offering plate, and it looks good. They can and do take justifiable pride in their accomplishment. Some are so proud they’ll give it as a gift to their parents or grandparents.  But there’s one more addition they’ll have to make.

A plate, transformed into an offering plate? Cute. Well-done. Simple. Cheap. What’s so indoctrinating about that? Nothing at all. What makes this an indoctrination is what the teacher has prepared and waiting to be glued to the green material in the center of the plates—unlined 3 x 5 cards on which she’s written six words, “Bring a tithe to the church.”

And there it is, the Mosaic Law, abolished at the cross, no longer a way of life,[1] writ large and resurrected by the legalistic teacher, putting the little girls back under the Mosaic Law system with its tithes.

Right now, they don’t know the meaning of “tithe,” but the day will come when they do. Right now, the fact that Israel isn’t the church in the Old Testament is something too deep for them to grasp. But there is a day coming when they’ll be taught that Israel is the church. They’re being set up for that day.

One wonders what these children will do if and when they read such texts as II Corinthians 9:7 which state that each believer is to give “as he has purposed in his heart.” The Mosaic Law did allow the Israelite to give as “he purposed in his heart;” the Law prescribed the percentage, over and out. For the Jew, there was no decision to be made. So let it be written, so let it be done.

Will the little girls, all grown up, read both II Corinthians 8 and II Corinthians 9 which give the church its instructions on giving in the grace dispensation and come to the conclusion their teacher was wrong? I hope so.

Their parents should be teaching them grace giving, but they can’t because they’ve been indoctrinated too. They too have been indoctrinated with the lesson of the paper plates.

Or maybe the girls will one day read those two chapters and conclude the Bible is contradicting itself: in one place God demands a tithe; in another place God says, “You decide.”  I hope not.

I hope someone will explain to the girls that Israel isn’t and never was the church. But in the midst of church advertisements such as one that bragged, “Come to our church; your kids will have a blast in a safe environment” and that attendees can win free movie tickets, one wonders if they’ll be taught anything in the environment of having a blast and they have parents who attend to win free movie tickets.

So, there you have it: eight-year old legalists in the making, all learning the lesson of the paper plates.

---

[1] II Corinthians 3:7-11; Hebrews 7:11-18; 8:13; Galatians 3:24-25; Colossians 2:13-14; Romans 10:4; John 1:17

DON'T LOOK NOW, BUT THEY'RE MANIPULATING YOUR KIDS

Why do you think television brings you the stories that it does? You answer, "Television brings us the stories it does in order to promote a message or a point of view the writer(s) want to get across to the public."

Let's get down to tacks of brass--why does television offer you the stories it does? I mean, why does television ultimately offer you the stories it does? You're right, the writers have an agenda, a message of some sort that they want to disseminate; that's the way writers are. But we're asking the question, "Why do the stories ultimately come to you via the TV screen? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out: because ultimately the sponsors want you to buy their cars, clothes, their washers and dryers.That's the bottom line: the sponsor who pays for the stories and the actors wants to sell you something. In order to do that, they hire writers to manipulate the viewers. And, that desired manipulation is in the contract.

LET'S BACK UP

A leading educator, John Taylor Gatto, is talking about the majority, the huge majority, of kids out there and what he says is scary. He says, "I'm confronted, whether they're rich or dirt-poor kids, with kids who go home, turn on the television set, watch it until 11:00, go to sleep, get up, go to school, come home, and watch the television set." They get up the next day and do it all over again. 

"BUT WAIT," YOU SAY 

You're thinking, "The kids today who are fairly well off go to lessons--music lessons, tennis lessons, acting lessons; all kinds of lessons are out there today."  (I've often wondered, since there are so many lessons available, are there lessons on how to take lessons?) Mr. Gatto will grant you that, but he adds, "I don't think the difference is substantive. They're really consumers of someone else's point of view and they've lost all critical judgment." Kids as consumers, kids being manipulated as they sit passively watching a story being projected on them. (That's different than going to a movie, because the viewer is watching something being projected on a screen, but with television. Television projects its stories outward onto the viewer.)

If the above is true, then there's another bottom line--the sponsor isn't bringing the child the stories because he cares about children; he doesn't care one bit. His concern is to sell the kids the cereal, the toy, or the cool clothes with his designer label on them. That's it--he cares about the child only as a consumer. 

ANOTHER LEVEL

This takes us to another level: the sponsor (and the writers) know that to sell the goodies, they have to offer stories which will hold the child's attention and keep holding it long enough to get to the commercials, all the commercials in the 30-minute program. "So," Gatto asks," how's the best way to get people's attention? By punching people, shooting them, screams, monsters, and so on."  

OK, OK, NOW TELL ME SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW

All of the above may be yesterday's news for you, but do you know that, according to John Gatto, "in the contracts for Saturday TV they stipulate that there will be sixteen violent episodes per show"?  Therefore: the writers must write one violent episode into the show every two minutes by signed contract. [This statistic may be somewhat dated, there may be more, but that's the way it used to be.]

When the villain appears and grabs the hero or heroine, they cut to a commercial immediately. This instantly transfers the attention of the child to the cereal, the clothes, or the candy. And what has the story become? Manipulation. So, we're talking about manipulating young, very young children. But that's not new: Nazi Germany began the manipulation of the German mind early: "The propaganda picture books published by Der Stürmer, the organ responsible for the dissemination of many of the anti-semitic publications during the Hitler years, demonstrate that anti-antisemitism was taught before children were six or seven or eight." (Mary Mills) 

WHAT TO DO? 

Half the battle is being able to recognize manipulation for what it is. But television, by its very nature, makes such recognition difficult because it short-circuits the intellect and appeals our emotions. 

A college professor friend of mine often asked his classes, "What is the purpose of life?" [This was on a secular campus.] To a person, they said, in different words, "To have fun." These students were raised on TV; their manipulation had been a success. 

But what if the parents, the grandparents, among others, say others at church, point the child away from continuous "fun," and instead, teach and model for the child that a person "needs to have a plan or a purpose for being alive and getting up in the morning? It cannot be just to have a good meal, or fun, or a good experience, or get an A on the test. [What if they taught and modeled that one's life is] "part of an arc, and each piece is part of a whole?"(John Gatto)

TRY THE SPIRITS

Because of television, how many kids are manipulated to believe that, whenever celebrities speak, they're authorities on the subject? "Kids really need to know how to recognize and challenge the assumption that everyone who acts like an authority is an authority, because so many people masquerade as authorities around them. Not only television shows and newspapers and schoolteachers, but we get authoritarian statements from everywhere. That doesn't mean you have to be rude or ill-mannered, but you really need to be able to see what the assumption is behind what someone else wants you to do, and then how to challenge that assumption, how to test it," the educator Gatto says.

What's the ultimate authority they need to make the tests on the pronouncements of all so-called authorities? The Bible. To use the words of Paul, they need to have models of men and women, parents and grandparents, who "take pains in these things, [who are] absorbed in them" (I Tim. 4:15). Instead of segregating children from adults at church, they need to hear, see, touch, and converse with adults as they discuss the faith, the Bible, and the working out of the Christian life. They need to see adults witnessing for Christ and living the life.

This means active parents and grandparents, active examples in our churches. Manipulation preys on and produces passive people. The Christian life isn't lived in the passive voice. It's lived in the active voice by the power of the Spirit. (Gal. 2:20; I Tim. 6:11-12)
 

THE QUESTION OF A BAYLOR BEAR

“Let’s just say, heaven forbid, that on the way home this evening you were involved in some sort of a car accident and you went into a coma. It’s a reversible coma and you’re going to be in that coma for months, if not years. In the process of being in that coma fortunately your brain is repairing itself. Eventually, you’re going to come out of the coma. When you do, you’re not going to have any memories. You’re not going to know how to read or write or speak. You’re going to have to be taught to do all of those things. Do I have a right to kill you while you’re in the coma?”

Baylor professor Beckwith proposed this question in a book he wrote and another professor asked a variation of it to a college student in a public Q/A session on the campus of Oregon State University. The answer a student gave was scary.

I know you've figured out that the professor who posed the question had just finished speaking from an anti-abortion and pro-life presentation to an on-campus audience. The question he asked is a good one because it describes a human baby in the womb--his brain is being fearfully and wonderfully made; at his birth he'll have no memories, will be illiterate; he'll have to learn to sit, crawl, read, write, add, subtract, divide, multiply, crawl, walk, and eventually run. Loving parents will have to teach him to do an uncountable number of things.

SIX "SO's"

So, college student, "Do I have a right to kill you while you're in a reversible coma?" It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, but the student doesn't answer that way. The reason she doesn't say, "Yes" or "No" is because, of the worldview which her education and the media have pounded into her. To have said either "Yes" or "No" would have implied that there is absolute truth in the universe. Her matriculation through the groves of academe`, her watching all those movies, all that television, and reading all those newspapers and magazines have taught her to be a thorough-going relativist, one who lives in a world in which absolute truth doesn't exist. (Or so she thinks.)

So, what was her answer? Are you ready? She said, "Not necessarily." Wait. What? It was a "Yes" or No" question. But she couldn't answer with one of those two. The reason she said, "Not necessarily" is because she's been indoctrinated to believe that things don't have an intrinsic value because of what they are, say, like a human being. Her brain has been washed to believe that things only have value if someone assigns a value to them. Therefore, if you want to have an abortion, be my guest; if you don't, then don't have one and let's move on; no harm, no foul. This is how relativism works its dangerous and lethal thought process.

So, what do we see in this exchange? We see a student, most likely in the 18-22 age range, whose name is legion, so soul-scarred that her commitment to relativism is more dear to her than life itself. Even her own life must be sacrificed on the altar of moral relativism. Hardened at 18 or 22? Yes, hardened; the media, the culture, and the academy have been at work and they've done a thorough job.

So, we see that when a society abandons absolute truth, it produces barbarians without regard for human life and all who aren't assigned value are fair game. A Russian author was right on: Dostoyevsky said: If God is dead, then everything is permitted.

So, we wonder, have she and those like her been taught to think? Have she they been taught to see the consequences of the warped worldview of moral relativism? Has she not understood that one day, her government might legally declare her to have no value for not being productive enough to pay taxes, then arrest and execute her? If God is dead, she has no rights intrinsic to being a human being. She only has value if someone (the state, in this case) assigns value to her.

So if God is dead, then her arrest and execution are permitted. And she, according to the way she thinks, would have to agree. She would reject the blindfold and the cigarette. She would take a bullet for relativism.