The title of the article, the text of which I did not read, claimed, “The divisive person is the one who departs from the truth.” At first glance, one would think this would be a self-evident statement. In some quarters it is, but not among progressives.

They have departed from the truth, but often blame the faithful for causing division.

This despicable tactic is not new. It was employed long ago.

They are like King Ahab who accused Elijah, the prophet of God, of being “the troublemaker of Israel” 1 Kgs 18.17. But Elijah turned the accusation around and laid the blame where it rightly belonged.

I have made no trouble for Israel,” Elijah replied. “You and your family are the troublemakers, for you have refused to obey the commands of the Lord and have worshiped the images of Baal instead.
1 Kings 18.18 NLT

Elijah identifies the real troublemaker and puts his finger on the reason why they had troubled Israel: they had “refused to obey the commands of the Lord.”

There you have it, in a nutshell, the description of the progressives. They are responsible for division today, like the digressives of the 20th Century, because they refuse to obey the Lord’s commands. They are progressives in the sense that they go, or progress, beyond what Christ teaches, Num 24.13; 2 Jn 9.

The apostle Paul made clear in Galatians 2 that those who are “deviating from the truth of the gospel” cause division, Gal 2.14 HCSB. This was clearly seen when Peter separated himself from the Gentile Christians and refused to eat with them. Paul immediately confronted him in front of everyone because the truth and unity of God’s church was at stake. We should do the same.

Just because progressives or others try to shout down the faithful with accusations of being the dividers and troublemakers, the saints should not cower and keep quiet but stand firm in their rejection of those who abandon the truth of the gospel.

3 thoughts on “The real troublemakers and what makes them such

  1. This is typical of my own experiences… folk come up with ideas, and those who don’t jump on their bandwagon are declared to be the problem.

    Often, in my experience the beginning place is misplacing the Burden Of Proof:
    The claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa). Essentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can’t make a strong enough case.

    The burden of proof is always on the person affirming a proposition or a condition. Shifting the burden of proof (aka; putting the elephant in the other guy’s lap) is an evasion of proof, it does NOT support the proposition.

    When someone asks us “why?” we cannot respond “Why not?” and pretend we have answered the question. That is assuming the conclusion without proving it.

    From there they resort to Loaded Language:
    Rhetoric with no logical value, intended to produce and/or enforce prejudice, rhetoric displaces logic

    I.e., Jeff W. used jokes to make himself look good at the expense of his opponents.
    OR, any type of:
    “that fascist, totalitarian jerk wouldn’t know good ice cream from a turkey leg. I won’t even respond to his argument that Baskin-Robbins is better ice cream than Ben and Jerry’s.”

    Along with Labeling (aka Pigeonholing):
    Attempts to force something into a frame of reference that is too small to encompass it. It does not address the issue, just the label.

    I.e., you call me a name so you don’t have to see me, you just see the label and attack it.
    Common example: “You’re just being a legalist.” Then goes on to attack legalism, without dealing with your position.

    And Special Pleading:
    Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while making herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt.

    This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
    • Person A accepts standard X and applies X to others
    • Person A refuses to apply X to himself.

    I.e., Postmodernists claim there is no such thing as absolute truth, and that this is absolutely true. Or, in another form, That if absolute truth exists, that it cannot be known, and they know that this is absolutely true.

    So after applying a series of logical fallacies, the person claims those who do not go along with their new idea, condition, proposition are the troublemakers.

    Generally comes to down to a “He started it, when he hit me back” attitude.

What do you think?

%d bloggers like this: