Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five Part Six Part Seven
Very seldom will someone, who changes for something wrong or for the wrong reason, announce his change. Even more infrequently will he repent over what apparently was a former false belief and/or practice. This lack of notification of the change is often tell-tale as to its biblical legitimacy. If this change away from a former belief and practice is so good, why not announce it and help other people?
2 Corinthians 4:4 calls Satan, the god of this world. He wants changes in his direction and for his cause. This is how he leads the world astray from the truth. He gladly doesn’t follow a biblical process.
A Forum for Challenge
Scripture teaches a forum for challenge. Paul commands, “Prove all things” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). 1 Corinthians 14:29 communicates a forum for challenge in a church, saying, “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.” Other leaders have the authority and responsibility to weigh and judge a teaching. They evaluate in an orderly and peaceful way, sparing the process from chaos. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), not just one person.
The question isn’t, “Will it work?” or, “Will we or others like it?” The forum relates to whether a teaching is scriptural. People may not like a teaching, because it clashes with family, work, or the world system. It brings opposition and maybe ridicule. Those considering the already established teaching or practice may want to avoid these clashes, and this fuels a decision to change.
The Meaning of Contentiousness
In Corinth, a faction of people in the church would cause contention over the practice of the women wearing head coverings. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11:16, “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” This verse is a final word to those who are fighting against the established practice of the church and are unwilling to submit to it.
Even if the faction becomes contentious, the church should not change under that pressure. This is the position of the church and it will stick with it, no matter what kind of flack it will receive from a faction in opposition and causing contention. Paul makes the point that it isn’t just the church at Corinth, but he broadens it to the acceptance of the churches of God. He speaks of the authority of the church in the belief.
In the History of Christian Doctrine
Example of Psalms
The history of doctrine and practice is a history of changes. One could say, “The church once believed this or that.” Questions should follow: “Why did the church change?” “Was the church right about this before?” “What caused churches to drop this position or standard?”
Our church sings out of the Psalter. As I grew up in church, I never sang out of a Psalter. I didn’t know Psalters existed. No one spoke of one. Both Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 say, “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.” Psalms are psalms. Singing psalms was the normal and predominant position of true churches for hundreds of years. What happened that caused churches to stop singing them if this is what God wanted to hear?
Where I’m at now, same thing happened. When we started singing psalms every Sunday and then went to purchase a Psalter, men wondered why they had not heard of this. They asked how this kind of change should occur. They saw the verses and now they know that these Psalters still exist. This change relates to something the church always practiced, but it dwindled then from very few to none. Bad changes occurred. Bringing back the Psalter means reverting to what was always true.
I don’t bring the Psalter to you to challenge you on whether you are singing psalms or not. I’m talking about the process of change. Church leaders should test their beliefs based upon scripture, not ritual or just tradition. I would contend that historically churches dropped the psalms based on pragmatism. They had in mind something they wanted to accomplish and they thought psalms would hinder their goals. Is pragmatism the right basis for change? Of course it isn’t.
Example of Door-to-Door Evangelism
Churches and their pastors stopped practicing door-to-door evangelism. They started new methods of church growth, but they discontinued going directly to people in their homes to preach the gospel. Did this cessation of this practice occur according to steps in the right process for belief change?
The History of Change
The history of Christian doctrine is a history of change. New denominations form based on change. Most of these changes are like mutations. A mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a cell’s genetic material. These changes can be caused by errors during cell division or by exposure to environmental factors like chemicals or radiation. Cancer itself is a mutation or several of them.
Entire new religions start with wrong steps or a wrong process. One could characterize the changes in two ways. One is syncretism, which is combining different beliefs and variated schools of thought, one religion incorporating or absorbing certain elements, features, and components of another religion.
Two is a process of Hegelian dialectics. In layman’s terms, this is a process of change driven by conflict, which can be broken down into three stages: a thesis (an initial idea or state), an antithesis (an opposing idea or state), and a synthesis (a new, more complete understanding that resolves the conflict). This synthesis then becomes a new thesis, and the process of change continues indefinitely. It assumes subjectivity or relativism and a lack of certainty.
Scriptural change always refers to an objective, unchanging standard of truth. God through His stated means causes the changes. People need to change, but to conform to God and His immutable truths. The Bible becomes the basis for judging whether changes are right.
More to Come