Despite popular stereotypes, I never cease to be amazed at the capacity for self-criticism among so many of the church’s striving faithful. No matter how awash in self-indulgence and worldly conformity the church (at least in the developed world) may be, the notion still persists among conspicuous voices within theologically conservative Adventism that the most pressing danger among God’s people is excessive spiritual severity, not only with others but with themselves as well.
One reason for this, I have often guessed, is the introspection I have found to be so widespread among those striving to adhere to the written counsel of God. The theory often promoted by others in the church that theological conservatives are generally the sort that will crawl backwards over broken glass if it could lead them to a fight over doctrine or standards, is not one I have seen demonstrated except in the rarest of cases. For the most part, in my life and ministry, those with conservative theological leanings are the kind who bend over backwards to think the best of people on the opposing side of the great issues dividing the church. That may not be the impression one gets when visiting various Internet or social media outlets, but one must beware of assessing any demographic, philosophical tendency, or lifestyle choice by settings whose inhabitants give every evidence of having inordinate levels of controversial opinion—to say nothing of discretionary time.
To ask the question whether laxity or severity is the most pressing spiritual danger in the church may seem to many almost frivolous in our present postmodern climate. Despite the harsh polarization now afflicting America and other Western societies, it is still fair to assume that most people prefer to live quiet, unobtrusive lives as free of conflict, argument, or disrupted relationships as possible. The path of least resistance for the great majority, even among conservative Christians, continues to be accommodation rather than confrontation, ambiguity rather than clarity. Visit your average church board or business meeting convulsed with debate over one or another theological, liturgical, or lifestyle issue, and it’s fair to say most in attendance will try to find some middle-ground solution designed to please as many and offend as few as possible.
The Problem of Projection
Spiritual introspection has its place, but where it can become problematic is when people view the dilemmas faced by others as mirroring their own. Devout Christians often examine themselves with great rigor, and many times such persons associate with others who tend to do the same thing. Because these tendencies are so familiar to them, such persons come to view the challenges faced by the larger community of believers as being of the same variety, even when they aren’t.
But for those who minister in word and doctrine, it is never enough to merely focus on spiritual challenges familiar to one’s own journey and that of those near and dear. One’s personal struggles are not necessarily those of the great majority over whom we may exert influence. Those whose background in the church is one of excessive rigidity and harshness toward those who differ with them must understand that such a spirit, destructive though it is, does not necessarily reflect the larger culture and worldview of many, many others who occupy the church’s pews and inhabit the society in which we live.
It isn’t uncommon for preachers and other spiritual lecturers to preach to themselves, especially if they happen to be wrestling with a particular problem. This can be perilous for those seeking revival and reformation in the church. “Meat in due season” (Matt. 24:45; Luke 12:42) for the Lord’s flock is not necessarily meat in due season for the one who feeds the flock. Just because a particular presenter is more familiar with a particular spiritual problem than with others, doesn’t mean the familiar problem merits the greatest attention.
The Sacred Record
Excessive severity and misguided zeal are certainly addressed in the Bible; the Old Testament case of Jehu (II Kings 10:16) and the New Testament cases of James and John (Luke 9:54-55) certainly come to mind. But if the Sacred Record is to be our guide, such cases are the exception rather than the rule. Far more examples can be cited of believers letting down their spiritual guard, accommodating the encroachments of a self-indulgent world, and allowing evil to persist without correction in the faith community. The straying onto forbidden worldly ground by the Sethites (Gen. 6:2), the children of Israel at Baal-peor (Num. 25:1), Samson (Judges 14:1-3), and Solomon (I Kings 11:1-6) is far more ubiquitous in Scripture than the barriers of exclusion built by the self-righteous Pharisees in the days of Christ and the apostles. For every Jehu we find many more Aarons and Elis.
Even our perception of the Jewish leaders in Christ’s time may be flawed on this point, especially as we read the following inspired statement regarding our Lord and His teaching style, in contrast with His contemporaries:
But while His teaching was simple, He spoke as one having authority. This characteristic set His teaching in contrast with that of all others. The rabbis spoke with doubt and hesitancy, as if the Scriptures might be interpreted to mean one thing or exactly the opposite. The hearers were daily involved in greater uncertainty. But Jesus taught the Scriptures as of unquestionable authority. Whatever His subject, it was presented with power, as if His words could not be controverted [1].
The more prevalent danger of spiritual laxity in the journey of God’s people through the ages is underscored by the following inspired description of the broad road Jesus warned against:
On the road to death the whole race may go, with all their worldliness, all their selfishness, all their pride, dishonesty, and moral debasement. There is room for every man’s opinions and doctrines, space to follow his inclinations, to do whatever his self-love may dictate [2].
Conclusion
For the above reasons, it is easy to understand why the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy contain far more warnings against laxity than against excessive severity, far more warnings against sidestepping the demands of God’s law than against “[preaching] the law until we are as dry as the hills of Gilboa” [3]. Neither ditch is desirable, and by God’s grace both can be avoided. But the Sacred Narrative is clear that the human tendency is far more pronounced in the former direction than in the latter. In our present postmodern world, this historical pattern remains especially dominant. Regardless of the proclivities which may be most evident among the devout, the peril of laxity, accommodation, and ambiguity still looms largest before those seeking the narrow path leading to life eternal (Matt. 7:14).
REFERENCES
1. Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages, p. 253.
2. ----Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, p. 138.
3. ----Review and Herald, March 3, 1890.
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan