On why keeping your head down is dangerous

 

It's not unusual to find evangelicals, including pastors and leaders, keeping their head down on serious and controversial issues. You might have a conversation with them that goes something like this:

"Don't worry, I believe the same thing as you. I'm orthodox on this issue - trust me."

"Why don't speak up then? Say something so people know you're supportive."

"Well, I don't think that would be a helpful thing to do, I don't want to..."

I think this is more serious than we sometimes think. We can write it off as a different conscience, or a different strategy. However, the effect is always to isolate those who have the courage to stand up and be counted.

It seems to me the reasoning for not speaking usually runs down at least one of the following two lines.

I don't want to alienate outsiders

Many of the beliefs of orthodox Christianity have become increasingly antagonistic to 21st Century western society. Most of us know the kinds of things that we believe that could cause us problems. One can understand the evangelistic desire to talk about core gospel things before we talk about more controversial things and to avoid unnecessary barriers that stop us being able to talk about Jesus with people.

However, I think this approach is misguided for at least the following three reasons:

1. The gospel is inherently controversial and contains something right at it's heart that is deeply unpopular! The reality is that if we present the gospel faithfully, we are presenting people with Jesus and his call to repent because we are sinners. We were talking about this in Bible study last week when we looked at Mark 7:14-22. If we side-step where Christian faith is controversial in the 21st Century west, then we are almost certainly side-stepping the sin which Jesus is calling people to repent of. That is, our claimed desire to talk about the gospel is really a desire to present an attenuated gospel, that suits our society rather than challenges it.
2. We run the risk of misleading people and ultimately being thought of as con artists. If you draw people in with an intentionally incomplete message, it seems to me we are most likely to lose them in the final analysis. How will we respond to the angry person who says, "You never told me you had to believe this!"? The manner of Paul's ministry is instructive. He did not come with any intention to deceive (1 Thess. 2:3).
3. We probably misjudge many people's views and thoughtfulness - especially if God is truly working in their hearts. Broadly, I don't think people, in the privacy of their own thoughts, conform to the supposed certainties of the 21st Century western mind. Often their experience is more complex and their views more thoughtful and presuming we are gracious they are often very open to thoughtful conversation. Twitter probably isn't the best place for those conversations, but recent Twitter spats have shown that views on a variety of issues are much more complex and varied than we are led to believe. All of which is to say that holding to what we perceive as an unpopular opinion graciously and clearly is perhaps more likely to garner respect and gospel opportunity than hiding behind an inauthentic silence.

I don't want to alienate insiders

This is particularly common in more mixed denominations, but also can be found within an individual church. The idea is that if a speak up I will, perhaps, lose denominational support for my plans or, cause unnecessary division in my church, or no longer have the platform to speak on other issues. At the more serious end, I may put myself at some risk by speaking out. It may mean that my church or denomination in more or less explicit ways oust me and my family from my job, house and income.

Although this can be very difficult, in the broadest sense it's hard to see that this is an acceptable position for a leader to take. As a leader in the church it is your job to speak out on doctrinal truth. To fail to do so is to fail to be faithful to your calling.

Perhaps the most common form of justification is that if one wants to change a denomination or church then we have to be strategic about what we do and say and when we do and say it. And now is not the time to raise that issue! Evidence might be produced to show how successful the strategy is. Look at how many evangelical churches we have. Look at how many evangelical senior staff we have. Look at how the church is growing.

I think the big problem with this is that if a strategy is built on not speaking up for the truth, then (a) you will either never speak up for the truth or (b) when you do the strategy will collapse. So having made a decision to not speak up now you tend towards not speaking up ever. In doing that you simply create an unfaithful organisation and you will stand before God as an unfaithful teacher. Alternatively the pressure builds and you eventually do speak up, but you look compromised (because you are) and much of what you've built is destroyed or taken away anyway.

The reality is that the truth is a cleansing and renewing thing. We follow a Master who is the truth after all (John 14:6)! If you think that "strategically" you can't speak the truth then either your strategy is wrong or there is no strategy that will reform this church or denomination.

I'm reading the end of John's gospel at the moment and once again am faced the the way Jesus' followers left him to face the crucifixion on his own. When we keep our head down, in a small way we repeat the sin, as we let faithful pastors and leaders take the flak while we step back. We may justify it in various ways, but I wonder if those ways more often than not are really an unwillingness to count the cost of following Jesus and take the responsibility of being an under-shepherd in his church.