Negative About Positivism (by Gary P. Eubanks)

"Positivism" may be defined as the approach which stresses what is seen as "positive" in life and eliminates or minimizes what is seen as "negative." "Positive" means affirmative and active, whereas "negative" is contrary and passive. In popular thinking "positive" describes something that is wholesome, while "negative" is applied to what is disagreeable. Any dictionary or thesaurus will confirm that negatives are perceived as practically synonymous with what is bad and positives with what is good.

Such conceptions have been encouraged by professional and popular psychology, the latter being represented by the writings of Norman Vincent Peale in The Power of Positive Thinking and Dale Carnegie in How to Win Friends and Influence People. Thus, American culture has increasingly been fed a philosophical diet which says whatever is definable as negative should be displaced by what is regarded as positive. Even when negatives cannot be further reduced, then at least they should be cast in positive terms.

Such a philosophy has so captured public sentiment and dominated denominational pulpits that it is naive to expect the Lord's church to have remained unaffected. The shift to such positivism need not be conscious, conspicuous, or conceded. It may begin with low-level murmurings about the preacher's style or sermon selection, perhaps eventuating in his dismissal, though his "negativism" may not be the reason cited. However, the general reinforcement of "positive" preaching by praise and more tangible rewards while effectively penalizing "negative" preaching settles out over time into a church with a corps of preachers committed to positivism.

When this transition has progressed adequately, the positivists may feel bold enough to declare themselves. They may defend themselves by claiming that what they do preach is truth. They may rely on the folk wisdom expressed in the adage, "You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar." They may appeal to the sophistry of misapplying Scripture (Matt. 7:1) for a semblance of support for their approach: "Judge not, that ye be not judged" (which itself contains two negatives). Some may even feel confident enough to quote the saw: "Accentuate the positive; eliminate the negative."

What is wrong with "positivism"? Is it not more effective and pleasant to frame truth in positive terms?

First, it is certainly possible to be too negative. If a preacher focuses disproportionately on what cannot be done, especially at the expense of other equally important concerns, he is guilty of a neglect consisting of imbalanced preaching in favor of negatives. To condemn one extreme (positivism) is not to condone the other (negativism).

The concern is really the indication that Christians should "accentuate the positive" (as though it were better and deserving of greater emphasis) and, particularly, "eliminate the negative." This is more than mere semantics. This is to favor positivism with the very imbalance that some claim against negativism.

Positivism involves the error of creating an artificial distinction between positives and negatives and claiming superiority for the former. Close examination will show that there is no strict dichotomy between positives and negatives. Rather, they complement one another. As an illustration, electrical power is supplied by batteries with positive and negative poles. Again, two negative numbers multiplied by each other result in a positive, and in grammar it is said that two negatives equal a positive.

Likewise, Biblical negatives yield the positives sought. If everyone obeyed all the negatives in the Bible --- if no one ever cheated, murdered, robbed, raped, reviled, assaulted, lied, fornicated, drank, etc. --- the result would be a fantastically positive world. Paul observed that God's negatives add up to a wonderful positive when he said, "For this, `You shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not covet,' and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, `You shall love your neighbor as yourself'" (Rom. 13:9). Negatives are a big part of what it takes to be positive. Seen in the light of their benefits negatives look very positive.

To "accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative" it is necessary to determine the criteria that would allow a neat categorization. The strictest definition of a negative, of course, would be anything that contains its signs: words such as "no, not, nor, neither," or equivalent periphrastic expressions. However, this would exclude a sizeable portion of the Bible and impeach the manner in which the Spirit expressed His will, because much of it is expressed in negative form.

Since it is obviously not a simple case of removing anything with a negative, then perhaps anything that makes people feel bad, anything that offends or depresses, ought to be eliminated. Now the question becomes very subjective because there is a great deal in the Bible that many, if not most, people could find depressing or offensive. Thus, this measurement would also result in the excision of much of the Bible.

Would some suggest controversy as the test of negativity? By this standard, too, much of the gospel could not be preached, for practically every aspect of it has been controversial. After a while it becomes obvious that such approaches will not succeed. They are arbitrary and draconian.

Therefore, positivism sometimes parades under two other very deceptive guises. Some would say that the point is not to eliminate negativity but just to articulate it in positive terms. This may be what some call "tact," which is certainly appropriate to get a hearing. Jesus and His disciples often used tact. It is good as far as it will go, but there comes a time when truth must be accepted as it is. Then, it is doubtful whether positives can be trusted to do a job that can be handled by a strong, plain, terse negative. After all, discourses on the sacredness of human life are good, but they do not have the same impact as, "Thou shalt not kill."

The second, less evident form of positivism lies in its claim to counterweighting excessive negativism. Thus, one preacher or editor may seek to balance out the homiletical ledger with the positives which he is confident Christians have missed from others. The problem here is that the responsibility to preach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:20, 27) is an individual one, not a collective one that has particular preachers adjusting their preaching according to their easily misjudged perceptions of what their colleagues are giving the brotherhood. No preacher will be able to excuse his defaults in the day of final judgment with the claim that he thought someone else was tending to the issues he was neglecting. Beyond this consideration is the danger that brethren may become accustomed to a "sugar diet" of positivism that leaves them spiritually malnourished and unreceptive to a well-rounded Biblical menu.

Not only does positivism have a problem with being artificial and arbitrary, it is also wrong per se. An approach that minimizes negatives and maximizes positives does not represent the Scriptural approach, which entails an appreciation of the value of negativity. A little contemplation uncovers that value. "No" is really an important and powerful word, despite its size. It would be difficult to communicate without it or its equivalents. Something of its power was exhibited in Nancy Reagan's selection of it as her anti-drug abuse slogan: "Just say `No!'" It is nice to be able to say "no" to people and situations that are undesirable. That little word packs a wallop that will save a lot of time and trouble with its succinct and clear message when used as liberally as it is really needed.

Likewise, "(k)nots" are very important in life. Their basic purpose is to bind, thus providing some necessary restrictions and limitations. They provide a check on things, hold them together, and keep them from slipping. Indeed, "(k)nots," such as those in shoestrings, are such an essential part of life that men could hardly function without them. Knots keep wild beasts from hurting anyone. Ropes and strings are practically useless without them, as seaman and campers could testify.

All of that illustrates the importance of God's legal "nots." They also bind men in the realm of safety, thus restricting them from those things which would hurt them. God's "nots" provide a check on men's baser passions, hold their lives together, and keep them from slipping into sin and eternal destruction. The Bible, like a rope, could not serve its purpose without some "nots." Indeed, who could make a very functional legal system without a fair sprinkling of "nots"? As a matter of fact, for all the talk about the power of positive thinking, its virtues seem to have been lost on the Framers of the Constitution and those who have lived under its protective legal umbrella. A quick check will reveal that eight or nine of the first ten amendments (i.e., the venerable and oft-quoted Bill of Rights), and about twenty of all twenty-seven, are negatives. So, even human experience would seem to suggest that life without negatives is neither possible nor desirable.

The fact is that the Bible is often negative. Jonah (3:4) had a very blunt, harsh message for the Ninevites. Amos (7:10ff) was criticized for his severe prophecies about King Jeroboam. Peter was so pointed about the Jews' culpability in Jesus' death that his listeners were "pierced to the heart" (Acts 2:37) at the climax of his Pentecost message. Stephen so outraged his audience with the candor of his charges that they impulsively murdered him (Acts 7:51ff). Even though it might be said that Paul addressed idolatry in the most positive terms possible, he was still so clearly negative about it to his auditors that practically all dismissed him (Acts 17:22-34). Jesus condemned sin in the seven churches of Asia as frankly as the occasion required (Rev. 2,3).

As a matter of fact, the Bible, and the New Testament in particular, is arguably the most negative message in the world as measured by the standards with which some would decry what they call "negativism." Specifically, nine of the Ten Commandments are negative (Ex. 20:1-17). One of God's first commands --- whose violation was the first sin --- was negative (Gen. 2:17).

Furthermore, an overriding premise of the Bible is that man is deeply and relentlessly sinful, and so much so that he is deserving of spending eternity in the unremitting torment of hell. Yes, it is wonderfully good news that every sinner may be saved and go to heaven through the grace of God, but that grace was bought with the horrific price of Jesus' cruel death on the cross. Each person who would be saved must confront the fact that his sins put Jesus on the cross. Also, who can contemplate heaven without the realization that the vast majority of people will reject the gospel and be eternally lost in hell (Matt. 7:13,14)?

The gospel is so much about dealing with men's sins that there is essentially no way to preach it without getting into the negatives of sin. This is well demonstrated in the fact that Paul follows his declaration of the gospel's power to save with at least two chapters of rather detailed description of man's sinfulness (Rom. 1:16ff). It is only as people consider the alternatives that they fully appreciate the positives of the gospel.

Gospel preaching requires boldness (Eph. 6:19); positivism --- preaching what people want to hear --- does not. Therefore, positivism is a perversion of the gospel and panders to a mindset unprepared to accept it fully. This is contrary to the spirit of the apostle who claimed he had not shrunk from declaring the whole counsel of God or anything that was profitable (Acts 20:20,27). His aim was not balance; his standard was not positivism. His goal was to preach to the needs of his hearers, irrespective of their desires and reactions. There is no way that a policy to eliminate treatment of some critical Biblical subjects simply because they are deemed "negative" or "controversial" can be reconciled with Paul's way.

Isaiah's people would have had him "not see visions" nor "prophesy ... what is right" but, instead, "speak ... pleasant words" and "prophesy illusions" (Isa. 30:10), but God instructed him: "Cry loudly, do not hold back; raise your voice like a trumpet, and declare to My people their transgression, and to the house of Jacob their sins" (58:1). In today's terms, what Isaiah's people demanded was positivism, while the Lord required him to give them the negatives they needed.

The Lord's directive to Isaiah is replicated in Paul's charge to Timothy: "Preach the word, be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction" (2 Tim. 4:2). This is succinctly the burden of the gospel preacher. If he is responsive to the pressure of positivists, he cannot preach the word when it is "out of season" (i.e., unpopular). It has also been observed that two thirds of his task --- "reprove, rebuke" --- are what would be regarded as negative. Indeed, there is no room for positivism in a true evangelist's concept of his duty.

Have times really changed? Are denominationalism and worldly ways and philosophies no longer a threat? Is mankind in general so much progressed, and the church so secure, in the ways of God that this kind of preaching is obsolete? Positivism would suggest that this is the case.

It is not even remotely conceivable in the light of Paul's charge and the approach to evangelism generally reflected in his work and writings that he would entertain and support the positivist approach that would preclude the argumentation of issues deemed too controversial. Yet, some would not only adopt this approach but to their shame and others' detriment would even dare call it "Christianity." "The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule on their own authority; and My people love it so! But what will you do at the end of it?" (Jer. 5:31).