Too Concerned Over Respectability
Occasionally religious people in the denominational world realize significant truths some of our own brethren need to comprehend. We should remember that the church of the Lord is perfect on the Divine side, but on the human side many imperfections and shortcomings manifest themselves. Oftentimes brethren try tactics that the denominational world has cast aside. Appealing to human reason has absolutely no place in the church of our Lord.
For a specific example of what I refer to I quote an article in a recent issue of the sectarian publication called "The Watchtower." The majority of content in "The Watchtower" is erroneous, but this brief article contains a few relevant truths. The title of the article is "Church Failure As Seen By Her Leaders." Under the section, "Too Concerned Over Respectability," I quote:
The New York clergyman Harold A. Bosley was reported by the Miami Herald of July 19, 1962, as saying: "This nation's churches have become so fearful of saying the wrong thing that they simply say nothing. We are so respectable we are afraid of our own shadow.... American churches used to be the moral custodians of the community and would cross swords with anybody, but today they have timidly forsaken that role." Along this same line Cynthia Clark Wedel, a vice-president of the National Council of Churches, said, as reported by the Houston Post of October 1, 1961: "Too many churches reflect an image compounded almost entirely of sweetness and light. We are afraid that if the church becomes involved in anything controversial, it will cease to be popular — people might leave or not want to come in." (The Watchtower, Decembers 1, 1963, p. 727)
The idea is presented that churches have become too concerned over "respectability" that they are afraid of their own shadows. This may be true of the denominational world, but is it not also true of many liberal congregations among us today? Are we afraid to speak out firmly, plainly, and uncompromisingly — if it means the losing of our "status" or "respectability" or our impression on the world? Will we be sound to the Truth even if it means the losing of our popularity among others? May we be courageous and imitate the wonderful example of Stephen in condemning wickedness: "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do ye." (Acts 7:51) The Lord help us to never smooth-over and sugar-coat the gospel message in order to please the people and win popularity. Peter and John would not do such things. But today some brethren are afraid to become involved in anything "controversial" lest they lose their popularity or make a few enemies. As the water always takes the shape of the container — so they always change and conform to suit the situation at hand. It is a shame that some who know better will compromise the gospel in order to advance themselves. Their image is "sweetness and light" and nothing controversial at all. Popularity is their highest concern instead of Biblical soundness. But such was never the case with Paul. It would have been so easy for the Apostle Paul to simply "tone 'down and sweeten" his messages in order to gain more popularity and save his neck — but he never stooped to such cowardice. Rather, at all times, he uncompromisingly preached the full gospel, condemning sinners and encouraging the faithful in love.
Truly, it is a disgrace to the Word of God (the sharp two-edged sword, Heb. 4:12) to see some brethren use it simply as a butter-spreader. These individuals will no longer "cross swords" with those in disagreement (Jude 3) but timidly forsake such roles. They claim "arguing and love" are incompatible. (But Paul, Peter and Stephen never thought so. Apollos did not either: Acts 18:28).
Pleasing God all the time is not the goal of the compromiser — but rather making an impression upon society and becoming exalted in the brotherhood. Such individuals could not have stated the words Peter and the other apostles did in Acts 5:29 if they had lived in the first century.
Yes, it is true, we must be full of love. But the problem is that many brethren do not realize what Biblical love is. Love is NOT the condoning of sin and the toleration of evil. Love "rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth." (1 Cor. 13:6) Love is not the ignoring of sins in order to gain popularity. True love for our fellowman will compel us to point out with the Bible their sins and teach them the error of their ways in order to save their precious souls from eternal damnation. We need to realize that chastisement and love are completely harmonious. The Lord chastens and rebukes those whom He loves; just as the loving parent rebukes the child: "My son, regard not lightly the chastening of the Lord, Nor faint when thou art reproved of Him: For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, And scourgeth every son whom He receiveth. It is for chastening that ye endure; God dealeth with you as sons; for what son is there whom his father chasteneth not? But if ye are without chastening, whereof all have been made partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons." (Heb. 12:5-8) That is very emphatic and clear. God loves His children and He chastens or disciplines them. If we are without chastening — then the scriptures say that we are bastards and not His sons!
In the light of this passage, how is it some brethren still affirm that reproof and rebuke show a "lack of love?" Shall we accuse our Heavenly Father of a lack of love? The answer is that their conception of LOVE is not the love that God manifests. Their idea of love is to romance with evil. To "love it to death." But such cannot possibly be done. Christ never once romanced with Satan; but said "get thee hence!" The more we tolerate evil, the faster it shall overcome us. Christ utterly despises and hates all sin, and we must be imitators of Him.
In the latter part of the article from "The Watchtower" were these thoughts:
Anglican clergyman A. Gordon Baker is reported by the Toronto Daily Star of April 2, 1962, as saying: "The church has been side-stepping its responsibilities for centuries Christianity has become as vacuum-packed as the coffee on the shelves of today's supermarkets. Surely Jesus Christ did not endow a church with His presence in order to establish a comfortable and secure private club." ("The Watchtower," Dec. I, 1963, p. 727)
This is the erroneous conception, surprisingly enough, of some of our own brethren. They view the church as simply a "secure social club." A glorified institution to advance the social status of mankind upon the earth. But Christ did not establish a "club" of any kind or a social society of any type. Rather our Lord built the greatest and most glorious institution of all ages — the eternal Kingdom, the church of Christ wherein men's souls are saved.
Brethren, in all honesty, let each one of us search our own soul and see if we too are becoming "too concerned over respectability." Are we too concerned with our "impression" on the world and on society? or are we more concerned with our impression on Almighty God? Are we attracted to the popularity of the world and a high status among brethren? instead of remaining sound in the gospel at all costs? Do we remain silent on "controversial questions" in order to keep peace at any price and keep our popularity? Do we say, "Peace, peace, when there is no peace"? (Jeremiah 6:14; 8:11, 15) God help us to be courageous and full of conviction and sound in the Faith.
May we all humble ourselves and realize that the church is a soul-saving institution, the only one God established; and the gospel, pure and undefiled, is the power of God to save the straying soul of man.
"For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? or am I striving to please men? if I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ." (Galatians 1:10)
— 241 Grant Steet, Coalinga, California