Home » Posts tagged 'January 6'

Tag Archives: January 6

Changes in Personal Belief and the Effects on Relationships (part two)

Part One

Very often I tell people that I don’t know if I’m done changing in doctrine and practice.  As I get older, I am changing less, but I haven’t found that changing ends.  I think I’m done and then I encounter something else or another way I might need to change.

Changes

Other people always want me to change.  When I evangelize I encounter others every week who want me to change in my beliefs, and I don’t.  When I try to help others change, I cannot in good faith attempt to do that without the willingness to change myself.  If I was not willing to change in a discussion of doctrine, I would call that, being closed minded.  I expect open mindedness from others who I want to change, so I must be willing too.

In all my years of working for the Lord in and through churches, I have watched many changes on the landscape of churches and religious institutions in the United States.  As I grew up, I rarely heard an expository sermon.  Then I would attend preaching meetings and hear little exposition.  Now I hear exposition for half the sermons at the same conference.  I see this as a good change.

I have also seen many bad changes, so many that churches are worse today than ever.  The worst changes are not doctrinal so much.  They are cultural.  The culture of church in the United States changed.  It sadly followed the world, the spirit of the age.  This then affects the whole country in a very negative way.

Changes in doctrine and practice followed the culture in the United States.  Many churches don’t even know they changed.  It occurred slowly over a long period of time, like watching a toddler grow up to a teenager.  It was slow, but the outcome is very noticeable.

Change and Relationships

Because change can be bad, very bad, sometimes any change, especially if it isn’t a more conservative one, can seem bad.  As a parent, maybe you have changed the rules or the code of conduct at home.  You gave the children more liberty than they had.  You had good intentions for loosening up on the standards.  That could look like a change for the worse to some people.  In fact, a parent may change his approach to teach discernment, so a way of helping his children.

Very often someone won’t change because of its potential effect on his relationships.  Others will criticize him for changing.  They may threaten him not to change.  He doesn’t want to face that.  Almost every change I’ve ever made affected relationships and sometimes in a major way.

When someone takes one position and changes to another, it might look like something is wrong.  Why did he change?  The truth doesn’t change.  He believes and practices the truth.  Is he forsaking the truth in some way?

Sanctification

I agree that the truth doesn’t change.  It doesn’t.  We must change though.  It’s part of our sanctification.  2 Corinthians 3:18 says:

But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit.

You can see that Paul uses the controversial “C” word, “changed.”  Jesus doesn’t change.  You must though.

It is even harder to change something as a leader.  Whenever you change as a leader, people you’ve led will question the change.

Knowledge

When a leader changes in an area that he himself taught or preached, so that people followed, it might be very hard for the followers.  This is one reason why as a leader you have to be very sure about something you teach or preach.  Nonetheless, it can and will happen.  You thought you understood fully.  You thought you did.  Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13:12:

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Belief and practice relates to knowledge, something Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 12-14 among the spiritual gifts.  Even though God gifts in knowledge, a person on this side of glory still sees through a glass darkly.  He has knowledge.  He still needs more knowledge until his glorification.  Not until he sees Jesus face to face will he not need knowledge anymore.

Replay

Mulligan

I haven’t played golf much, but I understand playing golf and hitting some bad shots.  It will happen.  Among those who play golf as a hobby or for exercise, they understand the idea of a mulligan.  Everyone knows you will hit a tee shot into the woods.  You tee up another ball and start over.  You give yourself a mulligan.

Even if you try to get everything right as a leader, you still need a few mulligans.  You see through a glass darkly.  You are trying to see through a glass clearly.  If you are a preacher, did you ever preach a sermon, and you had to come back and correct something you said?  I have.  I hate it when I have to do it.  Very much, I would rather not do that.  I’m always afraid that I’ll lose the trust of the people if I come back to make the correction.

Editorial Process

Readers probably relate to the editorial process.  You edit and find mistakes.  When you think you have them all,  you read again and find more mistakes.  You edit.  When you think you’ve got that all done and then give the piece to someone else to read, he finds many more mistakes.  You publish the piece.  Readers find more errors in the published document, something you hate the worst.  It’s too late.  Corrections must occur now in the next edition.

Some might say that we don’t get any mulligans in real life.  I would say, hopefully we do.  We all need mulligans in this life.  Christians should understand that better than anyone.

Dress Rehearsals

A statement I often use is this:  “Life has no dress rehearsals.”  At various times of my life, I directed dozens of plays and programs.  I’m not promoting drama as an element of worship.  We had dress rehearsals for the plays and programs in our school.  I am glad we had them.

It’s true that life doesn’t often have a dress rehearsal.  Sometimes I thought I believed exactly right.  It wasn’t until later that I found that a particular belief came from a tradition and I didn’t know it.  I thought I had studied that myself.  Once I did study it, I wondered how I defended that position.

Defending Positions

Tradition

Sometimes what will happen is that we have a belief or practice based upon a tradition and we teach it or preach it.  At some point someone challenges the belief or practice.  Rather than admit that we got that from tradition, we scrape up some arguments to defend the tradition.  The tradition, maybe not a scriptural teaching, becomes more entrenched.

I’m not opposing all tradition.  Paul uses the word (2 Thess 3:6) in a positive manner.  Tradition isn’t enough for keeping the position though.  Bad traditions can continue when we defend all traditions.

Inconsistency or Principled?

I’m fine with the word, inconsistent.  It closely relates to another good word, principled.  I noticed that some of the same people who attacked the January 6 protestors defended the Tennessee capital protestors.  The attack was inconsistent.  It wasn’t principled.

If we get further information about some position or issue and it merits a change, it is principled to change.  It is not inconsistent.  Changing might be easier.  It could be harder.  Whether it is easier or harder to change may not relate to consistency or principle.  It relates to the reaction of other people and your future relationships.

Further Information

Let’s say that in the morning, you tell your children they must go to bed at 9pm.  You get home at 9:15pm.  Your children are still up.  You say, “Get to bed.”  The oldest child asks, “Can I ask you a question?”  You say, “Yes.”  He says, “Mom said we could stay up, because school was cancelled for tomorrow.”  That’s new information that you didn’t have.  You can change.  You can think about what you said before, understand that you didn’t have all the information, and you can change your position.  It isn’t inconsistent.

Evaluation of Leaders

Paul saw division in the church at Corinth.  One major reason for division was bad evaluation of leaders.  When leaders think of the evaluation of others, it can affect what they do in either a good or a bad way.  I am not saying that they shouldn’t listen.  Paul called the leaders, the “ministers of Christ” (1 Corinthians 4:1).

“Ministers” translates the Greek word for “galley slaves.”  The galley slaves work together on the oars, moving the ship forward, because they have one master.  He calls out the rhythm of the oars.  This simplifies the process for them.  They’ve got one person to please.  The person most important to please as a leader is Christ Himself.

The Founders Didn’t Found a Democracy

The main strategy, it seemed, of the Democrat party for the mid-term election was the “attack on democracy.”  I think I understand them correctly when I say they refer to a spin on January 6, 2020 and then the so-called “election denial” or “election denialism.”   January 6 was this amazing attempt to overturn the election.  It was so close to seeing Donald Trump in the White House, just razor thin.

You’ve got to have people, when it’s announced that they lost, that they concede.  You give a gracious concession speech where you agree that you lost.  If not, you’re attacking democracy.  If later, you say something in the nature of the election being rigged against you, that will bring violence and a 1930’s Nazi takeover around the corner.

Most of the Democrat attempt to impede the expected red wave revolved around saving democracy.  Based on a very general definition, the United States is a democracy.  It is in the sense that legal voters elect their representatives.  In that way, the people rule the country.  However, the founders didn’t think they were founding a democracy.

If you google “federalist papers,” you’ll get a discussion on democracy.   Speaking of democracy, Alexander Hamilton (yes, Hamilton), wrote:

Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

He continued in the next two paragraphs:

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

In the answer by James Madison, the Father of the United States Constitution, he writes:

The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.

To this accidental source of the error may be added the artifice of some celebrated authors, whose writings have had a great share in forming the modern standard of political opinions. Being subjects either of an absolute or limited monarchy, they have endeavored to heighten the advantages, or palliate the evils of those forms, by placing in comparison the vices and defects of the republican, and by citing as specimens of the latter the turbulent democracies of ancient Greece and modern Italy. Under the confusion of names, it has been an easy task to transfer to a republic observations applicable to a democracy only; and among others, the observation that it can never be established but among a small number of people, living within a small compass of territory.

They write much more.  Their words stand on their own to repudiate the claim of American democracy.  Both Hamilton and Madison argue against it.

I think the Democrat strategy won’t work.  I don’t think most people even comprehend their point.  “Please elect people who support your right to elect them.”  If they couldn’t vote for who they wanted, it would be obvious.

If you’re thinking like me, you see an irony in the Democrat strategy.  Elon Musk bought Twitter, because the Democrats who controlled the company took away the right to express an opinion.  In justifying his overbid for Twitter, Musk wrote:

Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated.

The threat to free speech comes from the Democrats.  People know they could lose their job over their opinion.  Parents lost their say over the education of their children.  Those with a different opinion than the Democrats can’t work in Hollywood.  The mainstream media censors stories that hurt their favored political party.

The United States wasn’t founded as a democracy.  Even if it was, only one political party threatens the democratic values behind the American Republic.  It isn’t the Republicans.

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives