Beware of the Leaven

“Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and the Pharisees, who asked them, ‘Why didn’t you bring him in?’ ‘No one ever spoke the way this man does,’ the guards replied. ‘You mean he has deceived you also?’ the Pharisees retorted. ‘Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them’” (John 7:45–47 NIV).

“I thank you, Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will” (Luke 10:21).

A popular meme has circulated on social media that says, “Don’t confuse my [insert specialized discipline] degree with your google search.” I’ve seen colleagues post the version of the meme that refers to their theology degrees, but there’s one for just about every sort of expertise.

In one respect, these satirical memes are pointing out a quite serious concern in our contemporary Western world, perhaps due in large part to our instant access to considerable information. Namely, a naïve, misplaced confidence in one’s comprehension of complex issues—issues that are typically the domain of subject matter experts who have become such through much professional research, study, and training.

However, there is in my view a parallel problem that runs in exactly the opposite direction. Equally frustrating and dangerous is when some persons are completely dependent on perceived experts to form any conclusions whatsoever.

The gospels provide vivid accounts of an agenda-driven intelligentsia who attempted to offer “authoritative” interpretations of Jesus’ person and work. Not unlike what often happens today, the pretense for such interpretations was the inability of “regular folk” to properly comprehend the meaning of what they were hearing and seeing without their guidance.

In the gospel of John, the religious authorities—experts in the religious traditions of the Jewish people—along with those ostensibly submitted to their professional opinions claimed that Jesus was a deceiver and possessed by a demon (see John chapters 7–8). When guards charged with arresting Jesus refused to do so because his teaching strongly resonated with them, the authorities scoffed, determined that the guards had been deceived, and proclaimed that commoners sympathetic to Jesus and his message were simply ignorant and should be damned!

Similarly, in Matthew, these same authorities asserted that Jesus exorcised demons by the power of Satan. So, according to the experts, Jesus, who’s ministry was fundamentally characterized by alleviating human suffering, was actually doing the devil’s bidding (Matthew 12:22–37; see also Luke 9:14–28). Really?

Indeed, in none of the gospel accounts do we get the sense that those advancing these sorts of interpretations of Jesus’ words and deeds were genuinely interested in the truth of his identity and mission. Rather, that Jesus posed a threat to their power and influence seems to have been the motivation lurking behind their expert opinions.

Importantly, Jesus had little patience for those overly concerned about the opinions of the authorities to the extent that they themselves couldn’t understand what should have been apparent to all:

 “[Jesus] also said to the crowds, ‘When you see a cloud rising in the west, you say at once, “A shower is coming.” And so it happens. And when you see the south wind blowing, you say, “There will be scorching heat,” and it happens. You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time?’” (Luke 12:54–56 NIV).

Respect for experts in their respective fields is certainly appropriate and prudent. However, it is nothing short of perilous if this respect becomes instead blind submission to the establishment’s “truth holders,” such that persons are all-too-easily persuaded to simply accept what they are told.

That certain authorities could have ulterior—even nefarious—motives, or, minimally, less than scrupulous bases for their claims can never be completely ruled out. For societies unable or unwilling, then, to form independent conclusions from the available evidence, trouble surely looms ahead.