Nobility, Approachability, and the Vitality of Truth

Several years, and multiple studies on the efficiency of communication, have come and gone since Marshall MacLuhan shocked the world by stating what we all knew but were afraid to admit: "The medium is the message."

Of course we can debate the overall merits of his declaration. Certainly, the veracity of truth, especially in the hands of the Holy Spirit, can never be fully disfigured, regardless of its packaging. But the fact remains - and we all understand it at some level - that the way something is presented, packaged, extended, contextualized, introduced, illustrated, or otherwise delivered absolutely will determine the way most of the audience will understand, value, and act on it. Let's talk through some illustrations:

1) What would have been the impact of the Gettysburg Address if Lincoln had shown up to the graveyard dressed in his day's equivalent of shorts, tee shirt, and flips?

2) What would have been the impact of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream speech" if it had been delivered in a monotone?

3) What would America think if President Obama decided to break with "tradition" and deliver the State of the Union speech via a series of cell phone texts instead of live before the Congress and other leaders from the floor of the Senate chamber?

I think I could multiply other examples, but I want to move on to the point. It is not proper nor beneficial to wrap that which is noble, serious, extraordinary, and special in a package that is ignoble, frivolous, average, and common. When you're representing communicating God and His Truth, don't be Bart Simpson.

Now, I know some of you contrarians - you who enjoy making waves because you like to make others uncomfortable - will probably come up with reasons why each of my illustrations and my point fall apart. Go ahead; but just know that while you may knock some of the corners off my argument, my central premise is unarguably true to anyone playing with an open mind.

My purpose is to speak to the prevailing sense in our culture that "approachability" is the highest value in communication and life. That is, we need to strip away everything that in any way might be seen as pretentious. In this case, "approachability" is seen as the opposite of the "authoritarian" style of communication. The "authority" model is where the speaker or agent comes from the position of knowing something the audience needs to know. The speaker or agent presumably has discovered something that is beneficial, and comes with the "authority" of knowing that which the audience or receptors need to know. Clearly, this model has risk. Authoritative teaching can easily morph into authoritarian abuse. Most recently, those who reject the notion of "absolute truth" have used the potential abuse of the "authority" model as a reason to reject it out of hand. More and more, especially in the minds of the post-modern thinker, any message is considered to be suspect if delivered in a way that suggests that the speaker has some advantage over the listener, that the speaker considers himself an "expert" or in any way suggests that he is ahead or above his audience. He or she might do this even before opening their mouth by dressing in a way that is "above" that of the audience. In fact, the more "average" they dress, the more they will be heard, according to the post-modern view.

Such an "authoritarian" means of communicating - in post-modern terms - is really an attempt to exert power over the listener. To "overpower" the listener is really the goal, and everything, from the way the speaker dresses, to the words and tone of voice used, is focused at moving the listens to think and act in the way the speaker is advocating. This is true in speaking, advertising, and any other medium where one party seeks to influence another. Simply put, the post-modern world is screaming "you better not approach us with any sense of authority; we're not going to listen."

The residuals of this "approachability" model of communication are all around us. One of the most noticeable, and most tragic, is the desire to make everything in life "common." Everything in life needs to be "dressed in blue jeans." Now, I love blue jeans. They are comfortable, and actually are increasingly acceptable almost everywhere. But, the real question is this: Should they be? Should the nobility of certain venues, events, and occasions be stripped away by the prevailing wind that says anything noble is actually a pretentious act of power? Should Lincoln have given his Address in blue jeans and flips?

Not long ago I was approached by a couple who wanted to get married in blue jeans and have some pizza afterward. They were sincere and nice people, but they had been beguiled by our "approachability" culture into thinking that a wedding is not a special thing. In fact, there are no "special" things; everything is a common thing. Every event in life, every truth in life, every occasion in life is common, a blue jeans and pizza thing. And while I am sure there are good marriages that started with less fanfare than blue jeans and pizza, I am also sure that the great problem in America is NOT that we think too highly of God, His Word, His ordinances, and His foundational institutions. And so I ask you: if our society is dead set to downplay the nobility of marriage to the place where it can be started and ended as easily as ordering a pizza, who is going to stand against that? I hope it is those dedicated Christ-followers in the church, but I fear that some of the best among us are already adopting the very philosophy of everything being "everyday" that we should be opposing.

All around our society, and especially noticeable in the church today, is this crusade to make everything common; to take that which has always been seen as sacred and worthy of a higher sense of decorum and description, and dress it in the "blue jeans" of everyday slang, off the cuff humor, and a general sense that this isn't special, just an "everyday thing."

Take, for example, the ordinances of the church. Hey, the Lord's Supper is just a cracker and a sip! No need to prepare the heart! It's just a snack with Jesus, and hey, I can almost hear Him saying to us "time to break out the chips, guys!" Or baptism: "Hey, I know this is kinda weird, but we're gonna dunk Fred here, and then clap, and then he'll be part of our club, the church. Awright!" Recently, I was sickened to see a baptismal event begun with an amateurish exclamation from a 2nd-rate comedy movie. I shuddered to think that the wonderful drama of redemption, so beautifully acted out in baptism, had now to compete in the minds of us all with the undignified humor written by a screenwriter in Hollywood. Whether we recognize it or not, we are watching as the "blue jeans and flips" view of all life is pulling everything down to its level. To make the divine approachable, we are being told to package it in the mundane, the ordinary, the frivolous, and the comic. But beware! The medium is the message, and we drain the message of its seriousness at our peril.

Okay, so maybe I have gotten a bit too serious here, but I hope you get the point. I am not arguing in favor of pretense. I am not suggesting that we need to use words that no one can understand. What I am saying is that when we strip away nobility in favor of approachability, we take away the vitality of the truth we are attempting to communicate. Certain subjects demand certain styles. The gravity of the truth demands a proper weight of communication.

My scope here might profitably be expanded to include all the truths of our day that are being minimized and marginalized; that are by being communicated in common, even frivolous ways, by those who dress, act, and speak from a "blue jeans and flips" philosophical bias. But my real target is the way the truth of God is being understood, packaged, and delivered by those entrusted by God with the care and feeding of the Church.

When Jesus got done teaching the crowds, they marveled that He had gone against the prevailing communication style of His day. "When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes" (Mt. 7:28,29). Imagine that. Jesus came from a position of authority. He came with the presumption that He had something from the Father that the people needed to hear. He did not come trying desperately to minimize the weight of the message through approachability. Rather, He communicated the truth, in shocking ways I might add, and it grabbed the hearts and minds of His listeners.

Later, Paul would admonish Titus to adopt the communication style of authority: "These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you" (Titus 2:15).

Again, I am not arguing for arrogance in communication, or authoritarianism by those in positions of leadership. What I am arguing for is a strenuous rejection of the prevailing idea that the best way to communicate God's truth is to adopt a "blue jeans and flips" medium. I am not suggesting that comfortable language and dress are always inappropriate. I am saying that certain times in the life and teaching of the church call for serious, sober sentences, complete with adult words, delivered by those whose "medium" (clothes, demeanor, tone, etc) lives up to the gravity of the truth being communicated. The medium is the message in all too many ways! The jargon of the "blue jeans and flips" lifestyle does not rise to the level necessary to give proper weight and communicative authority to the beauty of redemption, the nature of Justification, the majesty of baptism, the sobriety of the Supper or any of a whole host of necessary and divinely noble truths.

But there is yet another element to this. When, in an attempt to be approachable, to be 'down to earth' we strip away the nobility of the text and the topic, we not only drain away the vitality of the truth, but we also wind up with something less than what the Spirit promises to use to change hearts and lives. I find it strangely ironic that those who believe they are making the truth more accessible and attractive - by dressing the spectacular in blue jeans and flips - are actually draining their message of its power. Besides, I'm convinced that when an outsider turns to the world of Christ-followers for answers and help, he or she comes expecting to find God. And while they may not know God, they do know He isn't like them. He isn't everyday, common, frivolous. He is good, but He isn't safe. He isn't best understood as a blue jeans and flips kind of guy. He is spectacular, awe-inspiring, transcendent yet intimately available without being diminished in His grandeur. He is mighty, and before Him we are set on our heels. When He speaks, the heavens rumble, and the gravity of His Words come with divine authority. And yet,somehow, when He speaks we are thankful for the clarity and security of His instruction. In His authority and majesty we find comfort, and order, and rest. In Him we find our place.

And so, as those called upon to extend God and His truth to those in a broken world, I plead with you: don't fall prey to the idea that less is more; that seriousness is suspect; that nobility doesn't matter; that God is best represented by a "blue jeans and flips" demeanor that eschews all things regal; that reverence and sobriety can be replaced by banal banter without consequence. The medium is the message, and the message of Jesus Christ deserves the finest medium we can construct.

In closing, I do wear blue jeans, and I even preach in blue jeans at some of our weekend services. I also wear a suit and tie every weekend. And this blog post actually isn't about jeans and flips and ties and suits. It isn't about some legalistic list of rules about what you can and cannot wear on stage at church. It's about the increasing tendency on the part of many to diminish the reasons behind a tie and a suit. It's about the overwhelming belief on the part of so many that informality, and a casual approach to all of life is not only acceptable, but preferable in all circumstances, on all occasions. It's about the folly of this position, and a resolute call to a more noble consideration of Jesus, His message, and the best medium to use in extending His message.

A last note: I am going to leave this post open to comments. However, if you leave a comment, I ask that you be winsome, and righteous in your interaction with others who may as well want to comment. Let us make sure that our discourse here is noble, and fitting for those who claim to follow the King of Kings.

Hope this helps,

David