The squishy middle is the safest place to be when a leader's interest is in placating as many people as possible. That's why we see the squishy middle associated with evangelical celebrities, megachurch pastors, and think tanks. 1/7

It's not that these leaders don't hold dogmatic beliefs ordinarily thought of as beyond the pale, they do, but only those closest to them ever know those beliefs unless they come out when the leader is pressed or slip out in response to something viewed as intolerable. 2/7

This explains why friends are quick to defend these leaders when they're accused of liberal drift. It also explains why a leader every so often takes a surprisingly firm stand on something. In any event, the squishy middle won't save a conservative view on anything. 3/7

Conservatism definitionally 'conserves' and progressivism definitionally 'progresses.' Remaining conservative while placating progressives might be possible on a personal level, but followers will adopt the progressive principles set forth as consistent with conservatism. 4/7

Politically, we might think about how much has changed since Clinton. Theologically, we've seen this happen before with Erdman and Mullins. We will see it happen again. Nobody wants to be the fiery 'fundamentalist' who divides conservative from progressive thought. 5/7

When one's platform is contingent on anything other than conservative thought, taking a swipe at progressivism without taking a similar swipe at conservatism means losing at least part of one's platform. The more popular the leader, the more likely the squish. 6/7

Leaders want to be respectful and respected. But being faithful to God often means saying what no one wants said. Too often the squishy middle looks like faithfulness to God when it's really faithfulness to the people who keep one fed in the belly or the head. 7/7