The Blog of Hobbes

What is wrong with television? It is not primarily that it shortens attention spans, though it certainly does that. Nor is it chiefly that television glorifies violence and hypes immorality, though it does that too. The chief problem with television is that, for those who watch it consistently, it undermines and eventually destroys the ability to think. This is because it communicates primarily by images, not by words, and words are necessary if we are to perceive logical connections and make judgments as to what is right and what is wrong. An image cannot be true or false. Images just are. Although images can tell a story or establish a mood, they cannot make an argument.

Kenneth A. Myers, founder and editor of the Mars Hill Audio Tapes, has written a book titled All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes in which he demonstrates the limits and failures of television by showing how the medium is unable to communicate even the simplest propositional sentences. He suggests these seven sentences as a test:

1. The cat is on the mat.
2. The cat is not on the mat.
3. The cat was on the mat.
4. The cat likes to be on the mat.
5. The cat should not be on the mat.
6. Get off the mat, cat!
7. If the cat doesn’t get off the mat, I shall kick it.

There is nothing complex about these sentences. They progress from…

1. a plain factual statement, to
2. a parallel negative statement,
3. a statement about the past,
4. a statement of desire,
5. a statement of right verses wrong,
6. an imperative,
7. and a final statement projecting a future hypothetical condition.

We use statements such as these all the time. But as Myers points out, only the first could be presented visually, and even then with uncertainty. We might show a picture of a cat on a mat, but depending on how interesting the cat was, we might react to the cat alone and not notice the mat or the fact that the cat is “on” it at all. Indeed, as Myers says, even the simple verb “is” would probably be missing in any description we might give. We would not tend to say that the cat “is” anything.

And it gets harder after that. How would you “image” the negative statement (statement 2)? Would a cat next to a mat do it? Or a picture of a cat on a mat followed by a picture of a cat next to a mat? We might react to pictures like those by saying, “The cat moved off the mat”, since images, especially in television or in movies, suggest motion. But the simple negative- “the cat is not on the mat”- would probably escape us.

It is even more impossible to convey desire (”the cat likes to be on the mat”) or a condition that should not be (”the cat should not be on the mat”) or an imperative (”get off the mat, cat!”) or a future hypothetical condition (”if the cat doesn’t get off the mat, I shall kick it”). Myers says, “Television discourages reflection, tells us what we already know, relies on instant accessibility, reminds us of something else, and reflects the desires of the self.” But it does not develop great minds. Instead it is forming people who are incapable of any meaningful thought about anything, especially the claims of Christianity…

When we read something that requires us to think, there is distance between ourselves and the printed page. We are not necessarily swept along by the words. We can analyze, ponder, weigh, compare, contrast, and disagree. We can reread a paragraph if we do not understand the argument. We may look up vocabulary we do not know. We may challenge the conclusions. Because there is a distance between ourselves and the written words, we do not cheer a well-written sentence or applaud a powerful paragraph, though we may appreciate how well the work is done. Written words promote thinking. Moreover, the better people read and the more they read, the better and longer they can think…

What does television give us? It gives us entertainment, amusement, or diversion. We should remember that “amuse” is composed of two words: “a”, meaning “not” (the negative), and “muse”, meaning “to think.” In other words, television is not only mindless; it is teaching us to be mindless too.

James Mongomery Boice, Whatever happened to the Gospel of Grace?, p 52-54.

Steadfastness in believing doth not exclude all temptations from without. When we say a tree is firmly rooted, we do not say that the wind never blows upon it. [The Golden Book of John Owen, Part III.]

Martin Luther called Copernicus an “upstart astrologer” and

a fool [who] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth. [Tischreden 1.419]

Melanchthon:

The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves. . . . Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it. [Initia Doctrinae Physicae.]

John Calvin:

Astronomers . . .’investigate with great labor whatever keenness of man’s intellect is able to discover. Such study is certainly not to be disapproved, nor this science condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. . . . Therefore, clever men who expend their labor upon it are to be praised and those who have ability and leisure ought not to neglect work of that kind. Nor did Moses wish to withdraw us from this pursuit by omitting such things as are peculiar to the art; but because he was ordained as a teacher of the unlearned and ignorant as well of the learned, he could not fulfill his office unless he descended to this more elementary method of instruction. [Commentaries on the First Book of Moses, 1:86-87]

All quotations taken from Kent Sparks, The Sun Also Rises: Accommodation in Inscripturation and Interpretation in Bacote, Miguelez and Okholm (eds.), Evangelicals & Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics, p114-115

I don’t care much for George Eldon Ladd’s historic premillennialism, since it has scant support in Scripture, I think. Ladd pretty much concedes this when he writes:

One would never discover [premillennialism] from most of the the New Testament because it sees the future like a two-dimension canvas in terms of length and breadth without depth. The transition between the ages is viewed as through it were one simple event, even as the Old Testament prophets look forward to a single Day of the Lord. Only when we come to the Revelation do we find scripture clearly outlining the two stages in the conquest of Satan which are separated by the Millennium. [G.E. Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom, (Eerdmanns, 1959), p38]

He calls premillennialism “a fact”, despite the more obvious fact that the interpretation of 1 Cor. 15 and Rev. 19 are hotly contested. It’s not that I object to Ladd holding firmly to this interpretation. After all, we are all to be clear in our own minds about such things. But, I’m not sure if anyone is helped by using emphatic or definite language (like “fact” and “…scripture clearly outlines…”) to describe interpretations of ambiguous passages. Strongly held beliefs are not more true than weakly held beliefs, and so we need to teach in such a way that the expression of our beliefs reflects the strength of biblical support for them. If there is doubt, then don’t teach it as “fact”.

This divine dynamite of God’s Word cannot be tamed by man or shackled by human devices. “My word . . . shall accomplish what I please” (Isa. 55:4), says the Lord! As Paul was being restrained in a Roman prison and kept from apostolic activity, he comforted his heart by the fact that “the word of God is not bound”. This Word of God needs no human defence. It need only be turned loose and it will change men, nations, and the course of history, and it will shape eternity. By God’s Word nations and cultures have been transformed. Mere translation of Holy Scripture into a language, and distribution of The Book to common men, produce holy revolutions. Even now, in such regions as Africa and the Far East, the power of God’s Word is proving itself uncontainable and unstoppable by human devices.

Editorial in ‘The Banner of Truth Magazine’, by Walter J. Chantry

It is manifest, we are not appointed in this duty [of prayer], to declare God’s perfections, his majesty, holiness, goodness, and all-sufficiency, and our own meanness, emptiness, dependence, and unworthiness, and our wants and desires, to inform God of these things, or to incline his heart, and prevail with him to be willing to show us mercy; but suitably to affect our own hearts with the things we express, and so to prepare us to receive the blessings we ask. And such gestures and manner of external behavior in the worship of God, which custom has made to be significations of humility and reverence, can be of no further use than as they have some tendency to affect our own hearts, or the hearts of others.

Religious Affections 1.ii.9

When I first read this I was not sure if I agreed at all, but I can see the point Edwards is making, I think. After all, as an act in itself, bowing before God has no value. Telling God that he is majestic does not impress God, simply viewed as a speech-act. Edwards seems to imply that such things can be of no further use except to affect ourselves. They are to be practiced in order to affect us, rather than God, it seems. This does appear to be a self-centred attitude towards prayer and worship. However, Edwards believes that, for God to be glorified as He should, those who pray and worship should not only see His glory but also enjoy His glory. Perhaps this is what Edwards is speaking about here. The affecting of our own hearts is to respond to Gods glory appropriately. So, although God is never impressed with the simple acts of bowing and praying, He is most glorified when we are affected by what we pray for and by the One we worship - and if we are more affected by bowing down, then we should do so. This sounds self-centered, but is actually God-glorifying - as John Piper has repeatedly reminded us.

I have from the beginning resolved not to persist in any controversy, as to the public debate of it, when once it begins to degenerate into a strife of words and personal reflections.

The Golden Book of John Owen, Part III.

This is surely excellent advice - particularly for the blogsphere, which seems at times to be an inexhaustible source of strife and “personal reflection”. There is a certain kind of controversy that becomes so unnecessarily contentious that it is our duty to step away from it. We must be aware of the danger of becoming so embroiled in a controversy that our participation becomes more harmful to the cause of Christ than the controversy itself.

To be called to leadership is undoubtedly both a joyful and serious calling. It requires us to go way beyond the cultivation of techniques and strategies designed to manage people and programmes. Rather, leaders are called to fulfill the humanly-impossible task of presenting everyone perfect and mature in Christ Jesus. It is because of this extraordinary role that any self-serving or self-seeking in a leader will corrupt both himself and his congregation. If a leader has an uncontrolled desire for human approval, or higher self-esteem, or more wealth, he will lead his people in a direction calculated merely to please the people, or to please himself, or to provide greater financial income. There cannot be a greater misuse of the gift and calling of leadership

When the people of God complain and criticize the path down which they are being led, the leader must resist the temptation to find a middle ground between pleasing God and pleasing men. Of course, there must be a biblical assessment of his actions and decisions, to determine whether there are grounds for complaint. No leader should fear such an examination. But, if all he confronts is the spiritualization of personal preferences, then he must firmly - and graciously - disregard their complaints. The leader must always lead people according to the revealed plans, purposes and commands of God, as closely as possible. As John Piper has written:

“I define spiritual leadership as knowing where God wants people to be and taking the initiative to use God’s methods to get them there in reliance on God’s power.”

Included in the plans and purposes of God is for us to love His people, and show grace and mercy. But, we must not assume that a resolute pursuit of the biblical pattern for church and for Christian living is somehow unloving or unmerciful. Indeed, it would be unloving for us not to insist on outworking the implications of Scriptural teaching in the lives of God’s people.

Leaders must be theologians first and foremost, and not focus-group facilitators. And, leaders must possess the strength of character and theological conviction to pursue the biblical path down which the church must walk - even if, in the end, they walk it alone.