crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) (03/16/90)
[Kenneth J. Kutz commented >Many Christians are willing to take off their "belt of truth" and >replace it with the "handcuff of tolerance". To do so is to give your >defense away... >The Christian without a fight may have no convictions left to fight for. >The flag he carries has TRUTH crossed out and UNITY to replace it. Howard Steel responded >Tolerance is to me a liberating not handcuffing point of view; >a "belt of truth" is not the antithesis of tolerance that you suggest, it is >the core of tolerance. ... The flag I would carry, to continue your symbolism >is one that has TRUTH emblazoned on a background of UNITY. --clh] I think the problem here is that you are talking about two different things (and, within the proper context, both of you are right). Allow me to try and explain my meaning with an example. Suppose I have set out on a long journey to a distant city, and I find other people walking in the same direction, so we walk together for a while. Eventually our paths start to separate, so I ask the others why they are going in different directions. One person says, "I think you're reading the map wrong; isn't the road to our city this way?" Another says, "Who cares about the city or the map? I want to go this way because it looks pleasant..." Can you see why I could have tolerance for, and unity with, the first person but not the second? Not to spend lots of time on a minor analogy, but I am convinced that the proper flag for the Christian is one with UNITY on a background of TRUTH. No matter what else happens, we have been commanded to seek truth rather than fall for any sort of deception (e.g., "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.") Within that framework, we can then hold unity with others provided that they have the same goal, that of seeking truth. But there is no way I, or any other Christian, can hold unity with someone who deliberately persists in ignoring truth. Let me back this up with a few examples. Our moderator mentioned the Barmen Declaration in WWII Germany, in which the Confessing Church boldly stated that nationalism could never take precedence over Christianity. To put it another way, those Christians were fully realizing that they, as believers in the truth that all of humanity is God's creation, could not have unity with a nation that chose to persist in the lie that the German people were somehow better than other peoples and thus had the right to abuse them horribly. To take a more contemporary example: there is a modern "ecumenical" movement which views all religions as cultural affectations, and calls on us to break down and admit that all religions are the same. But we as modern-day Christians dare not fall for this lie; we must hold to the truth that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." (NB: This is NOT to be confused with the various movements for interdenominational unity among true Christians, or for interfaith dialogue; these are different issues entirely.) On the other side of the coin, consider the Catholic-Protestant division. A serious Catholic would say that, to follow Christ, one should follow a certain authority structure in Rome instituted by Christ. I, as a Protestant, have some serious doubts as to whether that authority is binding on me. But note that we can still have unity, because we agree on the more fundamental truth that Jesus Christ is Lord; the rest is a matter of working out the details of that truth. Someone in a previous article mentioned the Seventh-Day Adventists; I don't know a lot about them but I think similar considerations would probably apply. I hope I've gotten my main point across: Christian tolerance does not mean putting up with those who refuse to seek truth. It does mean being considerate of those who are honestly seeking truth, even if they currently disagree with us. > >>When this has happened, it may be time to call on the General and ask Him >>to lead us into battle again. > >And I think you will be alarmed to find that He is not prepared to fight in >order to enforce His will. >-- I think He will indeed fight to enforce his will; look at the book of Revelation if you don't believe me. Now this doesn't mean that we should beat up people who don't agree with us in every minor detail, but that one day things will be so bad that noone left will acknowledge God in any way whatsoever. (There's a verse to this effect, I think in Rev. 9, but I can't remember the exact reference.) Before that day comes, part of our job is to exhort those who don't seek God to do so, and to encourage those who do seek God to do so all the more... Grace and peace, Charles Ferenbaugh