Right vs. Easy
Over the course of my regular blog readings, along with checking into some other places (like Lutherquest), I’ve made note of something that is both annoying and troubling.
It seems that in the ever-ongoing battle between that which is “right” and that which is “easy/possible/practical” a new dictum has taken hold. Rather than the proverbial “Road to Hell” being paved with “Good Intentions,” I would argue that a better, and more accurate, aphorism is this: The road to Hell is the path of least resistance.
What’s my point?
Well, I guess my point is this — we’ve become so inured to the many & varied humanistic/postmodernist “truths” roiling about our culture, that we’ve darned near completely lost sight of the acceptability (if not the outright necessity) of fighting for that which is right. Nope, we’ve been broken down to the point where we willingly accept that which is merely easy.
What I’ve noticed in my online reading of late is the recurring (usually exasperated and/or fatalistic) observation that reads something like this, “It would be so hard to change these bad/faulty/heterodox traditions, because they’ve become so entrenched! So all we can/should/will do is try to make the best of things…” This is nothing more than taking the path of least resistance, and doing that which is easy rather than that which is right, all in the guise of being “tolerant,” “inclusive,” and/or “loving.”
What it fails to take into account is that the bulk of the erring “traditions” & heteropraxis (e.g., priestitutes, church growth, usurpation of pastoral office duties by the laity, etc…) are of quite recent vintage (i.e., within the past 100 years or so). Congregational memories are, for all practical purposes, quite short. Within no more than 10 years, an aberrant practice like lay-readers can take root and become that which is defended as “the way we’ve always done things…” and that cannot be changed, lest folks be emotionally upset.
Inquiries and/or plans to root out the error, and return to the orthopraxis established by the Early Church & reclaimed by the Reformation, are met with accusatory cries and emotion-laden denouncements. Terms like “legalist,” “pharisee,” “uncaring,” & “unloving” are bandied about. And, quite unfortunately, that is often (usually?) enough to table any discussion, no matter how based in Scripture & Symbols the request for discussion/assessment were.
It’s bitterly ironic, that the agitators for heterodox change move so quickly & strongly to squash any discussion about the possibility of returning to orthodoxy/orthopraxis. And that they often are squashing *at the same time* they are agitating for further change/movement away from historic orthodoxy/orthropraxis… well, that makes the irony all the more bitter (and infuriating!).
Comments
-
Analytics & Hosting
Add New Comment
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Add New Comment