A radical is a person who goes to extremes, or one who seeks revolutionary changes,
whether they are political, social, or religious in nature. Radicalism refers to the beliefs,
doctrines, and practices of radicals. It is important to "speak where scripture speaks and
to be silent where scripture is silent." (1 Pet. 4:11) It is never right to go beyond the
teaching of God's word. (1 Cor. 4:6) We should not allow human emotions, tradition,
like or dislike for men or movements to cause us to become extremists. It is possible
for both "liberal" and "conservative" thinkers to be proponents of radicalism. A
conservative radical is as dangerous and undesirable as a liberal radical. Neither
recognizes the proper balance in their approach to issues. Both are driven by a
unidirectional approach that is based on extremism.
For instance, the radical liberal goes too far with scripture's teaching about the
mercy of God. They see the mercy of God as the means by which a person who dies out
of Christ, might have hope of being received into heaven after the resurrection and
judgment. They even go to the extreme of teaching that a child of God who dies in a
state of unfaithfulness might have hope because God is "rich in mercy." There is no
doubt that God is "rich in mercy" because the Bible says so. (Eph. 2:5) Scripture
teaches that we are saved by mercy. (Titus 3:5) But the radical liberal sees mercy as
doing something that God never promised. Where does God's word teach that God
will allow a person who dies in rebellion to him to enter heaven? Actually, God says,
"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?"
(1 Cor. 6:9)
Consider the following: It is a known fact that both Ananias and his wife Sapphira
lied to the Holy Spirit and died as the result of their attempted deception. (Acts 5:1-11)
Will their sin be erased in the judgment because of God's mercy? Why not apply the
radical liberal's view of God's mercy to them as well as others who die in sin? God
himself has already spoken as to the eternal destiny of Ananias and Sapphira. "All liars
will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." (Rev.
21:8, NIV-2011) Neither the radical liberal nor anyone else has the right to speak falsely
for God. (Job 13:7,RSV) The radical liberal opens the gate too wide. They are too far to
the left.
The radical conservative makes a similar mistake. They also go to extremes but
in a different direction. The conservative rightly teaches that the local congregation's
work is preaching and defending the gospel (1 Tim. 3:15); providing benevolence for
believers who are destitute (1 Cor. 16:2), and worshiping God (1 Cor. 11:17-34).
Therefore, the conservative correctly reasons that the congregation has no authority
to build and maintain facilities for political, secular, and worldly entertainment purposes.
But the radical conservative goes a step further and denies that the meetinghouse could
be used as a place to feed hungry believers. They would say that any and all "eating
in the building" is unauthorized. They have missed the mark. The building is
authorized as a place in which to assemble and worship (Acts 20:7; Heb. 10:25),
and as a place for the congregation to meet, discuss, and perform it's work within the
realm of expediency. (Acts 6:1-6;14:27; 1 Tim. 5:16) It may not always be expedient
or advantageous to feed needy believers in the meetinghouse, but such is not necessarily
wrong. The New Testament teaches that the local congregation may provide food for it's
needy members. (Acts 6:1-4) The food may be paid for with money from the treasury.
The place where the food will be served to hungry believers may be provided by
money from the treasury, and that place may be the meetinghouse of the
congregation without any violation of scripture. The radical conservative goes
too far to the right and the radical liberal goes too far to the left. If one goes too
far to the right or left they have gone in the wrong direction! Disaster is the result.
R Daly
Copyright 2012
whether they are political, social, or religious in nature. Radicalism refers to the beliefs,
doctrines, and practices of radicals. It is important to "speak where scripture speaks and
to be silent where scripture is silent." (1 Pet. 4:11) It is never right to go beyond the
teaching of God's word. (1 Cor. 4:6) We should not allow human emotions, tradition,
like or dislike for men or movements to cause us to become extremists. It is possible
for both "liberal" and "conservative" thinkers to be proponents of radicalism. A
conservative radical is as dangerous and undesirable as a liberal radical. Neither
recognizes the proper balance in their approach to issues. Both are driven by a
unidirectional approach that is based on extremism.
For instance, the radical liberal goes too far with scripture's teaching about the
mercy of God. They see the mercy of God as the means by which a person who dies out
of Christ, might have hope of being received into heaven after the resurrection and
judgment. They even go to the extreme of teaching that a child of God who dies in a
state of unfaithfulness might have hope because God is "rich in mercy." There is no
doubt that God is "rich in mercy" because the Bible says so. (Eph. 2:5) Scripture
teaches that we are saved by mercy. (Titus 3:5) But the radical liberal sees mercy as
doing something that God never promised. Where does God's word teach that God
will allow a person who dies in rebellion to him to enter heaven? Actually, God says,
"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?"
(1 Cor. 6:9)
Consider the following: It is a known fact that both Ananias and his wife Sapphira
lied to the Holy Spirit and died as the result of their attempted deception. (Acts 5:1-11)
Will their sin be erased in the judgment because of God's mercy? Why not apply the
radical liberal's view of God's mercy to them as well as others who die in sin? God
himself has already spoken as to the eternal destiny of Ananias and Sapphira. "All liars
will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." (Rev.
21:8, NIV-2011) Neither the radical liberal nor anyone else has the right to speak falsely
for God. (Job 13:7,RSV) The radical liberal opens the gate too wide. They are too far to
the left.
The radical conservative makes a similar mistake. They also go to extremes but
in a different direction. The conservative rightly teaches that the local congregation's
work is preaching and defending the gospel (1 Tim. 3:15); providing benevolence for
believers who are destitute (1 Cor. 16:2), and worshiping God (1 Cor. 11:17-34).
Therefore, the conservative correctly reasons that the congregation has no authority
to build and maintain facilities for political, secular, and worldly entertainment purposes.
But the radical conservative goes a step further and denies that the meetinghouse could
be used as a place to feed hungry believers. They would say that any and all "eating
in the building" is unauthorized. They have missed the mark. The building is
authorized as a place in which to assemble and worship (Acts 20:7; Heb. 10:25),
and as a place for the congregation to meet, discuss, and perform it's work within the
realm of expediency. (Acts 6:1-6;14:27; 1 Tim. 5:16) It may not always be expedient
or advantageous to feed needy believers in the meetinghouse, but such is not necessarily
wrong. The New Testament teaches that the local congregation may provide food for it's
needy members. (Acts 6:1-4) The food may be paid for with money from the treasury.
The place where the food will be served to hungry believers may be provided by
money from the treasury, and that place may be the meetinghouse of the
congregation without any violation of scripture. The radical conservative goes
too far to the right and the radical liberal goes too far to the left. If one goes too
far to the right or left they have gone in the wrong direction! Disaster is the result.
R Daly
Copyright 2012
