“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.” [Martin Luther]
Do you agree?
Do we profess the truth even though it might offend a brother? Or do we only speak certain truths because if we dilute truth to the least common denominator we can still label it unity?
Is divisiveness in itself a sin?
Jesus said he came not to bring peace on earth, but a sword (Matthew 10:34). As such, He told us that even family relationships would be divided along the lines of belief (v. 35).
We know however that Jesus did not wish his church to be divided. In his high priestly prayer was a plea for unity (John 17:21-23).
How then can the church be critically divided if believers hold the Bible to be God’s inerrant word and if the church is universally drinking from the same Spirit of truth? (2 Corinthians 11:4). Could it be that the church’s most visceral division has more to do with it drinking from a stream polluted by the pervasive ideals of secularism, than from speaking out against policy (see Ezekiel 34:18-19; Jeremiah 23:11)?
Are there issues dividing the church today that are “neutral”? In other words, not clearly delineated as good or evil, first by the Bible and secondly by civic law, and thus may be abandoned for the sake of unity?
What obligation do we have not to speak of moral issues, which foremost must be Biblical issues? For in our current volatile age, everything moral has been now made political by the culture. What about scientific issues that have been made political? If the most basic biology such as gender has been fashioned into a political weapon, and to speak up for what a couple decades ago was once undisputed fact now is to be called “hate,” are we obliged to stay silent to fit the current definition of love?
Do we have an obligation to speak up when language has been redefined so as to target our children for destruction? First high schools, then middle schools, and now elementary schools brazenly groom minors through curriculum and literature. Little children are being invited to libraries where drag queens preside over storytime. Prepubescent children are administered body-mutating, mind-altering, life-shortening hormonal drugs and are being systematically mutilated by doctors.
Has ever such a horror been perpetuated in civilized society?
Are we obligated to keep our mouths shut rather than potentially offend a brother? Can a regenerated believer even endorse such a thing – or the politician who stands in favor of it?
What does it say about the church that because of the extremity of the agenda against children, a foul-mouthed comedian will finally speak out in shock – but a pastor won’t?
What are we to do in the light of the last couple years’ high exposure of medical science and its corruption in favor of mammon and politics? Am I my brother’s keeper? What obligation do I have to share from direct exposure or experience that which might latently be harmful? Are we obligated to keep potentially destructive knowledge to ourselves because the overriding narrative demands it? Is it more loving to let a brother take a chance with his life rather than be divisive? Shall I wait for time, lawsuits, and malpractice to reach such a scale that they finally speak that which I was afraid to?
What then to do about the dilemma of the church that is told not to speak politics when the politics have been forced upon the church*?
What about my brother’s obligation not to offend when he repeats all the talking points of a secular world that has never before been so unabashedly anti-Christ across the spectrum of commerce, science, education, news media, and policy? Shall I acquiesce the propaganda as fact so as to be in agreement with my brother for the sake of unity?
Or, perhaps it is that I am obligated in fact to speak the truth but am not to support those leaders that uphold the moral convictions the bible delineates are necessary for a righteous, non-rogue government (see Romans 13:1-3). In other words, am I silent both on public platforms and in private for such leaders in the name of unity, thereby ensuring that those supporting godly agendas are left to the mercy of their critics, detractors, and mob rule?
If the answer to these questions is that unity trumps conscience, then we must surmise that the Christians in previous generations were in error, and thereby sin, to seek the end of slavery, to illegally hide the Jews from their National Socialist persecutors, and to speak out against segregation. One can conclude from studying history that all these practices during their time were the zenith of political division in the body of Christ.
Indeed, there may be some Christians who purport to “know nothing except Christ, and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2) as the foundation for the church’s obligation to abstain from all of history’s governmental injustices, past and present. But what to do when such Christians wielding this verse at their opponents neglect even to preach the gospel? For if we are honest, it is often those bold enough to speak unpopular truth in the arena of policy who are the ones courageous enough to preach the cross of Christ, a rock of offense (1 Peter 2:8).
In light of these points we wrestle with as a Bible believing, truth speaking church in a world where the racially motivated genocide of babies dwarfs in sheer numbers the millions of deaths of the Third Reich, Romans 14:22-23 leaves us with the knowledge that whatever we cannot do in conscience leads to condemnation.
Somehow, we in the church must allow our fellow believers the grace and space to wrestle through the paradox of the times we are in, rather than assigning names and shame to those speaking their convictions.
I know what my conscience requires of me. You, fellow believer, must decide what it means for you.
The opening quote is widely attributed to Martin Luther. It has been occasionally disputed but never proven to belong to another.
+Note that this information comes from a law journal, not a news source. Of particular interest, “Potential risks associated with vaccines containing nano-carriers are generally greater than common vaccines. Clinical trials employing nano-carriers are characterized by unknown efficacy, tolerability and safety, thus posing uncertain and ambiguous risk assessment. The
uncertain nature of new mRNA vaccines loaded in nano-carriers poses potential risks for volunteer participants.19 In addition, complications on volunteers have already been reported at a trial stage” (p. 151)