 29 November 2001 Guest Editorial:
Laodicea and the Silent Majority
Thoughts on David Brubaker's, "Church Fights and the 'Third Voice' Middle," (Ministry, November 2001, pp. 20-21).
Kevin D. Paulson
Few articles I have lately seen in church publications deserve the condemnation appropriate for this one. It is perverse, contemptible, and as foreign to the spirit of the Bible as anyone's thoughts could be.
I am unfamiliar with this David Brubaker, or with the Conflict Resolution Center International from which he writes, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Whoever this man and his organization may be, they seem to have little acquaintance with the God of Holy Scripture and His view of spiritual conflict.
The article has value, if for no other reason than the fact that it explicitly spells out an approach to religious disagreement which exists in all too many settings, but which any Biblically faithful Christian should reject. In short, its clarity is helpful in defining what to avoid.
For openers, the article contains not a single Bible verse, except an unspecific reference to the "still, small voice" of God that spoke to Elijah in the wilderness (I Kings 19:12). David Brubaker claims that those "in the middle" of church conflicts offer "still, small voices [in which] a word from God is most often heard" (Ministry, November 2001, p. 21).
But neither the story of Elijah nor any other in Scripture suggests that God's still, small voice is found in a neutral posture between truth as defined by God's Word and the error which denies that Word. Certainly the "still, small voice" that spoke to Elijah did not advise that a middle ground be sought between the convictions of Jehovah's worshipers and the idolatry of Jezebel!
The article starts by describing a church divided over an issue about which the Bible is categorical and clear in its definition of right and wrong -- the subject of homosexual behavior (Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:26-27; I Cor. 6:9-10; I Tim. 1:10):
"Conflict over the issue of homosexuality was tearing apart a congregation of about 100 members. One member of the congregation, involved in a committed long-term homosexual relationship was in a leadership role in the congregation, and for some members that was unacceptable. The governing body of the congregation wrestled with the issue for months, and ultimately brought it to the congregation for a vote. I was asked to facilitate the congregational discussion and vote.
"In this instance there were, as usual, those who were for allowing the homosexual person to continue in office and those who were against it. I sought to empower a 'third voice' in the conflict: those persons, present in every group conflict, who are more concerned with the process of resolving the conflict and less with the issues themselves" (p. 20).
Though the article doesn't explicitly address the arguments for or against homosexuality, the very use of such an example of church conflict as a model of how a "third voice" of non-conviction offers the answer, should fuel a fire of indignation in every committed Adventist heart. Moreover, Brubaker's description of the church member's behavior as that of a "committed long-term homosexual relationship," most assuredly implies approval of the man's lifestyle, since such language is often used by defneders of such practices. Even the implication that swuch a lifestyle choice is acceptable to a Christian has no place whatsoever in an Adventist magazine.
Certainly none should fail in such a conflict to show true Christian love to those in error, be that error one of faith or lifestyle. But Christlike love and spiritual neutrality (Brubaker's "third voice middle") are not one and the same thing.
No church could possibly wrestle "for months" over an issue like this unless it suffers a serious lack of Biblical awareness and conviction! Only a few Bible verses, as noted above, are needed to demonstrate the Lord's attitude toward the practice in question. If people in the church aren't willing to submit to the authority of the Bible, a much deeper problem exists than that of homosexuality. Nothing short of a thorough re-examination of purpose and belief is required in such a setting. Treating the dispute in question like some political disagreement in which compromise and a middle ground are possible is so utterly foreign to the Bible's approach in such matters as to make the suggestion laughable.
Brubaker's claim that this "third group" in the middle is "more concerned with the process of resolving the conflict and less with the issues themselves" (p. 20), is a most articulate description of an approach we should have nothing to do with. This is precisely the problem in much of contemporary Adventism, a dilemma I often address in weekend revival seminars. When conflict arises in the church, far too many of us think first of how quickly we can get things "back to normal" rather than inquiring first of what God has to say about the issue being discussed. In short, too many of us have come to prize peace over purity, tranquility over truth.
Brubaker speaks of how he was able to bring all three groups in this divided church together, choose spokespersons, and then express their views (p. 20). This might sound fine in the halls of Congress when a major bill is being considered. Brubaker writes, "Like it or not, religious communities are not only families of faith, they are also political organizations that tend to adopt decision-making models that are consistent with the dominant culture in which they are situated" (pp. 20-21).
Again we find a well-crafted depiction of exactly what the church must not be, and should rightly despise. (Imagine Moses calling the different groups together after the golden calf apostasy and asking them to each "express their views." Could we possibly imagine him trying to find some "third voice middle" as the resolution to that conflict?) Certainly such models are common in the church, but they should be steadfastly resisted! Politics and secular matters rightly involve compromise, because the ideas at stake there come from fallible human beings. The Bible, by contrast, is God's infallible Word. Brubaker insults the convictions of any Bible believer when he places the issue of homosexuality alongside arguments over a church building project (p. 20)! Both may indeed "generate intensity," in his words, but they lie on totally different planes.
The leaders of our precious church need at last to recognize that something is terribly, dreadfully wrong in some of our leading publications. Articles such as Brubaker's have absolutely no place on any Seventh-day Adventist press! Those who wrongfully engage in unjust criticism of the denomination can receive only encouragement when such spiritual cyanide is injected into the veins of Christ's body.
Richard Nixon spoke of this "third voice middle" during his presidency, when he talked of the "silent majority." He was soon to discover that far more Americans than he imagined were people of conviction. Our Saviour speaks in far less flattering terms of this "third voice middle." He denounces them as "neither cold nor hot" (Revelation 3:15), and is so nauseated by their ambiguity that He feels like throwing up (v. 16). Brubaker's article reflects the spirit of those faithless ones described in Zephaniah 1:12 as "settled on their lees: that say in their heart, The Lord will not do good, neither will He do evil."
In Ellen White's words:
"If God abhors one sin above another, of which His people are guilty, it is doing nothing in case of an emergency. Indifference and neutrality in a religious crisis is regarded of God as a grievous crime, and equal to the very worst type of hostility against God" (3T 281).
Whether or not that is good counsel might be debatable in a standard class on conflict management. But that shouldn't matter. It is God's truth.
Warning: filemtime() [function.filemtime]: stat failed for http://www.greatcontroversy.org/trunk/ed87.trunk in /usr/www/users/drogue/editorial/ed87-kp_conflictresolution.php3 on line 20
| 
