The Cost of Ecclesial Cowardice I

Why Churches Not Dying on Hills Will Die

“Not on that hill!!” is the familiar refrain from a Christian who believes a particular issue is not worth the sacrifice of standing for/against. Perhaps they believe there is too much to lose, or the issue is too controversial, or that it causes too much division. The easiest route, always, is not to “die”.

And yet, “not dying” can sometimes be the most deathly choice of all.

“For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matt. 16:25)

Dying on hills is not easy. It isn’t supposed to be. That’s why most of us try our best to avoid doing it. Indeed it’s far easier to lambast others for the hills they choose to die on than to find a hill to die on ourselves. But hill-avoiders must beware. You might get away with it for a while; you might not see the effects for a while; but shirking key battles will cost you in the end. One way or another, cowardice kills.

To Die Or Not To Die?

It is obviously true that any doctrinal or socio-political issue can be in danger of receiving inappropriate levels of airtime, however important it may be. However, those claiming to “not die” on this or that hill are often choosing to die on that hill, only in reverse. We might call it Dying On The Hill That Disapproves Of Dying On Hills.

I am not being merely rhetorical here. The desire of some Christians to avoid trouble, controversy, or the charge of “extremism” really is a hill. They really are dying on it. Such people may leave their church because of it; or they may dissociate from fellow Christians because of it; they may even change their own view on it; or stop talking publically about it ever again. Like it or not, this is a hill.

The real reason people aren’t willing to die on the particular hills where ground is won or lost in their time is often hidden from view. More often than not they’re just embarrassed by association with X person or X issue. In reality, they are actually embarrassed by something within the Word of God itself. (Only, that usually doesn’t come out until much later.)

As Paul discovered, the real reason the Judaizers wanted to have the Galatian Christians circumcised was not because they were zealous to keep God’s Law in holiness but “only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ” (Gal. 6:12). Self-preservation can be a subtle but powerful vice, deceiving even those who practice it.

Dubiously Perpetual “Strategy”

None of this is to say that churches or Christians do not need to pick their battles, of course. As in any war, there is such a thing as military strategy and the application of wisdom. The problem is, this too can become a “strategy” to avoid ever having to engage the enemy. And it has proven rather effective for the enemy in recent decades.

It is often said, for example, that we should not waste our social or political credit on smaller skirmishes that won’t do any good, that won’t further the cause of the Gospel. There are those who seem to think we should forever be “saving ourselves” for the big fights, avoiding non-essential controversies, etc. They may be quick to agree with that old Patristic maxim: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

But when does this seemingly good advice become a cautious leash paralysing our ability to discern when something really is “an essential issue”? When does our “wise” reticence to avoid doing something “foolish” become a selective excuse for cowardice? As Paul argued (cf. 1Cor. 1-2) are we not supposed to look like fools from time to time? Isn’t that what’s supposed to happen when you bring light into darkness?

We often avoid “dying on hills” for things because we’re trying to be careful about when not to fight. But we rarely think of the need to be careful to ensure that we actually do fight. It always seems to be the other way around today. Battle-avoidant Christianity has become the norm for most churches in the West.

But if these churches aren’t careful, they will find that many of the hills on which they’re unwilling to die today could well be the death of them tomorrow. This is because bad things don’t tend to stay put. Like gangrene (cf. 2Tim. 2:17), they tend to spread into other parts of the body in ways we might not have anticipated.

Death By Compliance

One of the greatest ironies facing swathes of churches today is that they’ll die without even noticing because they’re striving to protect themselves from attack. That is, they will die because they’re trying to protect themselves from dying. There are many people in this world who spend their last years of life so anxious to avoid death that death has already conquered, however long they go on “living”. The spectre of death, the fear of it, overshadows all that might still be left to live for.

So too with the cowardly arms of the Church. They may not yet see it, but their influence - their vitality - will gradually fade into oblivion. And those who were culpable for allowing this to happen will no longer be around to face the post-mortem inquest. As they march slowly towards institutional death, many leaders will even pat themselves on the back for being good citizens or good “witnesses”, unlike those fools who die on hills.

Lest we forget, churches spent much time ensuring their compliance with COVID-19 regulations. This included the voluntary closure of church buildings even where said closures meant that said churches could not meet, preach, or sing together. At the time, many saw this as the prudent thing to do. After all, they were being told that to not do this was akin to not loving your neighbour, or perhaps even of “murdering” your neighbour! Too many churches bought that lie and drank the consequences. On the whole, churches who defied lockdown measures and continued to meet “disobediently” tended to grow exponentially.

Another reason otherwise-faithful churches were reluctant to see Covid-compliance as a key dividing line on faithfulness was likely the awareness of the many other socio-political and doctrinal encroachments happening simultaneously. “Why waste capital on Covid when bigger hills lie ahead?” did not seem all that illegitimate a question, even if many of us were probably deceiving ourselves.

The Unsafe Road Under the Hill

Despite the wisdom in choosing not to die on the wrong hills, it should not go unnoticed just how easy it has been for the Church to do whatever we’re told. Wholesale compliance does things to the very fighting spirit that will be needed when the “big fights” eventually do arrive. It can be easy to deceive ourselves that we’re storing up our social or political credit for another day when we’ll apparently be more “ready” to respond in faithfulness.

It’s more likely that by the time we get to the “big fight” we will no longer recognise our previous intentions. By then, we might have found a convenient excuse to hold off “just a little longer”. We might have changed our “strategy” or shifted our view on whatever we were waiting to fight about. Perhaps we’ve “moved away” from all that immature-sounding “fight language” of the past and have now embraced the therapeutic balm of being “gentle and lowly”. So it tends to go.

Somehow, whatever we do (or don’t do) always tends to be the option that keeps us out of trouble. What Screwtape the demon said about seemingly small, insignificant temptations could equally apply to Church timidity:

the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts

- C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

It would be wrong, of course, to overemphasise “dramatic” moments of faithfulness over long-haul faithfulness and wisdom. But if we continually refuse to stand up and be counted when it counts, we will drift into a gradual slumber in which we lose our faith for the fight altogether. It is not the way that leads to life.