It seems to me that we must always be on guard, especially in our day, against the dangers that spring from a faulty view of people. Specifically, we tend to give our friends far too much credit and our opponents far too little. I think this may come from our tendency to have an “all or nothing” mindset—either someone is all good or no good. We don’t do “mixed bag” very well. Yet, a biblical view of depravity makes it clear that “mixed bag” is all we really have! The effects of the fall have tainted us all, and that taint extends to every portion of us. Some of these effects manifest themselves in the sinless infirmities of the human condition, while others are evidenced through the sinful choices that flow from sinful desires. Infirmity and iniquity produce mixed bags.
This all or nothing mindset is dangerous in that it leaves us with two unacceptable options—deification or disillusionment. If we opt for the “all” side of things, then we run the risk of a dangerous naiveté that disregards our biblical responsibility to examine all things. On the other hand, if we operate from a “nothing” paradigm then it we will eventually turn into a sour, critical people who mistake judgmentalism for discernment. Neither is acceptable; both are dangerous. So why does this happen so much? I am sure there are more reasons than I can think of, but let me suggest two.
First, I think it is simply easier to live this way because it reduces your options to two and simplifies the decision making process. It is always easier to accept a credible person’s word on a subject, and what we’re talking about here is reducing the world to two kinds of people—those whom we deem credible and those whom we discredit in some way. I think it is easy for us to see that contemporary politics is dominated by this kind of thinking, but it’s probably not as easy for us to see that ecclesiastical politics is too. We are impressed by Group A or Pastor B, so we accept (even defend) whatever is done or stated. Or, contrariwise, we are suspicious of Group C and Pastor D, so we reject (even attack) whatever is done or stated. Since nobody is a mixed bag, it is all or nothing.
Second, and worse, if the problem at Corinth is any window into human nature, then it is possible that we choose our standard bearers with fleshly motives and goals. They pooled into various camps, not for the sake of the name that they put on the placard, but for the sake of their own influence and power. Does anybody really think that Apollos, Peter, and Paul were behind the division at Corinth? No way. Rather, it was power-hungry, turf-protecting people who were using these big names in order to advance their own agendas. Also, the reality of “I am of Apollos” is that it practically means “I am not of Paul.” I don’t want to overstate my point here, but we shouldn’t ignore the fact that a very common human problem is to build constituencies by demonizing others. Instead of rallying people primarily by what we believe, we rally them by what we’re against. This kind of thinking easily mutates into an all or nothing mindset. We can’t say anything bad about our friends because it might hurt our cause, and we can’t say anything good about our opponents because it might help theirs. Truth gets trampled in the process.
It is not easy to maintain balance in any important area of life. Integrity, though, demands that we engage in discernment even when it leads us to disagree with friends or to recognize the truth of what an opponent has said. We’ll do a better job of being balanced if we don’t let ourselves slide toward the all or nothing ends of the spectrum.
