“Moderates in the Church” by Jeff Grimes

Those of us who watch the cable news channels, or the network news broadcast often here the word “moderate” used. The political pundits are especially fond of labeling certain politicians as “moderate.” A moderate politician's speeches will be spoken in such a way as not to offend either those on the “right”, or those on the “left.” He never takes a stand on any particular issue; after all, he is seeking votes. He is interested in his approval rating. In South Alabama we would label him as a “fence-straddler.” Moderates and fence-straddlers in political circles are common.

It’s sad to say, but moderates and fence-straddlers in the Lord’s church are becoming more common with the passing of time. The Lord’s attitude toward moderates is seen in His letter to the church at Laodicea. “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth” (Revelation 3:15-16). In other words the Lord is saying, “You make me sick at my stomach.” This should startle every moderate in the Lord’s church.

Pilate was a political moderate. He knew Jesus had done nothing “worthy of death.” However, Pilate being the moral coward that he was took a moderate position, and decided to appease the Jews, who were clamoring for Jesus’ death. As a gesture of indifference Pilate “took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it” (Matthew 27:24). Pilate in declaring himself innocent did not make it so. Him being an “observer” rather than a participant did not relieve him of his responsibility to do what he knew was right. Jesus said, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad” (Matthew 12:30).

Brother H. Leo Boles, in his commentary on Matthew makes the following observation on this passage: In the great conflict between life and darkness, good and evil, the kingdom of God and of Satan, there is no middle ground; there is no neutral position;...The Pharisees were obliged either to join Christ or to be against him. They had to become allies of God or co-workers with Satan: there was no other alternative. “No man can serve two masters” at the same time (Matthew 6:24). The teachings of Jesus with his unanswerable arguments forced the conclusion upon these Pharisees, and they must now take sides with Jesus or join issue with him; the choice is theirs; sufficient instruction, evidence, and light have been given them for the choice; hence the responsibility of the choice rests upon them. To make the matter clear and easy for them to see, Jesus presents only two alternatives—if they are not with him, they are against him (268-69).

A moderate in the political arena might be acceptable on certain occasions, but a moderate in the Lord’s Church is not; especially in the eldership, and behind the pulpit. Many congregations have elders who are moderates. Instead of being shepherds of the flock they have become pawns of moderate brethren. Moderate elders are stuck in neutral making every effort not to “rock the boat”, so as to make waves, and run someone off. You can be sure moderate brethren will never be guilty of “turning the world upside down” (Acts 17:6). It takes courage, conviction and the implementation of the “whole Armour of God” to stand against the “wiles of the devil.”

“Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins” (Isaiah 58:1). ☺

Sasser Messenger February 12, 2006

Excellent article.

I would love to post it on our website, may I?

Brotherly,
Don

__________________
Don Gelles,
Preacher, Church of Christ in Hyde Park
Austin, Texas
www.hydeparkcoc.org

I will speak for Jeff until he gets the hang of how the forum works. I posted those articles for him. Yes, you can post them elsewhere, he absolutely does not mind. I have more articles of his to post. He is all for the truth being spread as far and wide as possible.

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

I agree with the sentiment expressed given the way "moderate" has been defined. However, I'd like to pose another definition of moderate and see if the same holds true. Many in the Lord's church have gone to one extreme or the other, violating the principle taught in Revelation 22:18-19. A moderate is simply one who is in the middle of two positions. So in this context, a moderate is one who stays in the *middle* of the straight and narrow road. He goes neither to the left (loosing where God has not loosed) nor to the right (binding to where God has not bound), being careful to ensure he falls in neither ditch. Given this definition of "moderate" (which frankly is the definition that has always been in my mind when I think of the church), are we not to be moderates?

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)

I know you already know all of this sister but throught it would be good to explain more.

Yes, I try to stick to the middle, but those that call themselves moderates, most of the time are accepting of everything, not wishing to hurt anyone's feelings. They adopt things such as don't ask, don't tell policy regarding MDR and command preachers to not preach on things controversial etc.

I took his article as a play on the term since most that claim to be moderate are actually those wanting to play both sides of the field at the same time. Instead of being truly in the middle, meaning as you say, they are split in their minds and hearts, trying to keep unity through silence and other techniques instead of through the Word, which gives perfect unity as Christ said would be achieved in John 17. Those in this group often mis use "be all things to all people" as an excuse to sinfully compromise.

It is not so much the term, as it is how compromisers use the term to describe themselves. I myself have grown to be hesitant about using it because it would group me together with those of liberal universities, lectureships etc that publicly define themselves as moderates. I did not change the meaning of moderate, meaning the center, they did by moving the middle line to the left, just next to liberal, a place that is not quite there enough to be one but close enough to one, to not have any problem with it.

Just to be clear, I do not like any labels. Being liberal means to take liberty with God's Word, negating the authority and replacing it with one's one thoughts and preferences.

This reminds me of the term "Moderate Muslim". This term is used to describe those of the Islamic faith who disagree with Sharia law, jihad, and honor killings etc.. The way the terms "conservative", "moderate", and "liberal" are used today (great post by Steven), I would consider these people liberal muslims, as they don't seem to have much respect for the Qu'ran, as their "holy book" is quite clear on what should be done to "infidels".

__________________
John 6:67-68: "Jesus said therefore unto the twelve, 'Would ye also go away?' Simon Peter answered him, 'Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.'"

I agree that that is what they have done. I have heard it myself. But I see these people as nothing but liberals in moderates' clothing. Hillary is trying to call herself a moderate. Does that make her not a liberal? I think not. In the context of the church, the gauge for liberal/moderate/conservative should center around the source of authority, which is God's word, and not as a comparison against the varying degrees of views of the people which is not a reliable gauge at all! Thus, a liberal is one who is liberal with his interpretation/application/teaching of God's word and the resulting liberties he takes that are not granted by that word, which is the authority source. The degree to which one is liberal with God's word does not make him any less a liberal. The issue with using the popular definitions of these terms is that it puts those who are truly moderate (that is, middle of God's road) in the same category with those who bind where God has not bound. Now, how are these groups distinguished from one another? I for one, do not wish to be labeled similarly, because binding where God has not bound is every bit as wrong as loosing where God has not loosed. Sometimes when faced with the hurricane of liberalism that is sweeping the church, we tend to forget that and see these "binders" as "allies in a common war". Yet both paths lead to destruction.

I think you are right though -- we should just stay away from labels because the popular definition given to those labels changes based upon time and to whom you are speaking. We do see this shift in politics/culture and thus, it is expected to influence the church.

__________________
--Laura

O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.
Jeremiah 10:23 (NKJV)

I see where you are coming from... it can be confusing. It helps to define the label you use, as brother Jeff did in his article.

What would someone be who is neither hot or cold? “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth” (Revelation 3:15-16). Lukewarm is in the middle of hot and cold.

I do not have an issue with labels that identify a type or group of people. It is very similar to denominational names, nationality names, etc. The Bible labels different classes of people. Pharisees, Sadducees, Epicurean, Stoic, Nicolaitans, Cretans, and Scribes… and more. We may label them Protestant, Catholic, Baptist, Liberal, Anti, Atheist, etc.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! (Matthew 23:25a)

One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." (Titus 1:12)

Of course, there are many more.

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie

Now in this situation, these kind of labels are fine because they describe the designation. What I and some of the others are saying about labels is that right is right and wrong is wrong, according to the Word of God.

What is liberal to one is conservative to another. The liberal moderate and conservative terms are so broad it can mean a lot. To the Pharisees, Jesus might have been a liberal because He healed on the Sabbath, wheras Jesus would say the Pharisees are liberal because they added to that which God said and taught it as the Word of God.

That is the kind of labels I was referring to. The bible is the final answer, no matter if one considers one self as conservative, moderate or liberal or not.

True... from a scriptural perspective we are either right or wrong.

__________________
In Christ,
brother Sonnie