What Not to Say
I have noticed recently that religious people tend to criticize you more for what you don’t say than what you actually do say. That’s not totally true. Sometimes they may agree with what you are saying but dispute the fact that you didn’t "say it right." But that’s really another form of the first observation. It isn’t what you say that ticks people off as much as what you leave out. Perhaps, in today’s world, this is related to the fact that the choice of what you don’t say is more and more important. Everyone who speaks wisely is not only choosing what to say but also what not to say. Taken seriously, this is a life-changing principle.
These thoughts were triggered by reading the transcript of a talk that Martin Doblmeier gave at a recent conference. Doblmeier is the filmmaker whose documentaries on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, forgiveness, and the health practices of Seventh-day Adventists have garnered considerable attention in the religious world over the last decade. Doblmeier notes that at one time filmmaking was limited to those who could gain access to the tools of filmmaking; super-expensive cameras and editing equipment. Today the tools needed to make quality films are in the hands of just about everyone.
Films and short videos are now pouring at us in greater and greater quantity and in varying degrees of quality. YouTube recently announced that every minute of every day more than 24 hours of new material are being uploaded onto their site. A day’s worth of video every minute. I calculated that if one did nothing else for four years (no sleeping, no eating, no download time, just watching videos non-stop) one could only view a day’s worth of uploads. So no matter how much time I were to spend on YouTube, a quest to view all available video materials would leave one infinitely short of success though one spent every waking and sleeping hour at it. More and more we are recording every thought, every silly pet trick, every foolish stunt and every presentation at every conference. The main question then becomes; Who is watching and why?
The main implication for people of faith is powerful. In a YouTube world everyone has to make choices regarding what to do with one’s time. Everyone must decide what is wheat and what is chaff. Everyone must choose whether something is worth putting front row and center or not. There are only 24 hours in a day. Priorities have always mattered, but never so much as they matter now. In a world of infinite choice and opportunity, the most important and most priceless commodity is time and attention. Either we choose to spend our time on things that ultimately matter or we will spend it foolishly on an endless array of unfiltered nonsense. This makes me think. How am I using my time? Where am I investing it? Is every email worth answering? Is even blogging a useful endeavor or a distraction from what is truly real?
There is one further implication. With all the mountains of material being created every minute, how will people ever find God in this world? How will most people find time to consider the things that people of faith think are vitally important? Perhaps more important for readers of this blog: How can we present or frame the stories that really matter in a way that ensures they will not be discarded with all the chaff that’s out there? Never were the words of Jesus in Matthew 13:22 (ESV) more true: "As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful."
Small decisions and encounters each day will determine whether or not someone out there gives the gospel a fair hearing in their lives. You and I may be the only story about God some people ever hear. Kind of fills each moment with potential meaning, doesn’t it?



Hi Jon.
I heard someone say at church last week that the pastor running the revelation seminar and NOT saying anything about 1844 etc. is this true? And if it is true, are there reasons for this? I told this person that it would probably be mentioned later in the program. Am I right?
Bless
Steve
Reply to this
Steve,
Not sure exactly what you are talking about, but let me respond in general.
All evangelism involves a choice of what to say and what not to say and when. If you try to cover everything in a 10-30 part series it will confuse rather than convince. So all evangelism involves some sort of follow up or baptismal class. What is said and what is left out should be in interaction with the intended audience, what it can handle and when. See blog of February 28 on John 16:12.
Regarding 1844, the Book of Revelation does not address it, so an exegetical approach would speak of it at most only in passing, leaving the details for a Daniel seminar or baptismal class.
Jon
Reply to this
Great issue Jon! Is time on our side or is it against us? And if not telling the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth could be a lie or cause someone to be mistaken, then I would agree that what we say or don't say is important.
As for the revelation seminar, since Jesus did not give this revelation, that He got from His Father, to anyone other than the "Bond Servants", (only for them to understand), don't you agree that would be the real reason for all of the mistaken and false opinions for this book?
Reply to this
I assume from John 16:12 that telling less than what you know, in many situations at least, is not a lie.
There are many reasons why Revelation is misunderstood, the one I focus on most is our failure to take seriously the language and context in which God chose to give the book. Unlike Daniel, there is no hint in Revelation that its basic meaning is reserved for some other person or generation to understand.
Reply to this
if there is no hint in Revelation that its basic meaning is reserved for some "other person" or "other generation" to understand, wouldn't the default position be it was to be understood by the people and generation if it's day? If one looks at the history of Rome and the view you would have at patmos of events unfolding it would seem that revelation was for that day, that generation, those people. How is it then with "no hint that its basic meaning is for some other people and some other generation" we find so many theologians attempting to bring its meaning "forward" to "this day" ..and "the present generation"
Reply to this
It is a sobering observation yet significant on how I respond to the ultimate question: what do I think of Jesus today?
Thank you for bringing that to my personal attention.
Reply to this