The “law” of unintended consequences suggests that there are results of decisions that are not foreseen nor intended by those who make those decisions. The phrase was popularized by a sociologist named Robert Merton. The consequences might be positive, an unexpected benefit; they might be negative, an unexpected setback; or they might be completely the opposite of what one wants. In other words, the decision might backfire.
“Selfies” often result in untended consequences. An example that is nonfatal, in contrast to some, happened in July at an art exhibit in Los Angeles. A woman was crouching in front of the 14th Factory exhibit, trying to take a selfie, when she lost her balance. She tumbled backward into the art display which set several artworks tumbling into each other. Three art pieces were totally destroyed at a cost of $200,000. She certainly did not intend that to happen.
I think of the law of unintended consequences when I see how Christians react to preachers or elders or the church in general and the impact those decisions can have on the Christians’ children and grandchildren. As a preacher, there can be lots of criticism I could level at individual Christians or elders or co-workers. Sometimes, you know, you just feel like getting something off your chest and you have to talk to someone about it. What Rachel and I have long practiced is that we would not criticize others in front of the girls.
When you express strong feelings of disappointment against members at church in front of your children, particularly against leadership like preachers and elders, you plant negative thoughts into the minds of your children. Without being in the same situation and knowing the same set of facts that led to the decision to dislike, you present yourself as being a “know-it-all.” Isn’t there an old Indian proverb about not criticizing someone until you’ve walked a mile in his moccasins?
In harshly criticizing leadership, you also suggest to the next generation that the membership has high expectations of the leadership; potentially expectations that are so high no one can meet them. Like always making decisions that you always agree with.
When studied under radiography taken ed on many cats brought to the veterinary for various medical reasons (but in most case because the cats were limping or because of articular pains) Here is what they discovered: In one study alone , 80 percent of cats have shown some kind of lesions due to articular degenerative sickness. viagra generic discount Actually, customary prescription might be a finer portrayal of a hefty portion of the elective helps in this article – time-respected convictions and practices depended on for eras. buy generic sildenafil These side-effects are very common and stay for very long time in your body. tadalafil online no prescription Also the pill has long lasting effects and cheap brand levitra the effect of 1 single pill is for sure not invented for frivolous intention.
That leads to a seriously bad unintended consequence – influencing the next generation, particularly young men, not to accept leadership positions in the church. If Christians act like that against their leadership, then the next generation grows up saying to himself, “I don’t want to be in a position of leadership.” What that means is that the decision to criticize has now backfired – the critic wants better leadership but has now influenced someone (under the critic’s “righteous” influence) to choose not to be a leader.
I cringe when I hear people criticize leadership, especially in the ears of the younger generation. Because what the critic is doing, through untended consequences, is keeping potentially good (maybe even better) men from accepting such leadership positions.
When the church is left with less-than-ideal men as leaders, then the church is worse off. The decision-making process is worse off. Also, Jesus Christ’s mission is negatively impacted, all because of the law of unintended consequences. The best rule, especially if you are criticizing in front of the second generation, is to present the other person’s viewpoint as honestly and accurately as possible, as if he was sitting there listening and could disagree if possible. Then present your own viewpoint in a spirit of kindness and gentleness, again imagining if the other person was present, but realizing that you also are fallible and might not have all the answers either.
–Paul Holland
