April 2004

 

Home
Eternal Life
Aletheia
Articles of Interest
Christian Education
Resources
About Us
Contact Us
SiteMap

            Aletheia Links:
Current Issue
The Book Shelf
Aletheia Archives
Writings By Subject
Subscribe Free!

 

 
Try Google Site Search

 

The Tyranny of the Tolerant

 By Rick Shrader 

It is the best of times.  It is the worst of times.  Never have Americans been as comfortable in their homes and as afraid in the world.  Never have Americans enjoyed freedom of thought and expression and been so corrupt in the imaginations of their hearts.  And never have Americans been so tolerant of moral decadence while being robbed of every trace of moral fiber.  Dick Keyes described the irony that has taken place; "Tolerance is rightly seen as a virtue.  But today what is often implied by the word is relativism, thinly disguised under the positive connotations of the word tolerance.  If you do not toe the line to relativism you are branded as intolerant, which is not tolerated."1  That is, the very ones who have insisted on their right to do as they please, cannot grant the same privilege to others.  They cannot allow anyone to tell them they cannot do as they please!

Tolerance can indeed be a virtue.  Even Jesus tolerated the unbelief of enemies and friends alike.  It is tolerance that lets the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest.  In nations and cultures, Christians have had to live among corruption, allowing the sin of the lost to coexist with righteousness until the Righteous Judge does the dividing.  During this time God Himself is not intolerant, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9).  However, as Peter reminds us in the same chapter, there is a limit to God’s patience and judgment will one day be meted out.

But there is also a spiritual line that must be drawn by the believer.  He knows that granting unlimited tolerance to the sinful nature will quickly breed tyranny of his own heart and mind.  Paul doubly answered the Corinthians’ questions about their desire for personal tolerance by writing, All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful unto me, but I will not be brought under the power of any (1 Cor 6:12).  There is no power so tyrannical as the sinful nature of man, and the believer must always know where to draw the line on its desire to enslave.

This tyranny is more obvious in the larger cultural landscape.  We have seen Hollywood change from a time when family and Christian productions were the norm, and only slight indiscretions were allowed,  to a time when debauchery is the norm and Christianity is outwardly attacked.  Our country was built on laws that protect the family as a divine institution designed for a man and a woman.  Now moral deviation has become a powerful lobby and desires to do away with marriage and the family altogether.  What once asked for a little toleration has become the tyrant.

Os Guinness has captured our generation in these words:  "In a day of relativism, tolerance, cynicism, radical multiculturalism, and 'morally ungrounded morality,' how is anyone to judge anything, let alone condemn? . . . The 1960s student slogan 'It is forbidden to forbid' now covers thinking and criticizing as well as acting.  Censuring is commonly confused with censoring and moral judgment is paralyzed at the same time that gossip is unleashed."2  Guinness notes that “censuring,” a common form of conversation and critique, is now seen as “censoring,” which is to make something illegal.  “I would like to disagree with you” (censuring) is met with “We are not here to judge one another’s values” (censoring).   Those who demand toleration for their point of view in the group soon become the tyrants of the conversation, eliminating any who might want to disagree.

 

The tyranny of moral tolerance

The Christian should be acutely aware that the flesh seeks to control the Spirit and the Spirit seeks to control the flesh.  But when the flesh is in control, it is tolerant of everything except restriction, as Paul says, So that you cannot do the things that ye would (Gal 5:17).  Peter describes apostate leaders that use the flesh for their own gain:  For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.  While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage (2 Pet 2:18-19).

It is a foolish thing for a Christian to think he can indulge the flesh while remaining above its addictive power.  Even the Christian finds out that if he sows to the flesh he shall of the flesh reap corruption (Gal 6:8).  This we know sadly due to the well traveled path of overcome laymen, parents, children and ministers.  Too many modern-day Joseph’s are slaves in the chamber of Potiphar’s wife, opting for a little tolerance rather than denial.  Too many modern-day Demases are of no more use to the ministry due to loving this present world (literally “this now age”) and are now the slaves to it.

Satan is good at getting the believer to see the value of compartmentalizing his sins into separate categories where one does not affect the other.  “A little indiscretion here will not affect my ministry there.”  Satan has convinced some that privatizing one’s convictions allows both for tolerance and diversity.  “What is right for you may not be right for me.”  But these things come from the father of lies.

 

The tyranny of doctrinal tolerance

In similar fashion to fleshly temptations, tolerance of doctrinal compromise and acquiescence will destroy the work of God.  As the apostle Paul warned Timothy of the last days, these admonitions are packed into sixteen verses:  shun . . .  depart . . .  purge . . .  flee . . . avoid . . . turn away (2 Tim 2:16-3:5).  Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching false doctrine about the resurrection. Timothy was to “shun” them.  In any house (church?) there are vessels (teachers?) of wood and vessels of gold.  Timothy is to “purge himself” from the vessels of wood.  In the last days some will have a “form of godliness” but deny the biblical truth of godliness.  From such Timothy is to “turn away.”

These teachers of false doctrine were sporting themselves among the believers and feasting with them in the early churches (2 Pet 2:13).  They had crept in unawares among the brethren, Jude says, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear (Jude 4, 12).  The believers had indulged those asking for doctrinal tolerance but now could not keep the leaven from leavening the whole lump.  The believer sometimes thinks he can handle a little heresy without it hurting him.  Vance Havner wrote, "He mistakes the stretching of his conscience for the broadening of his mind.”3  He tolerates false doctrine and doesn’t realize when he has been captured by it.

In Ephesians 4, Paul is writing of the development of the believers and the church and their need for unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God (Eph 4:13) so that they would not be children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men (vs 14).  The word “sleight” (“trickery” NKJV) is the word kubeia or “cubes.”  It means to play at the cubes, or to play dice.  Believers who give themselves to false teaching are like the cubes in a game of dice.  What they believe is determined by chance or by the last teacher they heard or the last book they read.  Their tolerance of the false doctrine has left them slaves to the teachers of false doctrine.

 

The tyranny of family tolerance

One of the tragic tyrannies displayed all around us today is the subjugation of parents to children.  In the 1960s J. Sidlow Baxter wrote, "Not long ago, according to a radio newscast, a foreign diplomat visiting America remarked that one of the things which had impressed him most about the average American home was the wonderful obedience in it -- the obedience of parents to children!  The thing would be comic if it were not tragic."4  My mother taught in the public high school for twenty five years including the 1960s.  I remember her saying of those days, “The teachers were afraid of the principal; the principal was afraid of the school board; the school board was afraid of the parents; the parents were afraid of the students; and the students were afraid of no one!”

I use the 1960s as a starting place because I was a teenager then.  What began as a request for “rights” and “space” was really a demand for total freedom from any restraint.  This precursor of postmodernism soon turned to tyranny from the very ones who first asked for tolerance.  Soon the arms were locked and the fists were raised and the songs were sung and there was no going back.  Sadly, this was largely due to parents and teachers refusing to “just say no.”  Spurgeon said, "When fathers are tongue-tied religiously with their offspring, need they wonder if their children's hearts remain sin-tied?"5

C.S. Lewis, in his book, The Four Loves, describes the family love, “storgē.”  As in all the earthly words for love, though it is beautiful in its proper use, it becomes a dictator unless it is tempered by agape love.6  A parent’s love for children or a child’s love for parents can develop into ruthless control if left to itself.  It is not very funny to see a parent indulging little Johnny during his antics, laughing with him and showing him how cute he is.  To anyone else, without the attachment of storgē, little Johnny is not funny and the tyranny that is sure to come is obvious.  Vance Havner wrote, “Fathers sometimes make the mistake of trying to be merely pals to their boys.  They mean well but fathers are not meant to be mere pals but parents; when they lose their parental authority and the respect of their children they have sacrificed too much.”7

The one indulgence that children will not be able to overcome is the indulgence to worldliness.  The world, the flesh and the devil will eat our kids up if we do not set the example of separation and godliness.  The book of Hebrews says that when Moses was grown, he; a) refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; b) forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; and c) kept the Passover when it was despised by all Egypt (Heb 11:24-28).  Why could Moses do this?  Because when he was young he was hid three months by godly parents who feared the Lord their God more than the king of Egypt.  Moses learned early that no price is too high to pay for obedience to God.

 

The tyranny of church tolerance

The church is no more than individuals and families.  If these indulgences have taken place in those areas, we are sure to find them in the church.  How often churches have been held hostage by moral or financial scandal; by doctrinal leaven that creeps in and affects the whole church; by worldliness that begins as a slight acquiescence to gain nickels and noses but ends in a lack of power and respect!  Our churches are filled with little Johnnys and little Suzys who demand tolerance for their lack of manners and behavior while indulgent parents smile with blinded eyes.  But the same indulgence that was cute at two years old is not so cute at sixteen years old.  By then, however, the teen department is running the church.  The tolerance that was indulged for many years in the hallways and children’s programs has now become the tyranny that demands conformity from the rest of the church, including the adults, seniors and often the pastoral staff.  Everyone is afraid that the tantrum that used to be thrown on the hallway floor will now be thrown under the exit sign of the church.  To deny the youth department the music, dress, language and a prominent place on the platform is to risk losing families.  Why?  Because the children will tell the parents they want to leave and the parents, as they have done since their children were toddlers, will indulge them.

        In my lifetime I have seen our Baptist churches change in their attitude toward ecumenicalism and tolerance of contrary doctrine.  What once was general agreement among our brethren is now mutual non-agreement.   In 1964, the first Fundamental Baptist Congress of America was held in Detroit at Temple Baptist Church. The congress was attended by leaders of almost every fundamental Baptist group in America and the messages were printed in a book (as were the congress messages for the next several years).   Paul R. Jackson preached a sermon titled, “The Biblical Doctrine of the Church.”  He said:

The interdenominationalists cry that we must ignore the points that divide us, and unite upon a few fundamental doctrines.  To such persons immersion is not important; eternal security is not important; New Testament polity is not important, along with many similar doctrines.  They contend that as long as a man believes in the deity of Christ and the precious blood as the price of redemption that he should be received into the church.  Now, my brethren, this is compromise and nothing but ecumenicalism within the framework of redemptive truth.8

Today, such a statement would cause one to be quickly removed from the roster of speakers rather than to be printed in a book.  Email chat rooms for pastors or pastors’ wives are notorious for allowing the broadest discussion from an ecumenical viewpoint, but quickly censoring any objection.  Even among fundamental Baptists we may talk all day without fear of criticism of things such as Promise Keepers, Women of Faith, Forty Days of Purpose, or The Passion.  But let one brother speak his conscience to the contrary and his objection cannot be tolerated for a moment.  One-way streets are very diverse for all travelers, but only if one happens to be going that way.

 

And so . . . .

"In our day of diversity and tolerance, where God the Creator has been dethroned, denouncing error has become the ultimate unpardonable sin.  Principal opposition to anything that others hold dear makes you a bigot and a hate-monger."9  But God has not asked us to tailor His message to fit the likes and dislikes of the audience.  Such a message never ends in victory, only in tyranny.

Notes:

1. Dick Keyes, Chameleon Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1999) 26.

2. Os Guinness, Unriddling Our Times (Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1999) 116.

3. Vance Havner, Why Not Just Be Christians? (Westwood, NJ:  Revell, 1964) 21.

4. J. Sidlow Baxter, Our High Calling (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977) 59.

5. Charles Spurgeon, The Treasury of David vol. II) Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1978) 333.

6. C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves (New York: HBJ Book, 1988) 76-77.

7. Vance Havner, Repent or Else!: The Seven Churches of Revelation (Old Tappan: Revell, 1958) 91.

8. Paul R. Jackson, in Biblical Faith of Baptists (Detroit: FBCA, 1964) 35.

9. Tal Brooke, The Conspiracy to Silence the Son of God (Eugene: Harvest House, 1998) 76.

 

 

Back to Top

Why I have not seen the movie:  The Passion of the Christ

by Rick Shrader

 

We all must pause to express our conscience on controversial matters sooner or later even though we would rather talk only of “the common faith” and leave the “contending” to the expert apologists.  C.S.  Lewis said, "The greatest cause of verbicide is the fact that most people are obviously far more anxious to express their approval and disapproval of things than to describe them” (Studies in Words, p. 7).  I have chosen not to see the movie for a number of reasons with which one may agree or disagree.  While I have no desire to make personal attacks, I do desire to speak my own conscience on this very current matter.  Now that some time is going by, there is a growing collection of sincere objections to the film. I offer my own to this list.

1. My life-long boycott of the theater.  It may seem like begging the question to place this reason first but I don’t think so.  I have preached to my church and lived before my family that I believe it is far better for our children/people never to have sat in a theater with their father/pastor than to have done so.  Knowing what has happened to Hollywood in the last forty years, I can’t help but believe the next forty will totally paganize our kids.  My children/people will never recollect me sitting with them there.  To break that commitment now, even for this reason, is more conscience than I care to violate.  I see this as being “blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed” (Titus 1:7).  I think that keeping this principle will reap far greater benefits in the long run.

2. My love, familiarity and blessing in reading the four gospels.  It has been an amazing thing to watch the reaction of our generation to a movie, a reaction that has never taken place from reading the inspired Word of God.  It never occurred to me to see any of the Jesus movies.  But I do read one of the gospels through thoughtfully every month and have done so for years.  The added reality for me is in the theology of the atonement, not languishing in unnecessary detail that the Holy Spirit chose not to include.  Even the rest of the New Testament always emphasizes the reason and scope of Christ’s death, not the added details that humans may have wanted.  Peter is typical when he writes,  Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed (1 Peter 2:22-24).

3. The justification of Roman Catholicism by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists.  Although many feel their use of the movie does not justify Catholicism, I believe it does to the Catholics and allows their view of the blood of the sacrament to be affirmed.  Are we not bidding them “God speed” as they return to their Church altar?  In the third volume of The Fundamentals, written in 1917 and edited by R.A. Torrey and A.C. Dixon, T.W. Medhurst from Glasgow, Scotland began his article this way, “I am aware that, if I undertake to prove that Romanism is not Christianity, I must expect to be called ‘bigoted, harsh, uncharitable.’ Nevertheless I am not daunted; for I believe that on a right understanding of this subject depends the salvation of millions” (“Is Romanism Christianity?”, vol. 3, p. 288).  I think we will find it harder than ever to win our Catholic friends and neighbors to Christ once we have given credence to their version of the sufferings of Christ.  What is poetic license to us is church dogma to them.  The obvious exaltation of the Roman Eucharistic Mystery by Anne Catherine Emmerich in her book, as well as by Gibson and his cast during filming, is something with which I cannot have fellowship.  For what fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness?  And what communion hath light with darkness?  And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? (2 Cor 6:14-15).

4. My opposition to ecumenicalism.  One may conclude that we were wrong to criticize ecumenical evangelism over the last fifty years, but it is hard not to see this as the same thing.  Maybe some can avoid this, but it seems this has been difficult even in the pre-viewing process as well as in the use of the film.  In ecumenical evangelism the lowest common denominator of doctrine is sought so that groups differing on major doctrines may come together for the purpose of evangelism.  This means that you have to acquiesce to doctrine you believe is wrong and which you teach against for what all have agreed is the greater good.  But fundamentalists have objected to this as pragmatic, the end justifying the means, and compromise of doctrinal truth.  And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.  Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother (2 Thes 3:14-15).  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them (Rom 16:17).  It is always tempting to use the means that seem (to us) to get the job of evangelism done quicker.  But is it a lack of trust or compassion to stay within the bounds of Scriptural commands and trust that God knows best?  Ask Abraham in Hagar’s bedroom, or Moses striking the rock, or Uzzah holding the ark, about things which seem to work as opposed to what God has specifically said.

        5. My view of Revelation 17 and 18.  Though it is becoming increasingly unpopular today to identify the Harlot in these chapters as the Roman Church, it has been a common belief of good Bible expositors.  It is the blood of the apostles as well as the prophets (Rev 18:20) that God will avenge on her.  It is Mystery Babylon, the imitation of Babel that John sees.  H.A. Ironside wrote, “In other words all sects will be swallowed up in the one distinctively Babylonish system that has ever maintained the cult of the mother and the child. . . . Rome alone answers to the description given” (Revelation, 297). In like manner, John Walvoord wrote of this harlot, “It is a sad commentary on contemporary Christendom that it shows an overwhelming desire to return to Rome in spite of Rome's evident apostasy from true biblical Christianity.  In fact, modern liberalism has far outdone Rome in its departure from the theology of the early church, thus has little to lose by a return to Romanism.  Apostasy, which is seen in its latent form today, will flower in its ultimate form in this future superchurch which will apparently engulf all Christendom in the period after the rapture of the church” (Revelation, 248).  I understand that not every Bible expositor takes this view.  But if this old and common view is correct, and if today’s generation happens to be the generation of the anti-Christ, then we will have done what John started to do and was corrected, I wondered with great admiration.  And the angel said unto me, wherefore didst thou marvel?. . . . Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues, for her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities (Rev 17:6-7; 18:4-5).

Again, I know that disagreement over this issue causes irritation to many.  As I have written, “the tyranny of the tolerant” most often closes the door on objections.  But I believe that as time goes on and the emotion of the moment wanes, many such objections will begin to be weighed and considered valid.  God grant us all biblical wisdom.

 

Back to Top

The Bookshelf

The Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ

By Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824)

Emmerich became a nun, at the age of 29, in the Convent of Agnetenberg, at Dulmen, Germany.  She supposedly received the “favour from the Lord” (8) to receive “stigmas” or wounds in her flesh in order to bleed and suffer “to expiate the sin by suffering” (15) for others, as well as “to feel a portion of the sufferings which were endured by her Divine Spouse on the Cross” (16).  She spent most of her life in bed, her body constantly (and literally) bleeding from the brow, hands, feet and side (29, et al.). She also received visions from God and at times was translated to various locations, especially Jerusalem, to observe how things happened in history.  Thus does she tell in vivid detail of the life of Christ.

Her visions of what happened to Christ are given as a supposed eye witness and are thoroughly Catholic in the constant emphasis on the “Holy Eucharist” and “holy blood” (84) and praise of “The Blessed Virgin” and “Immaculate Mother of God” (200, et al.).  I list what space permits:  The upper room is converted into a Catholic altar and Mary miraculously appears to receive mass (84); the chalice was used by Adam, Noah on the ark, and Abraham (70); The Catholic Church is the second Eve (109) and all other churches are “hellish” and keep souls from heaven by not giving them “the Holy Sacrament” (117); Mary suffered in her own garden (118); an angel gave Jesus Holy Communion in Gethsemane (122); Jesus was chained, dragged, thrown into Kidron so that His handprints remained on the rocks for the “veneration” of believers (136); Mary’s handprints are also left at many places for the same reason (174, 255, 353); Pilate’s wife gave linen to “The Mother of God” to save the “sacred blood” (224-5); Emmerich was there also, “anxious for a drop of our Lord’s blood to fall upon me, to purify me” (232); Mary traveled the Via Dolarosa before Jesus did (and afterward) as “the first to show forth the deep veneration felt by the Church” (200); the veil of Veronica was left with the imprint of Jesus’ face (259) as the grave clothes left bodily imprints (323); Jesus was on the cross only 3 hours (268 & 294); the veil of the temple was rent by accident (298); the water and blood from His side (“vivifying waters of baptism”) splashed on a soldier, forgiving him of sin (304); Jesus descended to “Purgatory” and “Limbo” so that the Church can pray for them (351); Jesus appears first to Mary on three separate occasions (353, 358, 361); and numerous other details of pain and sufferings which are added to the biblical account.  The book comes with a sticker which says, “The book that inspired Mel Gibson to film The Passion Of The Christ.”  

 

Back to Top