27 Inch Yardstick
In 1985 I attended a church conference during my first time outside of the U.S. It was in Mexico City. I did not understand Spanish in those days. During the evening sessions, when the Spanish speakers spoke, we foreigners used headsets. Some people from the church that the conference was held in, served as translators for us English speakers. I think they did a good job.
One evening a message came forth from someone in the audience in unknown tongues. No one could understand it. It was neither English or Spanish. Of course, the translators could not help us understand any of it. Soon an interpretation came forth, in Spanish. Because this came from the audience, too, the translators could not really hear it well. They were not able to help us understand what was said in tongues or its interpretation in Spanish.
The local Mexican leaders on the platform heard it clearly enough to understand it. They conferred among themselves on the church platform for a few moments. They spoke to everyone gathered there in Spanish and the translators were able to explain to us in English.
The church leaders said, Based upon what we know about (their favorite doctrine) we have determined that the message just publicly delivered is false.
I noticed that the man who gave the Spanish interpretation (and maybe the original message in tongues also) was a little bewildered. He shrugged his shoulders toward the audience as if to say, I don't know what to think.
I have no idea what it was that the church leaders found so offensive. Their practice of publicly judging a message that was publicly delivered was admirable. We need more of that, in my opinion.
However,...
Others in a church, with the same gifting as the one giving the message, are commanded to evaluate the message (ICor 14:29). That was good that they did so. But their method for coming to a conclusion was to use their favorite doctrine. That is not the same as measuring something by the scriptures. Suppose their denominational distinctive was wrong. Their understanding of the scriptures could be wrong also, but in theory their judgment should be more accurate since their standard (the Bible) for judging would be more accurate.
Someone measures an object with a stick snapped off a tree that looks to be about a yard long or so, more or less. Is it accurate to say that the object is one yard in length? It is not accurate to state its precise length if it is not measured by the correct standard, a yardstick (or a meter rod) in this case.
It is not really correct to say that a message to the church is correct or false if it is not measured by the perfect standard, the Bible.
[I know we humans have imperfect knowledge and understanding about the perfect, absolute standard, the Bible. But we should be closer to the truth if we use the scriptures instead of some other standard.]
At times someone will say concerning an idea, “That's New Age!” That may be so but why would they say such a thing? They are judging an idea, doctrine, or a philosophy by the standard of a New Age teaching. Again, they may be correct in their final assertion. However, they are using the wrong standard to judge a particular claim. We cannot take a bunch of New Age teachings , then “reverse engineer” them and get something beneficial. If we use the Bible to discern something, we have a better chance of being more accurate.
For instance, someone may hear a teaching about imagination or the power of a person's words. “That's New Age!”, they shout. Possibly so, but how are they coming to that conclusion? Some key word triggers some memory of an idea they learned in an errant philosophy. A careful study of what the Bible says on the subject may yield a very different understanding. Which is correct? The judgment based on a careful examination of all the Bible says on the subject will bring us closer to actual truth.
What are you going to use for measuring? A meter is a unit of measurement (39.37 inches)
The metre was originally defined in 1791 by the French National Assembly as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole along a great circle, so the Earth's polar circumference is approximately 40000 km. From 1983 until 2019, the metre was formally defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second (Wikipedia)
That seems quite precise. When a very accurate measurement is required, is a scientist going to use that definition or a stick that is found on the ground “about, oh, so long”?
Our standard really does make a difference.
My time as an over the road trucker gave me the opportunity to hear a lot of radio programs. I was driving in some sparsely populated part of the country one evening. The area I was in was somewhat desolate but I finally found a Christian radio station. A program was on called The Bible Answer Man. There are so many men and programs with that same title. This was an elderly preacher by the sound of his voice. I imagined him as a man with thick glasses, bent over a desk. His voice really did give the idea that this was a very frail old man.
A few people called in to the program with good questions. The Bible Answer Man seemed to be able to give good, sound, biblical responses. After a while a man called in that seemed to want to harangue and argue about some legalistic issues. The preacher said a little and then the phone line went silent without any explanation. Another person called in for a few minutes and ended the call normally.
I recognized the next caller's voice as the man who had called in earlier and whose call was abruptly cut off. “Why did you hang up on me?”, he demanded. The old man very politely said that he did not hang up on the caller intentionally. [Apparently this small radio station did not have any call screeners. I got the idea that the preacher was personally handling everything himself.]
The caller began quoting Bible verses, trying to draw the old man into a debate about some more divisive and legalistic issues. After a while the old man said something that really shocked me.
The Bible Answer Man said in a loud strong voice, “Don't give me Bible! Your authority is Ellen G. White! Stop trying to use my authority, the Bible, when what really drives your life is Ellen G. White!” [This is a reference to a co-founder of the SDA church from the 1800s.]
I was shocked. The “Bible Answer Man” says, Don't give me Bible!
I do not think I would have said that, especially on live radio. To be fair, the caller never identified his reason for his ideas or his church affiliation, if any.
However, Bible Answer Man might have been correct. He said that the Bible was his authority. In other words, Do not try to use my authority to obligate me to comply with your authority.
Honest people can have differing points of view. It might be that the old preacher discerned that the caller was not an honest, sincere person. He felt he had a different “measuring rod” than the preacher did. If so, we can all come to a more accurate conclusion by using the Bible, but with sincerity.
Nov 16, 2023