Argumentation is an intellectual/verbal learned skill used in the west since the ancient Greeks and Romans. It engages important factors related to change in belief and action. In the field of formal study it was, and is, agreed that anyone advocating change was obligated to offer strong evidence and reason for change. This was posited on the satisfactory idea that persons had functioned in history accepting this or that for what appeared to be good and right reasons, and had survived with rather practical application and understanding. To change something might show disrespect for those who have gone before, and the general human/psychological context in which they were nurtured. The burden of proof rests with those who advocate change. Even Jesus respected it. The status quo owes little to the debate except explanation. Some things need to be changed, and for various reasons, but change is to be offered with some patience that gives respect to those who have believed and worked under other circumstances in good will and practical knowledge. Today this practical context has been reduced, even set aside, by many activists at nearly every level of education and culture, including religion. Change makers are sometimes arrogant. If minds changed easily (as some do) many matters would never come to fruition.
Currently the approach is blunt. To resist change is taken as a sign of ignorance and selfishness so is to be put down. For example, homosexuality has been treated as a psychological aberration in medicine, a sin in theology, and a problem maker in society as relates to family integrity. Toward the end of the twentieth century there were presenters advocating homosexuality as appropriate and should be legally acceptable to the point of same sex marriage. These have been able to gain significant benefit for their position through name calling, (homophobia), appeals to redefined equality, and challenges to, or violations of, law. Similar approaches were made for abortion and guided suicide to become legal procedure in some areas. Are all the changes divine and right?
Laws have been lightened: on buying elections; on morality that shifts to broader definitions; on the acceptance of perjury in cultivated society; on polls more than issues; on celebrities more than achievers; on self-centeredness more than personal responsibility for family welfare, including divorce on demand; on freedom of press to pornography; and, for cohabitation as substitute for marriage. The conflict might be expanded. Righteousness that should characterize a society has taken many hits. Criminals are less likely to hide in the corners of the city, but inhabit business, or institutions, or just about any workplace. The hypocrisy of the Godfather syndrome ought to be resisted. There may be a general breakdown in the American society, a society that has been the toast of the world. Current evaluation finds the magnificent structure creaking, threatening to collapse like a stadium with an aging foundation system falling with the weight of teaming fans. That collapse took a bit of time to make ready, but the tragedy was sudden and will not be easily remedied. There may be later recovery, but the cost has been so monumental that it requires generations and considerable sacrifice to renew that which was neglected, even attacked, and consequently crumbled. We give change due consideration, but with due respect for what got us here. The wise persons of the world look for adjustments, repairs, recovery, appreciation to those who have gone before, to careful analysis, and willingness to take on leadership with gentle firmness and fortitude. At this editing the Congress of the United States and the President, have been at odds for six or so years. A careful review of the principles of love for persons, country, and God’s provision we may find fresh adjustments to respectful solutions. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020