The Sin of Neutrality

Timothy Pietsch
(The Rev Timothy Pietsch was a Baptist missionary to Japan. His timely article was published in the Reformation Banner, July-December 1992.)

[Meiderlin’s slogan is often quoted by politicians and clergymen, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” It is also said, “The church must always remain focused on its primary goal of preaching Christ and not be caught up with endless and senseless arguing over theological issues.” Such slogans sound quite pious and right but are often a subtle guise for an underlying sin—the sin of neutrality! What is the sin of neutrality? Let us hear from the late Rev Timothy Pietsch, founder of Tokyo Bible Church, and longest-serving missionary to Japan.]

It is always wrong to be neutral when the Word of God and Satan are in conflict. Many seek to be neutral so that they will not be faced with having to make decisions with regard to these excruciating problems (such as ecumenical evangelism) that divide Christians. In the days of our Lord upon earth, there were those who pretended obedience by inventing the slogan “Corban” (Mark 7:11), thus “making the Word of God of none effect” (Mark 7:13).

Positive Only?

Today we find men who claim to be born-again Christians doing much the same kind of thing by inventing slogans and devices that nullify the clear commands of God’s Word. We find many who say “We are too busy preaching the positive Gospel. We do not have time to be negative.” Beware of the man who speaks only of the positive Gospel, for there is no such thing. It is the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and of Him it is said, “Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity” (Heb 1:9).

The Gospel is both positive and negative. Many times a man’s love of righteousness is determined by how strongly he hates evil. The true Gospel preacher is a “savour of death unto death” and “of life unto life” (2 Cor 2:16). The man who speaks of the “positive Gospel” is trying to avoid warning of the coming of the wolves. Even a dog will bark when his master is in danger. How can these men who refuse to warn concerning the rise of the great world church of the  Antichrist be considered faithful undershepherds? It is just as foolish to speak of turning on the positive electricity. It is impossible to really say “Yes” to Truth, without saying “No” to error.

The three Hebrew children not only claimed positively that Jehovah could save them from the burning fiery furnace, but that even if He did not, they would not bow down, nor worship the golden image that the king had made (Dan 2:18). Their negative action was mandatory to back up their positive claim, or it meant nothing. Many times it is the negative refusal to go along with the crowd that draws the attention of the world (1 Pet 4:4)!

Biblical Separation

Another very common slogan that makes the clear command of God’s Word of none effect is “We believe in separation, but not in second degree separation.” Philip Foxwell, formerly of the Independent Board of Presbyterian Foreign Missions (IBPFM), stated to me most emphatically, “Pietsch, we repudiate your position for you not only separate from unbelievers but you separate from some believers.” I replied that I thought he did so also. I asked him about a certain missionary that had run away from his wife to live with another woman and asked if he would allow him to speak at his seminary. Brother Foxwell replied that he thought the missionary I spoke of was a born-again Christian but living in adultery and until he repented he could not allow him to speak at the seminary. I asked, “What about these men who deliberately commit spiritual adultery by pretending that unbelievers are believers and who add numbers to the apostasy? Is not such spiritual adultery worse in God’s sight than adulterating marriage?” He replied that he did not believe in “second degree separation” and that the Bible teaches us that we should separate from unbelievers but that it never teaches us what we should do about those believers who refuse to separate from unbelievers.

In seeking to defend his thesis that there is no Biblical principle against cooperation in the work of the Lord with men who work with modernistic unbelievers, Foxwell wrote an article entitled, “Principle or Prudence,” which was published in the Spring-Summer 1965 issue of REAP magazine, edited by Kenny Joseph. In this he states: “Yet cooperation with a professing conservative within the NCC or the Kyodan (United Church of Japan) is not the same category as “Thou shalt not steal.” We cannot allow a professing Bible believer the freedom to add up the plus and minus of committing adultery. But we must reject the exegesis of those who would make an absolute of “second degree separation.” We must practice charity and grant freedom to evangelicals who have a separation problem.”

Principle or Prudence?

According to this very common thesis, it is not a matter of principle but only of prudence and greater or lesser  expedience, in working with those who pretend that unbelievers are believers. If the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and the plus is greater than the minus, then go ahead and cooperate in the work of the Lord with those who remain in an organization controlled by unbelief. Over the years we have pleaded with Philip Foxwell and Kenny Joseph to repudiate this article which so wrests God’s Word and the command, “Come out from among them, and be ye separate, … and touch not the unclean thing,” making it of no effect, but they have absolutely refused to repent.

These men represent a group of missionaries that have found it very profitable to claim to be Bible separatists but at the same time attack what they revile as “second degree separation.” By this device they are able to get support and help from Bible-believing separatists and at the same time remain in good standing with the neo-evangelicals enjoying their financial support. They are very quick, however, to separate themselves from those they vilify as “second degree” separatists. These men walk with one foot on each side of the fence and have found it very profitable to do so, but now the fence is getting higher and their feet do not touch the ground on either side. The Bible knows nothing of this degree separation from apostasy. Beware of the man who speaks of “second degree separation” for he is inventing a straw man that he can knock down to try and prove he is being faithful to the Lord, when actually he is only pretending obedience. “Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully” (Jer 48:10).

Another device by which men seek to avoid an issue is “Contend for the faith, but don’t contend with the brethren.” My own beloved father, Dr W E Pietsch, from whom I learned in my youth many great Biblical principles, used this device as a means to avoid having to withstand the compromising position of his very close friend, Dr Charles E Fuller. Sometimes in seeking to be faithful to our Lord we have the agonizing task of standing up against those closest to us. I had to point out to my father how untenable his slogan really was for it is like a man saying, “I am going to contend for the heavyweight championship of the world, but I refuse to fight anybody.”

Have Positive Convictions

Paul in contending for justification, had to withstand Peter to his face before them all, for he was to be blamed (Gal 2:11). Contending for the faith without withstanding Peter would have meant that Paul really was not very positive in his position. Often men are not negative because they are not really positive in their convictions.

“It’s only a very loose organization and we agree to disagree” is the slogan used by some to excuse their association or identification in the work of the Lord with the agents of Satan, or with those who cooperate with them. A doctrinally loose organization is as dangerous as a morally loose woman and one should stay as far as possible from them. Agreeing to disagree with error is the sin of coexistence with unbelief and so contrary to that which is demanded in Ephesians 5:11.

Those who invent these slogans and devices that make the Word of God of no effect, and those who follow them are certainly under the indictment of God: “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.” (Matt 15:8). “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot [but neutral], I will spue thee out of my mouth.” (Rev 3:16).

With very disastrous and tragic results, many Christian pastors of Japan before and during World War II compromised with Shinto idolatry to avoid a frontal clash with their country and to keep from being considered traitors. When they bowed before a Shinto shrine or Shinto god-shelf or allowed their children to do so they used the excuse, “We are not worshipping in our hearts.” By this device they made the clear command of God’s Word of none effect. Many pastors and missionaries today use similar devices to avoid isolation, being considered irrelevant, misunderstood and ridiculed. But the same disastrous results that came from compromise with Shinto idolatry is sure to come upon them if they do not repent.

Don’t Tolerate Unbelief

Many years ago Henry Parsons Crowell pointed out that the battle for truth is lost in any group when the mainstream becomes tolerant of leaders who are tolerant of unbelief. This is the center of the battle, and brought up to date we ask, “Do you cooperate in a Billy Graham Crusade?” If so you are tolerant of unbelief (for leading modernists always have prominent positions on the committees). Do you cooperate with those who cooperate in a Billy Graham Crusade? If so you are tolerant of those who are tolerant of unbelief. If a compromising or backslidden Christian can be at ease in your presence then there is something wrong with you.

Luther’s Warning

Martin Luther, more than four hundred years ago, stated: “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, then I am not confessing Christ, however, boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is merely flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.”