The Advantages and Dangers of the Middle Ground

One of the things I've been reflecting on lately is the concept of the "middle ground". In a nutshell, it is a position that attempts to adhere to the strengths of two diametrically opposed positions while throwing out the weaknesses. Many times, such a position will reject the "tyranny of the 'or'" in favor of the "genius of the 'and'".

For example, traditional Evangelicalism is the "middle ground" between Fundamentalism and Liberalism. It was believed by the first Evangelicals during the 1940s that Fundamentalism had an orthodox theology but was poor at engaging the culture effectively. Conversely, Liberal Theology was good at engaging the culture, but did not have an orthodox theology (obviously!). Thus Evangelicalism is the "middle ground", attempting to have an orthodox theology while at the same time engaging the culture effectively.

In many cases, such a "middle ground" has an almost romantic feel to it. It makes one feel wise and balanced. Indeed, sometimes that is a good thing. We need wisdom and balance. Many times, two opposite positions will over-emphasize one thing to the exclusion of another while the other position over-emphasizes what the other de-emphasizes.

One distinct disadvantage though is that holding such a middle position opens one up to being shot at from both sides. Case in point: I would hold to a position that is consistent with New Covenant Theology. On one hand, I appreciate the contributions of both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology and try to hold them in tension and make adjustments where necessary. On the other hand, New Covenant Theologians are criticized by both camps because we disagree with hallmarks of their respective theologies.

As I said before, sometimes a middle ground position is a good thing. It helps us to balance two equally true truths and hold them in tension. But just because it is a middle ground position does not make it true.

For example, I believe in a literal hell. It is eternal, it is conscious, and it will be terrifying beyond description for those whose fate it will ultimately be. Those who never place faith in the Lord Jesus Christ to rescue them from their sins will suffer God's righteous and just anger and wrath there. The opposite position is that of Universalism. This view believes that all human beings (and the devil and demons too in some cases) will ultimately be restored to God and finally saved. However, there is a "middle ground" position. That of Annihilationism. According to this view, those who are ultimately unsaved will simply cease to exist, either after suffering God's wrath for a time or in some cases immediately upon death.

Well that sounds like a reasonable, and balanced view now doesn't it. There's just one problem. It's not true! Scripture repeatedly affirms the eternality of hell (Matthew 25:41,46;Mark 9:43-48; 2 Peter 2:17). So then, the "middle ground" position isn't always the truth.

What then shall we do? I would suggest a few things:

1) It is a good idea to seriously consider the middle ground position because often (though not always) it does succeed in holding in balance two truths emphasized respectively by opposite positions. I believe the Charismatic Reformed tradition is a good case in point.

2) However, truth is truth whether or not it is the middle ground. On occasion, like the example of eternal punishment, one position is true while the other position and the middle position are untrue.

3) We should always talk about our positions with others in a spirit of humility, love, and consideration.

4) Try to understand where the other person whose position you disagree with is coming from. Speak the truth of what you believe in their language as it were. You might find you're making some progress.

5) Recognize that you could be wrong. Be humble enough to change your position and make the necessary (and sometimes painfully uncomfortable) changes in your life.

Well I hope this makes for some interesting food for thought.

-Christian