Image by Getty Images via @daylifeAshland is a swell of Anabaptism. There is a church affiliated with some strand of Brethren denomination on virtually every corner. The other 35% are composed of your run of the mill mainline church or generic non-denominational church. This, I feel, is the reason for the great spiritual lethargy in my town.
One of the main tenets of all of these groups is that of pacifism.[1] The pride of Anabaptism is her pacifism. They make it one of their foremost defining doctrines. Mainliners are basically pacifists too. They are your liberal types that forfeited the fight for truth and justice long ago. Non-denom.’s are of the same stream. They sprouted up as a result of the mainline apostasy. They thought they were fighting, but really they were bailing out of the fight by running away from denominations in order to create their own little independent island where they wouldn’t have to fight anyone.
Which brings me to my point: I wonder if this pacifistic/non-resistance belief is the reason why there is such a spiritual lethargy in this town. In my opinion, pacifism, and its ever more pliable cousin non-resistance/non-violence, is nothing more than appeasement. It shrinks from the fight and surrenders ground to the enemy. His motto is, “Let us keep peace!” Rather than fight to keep peace, he backs away. He would rather have the strained and tenuous peace that comes with an appeased tyrant than a free and robust peace that comes through warding off the enemy.
All in all, such is an act of forfeiture.
This is what takes place on the battlefield, of course (well, actually nothing takes place on the battlefield, but you know what I mean). I can’t help but think though that it translates into the everyday world around us. I feel that the spiritual battle is often lost because of the constant recoiling in the name of “peace.” The battlefield of the mind and heart is repeatedly forfeited because no one wishes to yield the sword of the Spirit by standing up to the encroaching evils and false teachers. Such would be a skirmish and clash, and that is intolerable because it is in all reality a crusade in miniature.
To put it another way, wars are simply ideas fought with weapons. It may be fought with machine guns and cannons, or it may come to blows on a lesser scale with a pen and one’s lips. Either way, it is a war, and pacifists will let evil triumph to avoid both.
[1] A friend of mine attempted to clarify this. He said: The Brethren would split hairs and contend that it is more aptly called “non-resistance.” I respond by saying, 1) I’d like to glue the hairs back together and 2) I really don’t think that pacifists /non-resistance types contend.
If you really would like to split hairs, let’s think of it this way: Pacifists are willing to take a stand and get slaughtered while doing holding their ground. Non-resistance people will continually concede ground in the name of appeasement and keeping the peace.
2 comments:
I see some of your point, however, I know many anabaptists in Ashland who are on the forefront of standing for the truth - especially many working in the trenches for the pro-life movement.
To say that being against war = not standing up for the Truth is a pretty big leap which would offend me if I were one of your anabaptist friends.
-Elizabeth Timmons
I agree that there are many Anabaptists willing to support issues such as supporting those who are against abortion. Willing to support them, though, is different than fighting against sin. One Anabaptist pastor told me that even if he came home and his wife was being raped, he would not use force to stop the rapist. He, to me, is not much of Christian, nor much of a man. I think of the Methodists, Salvation Army, etc. who at one time used to take action and fight against gambling, alcoholism, and sin. I doubt Wesley or William Booth would feel much at home in their denominations today. I know many Brethren who do indeed claim to love peace (as all Christians should), yet who use their professed love for peace in order to stay away from proclaiming the truth. Why help someone by warning him of his sin, if it might offend someone? As i see it, they would rather be friends with all and not offend them than actually suggest that sin is wrong and that God's word is true. On the other hand, there are many in other denominations who will claim to follow the doctrine in God's word, while they neglect the love and compassion that are needed. As Jude wrote, some need to be saved by love, while others will not respond unless saved through fear, pulling them out of the fire. If any one tries to use only love or only fear, they miss half of God's truth. If some are so concerned with not offending others that they fit in with the world and fail to stand upon God's word, They are not following Jesus. Many find it easier to speak only of God's love, while neglecting His wrath, justice, and holiness. Many love to speak of the love of Jesus, while leaving out His overturning tables in the temple or His soon return to destroy all those who do not know God and who do not obey Him. It does no good to love someone into hell, without warning them to repent and flee from the wrath to come. When again will we see those not only in love with Jesus, but who are in love with all of God's truth, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh? To be silent as our land is filled with sin, to say nothing against gambling, drunkenness, homosexuality, fornication, the love of the world, etc. is not to fully follow Jesus. Jesus was hated in this world, for He testified that the deeds of the world were evil. Listening to most Ashland sermons, though, one walks away with the same general idea week after week--that God loves us, that He is good, that He has grace, etc. These things are true, but we no longer hear the rest of the truth, and a half-truth is not really truth at all. When will we hear again the call to repent, to be holy, to stand upon the word of God rather than the tradition of men? When will we realize that those who promote a salvation of sacraments and works are not Christian brothers and sisters at all, but only the blind leading the blind? Let us follow Jesus--but let us follow the Biblical and real Jesus, and not the sissified, sin-tolerating, evil-hugging Jesus that we have invented in our own minds for the sake of not offending others and to make ourselves feel better as we love the world and tolerate evil.
Post a Comment