Part 2
Here again we have a commandment which is partly generic and partly specific. The word “go” is generic with respect to the means of travel to be used. The general form of this commandment leaves one free to travel by any suitable method. In obeying this commandment one may travel by rail, by boat, by airplane, by automobile, on foot, on horseback, or by any other method that is in decency and in order.
I recently held a meeting in Alabama which people attended by practically every means of transportation. They came by train, by bus, by automobile, on tractors, in buggies, on horseback, on foot, in wagons, in trucks—in almost every conceivable way except by airplane or motorboat. The general commandment to _go_ leaves one free to travel in any of these ways.
But this same commandment is specific in respect to what shall be taught after one gets to the place of teaching. It specifies that one shall preach the _Gospel_. The message that is to be delivered is therefore specified. It _must_ be the _Gospel_.
4. Matthew’s statement of this same commission says, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” The commandment to teach is specific as to the message, but it is generic with reference to the method that shall be used in the teaching.
According to the general command to teach, the lesson may be either oral or written. The teacher may be either a man or a woman, and the size of the class may be whatever circumstances and expediency justify. This commandment to teach does not specify the number that shall be in the class, or the sex of the teacher, or whether the lesson shall be an oral one or a written one.
In this same great commission we have the commandment to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost those who have been taught. Since these names have been specified, it would be a sin to baptize in the name of any human being or any human institution.
The word “baptize” itself denotes the act. It means to be immersed, buried in water (Col. 2:12). However, this commandment does not tell us how the immersing shall be done. We may immerse one according to this commandment face foremost, sideways, lying down, standing up or in any other appropriate way, just as long as we obey the commandment to baptize; that is, to _immerse_ or _bury_ in water.
III The Principle Applied
1. Some one may say that according to this principle of interpretation instrumental music may be justified. Let us see if this is true. If God’s word had merely told us to make music, that would have been generic as far as the type of music is concerned. But it so happens that God did not leave this commandment in such a general form. He specified the type of music we shall use in worshiping him.
Ephesians 5:19 says, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.” Colossians 3:16, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” God, therefore, has specified the kind of music. He tells us to _sing_.
If God had merely told Noah to build an ark, he could have used any kind of wood that he chose or any other material. He could have used either cedar or gopher, but when God commanded him to use gopher wood, that drew a ring around the word gopher and eliminated every other type of building material. If he had merely told the Jews to offer a sacrifice at the passover, they might have offered either a calf or a lamb; but when he commanded them to offer a lamb, that drew a ring around the word lamb and eliminated every other type of sacrifice that might be conceived.
Likewise, with reference to the music that we offer in our worship, if God had just said, “Make music,” then we could have used any kind we chose, but he has specified singing. This eliminates every other conceivable kind of music as far as our worship to Jehovah is concerned.
Sometimes I hear people say that God does not tell us not to use instrumental music. This is a mistake. He does tell us not to use it. He does so in Colossians 3:16 and in Ephesians 5:19. Those Scriptures that tell us to offer vocal music in our worship tell us, as plain as day, _not_ to offer any other kind.
Surely everyone will agree that it would have been a sin for Noah to have built the ark out of cedar wood. Everyone will likewise agree that it would have been wrong for the Jews to have offered a cow as a passover sacrifice. By the same line of reasoning, and just as clearly to be seen, it would be wrong today for people to substitute some other kind of music for the kind that God has specified.
2. The commandment to eat the Lord’s supper in memory of Jesus Christ is generic in some respects and specific in others. The Bible specifies the day of the week upon which this institution shall be observed. This lesson is taught by means of divinely approved example as recorded in Acts, chapter 20 and verse 7: “Upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.”
The Bible therefore specifies that the Lord’s supper shall be observed upon the first day of the week, but this teaching is generic as far as the hour of the day is concerned. There have been people who argued that it would be a sin to eat the Lord’s supper at 7:30 P.M. There are others who believe it is wrong to eat it at 11:00 A.M., just because the Bible does not specify that hour. But the same objection could be raised to any other hour mentioned, and thereby eliminate the possibility of eating it at all. The commandment to eat the Lord’s supper upon the first day of the week, necessarily implies that it should be eaten at _some_ hour, and God has seen fit to leave man free to use his own judgment in selecting the hour of the day.
The Bible specifies that the fruit of the vine shall be used, but it does not say whether that fruit shall be fermented or unfermented. The failure to recognize this fact has led some to contend that it’s a sin to use grape juice. The very same type of error has caused others to contend that it would be wrong to use wine. We must recognize the fact that God has left this commandment generic as to whether the fruit of the vine shall be fermented or unfermented.
Likewise the Bible does not designate the number of cups that shall be used, leaving us free to use our own judgment upon that point as well. It is true that the Bible refers to “the cup,” but every careful student knows that that refers to the contents and not to the vessel. As a matter of fact, there must be some distribution made between the original container and the lips of those who partake. The Bible does not specify at what stage this distribution shall be made. God has endowed us with intelligence, and expects us to use it in applying these commandments which are left in generic form.
3. Other examples of generic commands of a slightly different form are these: “Therefore, all things ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets” (Matt. 7:12). “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world, looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearance of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:11-13). “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this; to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (Jas. 1:27). All of these are general commandments governing Christian conduct. They announce certain general principles that should guide us in our behavior. We must use our own best judgment in applying these principles to the various questions that arise, and we should pray for wisdom to make the proper application. (Jas. 1:5).
IV Important Conclusions
1. There are certain important conclusions which should be drawn from what has already been said. First, in a sphere where God has made specifications we must heed them. We must not ignore them. We must not change them. What he specifies _must_ be done. In executing a command we must heed these specifications. To do otherwise would be an act of disobedience to God Almighty.
2. Second, where God has made no specifications we should not make any and try to bind them on others. To do so would be to add to the word of God, and to violate the principle taught in Revelations 22:18-19 and at many other places in the Bible. God had a good reason for leaving certain commandments in a general form. For me to work out specifications concerning how those general commandments should be obeyed and undertake to bind my inventions on others would be a very grievous sin.
In the execution of a general commandment, each individual and each congregation is left to make its own choices. It’s just as much harm to make specifications where God has made none, as it is to ignore those specifications that he has made. It would be just as wrong to specify that the Lord’s supper must be eaten at 7:30 P.M. as it would be to ignore the specification that music used to worship God must be vocal.
3. Third, in the execution of these general commandments, we should use wisdom. Someone has said that there are three kinds of sense: revealed sense, common sense, and nonsense. Where there is revealed sense we must follow it; but where there is no revealed sense, where God has given a general commandment and left us free to execute it according to our best judgment, we should use common sense and not nonsense. In all matters, wisdom should be exercised.
There are many Scriptures that verify this conclusion. For instance, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea, driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord” (James 1:5-7).
Wisdom has been defined as the ability to properly apply knowledge. In this connection it would be ability to properly apply the knowledge that we have received from God’s word. Such wisdom comes as a result of experience and age and study and prayer. Hebrews 5:14 says, “But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”
Evidently that is the reason God has ordained that the older or experienced men shall be the overseers of the local congregation. Evidently that’s also the reason he ordained that children should obey their parents rather than parents obey the children. Oftentimes those who are older can discern good or evil where the younger and less experienced are unable to do so.
Even the apostles were admonished to use wisdom. Christ said to the twelve in Matthew 10:16: “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40).
4. Remember then these three important conclusions. First, in a sphere where God has made specifications we must heed them. We must not ignore them or change them. We must not substitute something of our own choosing, for that which Jehovah has specified. Specifications in a given sphere automatically eliminate everything else that comes within the same sphere or category. Second, where he has made no specifications we must not make any. We certainly must not try to bind any on others. And, third, in applying his general commandments, we should use wisdom. We should use common sense and not nonsense. Recognition and proper application of these principles will furnish a ready solution to many otherwise difficult questions.
5. In reference to the plan of salvation, God has been very explicit. He specifies that one must believe in order to be saved (Acts 16:31). He specifies that repentance is essential (Acts 3:19). He likewise specifies that we should confess with our mouths the faith that we have in our hearts (Acts 8:37). And he is equally definite in teaching that baptism is a condition of salvation. “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). You are invited and urged to heed these specifications.
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 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.
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 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 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, 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.
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 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.