III INTOLERANCE

We are certainly happy to have so many visitors present and want you to know that you are always more than welcome at our service. It is our purpose to do everything we can to show our appreciation and make your visit with us pleasant and profitable.

Our topic this morning is “Intolerance.” It is both timely and important. During the past week an organization of churches throughout the nation has been celebrating what is called Brotherhood Week and preaching the doctrine of tolerance. There was a panel discussion on this subject at Watkins Institute last Tuesday night which indicated that people are interested in this topic and also illustrated the need for tolerance. So we feel that we are speaking on something which is of very great current interest.

Incidentally, the panel was also an index to the interest people have in a public hearing of religious differences. A religious debate will still attract a bigger crowd than any other sort of church service. It is a mistake to conclude that people are not interested in a discussion of religious issues. There was a debate just a few days ago at White House, Tennessee, in a very small congregation, perhaps not more than forty or fifty members. The crowds overflowed the building. They moved to the gymnasium of the local 33 school and filled it before the debate closed. This indicates the extent to which people are interested in public investigations of religious questions.

I The Issue Defined

1. In order to study intelligently the subject of intolerance we need to understand definitely the meaning of the term. The words “tolerance,” “intolerance,” “tolerate,” and so on, have several different meanings. If we aren’t careful, one person will be thinking of one meaning of a term and another of a different meaning. If you look these words up in your dictionary, you will see several definitions. In order that we may understand each other, then, I want to cite two or three of them.

2. One definition says that intolerance means unwillingness to bear or endure. In other words, it means unwillingness to suffer long. Of course, in that sense intolerance is wrong, because the Bible teaches that we should be longsuffering. One of the fruits of the Spirit is longsuffering (Gal. 5:22). “And we exhort you, brethren, admonish the disorderly, encourage the fainthearted, support the weak, be longsuffering toward all” (1 Thess. 5:14 ARV). There are many other Scriptures in the New Testament which teach the importance, the necessity, of our being longsuffering. So, of course, in this sense we ought to be tolerant, we ought to be willing to endure, to suffer, and to bear.

34

3. According to Funk and Wagnal’s dictionary, the word “intolerance” also means “not disposed to tolerate contrary beliefs or opinions.” There, you see, intolerance is defined in terms of the word “tolerate,” so we need to know what it means. The word “tolerate” means “to suffer to be, or to be done, without active opposition.” You put all that together and you simply get this: tolerance means to let the beliefs and opinions which are contrary to your own go without opposition; whereas, intolerance according to this definition, or meaning of the word, would mean to oppose the beliefs and opinions which are contrary to your own. Now, the question is, should we be tolerant in this sense? Should we be tolerant in the sense of allowing beliefs and opinions which are contrary to our own go without any active opposition on our part? I think this makes the issue clear.

II Some Necessary Distinctions

1. In order to answer this question, I am persuaded that we will have to make a distinction between belief and opinion, and a distinction between things that are essential and things which are not essential. (In making this statement I am aware that the study of such a distinction may itself involve a debate, but I am not opposed to debates.) In other words, saying that a man should be tolerant is something like saying he ought to “be in favor of.” Well, in favor of what? Before you can say a man ought to 35 be in favor, you have to know what is under consideration. Am I in favor of it? That depends upon what you are talking about. Am I tolerant of it? That depends upon what you are talking about. There are some things I can and should tolerate. There are some other things that I cannot and ought not, in the light of God’s word, tolerate at all.

2. In reference to things which do not affect one’s salvation, we ought to be tolerant. For instance, there are some folk who think it is wrong to eat meat, and some other folk who think it is all right to eat meat. You can go to heaven without eating meat and you can go to heaven while you eat meat. It doesn’t make any difference as to your salvation. On a point like that we ought to be very generous and very tolerant.

This question is discussed at length in the fourteenth chapter of Romans. “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand” (Rom. 14:1-4).

Let a man eat vegetables only if he so desires. Let another man eat meat if he wants to. In such cases the strong in faith should be considerate of those who are weak. “For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man 36 who eateth with offence” (Rom. 14:20). “We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased not himself: but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me” (Rom. 15:1-3). If I had time this morning, it would be well to read the entire fourteenth chapter of Romans and discuss it in connection with the question of our attitude toward matters that are indifferent.

3. What should be our attitude toward matters of belief that do effect one’s eternal salvation? The question really boils down to this: What should be our attitude toward people who are in error according to our judgment? Should we allow people whom we believe to be in error to go without correction, without some effort on our part to show them that they are wrong and endeavor to get them to change? Certainly not.

On the contrary the Bible clearly teaches the duty of doing every thing in our power to help people who are in danger. Before developing this point, however, let us note the necessity of distinguishing between scriptural and unscriptural methods or means of opposing error. We cannot oppose false beliefs with physical or political force. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight ...” (John 18:36).

Even people who are wrong, who are in error, 37 who are on their way to destruction, who hold beliefs which will damn their souls, are not to be opposed with physical force, or with political force. Neither are we expected to oppose them with scorn and ridicule. We are expected to do everything we can in love and kindness to teach them the truth and persuade them to obey it.

III Examples of Sinful Intolerance

1. My brethren and I should be the first to preach against the use of unfair methods in opposing those who are thought to be in error. We have suffered more at the hands of such intolerance than we have ever caused others to suffer. In a certain town the members of a denomination threatened to boycott one of their own group if he sold a building lot to members of the church of Christ who were establishing a congregation there, and thus caused him to back out on a trade he had already made. Such prejudiced and unfair opposition was both undemocratic and sinful. To have exercised freedom of speech in a public discussion of religious differences would have been honorable and democratic, but this the denominationalists would not do. They were too “broadminded” and “tolerant.” It is strange that in politics people understand freedom of speech to mean that one may publicly criticize his opponent, while in religion they pretend that it means something entirely different.

38

2. Sometimes our young people are treated with sinful intolerance at school because they refuse to engage in dances. Sometimes they are treated with intolerance when they fail to take part in the gambling games, games of chance, which are played in some of the schools. Very often when they refuse to go to picture shows they are laughed at and made fun of. It is not a question of somebody’s attempting with love and sincerity to persuade them to change their convictions; too often it is simply a matter of ridicule.

I could give some instances and call names of Christian young people who have been persecuted in public schools because they had a standard of morality and conduct which was different from that of the majority in the school. That is intolerance of a sinful sort. It is the wrong sort of opposition. Endeavoring to teach in love and kindness what one believes, even mistakingly, to be the truth is legitimate; but opposing contrary beliefs and ideals with ridicule and fun-making is wrong.

3. We saw an example of this at the panel discussion last Tuesday night. The chairman of the meeting was inclined to poke fun at some in the audience who arose to ask questions, apparently asking the questions in all sincerity. He would encourage the audience to give them the “horse laugh.” The meeting which was called to promote tolerance manifested intolerance of an ugly sort.

It was said that this meeting was being called to advocate the doctrine that we should discriminate 39 against no one because of his color, his creed, or his race. These three words don’t belong together. Color, creed, and race do not come in the same category. A man is not responsible for his color. He had no choice in it. A man is not responsible for the race to which he belongs. He had no choice in it. He was born that way. But a man does have a choice in reference to his creed. He chooses his creed. He can believe what he wants to believe.

It is not right to put color, race, and creed all in the same class. Certainly, you should not hold a man responsible for his color. You should not hold him responsible for his race. He had no choice in the matter and where there is no choice there is no responsibility. But a man is responsible for what he believes. This the Bible abundantly teaches. For example, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).

4. The irony of the situation was that some colored men, who endeavored to attend the meeting, which was to promote brotherhood of all the races, all the creeds and all the colors, were turned away from the door and not allowed to come in, because they were the wrong color. It is right to make a distinction between a man’s color and his creed, but the distinction ought to be made in favor of not holding him accountable for his color, while holding him accountable for his creed. It seems that the spirit of the occasion was just the opposite. “We won’t hold you accountable for your creed, but if you are the 40 wrong color you can’t come in.” Well, that doesn’t quite make sense, does it?

We ought not oppose error by such illegitimate means as physical or political force, embarrassment and ridicule, or making fun. Such weapons are very powerful; but they are unlawful. We ought not try to get one to be baptized by making fun or ridiculing him. If I caused him to be baptized by physical or political force, or by the force of ridicule and sarcasm, it wouldn’t do him any good. He would be prompted by the wrong motive. One’s obedience to God must be of his own free will.

IV Intolerance in Schools

1. While I am talking about the advantage which is sometimes taken of people in school, I want to read something from Harry Emerson Fosdick. He is a man that I wouldn’t ordinarily quote or refer to. He is a liberal. There are a thousand things on which I disagree with him, but he has said something in a recent article which I think is worth passing on. I might not even agree with everything in this quotation, but you’ll see the point.

He says: “I am a liberal; I am not pleading for sectarianism or conventional orthodoxy or anything of that sort. What I want most of all is that Roman Catholics, Jews, and Protestants should prepare together some book or books by means of which the best elements in the spiritual heritage of our race 41 can be presented in our schools, objectively and without offense, as a matter of information.” Whether or not that is possible might be open to debate. But listen to what he says next.

“Meanwhile,” it’s this meanwhile that I am interested in, “Meanwhile, however, I am fed up with a familiar type of course in some of our institutions, where religion may not be taught but where, by innuendo and clever sniping, irreligion is taught. The Jewish prophets, Christ, and the creative seers of our spiritual tradition might as well never have existed, while Freud, for example, not simply as the great pioneer in psychiatry but as an atheistic materialist, is presented at length as though he were infallible.”

2. If I were to go into some of our public schools and teach the truth on church unity and the meaning of baptism, I would be considered intolerant, narrow minded and out of order in using the public schools to teach religion. But when a man gets up and teaches that the Bible is not true, he is teaching religion, even though it is a false religion. He is teaching a religion just the same as the man who says that the Bible is true.

That reminds me of one college professor who asked his class at the beginning of the course how many of them believed that God existed. Several students raised their hands. He said, “I predict that by the time this course is finished there won’t be any here who believe in God.” He was teaching religion—false religion. He was opposing the truth. He was 42 taking advantage of a state school in which to do it.

3. When I was going to high school nearly every chapel speaker who was not a member of the church of Christ would tell us that one church was as good as another. The members of the church of Christ who came never gave us the opposite side of that. They should have told us that one church was not as good as another—that there is only one church. However, if they had done so, they would have been accused of being narrow minded and of preaching their own peculiar doctrine. But the man who says that one church is just as good as another is preaching what he believes just as much as I am preaching what I believe when I say that one is not just as good as another. So you see this matter of tolerance ought to work both ways in public institutions. If one is not allowed to say that there is just one church, then someone else who believes differently ought not to be allowed to say that one is just as good as another.

But to continue with Mr. Fosdick. “The separation of church and state is a fundamental principle of American democracy, but we are allowing it to mean what the fathers of the republic never dreamed it should mean: that youth, in our public institutions of learning, may be taught the denials of faiths but not the affirmations of them. Our postwar world cannot be reconstructed on the basis of any negative futilitarian philosophy. We desperately need great 43 faiths about life issuing in great ethical standards for life.”[1]

In other words, Mr. Fosdick is saying that if it is contrary to the principles of democracy for one to teach in public schools the tenets of his faith, it is equally contrary for an infidel to teach his infidelity and try to destroy the faith of his students. Both are forms of religion. On that point I agree with Mr. Fosdick. It is wrong for infidels to hide behind a hypocritical plea for tolerance while they ply their evil trade of making unbelievers of American youth.

V Righteous Intolerance

1. Now, I want to give you some Scriptures to show that we ought to oppose, that we are obligated to oppose, what we believe to be wrong. 1 Timothy 5:20 says, “Them that sin reprove in the sight of all, that others may also be in fear.” That is active opposition, isn’t it? According to Webster, that is intolerance, but it is the sort of intolerance which the Bible demands. Paul said in Galatians, chapter 2 and verse 11, that he withstood Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed. The apostle Paul opposed the apostle Peter concerning his attitude toward the Gentiles.

“Wherefore rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13). This doesn’t 44 say merely “Rebuke them,” but “Rebuke them sharply.” That is active opposition. “Contend earnestly for the faith once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). Here again earnest contention is not only permitted, but even commanded. Second Corinthians 5:11 says, “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men.”

2. God told Ezekiel that if he failed to warn sinners, then their blood would be required at his hands. Hear the charge: “Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. Again, when a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; and thou hast delivered thy soul” (Ezek. 3:17-21). These texts are sufficient to show that we are bound 45 by the law of God to give active opposition to the things which we believe to be sinful and harmful to the spiritual welfare of men.

3. That gentleness and longsuffering should characterize this work has been clearly revealed. “Brethren, if a man among you be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness,” [not in the spirit of braggadocio or sarcasm; not with ridicule, abuse, or persecution; not with physical or political force, but in the spirit of meekness] “considering thyself lest thou also be tempted” (Gal. 6:1). Paul said to Timothy, “I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom, preach the word; be instant in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching” (2 Tim. 4:1-2). Hence, in the light of God’s Holy Word, it is my duty to do everything I can, in meekness and with persuasion, to correct those whom I believe to be in error.

4. If you believe that I am saying something today which ought not be said, it is your duty to come to me after the service is over, or even to speak up now, and tell me wherein I am wrong. This is the work of a friend. If you go away and tell somebody else that you think I made a mistake and never let me know it, then you are playing the part of an enemy. But if you come to me and endeavor to show me where you believe I made a mistake then you will be proving yourself to be a friend.

46

VI Standard of Authority Necessary

Before these things which I have been advocating can be successfully applied we must first of all have a common standard. It was brought out in the panel discussion last Tuesday night that the three men on the panel each had a different standard. Assumedly, the Protestant speaker accepted the entire Bible as the inspired word of God. The Jew did not. He did not accept the New Testament or the Christ of the New Testament; he accepted only the Old Testament. The Catholic speaker plainly stated that he accepted neither as his authority, but that he placed his confidence in the mind of man; of course, that meant the mind of one particular man whom they are pleased to call their pope. The word “pope” means father. The man whom they call pope is not married, never has been married. He is an old bachelor, yet he is called father by more people than anybody else on the earth. The Bible says “call no man your father upon the earth” (Matt. 23:9).

The Catholic speaker was addressed in the panel discussion as “Father So and So.” If I had been on that discussion I would have called him Mr. Cleary. I suppose during a meeting advocating tolerance he would have meekly tolerated my doing so. For me to call him father would be a violation of my conscience and of the word of God. I couldn’t have called Mr. Julius Mark “Rabbi Mark,” because my Bible says, “But be not ye called Rabbi” (Matt. 47 23:8). I know Mr. Mark doesn’t agree with me on that because he doesn’t accept the New Testament as his Bible. I know the Catholic wouldn’t agree with that, because he says the Bible is not the standard, that this man whom he calls father is the standard.

Just think how ridiculous it is for three men to pretend that they are brethren when two of them propose to believe in Christ and the other one doesn’t; one believes the New Testament and neither of the others do; and one believes that the man whom he calls pope has all the authority and neither of the others do. They haven’t yet agreed upon the authority or standard to which we should make appeal in order to settle our differences.

VII Impractical “Tolerance”

During the few remaining minutes I want to talk about a different sort of intolerance—or rather a different sort of so-called tolerance—the kind that is being advocated generally by such meetings as we had last Tuesday night, and by a great many folk whom I meet from day to day. This particular type of tolerance simply means that we ought to agree with everybody on everything and oppose nobody on anything. That is what it amounts to. Its advocates pretend to endorse everything and everybody and oppose nobody and nothing.

Let me make it clear that this is only a theory. 48 Even the people who advocate it do not practice it. Nobody practices it. If you are going to take the attitude of opposing nothing and endorsing everything and everybody, then you have to endorse intolerance. Such so-called tolerance would cut off all evangelism. You couldn’t try to convert anybody to anything if you put that into practice. You’d just have to agree with everybody on everything. So you see it is mostly a theory.

People don’t really agree on things on which they don’t agree. When they pretend that they are sacrificing their convictions in order to be together, if you will look right close, you’ll probably find that they don’t have any convictions. During this very hour while I am standing here talking to you, Mr. Julius Mark is preaching at the Vine Street Christian Church as a token of this “brotherhood” that we are talking about wherein everybody is supposed to endorse everybody. Think of it! Julius Mark will tell you plainly that he does not believe the New Testament, that he does not believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He denies it. And yet he is preaching at this very minute in a congregation which wears the name Christian. If there is anything in this world on which Christians must be united it is the belief that Jesus is the Christ. A fellow who doesn’t believe that has no right whatsoever to call himself a Christian.

This almost convinces me that the Vine Street Christian Church does not have too much faith in Christ themselves or they wouldn’t have a man 49 preaching for them who professedly disbelieves in Him. I think I might put this to a little test. I do not believe in the organ that the Vine Street Christian Church uses and they know I don’t. Suppose you try to get me an appointment there next Sunday. See if you can. If you can, I’ll go. If you get me an appointment at the Vine Street Christian Church Sunday I’ll go preach for them and get somebody else to come here. They won’t let me do it. Why? Because I don’t believe in their organ. They’ll let a man preach for them who does not believe in Christ, but they won’t let a man preach for them who does not believe in their organ. Which do they think the more of, their organ or the Christ? What do you think?

Maybe I’m mistaken. Maybe they would let me preach there. If they do, I’ll take this all back. If I’m not here next Sunday, you inquire and find out if I’m down there, and if I am, then you’ll know that I was mistaken in what I have said today. Think of this! They will let a man preach for them who doesn’t believe in the Christ. But will they let a man preach for them who does not believe in their organ? If they don’t, what does it mean? It means they think more of their organ than they do of the Christ.

And speaking of tolerance, did you ever know of a public meeting leaving instrumental music out of the worship because of tolerance for the members of the church of Christ who were present? I talked to a man one time who advocated that we ought to have one community church by just leaving out those 50 things which we can’t agree upon and taking the things we can agree upon. I said, “What are you going to do about these people who don’t believe in instrumental music? Will you leave that off for the sake of their conscience?” He said, “No, they’ll just have to stay on the outside till they can come in with us.” The people who teach that sort of tolerance and so-called broad-mindedness don’t practice it. In reference to something on which they have no conviction they will appear to be very broadminded, but if you test them out on one of their pet theories or hobbies or something that they do believe, then they are just as narrow minded as anyone else, or more so.

VIII The Basis of Unity

In the forum last Tuesday night it was said that we ought to leave off all doctrinal differences and just love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Let’s put that to the test. What does it mean to love your neighbor? Do you love your neighbor as you do yourself when you see him on his way to hell and don’t try to stop him? Suppose you are thoroughly convinced that your neighbor is following a doctrine that will take him to hell, and you don’t try to stop him, just throw your arm around him and call him “Brother,” is that love? Why that’s the very opposite of love! If you see a man riding down the highway and know that a bridge has been washed out a few 51 miles ahead and he is going to run off and kill himself, will you try to stop him? You will if you love him. If you see a man on his way to hell, you’ll try to stop him if you love him!

I agree that we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves, but I also insist that love will move us to do everything we can in order to correct him when we see him following a course which will lead unto his destruction. Love demands that we preach the truth. Love demands that we persuade people to obey Christ. Love brought Jesus to this earth, and if we have the love that he had, we will do everything in our power to get people to believe, understand and obey the truth.

In mathematics we have a very simple law which says that things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. If two things are both equal to a third thing, then they are equal to each other. Friends, that gives you the basis of Christian unity. When we all get with Christ we’ll all be together. Isn’t that simple? And that is the only ground for unity. Christian unity cannot exist on any other basis. The only way we can have Christian unity is for all to get with Christ, and then we’ll all be together. The unity problem will then be solved. There can be no unity when one takes Christ as his creed, another follows the Old Testament and denies Christ, and still another follows a man over in Rome and calls him “Father.” In such a group unity cannot exist.

Christ is revealed in the New Testament. When we all take our stand on the Bible and get with 52 Christ, we’ll be together. Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). That is what we have to do to get with him. Paul said, speaking by the Holy Spirit, “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). That’s the way you get into Christ. When you believe and are baptized into Christ that puts you in Christ; then you will be with all the other folk who are in Christ and they are the only ones with whom you want to be. You don’t want to be with those who are outside of Christ because they are lost. You want to be with those who are in Christ.

If you have put on Christ through obedience to his will and continue to follow in the footsteps of Christ as revealed in his word, then some day you will go home and be united with Christ forever, and united with all other Christians forever, in the world better than this one. Surely in this large audience there are many people present who are ready to obey Christ. When you do, you’ll be taking your stand on the ground of unity, where unity must be established if ever established. Therefore, you will not be to blame for the division that curses the world today. We invite you to accept the invitation of Jesus Christ and come to him and let him save you now. Will you come?

53