Our small farm tractor had lost its exhaust system, pipe, muffler, and all. That little 30-horse-power engine suddenly sounded like a ferocious beast. It was very hard on our ears, as well.
The manifold on the motor pointed down, and we ran it that way for a short time. I assume we were waiting for the cash to buy new parts for it.
I thought about this problem. I thought about good ways to fix it without buying anything. I came up with a really good solution. It made great sense to me.
At that stage of life, I had a bad habit. I would think about matters of life, and its problems. Then I would announce at the dinner table, or somewhere else, “I just read these facts about that….” Everyone in my family knew that I read everything I could find, so I thought that if I said that I read it somewhere, they would believe that I had indeed found some useful information.
So I described a plan for the tractor exhaust. I even drew out an illustration of how it works, telling my dad that I saw it in a book: Take two tin cans, one small enough to fit inside the larger one; take a nail and punch many holes into the bottom of each can; take wire and tie the two cans in sequence onto the exhaust manifold, and presto, you have a muffler.
For some odd reason, that plan never got a design patent. It was as worthless as a tin can with holes punched into its bottom.
I’m so distressed by the individualized ideas that we easily put out there as useful information. It is justifiable to promote because the idea “makes sense to me.” That phrase is filled with a set of assumptions that should make anyone step back and carefully reconsider.
I see this practice so powerfully illustrated in two key areas: 1) When we promote statements from people who claim to have heard from God; and 2) When we support statements and conclusions from someone who has a purported scientific analysis of the issue.
In either of those two categories, what seems to give ultimate credence to the statement is when it can be couched in one’s political bias. Apparently, that is the best way to ultimately test the trustworthiness of the proposition: Which political party does it best align with?
In my view, not many remember that we are seldom able to verify the authenticity of the message. Seldom. That is, almost never.
As individuals, we should not assume that we can make a valid affirmation of a specific set of facts or plan of action. That’s the function of the appropriate community.
For category 1): When a follower of Jesus considers a “prophetic” analysis of our circumstances or our future, the scripture teaches and illustrates that this type of message can only be verified by the church, not by an individual. I feel that our primary failing in this category is that evangelicals don’t even think about testing such messages in a trustworthy community of spiritual elders before posting them online.
It’s not surprising, actually, that any individual can just put some “spiritual” message out there and other individuals feel on their own to decide if it is credible. That’s because for most evangelicals the church is not even close to being a trusted council for judging truth; instead, the “church” is more like an energy drink dispenser as I run my individual race through life.
Until we change our assumptions about the Church and our place within it, we will continue to see the message of the “church” disintegrate into personal opinions and judgments that justifiably become the objects of ridicule and cynicism by onlookers.
For category 2): Scientific facts or theories require a similar series of steps in order to be considered credible. It’s called “peer-reviewed” science. Yes, it’s very difficult to know what sources to trust. However, when people who have had no other exposure to the methods or the factors involved in the search for answers simply adopt some statement because it sounds logical–it doesn’t really mean anything.
There are many reasons why we are not able to judge rightly as individuals. Whether I’m considering a “spiritual” message or a “scientific” analysis, my confidence must come from the wisdom of the appropriate community.
“It makes sense to me” is simply not a trustworthy or reliable statement.