Tolerance, and Theocracy

This deals with commentary on American culture. The first part is again dealing with Tolerance. I was at Bethelham Baptist tonight hearing the Best Preacher in the Twin Cities John Piper preach part 4 on Romans 13:1-7. The second part of his sermon was terrific. One of the points made was the misconcept that arose in the debate of Tolerance. There are really two different views of Tolerance, the first view is this relativisit view espoused by the Secular Humanists. Where basically there are no absolute truth claims. So therefore activities like Abortion, and Gay Marriage, are totally morally acceptable. It is just those intolerant people of Faith, that are judgemental about what consituties right or wrong. But the truth is tolerance as relativism leads to Destruction, look at Roman Civilzation, where all behaviors went out the window. If one is to define Tolerance as Relativism than murder of people born would be legal, mob rule accepted, any sort of sexual practice tolerated, and a crime could never be condemned. If Tolerance is just defined as relativity, society collaspes. Since there are no limits on any sort of behavior. Christians though as Piper stated should oppose Abortion because if you have the indiscrimnate taking of the Unborn, society's view of human life collaspes, and ulitmately society. As far as something like Gay Marriage goes you have a fundamental building block of society in marriage-redefined. Marriage is no longer defined as a societal benefit, but only in terms of Erotic fulfillment. If an instuition like Marriage is redefined, this radically altars society. This altering of society could lead to its collaspes. Piper said we should make arguments on issues like these in terms that they are of benefit for people. This doesn't mean everything we are to be commanded to by scripture should be sactioned by the State. For instance if you went around just letting people serve no punishment for murder, society would collaspe. So here you have a contrast of what is called for in the Church-Matthew 6:15 and what is called for in the State-Romans 13:4.

The second part of this is the myth that it is in the Intolerant Christians vs the Tolerant Secularists. What is a difference is that Christians make claims of truth in society. If one is to go on a Secular College Campus, how many shots are taken at Christians. How many times are Christians mocked and called stupid. How often do writers from the New York Times, Minneapolis Star Tribune, or New Yorker make positive statements about those who practice Biblical Christianity. Christians are portrayed as bigots, and ignorant by these people. Even as a student at a Christian seminary, a Professor and I were talking about every pot shot taking at Fundamentalists at Luther Seminary. But my contention is the reason at a lot of my classmates have so much dislike for Religious Conservatives are two-fold. One they are growing in influence, while mainline Denomiations are declining in influence. The second is that they are just ignorant of the Bible, since they don't find it all that authoriative, and with a small exception wouldn't be able to hold their own in an argument about the Truths of Scripture. What these so-called tolerant secularists, and humanist Christians like to do is pigeonhole by coming up with a Fred Phelps of www.godhatesfags.com like figure, and associating this person as normative. If these professors on College Campuses, and elite writers are so confident of the ignorance of Christians ,why don't they seek to debate them and debunk them? I will agree that their have been Christians who have responded in a less than positive light to humanist assertions. So this is a two-way street to a degree. I think Ephesians 4:15-calling of us to speak the truth in love, should define our attitudes for this debate. As Piper said last week 'We don't need to name-call, or just start shouting they are going to hell as soon as they disagree. We also need to realize the Secularists will do what they want to do. I should point out that their are secular writers that are fair minded people, out there.

So what should Tolerance be? Well Piper said, he rejected the notion of Theocracy over and against some of the other early Reformed and Anabaptist traditions. The reason no one is ever coerced by sword to Christ. To try to coerce someone to your position of faith is problematic. Just look at the crusades, the trouble they brought. It should be noted that the crusades like the Humanist/Christian argument were a two-way street. This idea of the sword coercing faith is what has created so many problems with in Modern Day Islam. Piper tonight echoed the ideas of John Locke' s essay from 1689 A Letter Concerning Toleration. The fact that we live in a plurastic soceity calls for tolerance. We should call for freedom to express our views, just as the New Agers, Jehovah Witnesses, Humanists, Hindus, and Muslims have theirs. For once we loss the idea of freedom of expression, people take their sword to defend their faith, and society will collaspe. Christians should call for Religious Tolerance for All Religions in the Modern American State. This is not to be carried over to the Church in acceptance of pluralism and relativism though, for once the Church makes no claim of truth it in itself will collaspe. So what defines a good state does not define a good Church. For the state is defined by good order, and this is something that does benefit. But the Church is called to preach the Gospel to save people from everlasting punishment of their sins in Hell.