7.27.2012 TOLERANCE

tolerance-'the capacity to recognize and respect the beliefs of practices of others'- is esteemed very highly these days. and any idea or program that is tied in to tolerance is also highly regarded, it seems. to many americans, tolerance is politically correct. intolerance, on the other hand, is perceived as the most un-american thing one can do. most of this is good. however, it does have its evil side.

in one sense, it is out of place for those of anabaptist descent to sound an alarm about the extremes of the tolerance doctrine. not so long ago, during the reformation, the anabaptists were the victims of bloody persecution by intolerant state churches. the anabaptists appreciated A SOCIETY WHERE INDIVIDUALS COULD OBEY THE BIBLE OPENLY AND FREELY PROMOTE THEIR BELIEFS BY LIFE, TESTIMONY AND PUBLIC PROCLAMATION.  so, while we warn about the extremes of the tolerance doctrine, we are well aware that intolerance has had its deadly extremes in many places.

at the root of the extremes  of tolerance lies the failure to reckon with the truth about the DEPRAVITY OF HUMAN NATURE.

in other words, WHEN MAN IS LEFT TO FOLLOW THE INCLINATIONS OF HIS UNRESTRAINED NATURE, HE WILL DESTROY HIMSELF. TO ALLOW ANOTHER HUMAN BEING TO SELF-DESTRUCT, WHEN YOU COULD HELP HIM OR AT LEAST WARN HIM,
IS CERTAINLY NOT KIND.

a few generations ago,
the un-american thing was
to not teach
morality
self-control
industry, and
accountability
but it has reversed.
today it seems to be an un-american thing to promote these noble principles.

let's take HOMOSEXUALITY, for example. the cry today is to be tolerant of such lifestyles and to equate them with the difference in races.
not so!
anybody with an open mind can clearly see the havoc homosexuality brings upon society and upon the individual. it is no less intolerant to sound the alarm against homosexuality than it is to warn against smoking tobacco or marijuana. both have devastating effects upon people physically and, according to the bible, spiritually also.

ONE IS NOT UNKIND OR INTOLERANT TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT ANY SUBJECT. of course, GOD HAS ORDAINED THAT EACH PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE HIS OWN CHOICES AND THAT HE IS ACCOUNTABLE TO GOD FOR THEM.

'so then every one of us shall give account of himself to God'. romans 14.12.

FURTHER, THOSE OF US WHO KNOW THE TRUTH WILL ALSO GIVE ACCOUNT TO A HOLY AND RIGHTEOUS GOD IF WE DO NOT WARN THE SINNER ABOUT THE ERROR OF HIS WAY.

'son of man, I have appointed you a WATCHMAN to the house of israel;
whenever you hear a word from My mouth,
WARN them from Me.
when I say to the wicked,
'you shall surely die';
and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live,
that wicked man shall die in his iniquity,
but HIS BLOOD I WILL REQUIRE AT YOUR HAND.
yet if you have warned the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way,
he shall die in his iniquity,
but YOU HAVE DELIVERED YOURSELF. ezekiel 3. 17-9

these principles, of course, apply to all sins and excesses.

probably one of the greatest abuses and hypocrisies of the tolerance extremists is that they TOLERATE EVERYTHING AND EVERYBODY EXCEPT THOSE WHOM THEY LABEL INTOLERANT. (note: hence they also are intolerant) there are intolerant people and regimes yet today, true, but LET'S NOT DEFINE LICENTIOUSNESS (unrestrained by law or general morality) AS TOLERANCE, OR ACCOUNTABILITY (note: to God) AS INTOLERANCE.

for the most part, our government has been aware of the extremes of both tolerance and intolerance. 'we, as the apostle paul said, have naught to accuse our nation of'. but sometimes we hear of isolated cases where officials have forcibly removed children from the homes of those who fear God and who discipline their children in godly ways. we assume that in so doing the officials thought they were in step with the political ideology of the day, but the totally misread the situation.

nonetheless, let it be clear in our minds that CHILDREN ARE NOT WARDS OF THE STATE. people often ask, 'whose are the children: and what does it take to raise a child-a village or a parent?' well, the answer to that question is clear. whom did cain and abel, the first children, belong to? and what did God provide to raise them-a village or some parents? children need parental love and restraint.

God provided parents for the very first child and for every child since. the child belongs to the parents, and every parent will give account to God for the faithful discharge of that responsibility. God has also directed in His word how parents are to raise their children and how they are to conduct themselves. God has even given principles in His word relating to orphans or truly abused children.

consider another example. IF A SCIENCE TEACHER PRESENTED CLEAR, SYSTEMATIC AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT THERE WAS A UNIVERSAL FLOOD MORE THAN 4000 YEARS AGO, such teacher (in most cases) would be in danger of losing his job. in the academic world there can be discussions about THE HISTORY OF THE EARTH, BUT USUALLY ONLY VARIATIONS OF UNIFORMITARIANISM ARE PERMITTED. (uniform. maintains that developments on earth have been gradual over great periods of time.)

UNIFORMITARIANISM HAS ALSO BEEN APPLIED TO EVOLUTION.  IF THE HUMAN RACE GRADUALLY DEVELOPED FROM APES, THEN THE INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEING IS NOT MORALLY ACCOUNTABLE. unifor. opposes any teaching about right and wrong. 'TOLERANCE, by this standard, CONTRIBUTES TO MORAL IRRESPONSIBILITY.

MAN ATTEMPTS TO RESTRICT HONEST INVESTIGATION INTO THE CRITERIA BY WHICH SOME THINGS ARE SAID TO RIGHT AND OTHERS WRONG. most people admit a freedom of choice, but MANY  DO NOT WANT THAT CHOICE TO BE POSITIVELY IN FAVOR OF THE BIBLE, NOR DO THEY WANT THE PRECEPTS OF RIGHT AND WRONG TO INCLUDE EVERYBODY. supposedly, human choice will excuse some people from the responsibility to give account to God if they themselves choose not to do so. to make them feel uneasy is 'intolerant'.

in reality, no human being can remove the power of choice from another. by threatening the loss of earthly things, one person may urge another in the direction of wrong choices, but the power of choice is still there. good teaching and environment encourage right choices, but again, the choice is still there. one characteristic of those who are created  in the image of God is that they can choose rationally. they can choose to accept His word and to worship and serve Him or they can choose the opposite.

a developing totalitarian system will seek to eliminate choice or make the wrong choices very easy. this system may be more subtle than that projected by karl marx. it may become more thorough and more cruel than that practiced by hitler and his henchmen. but it can never take away choice. 'the people that do know their God shall be strong and do exploits' daniel 11.32.  this is true whether the world is tolerant or intolerant of them or whether they even know how to define their own terms.

rod and staff publishers, inc, crockett, ky 41413, 606.522.4348