Views: 0<\/p>
[Note:\u00a0 <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Manuscripts<\/strong>\u00a0 page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Has anyone else besides me noticed a recent upsurge in the cry for \u201cbalance<\/strong>\u201d in preaching and writing? Further, am I the only one who has noticed that this emphasis is not <\/strong>coming from the predictable liberal tongues and pens, but from some brethren who were generally considered sound in the faith? Have others noticed the corresponding parallel to what seems to be this almost orchestrated emphasis, namely the sudden outcry against <\/strong>such things as \u201carrogance,\u201d \u201cradicalism,\u201d \u201csarcasm,\u201d \u201cinvective,\u201d \u201cviciousness,\u201d \u201charshness,\u201d and \u201cbelligerence\u201d? But let me do more than merely indicate such emphases in general terms. In a recent issue of a magazine published by brethren of once sound repute, the following statements appeared in various articles (emph. DM, except as noted):<\/span><\/p>\n Balance <\/em><\/strong>is a word abused by liberals and is anathema to radicals…. Some spend their time constantly critiquing what others are doing and at times even refusing to endorse good and noble endeavors of sound brethren…. The church must maintain proper balance <\/strong>if it is to grow and if it is to have a positive influence in our world….<\/span><\/p>\n Both men [the men are named, DM] are well grounded in the faith, are experienced in the Lord\u2019s work, are dedicated to truth, have good balance<\/strong>…. There will be unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace among brethren when we seek the very best for each other and get permanently away from a biting, devouring disposition to destroy…. Too many of us do not treat a brother as we would like to be treated were roles reversed. Caustic words have a sure way of returning to haunt us…. Is there any among us who cannot make improvement in the way we treat our brethren in Christ? Remember, He died for the very ones we may be seeking to crush….<\/span><\/p>\n Too many brothers wear Sound Doctrine <\/em>as a badge of Christianity. In reality, the badge of Christ is Love…. A few years ago, I believed that as long as I taught the truth, then my love for others could not be questioned. I gleefully attacked liberals and change agents with sarcasm and satire. If they would have read my articles and heard my preaching they would have been stabbed by my rapier wit…. Many sound preachers and Christians have failed here. Love demands that we care for liberals, legalists, change agents, denominationalists, and…one another. Sitting behind a keyboard pecking out condemnations appears rude, arrogant, resentful, and unkind\u2014all the qualities contrary to love\u2014but it is easy…. We have all heard men defend truth who were more intent on making someone look stupid than inspiring conversion or repentance. Derision and ridicule express rudeness, not love…. We all face people, events and decisions in the church that are not matters of fellowship, but we do not like them. Some choose to \u201cmake an issue of them,\u201d but love chooses to let them go without a fight…. When change agents knock on the church\u2019s door its members must exhibit abiding love with meekness and instruction; this will thwart their will, not clever condensation [sic.<\/em>] or gleeful humiliation (2 Tim. 2:24\u201326).<\/span><\/p>\n Christians are not to be arrogant or obnoxious in their conduct…. Brethren are not to be disagreeable so that their conduct in defense of the gospel becomes offensive….<\/span><\/p>\n We can be pigeonholed as that mean, exclusive bunch who think they are the only ones going to heaven while all else are going to hell…. There are instances where churches of Christ indeed have assumed an identity of belligerence….<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The periodical and writers referenced above by no means constitute the only source of such statements, as the following additional quotations, all from \u201cnon-liberals,\u201d demonstrate:<\/span><\/p>\n I am apodictically opposed to acting on rumor, innuendo, and hearsay. And I will not be a party to such. I do not want anything I might say or write to provide fuel for some critic\u2019s fire, or fodder for their cannon, as they carry on a battle that inserts them into someone else\u2019s affairs…. I will neither participate in nor condone a situation where something that I, personally, have written or said…, ultimately ends up being used by some self-proclaimed \u201cdefender of the Faith\u201d <\/strong>to write a rumor-based article for a \u201cwatchdog-type\u201d brotherhood journal <\/strong>in order to provide the author or editor with his personal fifteen minutes of fame.<\/span><\/p>\n [A sound Gospel paper was named and described as] …a far right leaning <\/strong>paper. By \u201cright-leaning\u201d I mean they tend to legislate for others and print accusations before they have their facts straight [emph. in orig.].<\/span><\/p>\n I am presently penning one final piece addressing this judgmental, censorious, self- righteous, unforgiving <\/strong>spirit that characterizes a small and diminishing group of brethren in the church.<\/span><\/p>\n [A brother described \u201ccertain\u201d brethren as]…a few who are in a small, but no less toxic loyalty circle<\/strong>…a small negative faction<\/strong>, who if they gain control, will only rupture fellowship in the church even more than they already have.<\/span><\/p>\n How different that [i.e., the conduct of another] was from brother __________, who, after I sent a brief email…, sent me a 4 page diatribe filled with viciousness and falsehood against me. This only reaffirms my belief that such a man did not deserve nor need to be in the position he was in.<\/span><\/p>\n [After mentioning the dangers of liberalism, an article stated]: There are too many…who are equally damaging and vicious <\/strong>in their attack on the body of Christ. In one sense, they are more dangerous due to their contention that they are rooting out all false doctrine and exposing all error. When they are doing so with proper ethics, attitude and balance<\/strong>, they are to be applauded. Yet, there is a mentality that seems wholly obsessed with fulltime heretic detection<\/strong>, slandering <\/strong>brethren, and scrupulously elevating minutia <\/strong>as on par with Christ\u2019s doctrine. They unnecessarily divide brethren…. They polarize and draw away disciples after themselves. They are fight-pickers<\/strong>, seemingly eager to engage in lengthy, unending diatribe and debate to the exclusion of other Christian obligations, of righteous, Christlike conduct, and of a charitable spirit that \u201cis not rude…keeps no record of wrongs…does not delight in evil…\u201d (1 Corinthians 13:5\u20136).<\/span><\/p>\n [Concerning these \u201cfight-pickers,\u201d the same article then opined]: First, they are increasingly turning on one another. Further, they are succeeding in infecting themselves by their biting and devouring. Then, they are facilitating their own demise\u2014that of influence, reputation, trustworthiness, and respectability. However, they have also viciously wounded good men and women…in the process.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I agree (as I suppose all faithful brethren would) in principle <\/strong>with much of what the foregoing quotations emphasize. Who among us is not concerned with pursuing a course of \u201cbalance<\/strong>\u201d and with avoiding a course of \u201cradicalism\u201d? However, as with the fine print in legal contracts, \u201cthe devil is in the details,\u201d or, perhaps more appropriate to these quotations (and their authors), \u201cthe devil is in the applications.\u201d At the risk of being labeled a vicious, censorious, far-right leaning, judgmental religious redneck who is part of some horrible and repugnant toxic loyalty circle bent on rupturing fellowship in the church, I offer a few observations on these quotations\u2014and their timing.<\/span><\/p>\n The Imbalance of the \u201cBalanced\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Those who call loudly for \u201cbalance<\/strong>\u201d obviously believe themselves to be near perfectly, if not perfectly, balanced<\/strong>. Those against whom the balanced <\/strong>brethren inveigh are always \u201ccertain\u201d others besides themselves. In fact, they seemingly believe that being balanced <\/strong>requires that one frequently preach to others about their lack of this noble trait. To these balanced <\/strong>brethren, preaching about the need for balance <\/strong>somehow actually ratifies and demonstrates their own balance. <\/strong>I wonder: Is it possible to so emphasize the need for balance <\/strong>that one becomes unbalanced <\/strong>in his emphasis on balance<\/strong>?<\/span><\/p>\n An Attempt to Silence<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Those of us who have served as preachers and\/or elders for a few decades have heard this drum beat for balance <\/strong>before. Liberals have long used it in their efforts to \u201ctone down\u201d or silence the warnings of faithful brethren. To them, such warnings, especially if they are specific enough to call names and explicit enough to provide documentation, constitute imbalance<\/strong>. We expect change agents and other ne\u2019er-do-wells among us to characterize as \u201cradicals\u201d and \u201cwatchdogs\u201d those who expose and resist their errors. Now (as demonstrated in the numerous quotations above) the same pattern has emerged in some who at one time were in the thick of he battle for Truth with the rest of us. Remember, these quotations came not from liberals. Rather, they came from supposedly sound brethren, and they were aimed at faithful brethren who have dared expose errors in the doctrine and practice of some of these balanced <\/strong>brethren and\/or their associates \u201cwho are reputed to be somewhat\u201d (Gal. 2:6).<\/span><\/p>\n The Sweetness of Those Who Cry for \u201cBalance\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Consider some of the verbiage of these brethren of balance <\/strong>(plucked from the quotations above), which they employed to describe those whom they perceive to be unbalanced<\/strong>. They: \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Moreover, they are:<\/span><\/p>\n Additionally, they engage in:<\/span><\/p>\n Having read the foregoing list, one is made to wonder whether or not they have any inkling of the meaning of the traits of civility, kindness, agreeableness, and charity\u2014in other words, the meaning of balance<\/em><\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n The Hypocrisy of Those Who Cry for \u201cBalance\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n These self-appointed spiritual physicians prescribe balance <\/em><\/strong>as the do-all, end-all remedy for the ailments of \u201ccertain\u201d brethren (besides themselves, of course). I strongly suggest that they need to swallow a large dose of their own medicine. Their definition of balance <\/em><\/strong>includes the following (as long as they are doing it, of course):<\/span><\/p>\n Ironically, some of the most (1) brutal accusations of meanness and (2) strident calls for kindness and sweetness as quoted above appeared in the most angry and hate-filled letter I have ever read from a brother. In every word of condemnation of their inferior brethren (as they doubtless view those they describe), the condemners condemn themselves, but they are too self-righteous to see or admit it. Is it permissible to be caustic in crying out against those who are caustic, as long as the recipients of these causticisms are liberals or \u201ccertain\u201d other alleged sound brethren? This seems to be the current course of these balanced <\/strong>brethren. I suppose they still reserve for themselves the right to behave in ways that they condemn in \u201ccertain\u201d others of us (after the manner of the U.S. Congress toward U.S. citizens). They seem to retain for themselves alone the right to legislate who may speak caustic words, when caustic words may be spoken, and to whom caustic words may be directed.<\/span><\/p>\n These men who are now berating \u201ccertain\u201d faithful brethren for being self-righteous, obnoxious, arrogant, censorious, unkind fight-pickers would do well to pause, at least momentarily, for reflection and self-examination. In their harsh condemnation of others, implying that they are above such vile attitudes and behaviors, do they not thereby demonstrate in themselves the very self-righteousness they profess so greatly to deplore? Moreover, which of these men have not repeatedly over the past several years done the very things they are now railing against in \u201ccertain\u201d brethren? Have they not all written and\/or spoken caustic and censorious words, describing and denouncing others (especially liberals and those advocating direct operation of the Holy Spirit)? Have not many witnesses heard and read their words, including their calling the names of those under attack? Were they unbalanced <\/strong>when they were thus behaving only a few months ago, or was such behavior balanced <\/strong>then, but is unbalanced <\/strong>now? Maybe it is still balanced <\/strong>if they <\/strong>so behave, but unbalanced <\/strong>if \u201ccertain\u201d others act the same way. Further, when \u201ccertain\u201d others of us have done the same, have these balance <\/strong>advocates not applauded and encouraged us for doing so?<\/span><\/p>\n But now, suddenly, by their own declaration, they are too genteel for such uncivilized behavior. They apparently do not realize that they, by assuming this posture, have, by implication, imposed a gag order upon themselves. No longer can they bluntly or plainly expose error and its purveyors without violating their own ipse dixit<\/em>. Moreover, since they have decided to endorse, support, and defend a brother who has been marked as a false teacher, will they now endorse and support other false teachers? In fact, they are already doing so. It was therefore not surprising to see several of these balanced <\/strong>brethren publicly praising and bidding Godspeed to another marked false teacher at a recent south Texas lectureship. They were merely being \u201cconsistent\u201d and demonstrating their exceptional balance<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n Could it be that one reason for this sudden, concerted emphasis on balance <\/strong>lies in the fact that the arrows of Truth fired by \u201ccertain\u201d brethren have been finding their mark with telling accuracy? Is the call for balance <\/strong>an attempt (conscious or otherwise) to silence or soften the blows of \u201ccertain\u201d brethren who have repeatedly exposed the utter inconsistency of those who profess their opposition to the errors of the Executive Director of an organization while supporting the organization itself? Are the balanced <\/strong>brethren trying to convince others that opposing a false teacher while supporting the institution he directs is a demonstration of balance<\/strong>? When balanced <\/strong>brethren speak on lectureships in which they praise, commend, and glad-hand marked teachers of error, are they telling us what, to them, constitutes balance<\/strong>?<\/span><\/p>\n In contemptuously describing some as \u201c…a few who are in a small, but no less toxic loyalty circle…a small negative faction…,\u201d brethren of balance <\/strong>obviously depict themselves as part of some large non-toxic loyalty circle that is wholly positive. Both they and the objects of their verbal blasts know better. If the attitude and demeanor of these men represents balance, <\/strong>I fervently desire that I may never run afoul of those who are truly unbalanced<\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n These balanced <\/strong>brethren seem to have forgotten (or have failed to apply) our Lord\u2019s injunctions: \u201cJudge not that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged…. Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother\u2019s eye\u201d (Mat. 7:1\u20135) and \u201cJudge not according to appearance but judge righteous judgment\u201d (John 7:24). Likewise, they have forgotten Paul\u2019s warning: \u201cWherefore thou are without excuse, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest dost practice the same things\u201d (Rom. 2:1).<\/span><\/p>\n Is History Beginning to Repeat Itself?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n This latest crusade for balance <\/strong>scares me. It brings back haunting memories of similar cries I heard as a young preacher\u2014cries that proved to be the seeds that have matured into full- blown, widespread, arrogant liberalism and digression in all of their irreverent ugliness. In the early 1960s, a few brethren begin to call for more \u201cbalance<\/strong>\u201d in our preaching. At first the cry was faint, but it grew louder and more frequent with time. The charge was that brethren in general and preachers in particular had been too negative, dogmatic, mean, and narrow- minded. Along with these charges came another: There had been too much emphasis for too long on \u201cthe plan\u201d (i.e., the plan of salvation, the pattern for the church, <\/em>et al.) and not enough emphasis on \u201cthe Man\u201d (i.e., the person of Christ). Thus arose the controversy that brethren energetically discussed for an extended period in the Gospel papers concerning \u201cthe Man or the plan.\u201d The excuse and theme of those who sought to tone down the Gospel was, We need to be balanced<\/strong>. <\/em><\/span><\/p>\n The seeds planted by those crying for balance <\/strong>over forty years ago took root in many of my generation. These men, some of whom were classmates of mine in two different colleges, have been among the leaders in the awful apostasy that presently characterizes so much of the church. Some of those who swallowed the \u201c\n
\n
\n
\n