Overspoken, Underinformed

It is a common trait of humanity that the older we get, the more we fear change. Bureaucracy finds it's roots in this fear. This is a completely natural part of being human, but we live in a world of constant change where every day brings us new opportunities to become obsolete.

Young people seem to thrive on change, keeping up with the newest technologies and ways of thinking. When they get older, they become more entrenched in a way of thinking or doing things. Every one of us will reach a point at which we are most comfortable with how things are, and we will tend to stick with that while the rest of the world passes us by. Some people are still living in the 50's or 60's instead of today, or even farther back. Living in the past this way jades people's thinking about what is happening in the world today creating a filter between them and the world.

What is true for people is true for groups made up of people. However, in a group there is a more powerful tendency for intransigence. One person dealing with change has only to deal with their own personal bias and preconceptions, but a person who is initiating or stimulating change in a larger group has to deal with the corporate biases of the entire group which can be a much more daunting challenge. Because of their very nature, groups have a predisposition to resisting change, which can be either a good thing or a bad thing depending on the change.

Good change is good and bad change is bad. You don't want to change the way things are just for the sake of change, but at the same time, the flip side of that coin is that you shouldn't resist change just because it is change. We need to evaluate each change we consider on the basis of whether it will bring us closer to Christ or will take us farther away from Him.

One argument I've heard made about change hinges around the scripture Heb 13:8. That is a great scripture, one that is a foundational bedrock behind our confidence in Christ, but it doesn't apply to us not changing. Guess, what, I'm not Christ. I do change and I'm not always the same between yesterday and today. I've heard this scripture used in a way to support being resistant to any change that comes along. Taken in context with the next scripture, I see this as more of a statement to avoid strange teachings rather than a directive that we should never change anything (Heb 13:9). Furthermore, in light of what John wrote to the church in Ehpesus, the proper method of dealing with something new is to consider it and see whether or not it lines up with Biblical principle (Rev 2:2). If it is good and true, we should make the change, and if not, we discard it (Phil 4:8). There is a saying that is not scripture, but it is a handy little bit of wisdom to consider when dealing with change: Methods many, principles few, methods always change, principles never do.

Like I wrote earlier, we live in a world of almost constant change and to hide from it and pretend it doesn't exist is at best naive, yet to me this seems to be a common point of retreat whenever we receive any criticism at all because of a change we have made or are even considering. In the meeting in Des Moines this year a prominent minister in our group stood up and said that he was afraid of making changes too quickly. I appreciate his honesty, but I ask myself why we approach change with fear.

Technology, particularly new technology is often feared and reviled by our group. This year alone Facebook, blogging and live streaming have all been either preached against or at least discouraged by ministers in our group. The irony that when Facebook was taught against someone in the congregation updated his Facebook page with it, that I watched the brother talk about live streaming on a streaming video and that I am now blogging about this isn't lost on me. But at least in the case of Facebook, the impression I got when I heard what was being said was that Facebook was wrong.

In each case I am convinced that the person speaking out against each technology was frightfully out of their element. The statements that were made reflect a poor understanding of the technologies that these people were none the less rendering judgment on. Case in point, when blogging was discussed, one of the points against blogging was that it was one way communication. Preaching is also one way communication, so is preaching bad because it is one way? Of course not, but the fact remains that we associate sin with so many things, and the truth is not everything we associate with sin is sinful. Just because we do not completely understand something or that it is isn't in our ken doesn't make it wrong.

Taking this further, preaching that something you don't understand or is out of your realm of experience is sinful is the height of reckless arrogance. If someone preached against the use of a microwave oven because they were miserably misinformed about it's operation, how much credence would we give to him? The answer to that is just about the same credence that users of Facebook will give to those that speak out against it when they obviously don't know what they are talking about. If fear of change is the sole reason that causes people to speak out about the things they do not understand, that is wrong.

Now, I will state that each of these examples that I am using have the potential for misuse. Sure Facebook can be used for less than righteous activities; the same goes for blogging and streaming video. I wonder if the potential for misuse of these tools is what is driving these men to take a stance against them. If so, I at least understand why they would speak out against these things, but that doesn't mean they are right.

The "bad things can happen" argument is not valid for determining whether something is right or wrong or if a change we are considering should be made or not. The potential for abuse is everywhere. If you were to use this logic you could say no one should ever have children because parents can be abusive and that people shouldn't get married because spouses can be abusive. There is a proper use of alcohol, but we all know it's abuse is a terrible thing (1 Tim 5:23). Drugs have their proper uses, but are often abused as well. I wouldn't prohibit the use of drugs because of people who abuse them; that is as irresponsible as the abuse itself.

The list of what can be abused is endless, but it is not the actions themselves that is where the sin lies, it is the abuse. So we should be speaking out about abusing Facebook, streaming video and blogging, but we aren't doing this. We seem to be sweeping abuse under the rug and ignoring it and instead focusing on trivialities. Maybe this is because abuse is so prevalent or because it is not always easily identifiable or maybe it is because there isn't a person I know, myself included, who hasn't abused something or someone someway somehow. Maybe our subconscious leads us to avoid dealing with the problem of abuse because we feel guilt over the abuses we ourselves have committed. Maybe it's easier to point the finger at something else and lay the blame on a thing instead of placing it where it rightfully belongs because we would implicate ourselves.

I hope that this is not the case, but I fear that at least in part it is. Either a fear of change or in some cases guilt is causing some people to pass judgment swiftly and without much consideration when they are speaking out against somethings. I would hate to think that some of these men are making the conscious decision to declare something that may or may not be sinful as sinful without taking time to find out if what they are saying is true simply because it is easier than taking the time to find out for sure, or that someone would preach that something is a sin because it's easier to do so than to tackle the more difficult truth of abuse. In either case doing so is an abuse in and of itself. It's an abuse of power and position, and someone who would do this is much more guilty than someone who is using Facebook in the way I see our people use it.

We must embrace what is good and discard what is evil, and we must be sure about it when we do (1 Thess 5:21-22). Ignoring the root problem and instead focusing on the periphery is as unwise as it is wrong. To think that you can address abuse by forbidding activities that have the potential for abuse is irresponsible. There is a deeper truth to be had that we currently possess on this subject, but it will not be easy. Instead it will be difficult as it will require us to own up to our own culpability and deal with the sin that we would rather gloss over. We will have to be open to the leading of the Spirit and it will demand a higher level of accountability for those in a position of responsibility over others. And for our group to possess this deeper truth, we must change.