Gradualism is the danger of giving in bit-by-bit. It is the danger of failing to identify a decisive moment to take a stand, and as a result, eventually failing taking a stand at all.
GRADUALISM IN THE MORAL SPHERE
The Bible frequently warns believers of the danger of gradualism in the moral sphere. For example, according to the book of Proverbs, the sluggard gives in gradually—by millimeters, not miles: “A little sleep, a little slumber” is the sluggard’s mantra (Prov 24:33). Jesus also pointed out the danger of gradualism in the Parable of the Sower: “As they go on their way they are choked with worries and riches and pleasures of this life …” (Luke 8:14). That spiritual asphyxiation process is not instantaneous; it is gradual. In the same way, Hebrews 10:24-25 warns that inconsistent or infrequent church attendance is often simply a bad habit built up bit by bit, as a series of individual decisions to miss church gradually congeal into a dangerous pattern.
However, my concern in this post is not with moral gradualism. Instead, it is with the danger of surrendering bit-by-bit to government interventions, restrictions, and bans that seriously impinge vital Christian practices, such as corporate worship. You might be surprised to learn that the NT says nothing about this kind of gradualism. A moment’s reflection will tell you why: in the NT era, government pressure on the church was not gradual. Most often, it was immediate, direct, violent, and aggressive. Therefore, it is hardly astonishing that the authors of the NT didn’t warn the church about a danger that was, for them, entirely theoretical.
AN OLD TESTAMENT EXAMPLE
That doesn’t mean that there are no biblical examples of this form of gradualism. Consider Daniel and his three friends. It is safe to conclude that if Daniel and his friends had not taken a stand against the requirement to eat unclean foods in Daniel 1, they would never have taken the stands for God that they did in Daniel 3 and in Daniel 6. And it is no surprise that there is no record that the Jewish boys who were transported to Babylon with them failed to take a stand later on, even when the government regulations escalated from pork to idolatry: to adapt our Lord’s saying, those who are unfaithful in little are rarely faithful in much (Luke 16:10).
Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego (as teenagers!) grasped the fact that a relatively small moment in Daniel 1 was actually a decisive moment to dig in their heels and to resist the unbiblical mandates of their Babylonian overlords. Their consciences compelled them to set a precedent, both for themselves and for their government overseers. I have no doubt that those boys understood the saying, “The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.” However, they were wise enough to see the trap of gradualism and to avoid it, even if it meant exposing themselves to the indignant scrutiny of government officials.
In other words, Daniel and his friends teach us that, when it comes to unjust or unbiblical government regulations, sometimes small moments are big moments.
APPEASEMENT
Along with gradualism, let me introduce another important term: appeasement. How do they differ? Gradualism is passive. It fails to take a stand because it is blithely (or willfully) oblivious to the importance of the moment. In contrast, appeasement is not passive; it is active. It is driven by fear, not naivety. Appeasement hopes to avoid conflict by making small compromises in foundational principles, vainly reasoning, “I know it is wrong to concede this ground, but if I do so, surely my oppressor will be satisfied and he will make no further demands on me.”
One of the reasons our elders chose to hold services when the government banned corporate worship was we believed it was essential not to start on the path of either gradualism or appeasement. History is littered with examples of governments, churches—and even entire people groups—who failed to take a stand against government injustice and overreach early in the process with disastrous results.
HISTORY: AN EFFECTIVE TEACHER
To highlight the dangers of naïve gradualism and fear-driven appeasement, let me lay out four examples. The first is an example from church history, an example relating to theology, rather than to government intervention.
EXAMPLE 1: THE DOWN-GRADE CONTROVERSY
In the 1880s, Charles Spurgeon had the wisdom and insight to see that the Baptist Union in the UK included many men who were intentionally subverting key biblical doctrines, such as the inspiration of Scripture, substitutionary atonement, the miracles of Christ, and the deity of Christ. When the Union’s leadership refused to expel those men, Spurgeon withdrew, stating that Christian unity not based on foundational doctrines was no unity at all. As you recall, Spurgeon was publicly censured by the Baptist Union for his action (the vote was 2,000 to 7). However, do you know the names of any of the two thousand men who voted to censure Spurgeon? Probably not, unless you remember that his own brother was one of them.
The reason we respect and remember Charles Spurgeon nearly a century and a half later is he had the clarity and insight to identify a key moment to take a stand early in the process of doctrinal drift. And, of course, Spurgeon’s concerns were quickly substantiated as the Baptist Union in the UK rapidly drowned in a rising tide of theological liberalism: the good men who remained in that organization never mustered the clarity and courage to take a stand against error, even when the doctrinal defection of many of the Union’s members became undeniable. At the time, Spurgeon wrote:
“It is always wisest and best to exhibit clear decision upon fundamental points; we must draw the line distinctly, and then stand to it firmly.“
Spurgeon, An Alll-Round Ministry, p. 296.
Spurgeon knew that the men who didn’t take a stand early in the Down-Grade Controversy, choosing instead the safe, passive path of avoiding confrontation, were setting a dangerous precedent. And in the end, it was no surprise to Spurgeon—or to any student of history or of human nature—that those men were never able to muster the moral courage to take a decisive stand against error.
EXAMPLE 2: THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT BEFORE WW II
Although not drawn from church history, this is a helpful example because it has to do with government injustice. By citing this example, I am NOT comparing today’s governments to the Nazis. The comparison is between us (Christians) and the British government, which failed to stand up to the injustice of the Nazi government early in the process—with ruinous results.
Everyone who has studied Hitler’s actions in the 1930s acknowledges two things: the Nazis were masters of gradualism, and the failure of key European governments to identify and stand against Nazi injustice was catastrophic. The simple truth is, Hitler was not ready for war in 1936 and 1937, and the failure of the British and French to stand against his annexation of the Rhineland, Austria, and of a strategic portion of Czechoslovakia in the middle and late 1930s had disastrous consequences for millions of people. The judgment of history rightly frowns on Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister in the 1930s, who blinded himself to Hitler’s well-documented ambitions, and betrayed basic moral principles and human rights in order to pursue “peace in our time.” As a result, Hitler came to believe no one ever would (or could) stand up to him, and tens of millions died in World War II as a result.
In most cases, a measured, cautious reaction to crisis is wise. The person who imagines that every situation requires a dramatic, line-in-the-sand response is a sensationalist and a fool. However, it is equally true that there are times when delay, passivity, and appeasement cannot be countenanced, even though avoiding conflict by making small compromises might seem attractive. When doctrines and practices that are central to the Christian faith are under threat, passivity and appeasement are never wise choices. In fact, they simply create a habit of backpedaling. Moreover, they embolden governments to make more aggressive interventions in the future, confident that the church will meekly surrender to their meddling and bullying.
In the last post, I’ll give two more historical examples of gradualism and its tragic results.
Part 2: Romans 13 vs. Hebrews 10
Part 3: When Jesus set aside regulations
Part 4: Modern Applications of Matthew 12