The Ultimate Evil

The Ultimate Evil
When I read a book you will most likely get an essay on the subject if it is good. Not a book report; just my thoughts on the subject. The most recent book I have read is D. A. Carson’s "The Intolerance of Tolerance". I would recommend it highly. Mr. Carson has characterized the "new tolerance" of our present "post modern" society very accurately and thoroughly documented it’s evolution. The "old tolerance" said, "I respect your right to hold beliefs that differ from mine." (my quote) The "new tolerance" of post modernism says, "I respect everything except a belief which embodies absolute truths." (my quote) This rationale is in keeping with relativism; a firm conviction that there is no absolute truth. Absolute truth is that truth which is eternal and immutable.

Absolute truth is that truth about which it can be said; "there are only two options: one person can be right and one wrong, or both can be wrong, but in no case can both be right." There are absolute truths in the "hard sciences"; i.e. mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc.; but these are outside the scope of this discussion. We are speaking of absolute truths within the social sciences: Theology, Philosophy, Sociology, etc; especially when these disciplines deal with morality. The new tolerance is a conviction which is itself a belief system with an absolute truth: that there is no absolute truth with respect to the social sciences. This new tolerance is especially intolerant of those who find absolute truth established objectively; outside the parameters of the collective human "conscience" of a given culture.

Today, there are 3 big targets of this intolerant tolerance. These targets all claim that there is truth in the social sciences and that they have found it. They are Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, specifically the branches of these three who tend to interpret their holy book literally and hold to ancient doctrines as truth. To the disciple of this new "tolerance", the "ultimate evil" is to hold beliefs that consider some behavior as wrong. By the way, "ultimate evil" is a term coined by Carson. The "tolerant" would never use the word "evil" because it betrays their zealotry.

Carson’s book intentionally begs many questions, and one of mine is: "When has Christian fundamentalism ever been tolerated by the rest of the world?" Or fundamental Islam or Judaism for that matter? To hold beliefs to be absolute truth necessitates rejection of other beliefs with opposing "truths". There is no escaping it.

This ideology is far from new. This "toleration" that becomes intolerant of the intolerant has always morphed into the worst kind of totalitarianism that the world has had to endure. It’s seeds are being sown again.

As Carson points out, the bloodiest century in human history was the 20th. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. wiped out close to 100 million people because their skin color was not right, their heritage was not right, they needed vengeance wrought upon them, or because they held to beliefs that could not be tolerated by those bent on fascism. These people were considered a threat to the peace. (the peace as defined by the fascist.) What do you do to people who threaten the peace? You commission their genocide! You eventually turn into the most intolerant and violent of people.



Jesus warned: Mark 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake : but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. I have said before and will say again; the reason is very simple. Christians are hated because they hold to a belief that some natural urges of the flesh are "wrong" AND that that wrong will be divinely punished if not expiated by Jesus, the Christ, and Him alone. It is not an act of physical violence that Christians have perpetrated; it is simply a belief that they hold; but it appears that even holding the belief that something is immoral is not to be tolerated.

Our preacher, who is an avid golfer, told a true story about a pro golf tournament in which Billy Graham participated as a guest. One pro golfer was so upset about Graham being there that he finally said, "Why does he have to be here and shove his religion down my throat?" An interviewer said, "What did Mr. Graham say to you?" "Nothing, yet. I haven’t seen him." said the golfer. "It’s just that he’s here!" Apparently, we have committed the ultimate evil just by being here and holding to certain beliefs.



What I hope you have seen thus far is the oxymoronic nature and self contradiction of those who claim to be tolerant. As long as there is absolute truth, some will not align with it. In order to make everyone OK, they must abolish absolute truth, and censure everyone who believes in it. In so doing, they become the very thing that they reprimand.

As Christians, we have the Bible which we believe to be truth. We have the truth personified in Jesus. Jesus and the apostolic writers say that we should be peacemakers, patient, kind, longsuffering, people who suffer persecution. So far, so good. The scriptures also show that Jesus was intolerant of the temple moneychangers and the hypocritical Pharisees. It shows that the fornicator was not to be tolerated in the Corinthian church. The Thyatiran church was not to tolerate Jezebel. Some acts of the flesh are called "abominations". Clearly, toleration has a limited context. There comes a point when a line must be drawn in the sand. The preacher was right when he said Eccl 3:8 (there is) A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

The advocates of tolerance in our society have labeled intolerance as wrong. If it is wrong, they have indulged in that wrong themselves by being intolerant of those who draw lines in the sand, even though they have drawn a line of their own in the sand against people who draw lines in the sand.



It is impossible to tolerate everything. Many cry "Don’t judge!" But we must. All of us make hundreds of judgments a day. Many of the people I hear crying "toleration" are those who are gay or have gay friends or those who want to have sex with anyone anytime and have that ace in the hole of an abortion to get out of a pickle. They are people who don’t want freedom of religion but freedom from religion. Now wait a minute! You can’t hate me for saying that. You must tolerate!

Tolerate this next paragraph if you have the stomach. Many of the cries for intolerance of people with absolutist belief systems emanate from our college campuses. We have male and female on their own for the first time and at their most vulnerable, then we throw them together into co ed dorms and hand out condoms and let them hang "do not disturb" signs on their dorm room doors while they are having sex. Then we exonerate and banish guilt by teaching them that there is no right or wrong. We infer that they have now left the knuckle draggers behind and are on their way to becoming the avant garde of the brave new world ruled by more highly evolved members of the species. Room mate wants to study but has to do it in the student lounge because his room has become a brothel. He gets jealous because he’s not getting any sex, so he comes out of the closet and says "I’m gay! See! I don’t need you girls anyway!" Small wonder that they demand toleration!

Don’t tell me I’m in la la land! I’ve seen too many of our good young boys and girls come out of our churches with promising futures. I go to visit them on the state funded campus to see how they are getting along, only to see them being destroyed before their freshman year is over. Their professors only use textbooks that support the "tolerant" lifestyle. They revise history to prove that this is the way our progenitors behaved. Many of these kids are so buzzed and confused that they can’t hold a job of any kind; they become a part of the 47% of Americans living off the taxpayer. Too few of them come to their senses before it is too late.

Tell me what "tolerant" man’s toleration would not end when another man was holding his little daughter at gunpoint. I think we need to revisit the old tolerance at the very least. A respect of persons’ rights to hold beliefs differing from our own, and our right to peacefully challenge those beliefs. As "un peaceful" as it sounds, the public square should be like Mars Hill in Athens, a free marketplace of ideologies. I don’t want a theocracy like many Muslim states have. Neither do the "tolerant". Let each individual decide for himself what rings true. Of course I am not advocating violence to get our various points across. If violence arises, it is the duty of government to shut it down, violently if need be. He does not bear the sword in vain. This goes for Christians who become violent as well as people of other belief systems.



The crusading Catholic of the 11th and 12th centuries was misguided to think that people could be coerced to become Christians. The militant Muslim of today is misguided to think that people can be coerced to become Muslim. If a person is brainwashed or tortured, can it truly be said that he is converted? Only a sick mind would affirm that.

I don’t try to "hard sell" my beliefs anymore. Now I know the wisdom of not casting pearls before swine. I know when to hold ‘em and when to fold ‘em. I don’t put thumbscrews on a person and force the good confession out of him. If I do that, I have not "converted" him at all. Paul said Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth I tell the gospel. The gospel seed converts if the soil is good. All I can do is tell the old, old story and all I want is the freedom to do so whenever and wherever an opportunity presents itself. Let there be an open market place of ideas, and let me have my say there too.

How do I think Christianity will fare in a free marketplace of ideas? About as well as Paul fared on Mars Hill (Acts 17: only two, Dionysius and Damaris wanted to hear more). The Epicurean hedonists certainly couldn’t be bothered. They had to get down to the baths with their wine to meet their prostitutes. Christianity teaches that some carnal things are "wrong" (a word the "tolerant" cannot use) and so the carnal appetite and those ideas that sanction it will always be more popular.

When the dust settles and the smoke clears, that is what this issue of "tolerance" is all about. It is all about forcing people to accept and help pay for the results of the whole society’s carnal behavior. It is about allowing the postmodern hedonist to indulge his appetites with no consequences, no repercussions, no guilt.

And so, fundamental Christianity will never be popular in a fallen world. Only people who are willing to deny themselves and take up their cross will accept it; and those are few. I suspect that there are more of those than we realize, but still few in comparison to the whole. Does their scarcity mean that they should be disallowed and excluded from the public forum? California has 37 million citizens and Wyoming has 560,000. Should we then deny Wyoming representation in congress? Really now! Only an intolerant society would do that.

I am in the same situation as Peter and John in Acts 4. The powers had told them to shut up. I suppose I shall have to answer like they did. Acts 4:19-20 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.

What will the intolerant "tolerant" do to me? In other countries, theocratic governments are allowing Christians to die at the hands of radical Muslims. In Western European countries where Atheism prevails, some have suffered light jail sentences. I don’t think it will happen in America. There are too many believers who represent too large a voting bloc for the policy makers to ignore. As the tolerance people turn up the volume, so do the evangelicals. These believers may not be of the same stripe as I, but they would go to bat for me and I for them. For the foreseeable future, I believe the intolerance of the tolerant will continue to manifest itself in condemnation from the state funded academic community, the media, and the popular culture in general. So what’s new? I plan to keep on committing the "ultimate evil". There are lines drawn in the sands of my conscience. I will behave within those lines. I will vote for the candidate who most closely aligns with those lines. I will speak about my lines and be able to defend them verbally and in written word. I will withhold my support from those who cross those lines. I believe this is right in the sight of the Lord.