Why you get run over with a middle of the road attitude

by David Cox

DEFINITION OF MIDDLE OF THE ROAD - This is the attitude that instead of seeking the emphases of the Bible (majoring on the majors, minoring on the minors, and no comment on things not mentioned in the Bible), it is better to stick to things that everybody agrees on, that will get you support rather than criticism,.

In other studies on my website (http://www.davidcox.com.mx) I have expressed my position that Christian religious organizations in general are not biblical. Churches are the biblical method that God has established for doing His work, and to abandon God's established method to invent something else is simply rebellion. Most Christian religious organizations have a distinctive philosophy that they are over time forced to take, which is very different from the philosophy a local church takes. This study investigates this difference.

Let's compare
the financial structure of a typical Christian organization versus the typical local church

A typical local church is financially funded by the free will offerings of its members. People go to a local church for various reasons, but basically they do not knowingly go to a heretical church that differs with what they understand as the basic doctrines of the Bible. So one of the many reasons (should be the most important reason) why a person may go to a particular local church is that of the doctrinal position that that group of people as an organized group holds to. This is a choice that the member makes knowing their stated doctrine, and he makes before he commits to that group, or he commits to that group because of that stated doctrine. Persecution, hardship, opposition, and harassment because of those positions is looked upon as suffering for the Lord, and it only brings that group into a more dedicated and close knit relationship, usually never dividing the group. These people already committed and weekly dedicating time, energy, and money to this local church, are the source of their income. Attacks against their doctrine or position strengthen the group usually, they do not destroy the group. Even if it does destroy the group (all the people are killed by the government), history shows that on the blood of the martyrs, new churches spring up everywhere.

A typical Christian organization has its entire financial income bound up with recruiting funds from outside sources. The actual people who are a part of the organization are taking their salaries from the organization, they are not the major source of income for the group. This being the case, an attack on the position or doctrine of the organization has a disastrous effect on fund raising in general. Even if their position was "biblical" (as Christianity in general may define the issue), many will not support it because they see controversy and wonder if the organization did something to provoke the antagonism.

When looking for funds, there is a common sense that prevails. You want money, and "one person's money spends as good as another's." This is unfortunate. As such, all Christian organizations must have a doctrinal statement, and what is typical in surveying a large number of doctrinal statements is that in general, anything that would alienate a large group of Christians in the possible or probable target group for fund raising has to rephrased or entirely eliminated. The more you identify and clarify your doctrinal position, beliefs, and practices, the more people you alienate and the less you have to possibly give support.

This has given rise to the middle of the road philosophy. "We want to hit the majority of people (that would possibly consider us for support all things being equal), so we want to eliminate or 'tone down' anything that anybody would consider 'offensive'." In driving a car, you have your lane, the other guy has his. You get out of where you are supposed to be and drive down the middle of the road, you are going to end up hurting sooner or later.

Some Examples

With women's movement becoming such a hot topic, churches in general have abandoned the biblical position as far as women in the ministry to take a "more moderate position" of it being okay for women to be pastors and in positions of authority over men. With homosexuals being more accepted, likewise churches are accepting them as members in good standing although they have not necessarily repented of the sin of homosexuality. Alcoholism is now a medical problem instead of a sin problem.

Likewise in doctrine we see shifts from historic positions to more widely accepted positions, for example of separation and fundamentalism. We see certain doctrines that seem to have disappeared from doctrinal statements. We see other doctrinal positions that enter that we wonder where they were in the early centuries of the church.

Things to learn from all of this

First of all, we should not look for middle of roaders, because they most probably are just as opinionated as anybody else, they just put money before doctrine. Think long and hard about that one!

Secondly, we should base our doctrines on solid exposition of Bible verses. It is also important that we understand that not everything that we have accepted may be a solid exposition of a Bible verse. Arguments and explanations need to be systematically examined and challenged to see if they are solid exposition of the Bible. Nothing is taken as a given until it is compared to Scripture. We should lower what is not sustainable to a conviction or preference if it needs to be dealt with as such.

Thirdly, we should learn to exposit Scriptures, not seek to defend our beliefs by manipulating the Scriptures. All too many preachers do the later as a rule instead of the former.

Fourth, we should be brave and bold in declaring what is clear in Scriptures, especially when it is in the face of popular opinion. This is letting our light shine in a dark and sinful world.

Fifth, this attitude is a cop out on true Christianity. The trimming down of doctrines and positions is not healthy but is a butchering of the doctrines of the Bible. We see this tendency coming to play in Christian organizations that seek to get as "broad a constituency as possible." Where does it stop? Put Mary beside Christ as co redeemer and you will have the Catholics on your side too. So why not? If doctrine is play-do, takes the form of the mold you put it in, then anything is acceptable.