What We Say and Don’t Say

Our public witness is increasingly defined less by what we say and more by what we don’t say.

Sluggards and Lions

For the
sluggard,
there’s
nothing worth
fighting for…
After all, we
wouldn’t want
to be seen as
a “meddler”,
would we?

I wrote recently about the danger of “lions” and how we often go out of our way to avoid fighting them. The sluggard in Proverbs, for example, says: “There is a lion in the road! There is a lion in the streets!” (Prov. 26:13). He is desperate to avoid the consequences of his words and actions out there in the world, in the fight. He wants to stay inside where it’s calm and warm and “peaceable”. The sluggard might even cite a proverb from his very own chapter, warning against “the one who meddles in quarrels not his own” (Prov. 26:17). Stay inside, insists the sluggard. Keep out of trouble. Mind your own business.

For the sluggard, there is never anything worth fighting for. No falsehoods worth opposing, no evils worth confronting, no news worth proclaiming. After all, we wouldn’t want to be seen as a “meddler”, would we? Unless, say, it’s a falsehood that costs nothing to oppose, or an evil that’s already been denounced by everyone else, or the kind of news that doesn’t sound especially newsworthy. Then the sluggard will happily join the chorus with the rest of the world.

When the sluggard cries “lion!” he is weighing the risk of going out in the open. Whether the sluggard is fabricating this lion as a ploy to avoid going outside, or whether he’s drawing attention to an actual lion who really is outside, in either case he simply wants to avoid going outside. It never occurs to the sluggard that the lion might be there not as a caution, but as a summons. He doesn’t realise that the lion might be there precisely because he’s meant to go outside and fight it.

Wisdom or Winsome?

It’s worth noting that it’s quite possible to “cry lion!” to fabricate false fights too. We really should avoid meddling and quarreling and troublemaking if for no good reason. Some exaggerate the significance of any given issue or speak about it without wisdom or theological proportion. Whether such people stand on the Right or the Left, it makes little difference. They’re perpetually on the lookout for demons in every system, heretics in every pulpit, or trolls in every tweet. The kingdom of God has little need for hooligans or pedants, however excitable they seem. Yet if we’re honest, could we really say that the primary problem of the western Church today is that it bears an overly “combative” spirit before the world?

could we really
say that the
primary problem
of the western
Church today is
an overly
“combative”
spirit?

From the way most institutional Church leaders speak (or don’t speak) in public these days, you’d think speaking–out–too much was the greatest danger of our time. We’ve become tethered to a dominant missional attitude of “winsomeness” towards culture. Thus, when an opportunity to say something difficult arises, we‘re tempted to avoid the “lion” just in case the controversy “spoils” said witness. More than a few people are beginning to question this assumption, not least because it fails to prepare us for the increasing hostility now opposing Christianity within western culture. Our desire to be winsome is not a bad one, but it easily becomes little more than a desire to be liked. In the wrong hands, winsomeness becomes a plea for convenience, a longing for “peace when there is no peace” (Jer. 6:14).

This is why, when the time to speak comes around, we too often say nothing. Or worse, we say something to deflect from the thing what we don’t want to have to say.

Confusions and Deflections

We live in a time in which the public slide on issues like gender, race, sexuality, abortion, and others crash against the walls of the Church on a daily basis. Given the currency of these topics, you’d think this would be the perfect time for churches to speak about what God might have to say about these things. (There’s rather a lot, as it turns out, and much of it doesn’t look too good in the eyes of the world, however nicely we put it).

Our desire to
be winsome is
not a bad one,
but it easily
becomes little
more than a
desire to be
liked.

Speaking out on such things need not always be to the public, of course. The role of the Church is not primarily to alter public opinions on specific issues. We have a grander purpose than this, to be sure. Yet a robust public witness in the truths we proclaim and defend as the Church is central to what it means to be a “city on a hill” (Matt. 5:14). This also has more to do with the cause of the Gospel than we might think. At the very least, Christians are called to speak out to fellow Christians who may be confused about what they think on such things.

Instead however, we hear distractive statements about other issues in order to earn the Church some public brownie points. Such statements may often relate to real and important issues, but usually these are not the issues which need speaking at this time. They are, in fact, deliberate deflections from the more pressing controversy or confusion which needs addressing.

How the Game Works

Here’s how this tends to go…

When a leader really ought to say something about the corrosive effects of radical feminism upon women, what tends to happen? They boldly denounce the all-encompassing tyranny of toxic masculinity as the greatest evil of our time. (They’re then praised by feminists for doing so, despite potentially failing the women they’re claiming to defend).

Soon enough,
evocative images
are conjured up
of mouth-frothing
hell-preachers
blaring out empty,
compassionless
truths in shrill,
nasal tones.

When a leader ought to say something about the dangerous encroachment of a pro-LGBT+ agenda in the Church, what tends to happen? They declare that it’s high time the Church repented of its rampant homophobia and spent several years in sackcloth and ashes apologising to the gay community for all the hurt it’s caused them.(The fact that many churches probably haven’t even mentioned the word “homosexuality” from the pulpit in well over a decade – let alone said anything bad about it – is by the by).

When a leader ought to say something about the rising epidemic of Christian divorce in the Church, what tends to happen? They lament about the pervasive problem of “the idolatry of the family” or the underrepresentation of singleness on the eldership team. (The idea that it might be at least slightly indicative that having well-managed children is one of the primary Biblical qualifications for elders never seems to come up).

When a leader ought to speak out against the heinous evil of the legal murder of babies, what tends to happen? They choose this moment to make a statement full of gusto about women’s liberation and bodily autonomy. (Yes, they may neglect to mention the littlest bodies when doing so, but naturally that’s just a “technicality”).

Bring Out the Straw Man!

The usual trick
is…to accuse
the person of not
caring about the
real people who
are hurt by these
things. It’s clever.
…[I]f you oppose
abortion, you
probably think
women shouldn’t
have control of
their bodies; if
you don’t sport a
rainbow flag,
you’re probably
homophobic, etc.

Now, let’s say some foolhardy soul ventures out to the street one day to confront some lions. Let’s say they call attention to things like the legalised murder of babies or rampant sexual immorality or the flagrant repulsion of nature, etc. What does our deflective leader do then? The usual trick is to declare the distractive issues EVEN LOUDER and then to accuse the person of not caring about the real people who are hurt by these things. It’s clever. It means that if you disagree about someone mentioning toxic masculinity, you’re probably a misogynist; if you oppose abortion, you probably think women shouldn’t have control of their bodies; if you don’t sport a rainbow flag, you’re probably homophobic, etc.

Soon enough, evocative images are conjured up of mouth-frothing hell-preachers blaring out empty, compassionless truths in shrill, nasal tones. These imagined straw men (always men, incidentally) seem to take especial pleasure in lambasting all the deviants from their own cruel-hearted dogmas. They strike fear into the hearts of the winsome evangelical, who fears association with such mythical creatures most of all. When was the last time you actually saw or heard anyone even resembling such a person speaking in your church on a Sunday?

This is how the many cowards at the helm get to “cry lion” at the gates precisely in order to avoid mentioning the real lions who are already upstairs wreaking havoc.

Convenient Qualifications

This problem of saying true things at untrue times was epitomised in a recent Tweet from prominent Gospel Coalition author, Gavin Ortlund:

He’s right. It’s not controversial to say this. But why is he saying it? It’s a fascinating example of how middle-way public evangelicals either miss the point or deliberately avoid it. White supremacy is obviously evil. Thus, feeling the need to “say so” at such a time as this means more than merely saying so. It covers over the many other more pertinent things which are not being said “without qualification” at this time.

How to Avoid Being Called a Racist

At some point it seems to have been decided that if a person questions how race is understood today, they are more than likely some form of white supremacist. Granted, white supremacy is more of a live issue in the US than here in the UK. However, I find it hard to believe there’s a flood of influential evangelical churches in America right now actively defending white supremacy. What Ortlund really means to say is that there are an increasing number of evangelicals refusing to accept the BLM-saturated “antiracism” narrative in which “whiteness” is seen as the root cause of many/most societal evils.

It’s amazing
how strange
our thinking
becomes when
trying to
maintain the
status of a
fashionably
unquestionable
perspective.

Many evangelical leaders are already falling over themselves trying to avoid numerous other unsavoury nametags and associations as it is. The very least they can do, they think, is to avoid being called a white supremacist too! And so, the questionable statements continue. But compromises of winsomeness over truthfulness usually come back to bite in the end.

Questioning the Unquestionable

It’s amazing how strange our thinking becomes when trying to maintain the status of a fashionably unquestionable perspective. I wrote a short article on race recently and got some incredulous responses. Because I critiqued the way we use terms like “whiteness”, one commenter asked for explicit confirmation from me that I did in fact believe racism was wrong. For many people, a strong Christian critique of something like Critical Race Theory does not compute. It can’t even be imagined. The only options are to be a paid-up “antiracist” or else you’re a full-blown racist.

This happens because issues like race (and many others) become conflated with the Gospel. Thus, to disagree with the issue is to disagree with Jesus. Now, are there white supremacists out there also eliding the Gospel with racism? Probably. Are they rampant within mainstream evangelical circles…? No. If white supremacy is deemed one of the Church’s main problems today, then we’re either ignorant, lying, or cowardly. More often than not, it’s the latter.

We’ve become experts at dying on hills where no one’s actually fighting. We “die” on such “hills” because although people aren’t fighting on our part of the hill, many are watching. And we like to keep up appearances.

Failing to Adapt to Fresh Attacks

Much of the malaise in the Church today stems from the failure of Christians to adapt to changing cultural currents. Many have fallen asleep to what’s going on around them and have woken up to find a very different world. There are radical agendas in society today for which our previous fortifications and strategies are woefully unprepared. Nowhere is this more clear than in the subtle but frighteningly swift changes over Christian support for homosexuality. Keith Waters, in a recent article for Christian Concern, notes:

radical groups like Stonewall have been given vast amounts of influence across areas our politics, media, education, judiciary, policing, and health. This unprecedented access to influence policy with a very questionable agenda, has, over several years, twisted and changed policies which address public morality in ways which are counter to Biblical Christianity. Christians are finding ourselves in a ‘new society’ which we struggle to negotiate because we struggle to relate… and so we say nothing.

Waters is right. Christians have failed to navigate this “new society” well. Our convictions have been cowed into silence for fear of causing offence.

The Gradual Erosion

But it’s not just that we “say nothing” about the changes in societal attitudes. It doesn’t stop there. Eventually, our silence morphs into indifference, then tolerance, and finally support. What begins with honest questioning of inherited assumptions can end, a generation later, in vociferous advocacy for the opposite cause. Many don’t realise this is happening, or they don’t believe it could ever happen to them, or to their church. But it does happen. The toleration of unsound teaching does strange things when given enough space to play.

There are radical
agendas in society
today for which
our previous
fortifications and
strategies are
woefully
unprepared.

Such fundamental shifts in belief rarely happen because they’ve been thought-through carefully. Quite often it’s because the cultural water in which we swim slowly and imperceptibly erodes our convictions. Most Christians stop calling homosexuality sinful not because they’ve been convinced that the Bible says otherwise. It’s more likely because they have an emotional desire not to seem like an unloving or offensive person. Although perhaps borne of genuine compassion, the deeper motive can often be self-serving.

Speaking Out

Saying nothing about the most untruthful or unfaithful things around us today is neither loving nor good. So, are we willing to “step outside” and say what needs saying when it needs saying? Or will we stay quiet again, and allow the lions outside to keep on raging? Loving our neighbour sometimes means saying things other neighbours won’t like. What we choose to say and what we choose not to say, are two sides of the same coin; and both reveal the condition of our hearts (Luke 6:45). Lest we need reminding, life and death are in the power of the tongue (Prov. 18:21).