One of the ways we have allowed egalitarianism to flatten everything can be seen in how we apply trial procedures to everything (to everything that is, except those situations when actual trial procedures would actually be called for).
Determining that somebody is a security risk is not the same thing as finding them guilty of treason. Voting no on somebody for the elder board because you don’t quite trust them with the responsibility is not the same thing as bringing charges. Saying no to a suitor because he is not tall enough is not the same thing as condemning him for being short. Picking out chocolate is not to find fault with vanilla. These are all entirely different issues. But we flatten these issues, and thus we confuse ourselves.
Sometimes you decline to pick somebody for leadership, not because there are any character questions at all, but rather because you simply believe they are not equipped for the job. If some boys are playing sandlot football, and three boys who really wanted to be picked for quarterback are not picked, we ought not pay any attention to the subsequent complaint that Matthew 18 was not followed. They were not picked because they don’t have an arm, as everybody knows. It is as simple as that. Or rather, it would be as simple as that if those three boys were able to read the situation rightly, if they had learned how not to think of themselves more highly than they ought (Rom. 12:3).
Whenever mojo of any kind happens, a bunch of people attach themselves, wanting to help. A bunch of other people pull away, wanting to establish a bigger, badder rival team, but that is another story, most of which you can find in Girard. But back to the fan base, many of the volunteers are not up to the task, for various reasons. Most boys don’t have the arm that they think they do. When they are told no, disappointment is an appropriate response. But feeling aggrieved is not.
Â
Say that someone is not picked for some leadership position, and some time afterward he presses for the reasons why, and he is told those reasons (which is not a good idea either, but that is another conversation). Depending on how invested he is in his perspective (or his conceits), the conversation could feel like a confrontation. But it would not be that at all. It is just that the team owners don’t want to run the plays that he would run.