Many of our brethren who define or locate the middle-of-the-road in current controversies do so arbitrarily, and the place where the middle-of-the-road is supposed to be is often off-center or in poor position to be in t h e middle of anything.

There may be something to be accurately called middle-of-the r o a d in religious issues, but the location of it is usually somewhere other than the place occupied by self-styled moderates.

In Paul's fight against Judaism he "gave place by subjection no, nor for an hour." He refused to circumcise Titus and drew a line between the right side and the wrong side. Brethren were on one side or the other. But I suspect some of our 1800 brethren could find a middle-of-the-road place for Paul due to his circumcising of Timothy and his participation in Jewish rites in the Jerusalem temple.

A survey of the general condition of the brotherhood, and a fair consideration of the overall picture, lead one to believe that the middle-of-the-road contenders are those who do not want to be identified with extremes of either side. Although they are actually on one side or the other, they equate the middle-of-the-road with the less extreme positions on one side or the other.

In the institutional issue, an individual either allows or disapproves of church contributions to institutions. On the conservative side he may be moderate in his opposition, and his practice may sometimes be inconsistent with his belief. Or, he may be somewhere between the firm and the radical in his resistance to institutionalism. On the other side, the temperate liberal accepts church grants to certain kinds of institutions but opposes them for others. This moderate liberal may frown on church support of all institutions, but he does not consider the matter important enough to justify involved controversy -- yet he is on the institutional side because he goes along with institutionalism. The extreme liberals would list but few, if any, prohibitions as to what institutions the churches may support.

In many issues those who are moderate or less extreme on one side or the other are embarrassed by radicalism or intemperance of their fellows. This leads many to inaccurately classify moderation or resistance to extremism as "middle-of-the-road." Many who claim to follow a middle-of-the-road course are actually limping weakly from one side to the other. This is what many in Israel were doing in the days of King Ahab. Elijah came unto these people saying, "How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him" (I Kings 18:21).

What many call the middle-of-the-road is but lukewarmness on one side or the other. This lukewarmness may grow out of a desire to keep company with both sides, or out of indifference regarding commitment to one or the other. Some preachers or publishing houses may find it advantageous, from the monetary standpoint, to "politic" with both sides.

Moses and Joshua enjoined the Hebrews to turn neither to the left nor to the right, and Josiah the king is declared to have been one who followed this course. But the "left and right" terminology (Deut. 5:32, Joshua 1:7, II Kings 22:2) in these instances refers to deviation from commandments, not to positions on issues or to conservative and liberal outlooks toward policy. The question before each of these Old Testament representatives of God was whether or not the law of Moses would be accepted in favor of God or rejected in favor of Baal. To turn to the right or to the left was to turn to Baal. Thus the left-right terminology of the Old Testament is not used in the same way as the left-right labels in the politics of today.

As to current issues a man is on one side or the other. As to church granting funds to any institution, he either allows it or condemns it. As to sponsoring churches, he either allows it, or rejects it altogether. As to church banquets and recreation, he either accepts it or rejects it. As to the use of the Revised Standard Version, he either accepts it, or rejects it. He may move out to extremes on any of these issues, or he may remain close to the other side, but he is on one side or the other.

The stereotyping of any particular individual as a liberal or conservative is ambiguous and often inaccurate. In the Lord's body the term "liberal" and "conservative," like most other controversial labels, are used differently from the general usage in "Christendom." But there is always a liberal and a conservative side to any issue. One may be an "anti" on the institutional issue, but a liberal on the marriage and divorce question; a liberal on the sponsoring church issue may be a conservative on the church-recreation matter. The pluralistic nature of our controversies defies general stereotyping of each other.

The party spirit: It is in this area where a middle road may exist. But the middle-of-the-road here does not really refer to issues, because a plurality of liberal and conservative positions are held on various issues by sundry personnel on both sides of any particular question. Actually the middle-of-the-road, as to paper parties or sectarian movements among us, applies to attitudes and policies rather than to issues and doctrine. Opposing "parties" may be bitter toward each other; the middle-of-the-road appears in those reflecting tolerance both ways, or in those who hold contempt for one side and patronization of the other, or in those who as "lone horses" harbor ill-will toward one side or the other but in attitude and policy they are on one side or the other. This is the middle-of-the-road some firmly defend.

It is easy to talk about parties in the church, and we are prone to do so, but it is difficult to believe that major, clearly discern-able parties exist -- left, right, or middle-of-the-road. Less than 10% of the brethren subscribe to or read the religious papers. When brethren travel they refrain from worshipping with a church that uses the instrument, but they often show little regard as to where the congregations they visit stand on current issues -- this in spite of "Where to Worship" advertisements in the papers. The party idea seems to exist more in the bitter accusations of controversialists than in the activity of the brotherhood as a whole. Even the churches in 'movements" labeled as Bollites, Sommerites, and Antis (non Sunday-School) are included in the visitations of traveling and vacationing brethren. Whether this is good or bad, it is true.

The church will continue as the church, and it will always exist above the party spirit, sectarian bitterness and digressing tendencies among the members. There is enough common ground of belief and action that we can avert the kind of two-pronged movement that came into this century from the restoration century. We may be split in sentiment, and it appears we are splitting into "pro" and "con" on many issues, but we are all still in and of the church and no movement" among us, left or right, is presently going out -- only individuals like James Arthur Warren, Pat Hardeman, and Ralph Wilburn who openly denounced the Lord's church, and individual congregations whose candlesticks are removed by God.

The "main stream" middle-of-the-road complex is nothing more than lukewarmness. The idea is used as a polemic weapon. In denominational publications the churches of Christ are often referred to as being out on the "fringe" of Protestantism -- away from the "main stream." The Disciples of Christ historians think of us as being an offshoot from the mainstream of the restoration movement. Those among us who arbitrarily divide us up into left-wing, right-wing, and middle-of-the-road categories do so on the basis of something other than facts and reality, and they sound more like political and denominational columnists than God's peculiar people.

Truth Magazine VIII: 11, pp. 1-2 August 1964