Doonesbury cartoon of several years ago featured a conversation between Andy, a homosexual, and Clyde, a black. Clyde was shocked at Andy's profession of his sexual orientation. Andy retorted with, "So what, Clyde. You're black." Clyde: "Yeah, man, but that's normal." Andy: "It didn't used to be." In other words, what's all the fuss about? We're in the same boat, brother. We are both victims of prejudice and bigotry who just happen to belong to different minority groups.
This refrain is often sung by various "oppressed" and
"misunderstood" groups as they try to gain acceptance in modern America. They insist that there is really nothing wrong with them. They just happen to be different from the rest of us, and all they want is a little tolerance. The problem with this assertion is that it draws parallels that are really perpendiculars, and seeks to blur distinctions that must remain clear.
It is one thing to show tolerance where there is no reason to be intolerant, such as over the superficial differences in skin color. It is quite another matter when those seeking tolerance are asking us to ignore the fact that the differences they espouse are of a moral nature. Where this is the case, both the civil government and the church are duty bound to address sin as sin and to respond accordingly.
Since the civil government and the church are both responsible before God to apply His law in their respective jurisdictions, it is not surprising that all such applications by these institutions are under a very heavy assault. In the civil realm, constitutional attacks are made on laws that single out certain behaviors as immoral.
In Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Georgia law against sodomy. The reasons had nothing to do with right and wrong, but with the fact that homosexuality was not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." In other words, it had not been around long enough. Give it enough time and, like a classic book or an antique car, immoral behavior will earn its special place in Americana.
The assault is also pressed in the federal and state legislatures. Civil rights bills are expanded to include protection for homosexuals against discrimination in housing or employment. Some states are toying with the idea of allowing a homosexual partner to enjoy the employment benefits of the other as if he or she were a heterosexual spouse. Other problems, such as drunkenness or laziness, are
officially handled as if they were merely health problems in need of a cure, rather than sins in need of repentance. Most of the efforts to cure people, however, are aimed at those who would presume morally to disapprove of the behavior in question.
The church is also under violent attack, and it is losing the battle in places where the Word of God is no longer regarded as inerrant and absolute. In apostate denominations, the ordination of homosexuals is actually considered a legitimate subject for debate. Adultery and rebellion are addressed with indulgence rather than discipline.
Political correctness is placed above doctrinal correctness with wholesale apostasy the result. This is just fine with the apostates, as long as they can keep on sinning without any interference or accountability.
Ironically, this movement toward tolerance is consistently characterized by very great intolerance bordering on totalitarianism. You must not only put up with immoral behavior, you must provide a home for it if you have a place for rent. You must give it a job if it applies. You must allow it to be taught to your children in the public schools. You must avoid saying or doing anything that risks offending it. The immoral behavior must be tolerated at all costs, but any intolerance of immorality simply will not be tolerated.
John Dewey, one of the founders of modern public education, said that it was essential for the development of democracy that the distinction made by Christianity between two kinds of people (the saved and the lost) be done away with. Because he wrongly assumed that democracy was the highest standard for civil government, Mr. Dewey did not understand that such a distinction is the only hope for society at all. Unless men understand that they are sinners destined only for God's wrath because of their rebellion, they will see no need for salvation and repentance.
The biblical requirement for civil government is that it render obedient service as a minister of God's wrath on the wrongdoer. This requires that moral distinctions be made. It is the job of the civil government to mete out punishment as a temporal judgment on manifest sin according to God's righteous standards. It is the job of the church to preach the gospel of repentance and redemption according to God's righteous grace. Of necessity, this calls for both the civil government and the church to be intolerant of sin.
The distinction between saved and lost must also be biblically defined. What is right and wrong, punishable and not punishable, sinful and righteous, cannot be based upon the desires of some particularly vocal lobbying group, or upon the bare will of the majority. It is not even to be based on ideas or practices which are deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition. Law needs to be stated in biblical terms according to the biblical standard.
In assessing the merits of pleas for tolerance, we should not be troubled by claims that the biblical standard is offensive to people's ears. The Lord made no claim that the law and the gospel would be acceptable to everyone who heard it. God promised just the opposite when he said, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offence...." (Romans 9:33). Preaching the gospel requires grace, wisdom, and patience, but no matter how much these are exercised, offense will often be the response. Trying to minimize the offense will only result in compromising the gospel. And a lukewarm gospel is something we simply must not tolerate.
