The Filter

[cklewis]

I remember sitting in 7th-grade science class discussing the previous night's Nova. The creationist teacher asked Andrea what she thought about Carl Sagan's evolutionist statements. "Well, he must be right. He's on TV." :doh Poor Andrea. She unwittingly stirred quite a discussion after that.

But while Andrea let "TV" be the standard for letting evolution uncritically slip by as obvious truth, I'm not so certain we don't do the same thing when we're listening to parenting advice.


"Tedd Tripp has good advice for Christian parents." "Really? Did you see where he recommends spanking 8mo?" "He does? That's awful."
"Gary Ezzo suggests a useful routine." "Hmmm. . . . The AAP doesn't think so. Have you seen their warning against him?" "No! Really?"
"Michael Pearl has good advice about tying heart strings." "Yeah, that does sound good. But it doesn't make sense when he's pushing his kids in a pond. Besides, have you seen the heretical pelegianism?" "The what? What's that mean?"
"Pastor So-n-So is such a good preacher." "Hmmmm. . . . he's very appealing. But what he was preaching is just setting up the church for spiritual abuse." "It is?"
"I love Dr. This-n-That's description of God's grace." "Really? It sounded just like more works-based righteousness." "Seriously? Where?"


Why do we give so much deference to certain "authoritative" voices? Who gets the benefit of the doubt (rather than the higher responsibility)? Why do they slip under the radar?

You know how they say that the government feels like they have to hide evidence of UFOs because our country can't handle the truth? :rolleyes I feel like in our silence we feel that the Faith can't handle it if we expose the false statements of what many leaders are preaching. This, of course, means that the leaders are what make the Faith. :no It leaves a powerful, loving God completely out of the picture.

Seriously, we need another 95 Theses. Who's gonna start the list?

Thots?

C

[Katherine]

:yes I have nothing to add at this point. :tu Well said.

[Chris3jam]

OT, a bit, perhaps, but I'd like to address this a bit.

You know how they say that the government feels like they have to hide evidence of UFOs because our country can't handle the truth?

My dad was Air Force Intelligence. He worked on Project Blue Book for a while. At the time he was in the service. . . . all "evidence" of UFO's was explained- - -naturally. No, he was not giving us the "socially acceptable" version. . . . .. .we would love to mix him up a couple of martini's and he would talk about the things he did in the service. And he could actually share quite a bit, since he was retired and most of what he dealt with was not termed "top secret" after a certain amount of time. Remember the Stealth? Well. . . .how long do you think the military was working on that? How many test flights? That very many higher-up mucky-mucks wouldn't know about? Only a very selected few?

Anyway. . . back to the program.

I think that when a person with the Ph.D. (or other degree after their name), with a "good" reputation, years of college, etc., under their belt says that "God says _____________", people will unquestionably accept it. They do not 1. have the time, 2. think they have the education, 3. don't want to "re-invent" the wheel. That was (actually, is, in a way, still :O) me. I thought (still tend to think :blush it's something I struggle with), "Pastor went through years of good, Biblical college education. He has studied all this. He can be trusted - - -so-so and so-so believe him. Who am *I*, little ole' uneducated me, to question him? I mean. . .the *gall*!" Sometimes, they are just billing themselves in this way. . . but who has the resources and time to check it out? Also, when in a discussion with other people, when I bring up the AAP or say other things like that, I get, "Well, GOD said it. . .and what God says takes precedence over what the world says." Mostly what I get, though, is a glazing of the eyes. The one that says, "I've made up my mind. . .don't confuse me with the facts." Or, in the case of my BIL (this one in reference to homeschooling my kids) "Who do you think you are? What makes you think you can teach your children? There are professionals who know what they're doing. . you are not one." (Yes, he said that verbatim :mad). My quick response (not the 'good' one) was, "Well. I was a physics major in college. . .I believe I have the background to be able to share certain educational material with my kids. If I can't, I believe I have the intelligence to be able to find help and/or the resources for this task."

We get blinded by "trust". We trust the person's background. . . .reputation. . . .education. . . . words. I mean. . .he says he's a Christian. . .surely he wouldn't lie? Surely he can't be wrong?

[RubySlippers]

Ummm...and what if you don't trust anyone. :shifty

[This Busy Mom]

Ummm...and what if you don't trust anyone.

:lol You know... from someone else who trusts no one (except God) as being an ultimate authority... I don't see that as such a bad thing.

I've seen a few shows on Area51. What do you think they're doign out there? It's nothing to do with aliens. It's the only top secret military place ever sued by their workers and their workers won (ordered to handle toxic materials in unsafe ways... like burying a lot of them) although the government still says it doesn't exist :rolleyes . There are experimental airplanes buried all over the place out there.

[4thekids]

Mostly what I get, though, is a glazing of the eyes. The one that says, "I've made up my mind. . .don't confuse me with the facts."
:laughtears :laughtears I so know people like that. :giggle

[Chris3jam]

I have issues with trust. So much so that it drives my dh batty. He's accused me before of not even trusting God. Actually, as I try to explain it to him, I *do* trust. . . it's just that it is easy to lose that trust (with me) and never get it back. :shifty That, actually, could be ok, as it does sometimes make you cynical enough to check into things that may not sound kosher. Combine that with OCD tendencies. . . .. :giggle :shifty

But, trust in a person and trust in what he porports to be are different. You may not think too much of the person, but when he has a string of degrees after his name, you tend to want to believe him. And when they utter those most important words, "I'm a Christian, I've studied this, and this is what God says.. . . ." it is kind of hard to go against that.

[ArmsOfLove]

"Pastor went through years of good, Biblical college education. He has studied all this. He can be trusted - - -so-so and so-so believe him. Who am *I*, little ole' uneducated me, to question him? I wanted to address this and then the OP

*Most* seminaries are denominational which means . . . they learn what the denomination believes. I'm not suggesting that is *bad* at all. But questioning it is not allowed at all. Which means, you are learning what the previous generation accepted that was taught to them by the previous generation. This is why people who go to Baptist colleges come out deeply entrenched in Baptist theological positions. And this is why people who go to incredibly liberal colleges come out questioning or doubting everything in Scripture and being SO confident while they do so. You learn what you are taught. This is one thing I loved about Fuller--it was all of us coming together, attempting to shed our denominational doctrine and ask, "What does Scripture really say? What does it SAY?" Not what we'd been taught it said. I had to honestly admit that a lot of what I'd been taught simply wasn't there :shrug Didn't make it bad, just extra biblical ;)

Now when I hear people speak I think, "They expressed the X position on that very clearly." :giggle

Then I think of Samuel who was a child serving the High Priest when the Lord called to him. And what did the High Priest say? "Who are YOU? You're a child!" Nope--go back and when he calls again say, "Here am I, Lord." :amen

As for the OP--IMO a little leaven raises the whole dough so when I come across the "big theological no-no" I'm done with the book :shrug IMO if you start with a foundational flaw then your conclusions are flawed, plain and simple. And I don't mean difference of theological opinion--there are some very valid theological positions that are not error--but I mean flaw. IE Pearl's pelagian theology. Or Ezzo's idea that "that little voice in your head" is Satan rather than the Holy Spirit or your God-given intuition. Or Tripp's idea that babies are willfully defiant :cry

I'm reading "Mission of Motherhood" right now. I don't agree with everything Sally is putting forth about Genesis and women, but that's okay. I know she's presenting a sound studied understanding, just one that my study varies from.

In Rabbinical tradition it's GOOD to have a difference of opinion :) This is why in Rabbinical commentary you tend to find Rabbi so-and-so suggested it means THIS but Rabbi so-and-so suggested it means THIS. And this is contrasted with the idea of abolishing Torah by completing massacreing the text :no For example, one Rabbi (most popular with the rich) defined "go forth and multiply" as having one of each sex; another Rabbi (most popular with the poor) defined it as "having two children". No one that I can find defined it as intentionally having no children or having all the children you can possibly pop out. I'm not saying God won't choose you to do either of these extremes, I'm just saying if you started trying to define "go forth and multiply" as being fulfilled and defined by these two extremes you've abolished Torah.

[Mother of Sons]

Ummm...and what if you don't trust anyone.

I have that problem too. Actually it's part of the reason I haven't been able to study much. I just know that whatever study guide I get or what not, someone is going to say :hunh They are SOOO wrong. But when I try to read on my own, I get confused. I'm not smart enough to know who to trust so I don't.

[kwisie]

In the book of Acts, Paul preached at a town called Berea. This is what was said about them:

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

If the people of Berea (average, everyday people like us) were commended for checking out the words of the apostle Paul, we should be ready and willing to check out the words and writings of anyone! Do their words match up with what the Scriptures say? Check out the contexts of any verses that are quoted. Compare their ideas with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. We must take responsibility for what we accept and learn. :-)

[MamaCare]

--sigh-- it's concerns like these that keep making me think *someday* I should learn Greek & Hebrew, and study the cultural context, and well... go to seminary. :shifty

[Chris3jam]

Or Ezzo's idea that "that little voice in your head" is Satan rather than the Holy Spirit or your God-given intuition. Or Tripp's idea that babies are willfully defiant

That is where I think the different filters come in. Say you've been raised punitively. And say, you then get saved, and you start going to a fundamental Baptist church. There's a lot of preaching on sin nature vs. Holy Spirit, the heart being wicked, etc. And you think you finally have the answer to certain of the feelings you've had. . you think someone has pinned it down and put a name to it. You hear your baby crying, and it tugs your heart strings (but the heart is "deceitful and wicked", so you can't listen to that), and you know that you've fed the baby, changed the baby, etc, etc., and you don't know what else to do, so the logical conclusion for the baby's behaviour *must* be that it is selfish and that it is the selfish sin nature manifesting itself. And, it will keep manifesting itself until the parent controls it, and as the child gets older, that 'control' is gradually turned over to the child as it is able, which will ultimately be turned over to God. So, you *need* to control everything in that child's life to have a happy, good, compliant child, who will have the capability to accept God's call. If you don't, chances are, they won't even recognize God's voice. And this all makes sense, because you haven't been able to identify certain feelings, etc. And you think they have. Until. . .you start trying to put it all together with the preaching on grace and salvation as a free gift and that David was a man after God's own heart, and all the verse on "create in me a clean heart, O Lord", and how we are to ask Jesus into our hearts (that decietful and wicked heart that just seems to stay that way even after we've asked Jesus into it), and about how children are sooooo much blessing, but yet need to be beat, etc., etc. And then you get confused. :scratch But, you keep doing what is being preached. Or, trying to.

[TulipMama]

* "Tedd Tripp has good advice for Christian parents." "Really? Did you see where he recommends spanking 8mo?" "He does? That's awful."
* "Gary Ezzo suggests a useful routine." "Hmmm. . . . The AAP doesn't think so. Have you seen their warning against him?" "No! Really?"
* "Michael Pearl has good advice about tying heart strings." "Yeah, that does sound good. But it doesn't make sense when he's pushing his kids in a pond. Besides, have you seen the heretical pelegianism?" "The what? What's that mean?"
* "Pastor So-n-So is such a good preacher." "Hmmmm. . . . he's very appealing. But what he was preaching is just setting up the church for spiritual abuse." "It is?"
* "I love Dr. This-n-That's description of God's grace." "Really? It sounded just like more works-based righteousness." "Seriously? Where?"


Why do we give so much deference to certain "authoritative" voices? Who gets the benefit of the doubt (rather than the higher responsibility)? Why do they slip under the radar?


Well, for me, I want to give Christian teachers and leaders and authors the "benefit of the doubt." I want to assume they are trustworthy and seeking the Lord and studying Scripture. Unfortunately, that has led to me being "burned" more than once. *cough, Ezzo, cough* I think it is common and usual for us, as Christians, to want to assume that self-proclaimed Christians really are what they say they are, and that teachers really are students as well.

For instance, Tripp was recommended to me by a woman with teenage sons so I bought it. I respected her, so I gave Tripp the benefit of the doubt. Now I see how much crud he has mixed in with some encouraging things and I find myself :banghead because I wish he followed through on applying the Gospel to our children and really "shepherding the heart" instead of getting sidetracked with spanking infants and not parenting with the Gospel in sight.

On the other hand, I was slow to give credence to Crystal's writings, because of "Pastor" being prominently on her book, and I have Biblical concerns about women as pastors. (But let's not go down that rabbit trail. . .) So, I approached her writings skeptically. She "earned" a right to be heard by me, through what I've see her do and say here at GCM and through reading her book through the filter of my beliefs, based in the Bible.

On the whole, I think the approach I took with Crystal was wiser, and one I take now with all parenting books (and should with all faith-related books.) But I still think that we do want to trust people and often don't have our discernment sensors set on "high" with a lot of people, teachers, authors.