In most crucial areas of life, neutrality is a myth. It either does not exist, or seeking to remain neutral will just cause harm and hurt. We all must get involved, take a stand, and take sides. That certainly is the case with our eternal destiny. But it also matters in things like the culture wars. And as we read and study Scripture, we must admit that none of us are completely neutral and untainted by the ideas and input of others.

Can and should the Christian be neutral? Well, it depends on what we are talking about. Let me first deal with the term being used here. One online dictionary offers two senses of the word “neutrality”:-The state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict.-The absence of decided views, expression, or strong feeling.
In some areas there can indeed be such neutrality, and it does not really matter if it is there. If a sporting event is on with two archrivals battling it out, and you are keen on that sport, and especially support (or hate) one of the teams, then you will not remain neutral. But if you are not into that particular sport, or have no favourite teams, then you can easily stay neutral, in the sense of not having strong feelings either way as to who wins or loses.
For the Christian, the idea of complete neutrality is quite questionable – at least in various key areas. Here I will offer three such areas, and show how taking sides is in fact what we are called to do, and refusing to take sides can be an indication of our lack of love for God and others.
The Myth of Spiritual Neutrality
In terms of the spiritual war that is taking place all around us, we have to go along with the words of Jesus: “Whoever is not with me is against me” (Matthew 12:30a). There are only two sides in this cosmic conflict that we all find ourselves in: God’s side and the devil’s side.
The Bible makes it clear throughout that if we are not on God’s side, then we are on Satan’s side. This is especially the case when it has to do with those who are God’s children, and those who are not his children. You either is or you ain’t, to put it simply.
One way of putting this is to say that there are only two humanities: the redeemed and the unredeemed; the saved and the lost. And there are only two eternal destinies that people will find themselves in. So we all must choose, and choose carefully.
Sure, some people do not find such a black and white polarity to be to their liking. But repeatedly in Scripture we find this very thing. And I have written on this issue before, so have a look there for the numerous passages that make this so very clear: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2017/06/07/two-humanities-two-destinies/
Before moving on, let me say that some people are moving closer to God or further away. Conversion CAN be a process, something that may occur over time. So I am not saying all people MUST be able to pinpoint the exact moment that they passed over from death to life, from darkness to light.
The apostle Paul could certainly pinpoint the time and place, but for others, such as the apostle Peter, they may have been on a bit of a journey to get there. See more on this here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2022/07/17/on-becoming-a-christian/
The Myth of Cultural and Political Neutrality
My second area has to do with things like political involvement and the culture wars. These are matters I have of course written on quite frequently.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by T. M. Suffield |
Sunday, September 12, 2021
He spat on the ground and made mud. Since Jesus frequently heals with a word or a touch it seems oddly specific, and convoluted, to mix spit and dust and then send the man to a specific pool. How strange. While John’s narrative and the theological points he wants to make carry on despite how Jesus accomplished the man’s healing, it always makes me sit up and start to think.  It’s possible its just a detail, “because that’s how it happened” that has no further import, but the Bible never works like that.

John wants us to see Jesus as the light that brings sight to dead eyes, physically and spiritually. To compare the arrogant Pharisees who condemn Jesus for healing on the Sabbath to the blind man who confesses that he does not know who Jesus is, but he must be from God. To compare the physical healing to the spiritual healing as Jesus forgives the blind man when they later meet after revealing himself as Daniel’s ‘Son of Man’, the divine Messiah coming to rescue and rule.
It’s majestic, with sweeping theological themes I’ve barely touched written lightly across the story. It’s not difficult to dive deeply in many directions—the Bible is usually like that, but John wears it more obviously than the other gospel writers. I always get caught on one detail though:
Having said these things, he spit on the ground and made mud with the saliva. Then he anointed the man’s eyes with the mud and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing.
John 9:6–7
He spat on the ground and made mud. Since Jesus frequently heals with a word or a touch it seems oddly specific, and convoluted, to mix spit and dust and then send the man to a specific pool. How strange. While John’s narrative and the theological points he wants to make carry on despite how Jesus accomplished the man’s healing, it always makes me sit up and start to think.  It’s possible its just a detail, ‘because that’s how it happened’ that has no further import, but the Bible never works like that.
Here are some initial reflections on what we can speculate was going on:
Dust
He takes dust, the material the God uses to affect the curse against humanity, that cannot enter Holy ground (hence all the foot-washing and shoe removing) and works healing with it. Jesus has been asked whether the man sinned to be born blind, he’s already answered (no), but then picks up the stuff of the curse to make his point clearer. Jesus takes the material that speaks the curse to us to use it to bring new life. He has declared himself the seed of the woman. (Genesis 2-3)
Read More

Walt’s Disenchanted Kingdom concludes by citing a poll showing that customer satisfaction and respect for the Disney brand have plunged from 77 percent to 51 percent in the last year alone. This confirms the simple truth, that a significant majority of parents do not want their children indoctrinated in gender ideology or any other social justice agenda by Disney. Entertainment critic Christian Toto states it plainly: political activism is “not what we want from Disney. We want entertainment.”

“You know, when I was a kid, everybody looked forward to Sunday evenings and Disney,” reminisces Dr. Ben Carson, former Trump administration Secretary of HUD, in a new documentary just released by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. Carson was referring, of course, to the long-running, family entertainment TV program created by that beloved American original, Walt Disney. It was a show and a brand that parents trusted, without reservation, to delight their children and leave their innocence untouched. Visits to Disneyland itself were a magical experience for all.
That was once upon a time. Today, Disney movies, shows, and parks are minefields of wokeness, which concerned parents navigate with trepidation to protect their kids from radical messaging and sexual grooming. “Walt Disney must be turning over in his grave,” Catholic League president and CEO Bill Donohue says in Walt’s Disenchanted Kingdom, a 50-minute film which explores the Disney Company’s recent, rapid descent into gender madness. “Have we all lost our mind?”
Walt’s Disenchanted Kingdom can be viewed for free at the Catholic League’s website, on YouTube, and at SalemNOW. It also will be available soon on Amazon Prime and on DVD. Executive produced by Donohue and filmmaker Jason Killian Meath, the CEO of Meath Television Media (he also wrote and directed the film), its all-star lineup of commentators includes Donohue himself; Ben Carson; Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; New York Post columnist Miranda Devine; Media Research Center president Brent Bozell; Woke Inc. author Vivek Ramaswamy; Washington Times film critic and author Christian Toto; and Freedom Center founder and bestselling author David Horowitz. Mercedes Schlapp, Cuban-American political commentator and former White House Director of Communications under President Trump, hosts the movie.
“We did this documentary so that the public can learn how the most family-friendly institution in the country has departed from its ways,” Donohue writes on the Catholic League site. “Our culture is in crisis, and what is driving much of it is a callous disregard for the innocence of children. Too many activists, celebrities and educators are bent on indoctrinating young boys and girls with some very sick ideas. Regrettably, Disney is one of the most guilty players.”
Guilty, indeed. Brent Bozell goes so far in the film as to call it “the anti-family studio,” thanks to its embrace of the cancerous gender ideology that is subverting the nuclear family, inculcating a sexual consciousness in children as young as kindergartners, and sowing a wave of gender confusion and transgender madness in impressionable young teens.
Gender ideology is the tip of the spear today of cultural Marxism, which posits that children belong to “the collective” and that the nuclear family must be “abolished” in order to free women and children from its slavery. Donohue shoots this down in the film with his once-commonsense assertion that “the state does not own the children. The children belong to the parents.” David Horowitz rightly adds that such indoctrination is “an atrocity against children, and Disney has allowed itself to become part of it.”
Longtime Disney cast members and employees who spoke on camera complained that a radical LGBT agenda gradually began to make its presence felt in the happiest workplace on earth, with workshops and lessons in diversity and tolerance.
Read More
Related Posts: