Thursday, June 16, 2011

#235- Being Balanced: The Unbearable Lie of "the Middle Ground"

Maybe, I have wrote about this topic before. I have no clue. I don't remember yesterday. Thus it's impossible for me to remember the content of this blog.

The point is, I realized on the day before yesterday that one of the worst kind of horrorshows for our movement is when someone confesses that filthy illusion that they consider themselves "in the middle" of the Left or Right "spectrum" within our movement, or more specifically.... When someone claims a point or a stance that actually means something, a Man in the Middle chimes in that "We  Must maintain a balance and keep the other "end" of the argument in mind."  And then that convictionless person rambles on about not straying to far to the left, or too far to the right, but Keeping our eyes towards heaven....

And God's will, happens to be the middle?

Did I miss something?

No I didn't.

So before I continue, this kid below is reminding you and me, that if there is anyone we should be pointing the finger at within our movement, it is the "man in the middle who authorizes balance" above all...

Because the Man of the Middle is a Very very Bad Man.

Why? Not because the man in the middle is insensible, because in all respects, The man in the Middle is the most sensible.

But rather, this sensibility and "balance" and argument from being "practical" and making sure we are not being too extreme, too radical, too liberal, or too conservative is too sensible...

So sensible, that the Man in the Middle struggles from actually believing anything other than they want things to stay the same so they can keep their job, or line themselves in such a way to be next in line for a job from a predecessor who, also happens to be in the "Middle."

Except this middle doesn't exist.

because I think i am in the middle.

and you probably think you are in the middle.

And I think i am balanced.

You do too...

No one wants to be an extremist..

Except the most extreme person that exists today, is the person who claims to be balanced and in the middle in their beliefs, but in reality, this means, "I am lazy."

Because, as neutral, and balanced as the Man in the Middle claims to be, he does have a very Strong Position that bases itself in one doctrinal point: Any action one way will cause a negligence of the other side (one Extreme is "Legalism" and the other extreme is "The social Gospel/Emergent" movement).

Therefore, while the Man in the Middle claims to be balanced and without bias, his bias is more than anyone else's bias towards the Left or Right....

The Man in the Middle believes above all else in the Powers that Rule the Air in the Here and Now. The Man in the Balance worships the gods of capitalism, hierarchy, and not caring enough for anyone who doesn't step into their church walls. Because action means change, and when you want change, you cannot do so by maintaining a Middle ground...

Because the Middle Ground really means "I am allowing the hypothetical sins of the Legalists or the Emergents support my laziness to believe in nothing..."

But laziness, and inaction really mean that you fully support the way things are now...

Except God hasn't come back....

And our witness is dwindling...

We will rot as a movement if we listen to the voice of complacency spoken by the Man in the Middle.

But most horribly....

The Bible will have none of this nonsense...

Jesus doesn't talk about balance, maintaining the Middle, or any such nonsense....

Find me the scripture that supports "the middle ground" in the Bible.

You probably wont.

Why? Because this parasite of "balance" that is so common amongst ourselves today isn't biblical...It's a business-fiction to justify the lack of care for things outside our immediate comfort.

As for the practicability of the middle? Where is the middle ground for Hitler's Nazi germany on one end and Churchill's England on the other end?

Let me see.... if The Brits killed 0 Jews. And the Nazi's killed 6 million Jews. THen the Middle Ground would be 3 million Jews....

And you may say that my example is extreme, but that point is very clear.....

In regards to some or many evils, a Middle Ground is very much a sinful position. Finding the middle in the present age, says nothing about How God will judge us, because the sins on one end may be so bad hypothetically, that any kind of compromise with this radical evil end will result in the damnation of those who proclaimed it's middle.

Ramble about balance a lot Middle Man, so you can sleep easy tonight....

The sins of the world are waiting to fall on your shoulders.


  1. Does this one count? (Not a rhetorical question... I could totally be proof-texting like a pro here.)

    "Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand." Phil. 4:5

    Regardless, I find this post unconvincing. I'm sure there are those who use the "middle ground" as an excuse for apathy, but to say that such a position unequivocally translates to laziness seems absurd. Context is everything, I think. There are times, such as the Nazi example, where which side of the spectrum one should cling to is obvious. But in the greyer areas, balance isn't a license for inaction, it's an expression of humility. Is your point that we're supposed to pretend like ambiguity doesn't exist, in fear that we'll succumb to a perpetual state of complacency and be damned because we didn't stand for anything?

    It's almost as if you're simply using the notion of "lukewarmness" and balance synonymously. Surely the issue calls for more nuance?

  2. Look that word "Moderation" up in the greek, it does not mean "middle of the road". read it in context. it has nothing to do with middle of the road. to make it so would be to take it out of context which we love to do to make the Bible say what we want it to say.

  3. I prefaced the verse with a disclaimer that it may not apply. I also read it in context before I posted; the passage as a whole does nothing to discredit the idea that the verse is promoting balance.

    As for the Greek thing, I would have to know which particular word the original text utilized in order to look up its definition. I don't know how to access that information, but if you'd like to enlighten me, I would genuinely appreciate it.

    I did find this, though:

    "Sophrosyne (σωφροσύνη) is a Greek philosophical term etymologically meaning healthy-mindedness and from there self-control or moderation guided by knowledge and balance."

    So, again, IF that's the word used in the text, it seems to suggest that balance should be a guiding ideal.

    All of that aside, I still think the real problem here is conflating a sense of balance with lukewarmness and apathy - whether or not the verse I quoted is germane.

  4. Amplified Phil 4:5 "Let all men know and perceive and recognize your unselfishness (your considerateness, your forbearing spirit). The Lord is near [He is [a]coming soon]." The context is about a church fight between 2 people and Paul admonishing them to get along.

  5. No, the point of my post, although I did a bad job explaining it was this: The middle position in the UPC is so popular amongst Apostolic ministers these days.... As if the movement hinges on their neutrality.

    But the Left and the Right should never dictate the middle. Being conservative may be absolutely evil, so to stand in the middle of that would be to support something that ought not to be conservative. (Same can be said about the left, etc..)

    Most of the time though, it's conservatives who naively claim the middle position....

    And their "middle" really means, "Sure some things need to change (perhaps movie theaters, etc...), but i don't want to throw the good things out, so i wont do anything to change anything but support the status quo."

    It's an absolutely non-position. There is no action from those who claim the middle.

  6. First I have to call Godwin's rule

    Second if you're defining the middle as the halfway point between two extremes then yes it is definitely a terrible idea. I'm afraid this is the way our media and in turn are culture has seat to define the middle and unbiased ground.

    Now in defensive of the middle if you define the middle not as the halfway point between two extremes but instead the median then the argument of trying to be in the middle is more valid. One would assume that there should be a Gaussian curve with very few extremists and the large group of slightly hedonists should be balanced out by the large group slightly legalists leaving the mean to be about right. This of course is under several assumptions that are at best not entirely valid. We would need to assume that there is a one-dimensional continuum between hedonism and legalism, each person is independently seeking their own interpretation of the optimum point on that continuum and that the population we are referring to are all Saints, and while problematic this assumptions are probably safe so long as we don't expect too high precision. Second we must assume that there are no other dominant ideologies like Republican or American propaganda or local culture that would skew the beliefs and on this point this assumption is not valid but could be corrected for.

  7. Aye John, but I fear you make the possibility of the middle ground far too possible. My point would be it is not possible. The Death God of capitalism and the correlation between those in power in church and the middle is enough of an evidence for me to call such a possibility of a real middle delusional within our movement.

  8. You're beginning...

    to write.....

    like Rob Bell.

  9. Joel

    The problem is our circles of fellowship are so small, some smaller than one church. If we (every one not just a few missionaries) were in fellowship with the Saints in South America and Africa (and lets also add Eurasia and Australia) then I think we could find a middle. That said I have not idea how we get there.

  10. I wonder what would happen if people from all over, in our own movement and others, would simply look into the Word of God and apply it at face value as He opens it to their understanding. The Holy Ghost is given to "help our infirmities" and to "bring to rememberance" all the things that Christ taught. Why can we not simply allow Him to lead us? Why must we break everything down into theories and black and white explanations? Simple, humble obedience is all we have to offer. Our salvation lies not in our ability to out-talk our brothers and sisters, but in the death that Christ endured for our filthiness. There is a trap, gentlemen, in wanting to explain the Word of God to then enth degree...We get to a place where we begin to trust in ourselves more than our Savior.We cease to "praise the glory of His grace" and begin to trust in our own righteousness. We feel superior to our simpler brother who is content to obey the Word of God without disputing it first. We are instructed to "study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" another verse, Christ says "search the scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life, and these are they which testify of me". If, when searching the scriptures we find anything in ourselves other than humility and thanksgiving toward our Saviour, I fear we have grossly missed the mark.

  11. Hector comachoshondoAugust 16, 2011 at 7:48 PM

    If a pastor declares himself to be "real balanced" or "middle of the road" while leading a church that abides by even 80 pct of the upci manual is laughable. Its akin to a Muslim saying I am a "real balanced" or "middle of the road" member of the Taliban. The UPCI is the Christian equivalent of the Taliban. Balance in an extreme movement is no balance at all.