CAN WE BE BOTH BALANCED AND ZEALOUS?
Eric V. Snow, sermonette notes, 3-10-01
In the Western Humanities class I presently teach, I tell my
students to memorize a famous statement by the philosopher Santayana, which
concerns those who forget the past are condemned to fulfill/repeat it.
Let’s consider an error people made in the past, and how
people today have failed to learn from it.
The error of the Victorian middle class over 100 years ago: Zealously pursued sexual sin, but
indifferent to racism. Problem
described in Mr. Armstrong’s “Mystery of the Ages”: Victorians so uncomfortable in discussing or writing about sex
that they ended up denying young couples the knowledge they needed to avoid
obvious mistakes during their first wedding night. Yet the Victorians didn’t even INVENT the word “racism” until
about 1865-70. Influenced partially by
Darwin’s Origin of the Species and European white’s successful
imperialism abroad (especially in Africa and Asia), thought whites better than
other races.
What’s the situation today?
The two have been neatly inversed:
The Eastern Liberal Establishment is obsessed with racism, basically
indifferent to sexual sin! We’ve gone
from one ditch to the other: Sex is
routinely joked about on TV and alluded to in music, but many aspects of race
relations in America today simply can’t be discussed publicly without cries of
racism or “racial insensitivity” filling the air. (I.e., anything negative about minority groups, especially how
the difference in illegitimacy rates result in some groups committing more
crime and being poorer than others).
Can we in the church learn from history? The comparison of the values of middle class
Victorians to modern American liberals shows our society has gone from one
ditch to the other, from one extreme to the other, in a mere 125 years, on the
subjects of race and sex. Could we in
the church be committing similar mistakes?
As Passover approaches, we should consider this possibility.
This leads to a pair of questions worth pondering: Can we be zealous without being
extreme? Can we be balanced without
being Laodicean? (Repeat)
I say the answer is “Yes.”
S.P.S. We need to be both zealous and balanced when striving
to obey God as Christians.
Rom. 10:2: Need
knowledge to make sure we aren’t unbalanced or unwise in our zeal.
We must be wise enough to perceive when we’re in a “ditch”
due to being extreme when dealing with certain “gray areas.” But we also have to be spiritually on guard
against thinking being the “middle of the road” is automatically safe, since
the majority, even in the church, could be wrong on some subject.
Balance on prophecy:
Problem of HWA overemphasizing it, of “the gospel of prophecy,” Billy
Graham’s criticism. One Split off
group’s mistake of overemphasizing it, especially its human leader. Yet others, usually second-generation
Christians, don’t give it much heed now or study it at all in apparent
overreaction to “having heard it all before.”
But if 27% or so of the Bible’s verses are prophetic in nature,
shouldn’t we be willing to listen to sermons or read books on such topics
roughly a quarter of the time? Or do we
tune it out completely, despite we think we’re the generation that will see
Jesus return? We of all generations in
history have reasons to be experts on Revelation and Daniel then. In this situation, a relative overemphasis
compared to what other generations needed to know isn’t unwise then, since we
may have to live through what Revelation describes!
Sabbath-keeping example:
Are we Pharisees or Laodicean liberals concerning specific aspects of
Sabbath-keeping? The two ditches here
are easy to see. Some may turn the day
into a constant series of “donts” that inevitably alienate their children. Some may miss the “freedom” aspect of the Sabbath
in the name of enforce the “rest” function.
Others will end up excessively pursuing pleasurable activities on the
Sabbath. For example, should we as
adults play any kind of sports on the Sabbath?
Should we watch any non-spiritual TV programs on the Sabbath, such as
the news? Should we buy food or
gasoline on the Sabbath when this could have been avoided by doing so during
the day on Friday?
Childrearing example:
Admit own lack of credentials, but worth hitting on since historically
we in the church have lacked balance.
Problem of overdoing corporal punishment in the 1960’s, early 1970’s in
overreaction against the world’s Hippie counterculture, lack of discipline,
etc. Then later in the church, we had
those who overreacted against their parents’ overkills in this area, and didn’t
want to spank their children ever at all.
Can we ever learn from history?
Tricky balancing act:
If too strict, risk children possibly rebelling, ala Rod Stewart’s
“Young Turks.” In your face rebellion
problem, or may just slip off to college, and do what they want. If too permissive, then children will make
bad decisions on their own when should have parental guidance.
Problem one man had who was perceived as letting his
teenagers do too much, etc. Noticed
critics were those without children or only with young ones. 38 Special song, “Hang on loosely”—in
context about romantic relationships, not childrearing, but principle still
applied.
Ask teens not to overreact against mistakes they think their parents may be making when live on own.
CAUTIONARY NOTE:
Now I’ve shown that we can go from one extreme to another,
and lack balance, without clearing perceiving it. But is “the middle of the road” always safe? Or could you become “road kill” because of
getting hit by spiritual “cars” coming both ways?
Rev. 3:14-16
Sometimes it could be what others in the church consider
“extreme” is the right position. WE
MUST NOT LET LAODICEANISM MASQUERADE AS BALANCE AND MODERATION. It could be HWA, the consensus of the
ministry, what was done at Ambassador College, the laymembers of the church as
a whole, or even what the majority of us polled in the room think, is wrong, on
some given subject. Picking the middle
of the road on some subject could be a cover for compromising with sin.
Could also be that when one talks things over with that
person, may find they aren’t so extreme after all. One reads their book, their tape, their video, their whatever, on
some given subject, and start to change own position to be closer to theirs. May not go all the way, may still think they
have a “leg” in the “ditch,” but start veering to their side of the road since
think they’re 50% or 80% right, even if you don’t buy the whole “package.”
Also, if get to know person or people, may find out not so
extreme. For example, I knew one older
married woman who used to drive me to church.
She once told me others perceived her as a “feminist” in the local
church. Now, true, this woman is a
mainly a choleric by personality. She
also was intelligent, articulate, and educated. But I had heard her talk on these kinds of issues extensively
during our periodic rides together, so I knew she was no feminist. Female vs. male dogs example, showdown
between husband and administrator, “power talking” issue. I immediately told
her, “Gloria Steinem would consider you a traitor to your sex.” But since others judging her in this way
didn’t know her real views on gender roles, but had merely based their opinion
on her personality, they were wrong.
Could we be similarly misperceiving others we say are “extreme”?
So in conclusion, as Passover approaches, we should
ask ourselves whether we’re extreme in our Christian practice in some “gray
areas.” We should also ask whether
we’ve been compromising with sin under the cover of balance and moderation, as
the Laodicean church did. Finally, we
should be wary of judging and criticizing others, our brothers and sisters in
Christ, either as “extremists” or as “Laodicean slackers.”