One of my favorite humorists is the Algonquin wit, Robert Benchley. I can pick up any of his books, open them anywhere, and laugh out loud. He wrote a piece included in his 1936 book “My Ten Years in a Quandary: And How They Grew,” entitled “Movie Boners.” In it he references the fashion among some journalists then (and now) of pointing out inconsistencies in the movies:
For example, in the picture called “One Night Alone-for a Change,” the Prince enters the poolroom in the full regalia of an officer of the Hussars. As we pick him up coming through the door in the next shot he has on chaps and a sombrero…this is just sheer carelessness on the part of the director.
He goes on to describe another movie called “We Need a New Title for This” which has characters strolling in from other pictures, people being in two places at once, and a man striking oil on himself. His problem with the picture, though, is this: “When Elsie comes in to tell Jim she can’t marry him, the clock in the sitting room says ten-thirty. When she leaves it says ten-twenty. That would make her interview minus ten minutes long.”
Like most of Benchley’s pieces, behind the absurd humor there are some serious subtexts. One is: Most movies are stupid and vulgar anyway, so why even try to take them seriously. Another is (and this is the one that interests me today): The bigger the falsehood, the easier it is to swallow.
Jesus, in his exposure of the Pharisees (Matthew 23), accuses them of this very thing. Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: you tithe mint, dill and cumin and have neglected the weightier matters of the law (v.23). You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel (v.24).
We are thus. Still. I knew an eldership who, out-of-hand, rejected an otherwise qualified man as fellow-elder because his daughters went to Amy Grant concerts, and yet were eager to accept a man who insisted that Jesus was inferior to God. I know another congregation who wouldn’t hire a preacher because he would not condemn all consumption of alcohol, but hired one who didn’t believe in the existence of the Holy Spirit. We, as the Pharisees, are easily consumed by the cosmetic, by the veneer of things, and so unconcerned with the substantial thing beneath the cosmetic, behind the veneer. White-washed tombs full of dead men’s bones (v.27), is the way Jesus put it.
I read a survey the other day that said most evangelical Christians choose the congregation they attend based upon the music there. The second most offered reason for attending was fellowship-events. The cosmetic reigns supreme. Where does the truth rank on such a list – not high enough to be mentioned in print. In our own news publication, The Christian Chronicle, each month brings a feature story about some congregation somewhere radically altering their practice one way or another – and why? Is a change made because some man or woman emerged from serious Bible study with a better understanding of the scriptures – or because someone saw something neat at a soul-winning workshop? A few elderships and congregations put out papers explaining biblically and theologically why they make a change but most do not. Most (as most always have) just find a proof-text or two to provide themselves the permission they were going to assume anyway. In reaction, angry letters are written to editors, and new shibboleths quickly manufactured as some other congregations brace themselves in their bunkers to weather the winds of change.
We should do things that are clearly, biblically right. We should not do things that are clearly, biblically wrong. There is no reason any of us should wring our hands about being too progressive, or not progressive enough. There is no reason not to be a happy and confident congregation of believers as we continue to study God’s word and mature in our understanding of it. Our first question should be “what does the Bible teach.” If we are honest enough to ask it, and courageous enough to live by the answer we find, we will be found faithful.
We do not exist to compete for a greater share of the evangelical sub-culture. Nor do we exist to protect some sort of Eisenhower Administration-era form of Church of Christ-ism. The competition between those two models is merely cosmetic. There is something weightier. We exist, by the grace of God, to give Him glory through our love and obedience, and, in so doing, to reach the world with the message of Jesus. To make any other concern primary is to reject our identity.