Unsafe at Any Dose

Are certain ideas so deceptive, so tantalizing, and so wrong that they are unsafe at any dose? I have been asking myself this question lately. The title of this post comes from the title of a book written by Bob Johnson warning about the dangers of psychotropic medications and other psychiatric techniques. This book is analogous to Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at Any Speed," a critique of consumer automobile safety. The basic idea is that real danger and real poison exist, and while most things can be taken in moderation there are some that cannot be taken in any amount.

In several situations, people that I know and respect have started to entertain novel teachings and beliefs and when I question how it is they are accepting these ideas, a very common answer is, "we have to be good Bereans, and search the scripture." This alludes to a passage in Acts where the believers in Berea were considered noble minded because they searched out Paul's teaching according to the scriptures (think Old Testament) to see if what he was teaching was true. Therefore, goes the argument, before we just dismiss a line of teaching we are obligated to some level of objective inquiry, and moreover perceived as narrow and rigid if we decide too quickly. I believe that the Berean approach is praiseworthy, but perhaps misunderstood.

One problem that I have with universal application of the Good Berean line of thinking is that it presumes that one has the time, skills, and resources to verify the many claims of deceptive ideas (and their exponents) in a fair and objective way. This is ludicrous. No one can stand knee-deep in a stream of speculation, and sort out point by point, "this is good, this is bad." Especially since deceptive teaching is mostly good, or at least not obviously wrong. Expressed as a percentage, maybe 70% good, 30% wrong. So what if a person is clever and wise enough to separate the 30% wrong out very cleanly and pass the 70% good along to others? In theory, this is fine. Practically, who has the time? Boundaries and categories are necessary. In my world of chemistry, extremely clean separations are difficult and energy intensive, there is always some trace impurity in anything that is purified. How much it matters depends on how sensitive the system is to impurity, and how potent the impurity is.

The second problem that I have with the Good Berean line of thinking is that the Bereans were evaluating the words of a teacher (Paul) that they had already received and trusted. Therefore, I would argue from that text that it is requisite that the teacher themselves be approved prior to hearing or evaluating any teaching. We are not required to suffer a false prophet, liar, or fool. Moses, Yeshua, and Paul all give instructions about the qualifications of teachers, leaders, and prophets. If a teacher does not meet the qualifications, they do not require any further hearing or evaluation. Yeshua said that we will know them by their fruits. A person can say whatever is expedient at the moment and draw a crowd, but they can't fake a life of righteousness for very long. Can the person maintain relationships, can they lead a family, can they provide for themselves? As Yeshua said, "Where the carcass is, there the vultures will gather." If there are vultures to be found, there is rottenness around.

Another common attitude with respect to questionable teaching and teachers is "take it or leave it." Or, "if it works for you, great." Intellectually, I'm having a hard time seeing how this is different from classic maxims of 60s and 70s latitudinarianism like "different strokes for different folks," "I'm OK, you're OK", and, "if it feels good, do it." If it's partly bad, why take it at all? I like "if in doubt, leave it out." If it's not two-hands-above-the-table, clean, and pure, what is our interest? (Philippians 4) Do we crave the approval of others for our perceived sophistication in such matters, do we fear being shunned as parochial and fundamentalist in defense of absolutes? There must be enough firmness and gravity to the truth that we can either approve or reject some ideas outright, or at least hold them at arm's length and certainly not recommend them to others until we are sure.

How about specifics? I don't mind specifics, creating categories, and triaging the halt and lame into wards where we can deal with them. What kinds of things are unsafe at any dose? Here are several that I am convinced of.

• Kabbalah: it's witchcraft, why bother?
• In the Messianic world, Two House, Sacred Name, Creator's Calendar: it's unfounded speculation based on questionable scholarship, infused with anarchy, presumption, and rebellion, why bother?
• Aliens, vampires, UFOs, the para-normal
• Freemasonry and other secret fraternal orders
• Yoga, reflexology, Traditional Chinese Medicine, transcendental meditation, acupuncture, the body electric, astrology
• Religious movements formed around a man

Maybe you feel somewhat surprised by the list above. Perhaps you beg to differ. What are some things that you consider unsafe at any dose? What do you think? (Leave a comment).