To say that our culture has been given to an ever-growing pattern of tolerance in moral, doctrinal and ethical areas is an understatement. If any trait became the defining characteristic of our society in the 1990's, "tolerance" was the word most often used to describe it. A scarlet "A" was emblazoned on our national garb from the White House on down -- and the sad fact is that it became a fashion statement rather than a source of shame. Like Israel of old, we could no longer blush. We were not ashamed. So, we were urged not to fight it, but to passively accept a higher cultural evolution by being "open" and "tolerant" of unspeakable immorality.
When people rose to fight this manifestation of moral depravity, they were denounced as "right-wing bigots," "fanatics," "conservative nuts," "extremists," "watchdogs of morality" and similar epithets designed to demonize the objectors. The very people who could have helped to avert the disaster brought on our society were so vilified that their warnings went unheeded. For a case in point, consider Ken Starr.
But the saddest evidence of a growing tolerance for immorality and evil was not found in the Oval Office, or the "Gay Pride" marches, or the abortion rights rallies, or a pornography retailer, or the increasing filth on television, or the alarming sensuality of popular music across the spectrum, or the skimpy fashions of the world. The saddest evidence of a growing tolerance was found when brethren across our land began to mirror the world around them by justifying and popularizing a renewed plea for "unity-in-diversity" which "tolerates contradictory teaching and practice on important moral and doctrinal questions" (Ed Harrell, Christianity Magazine, series beginning Nov. 1988 ending May 1990; quotation from May 1990, p. 6). With that principle, the salt rapidly started to lose its savor and brethren began to "tolerate" an ever growing number in their on-going and continuous fellowship despite sinful practices and doctrinal errors.
It started with a justification to receive brother Homer Hailey while he taught doctrinal error on divorce and remarriage. Those who would fight the good fight of faith were accused of "unheroic attacks." They were portrayed as "watch-dogs" and "snarling cur" having no other purpose than to "bite and devour one another." Widely known preachers like Paul Earnhart and Bob Owen joined Ed Harrell in so vilifying faithful brethren in print and in meetings across this country and others as well. With this picture of faithful brethren as vicious dogs put into mind, many brethren got the not-so-subtle message that these savage creatures were to be excluded. Consequently, a new form of quarantine was put in place with meetings canceled and communications severed. It seemed the only one our "more tolerant" brethren could not tolerate and fellowship was a brother who militantly proclaimed the truth -- him they would attack with militance. When it came time to fight the good fight of faith concerning the Bible doctrine on fellowship, modesty, the use of intoxicating drink, and even the creation account, those who fought for truth were characterized in similar terms by a growing number.
Where has the effect of such tolerance led us? The spring, summer and sporting fashions of many brothers and sisters show a vastly increased level of exposure has accompanied this greater "tolerance." A growing number of congregations now receive those in unlawful marriages. We now have "non-institutional" brethren who decry even debating against denominationalism and its doctrines in honorable controversy which was integral to the spread of the gospel in the first century and in past efforts by brethren in this country. These brethren claim to walk the way of truth, but they actually travel a far different road. They deny the need to fight the good fight, telling us the fighters are the real problem. One can almost hear the familiar refrain from their lips, "Just preach the gospel and leave everyone else alone." They are more comfortable with rank error than with those who fight against it.
As brethren in previous generations came to understand the errors of denominationalism that enslaved the souls of men, they fought against such. Many truths understood by each of us today were given clear form in the crucible of honorable controversy. Reading the debates and heavily polemic writing of brethren in past centuries not only helps readers today to understand the fallacy of error, but to more fully grasp the clarity of truth. The expansion of the kingdom of God within the hearts of men will always demand the use of the sword alongside the tools for construction (cf. Neh. 4:17-18).
Alexander Campbell spoke on the need for righteous conflict in these words:
"If there was no error in principle or practice, then controversy, which is only another name for opposition to error, real or supposed, would be unnecessary. If it were lawful, or if it were benevolent, to make a truce with error, then opposition to it would be both unjust and unkind. If error were innocent and harmless, then we might permit it to find its own quietus, or to immortalize itself. But so long as it is confessed that error is more or less injurious to the welfare of society, individually and collectively considered, then no man can be considered benevolent who does not set his face against it. In proportion as a person is intelligent and benevolent, he will be controversial, if error exists around him. Hence the Prince of Peace never sheathed the sword of the Spirit while he lived. He drew it on the banks of the Jordan and threw the scabbard away" (Alexander Campbell, 1830).
But Alexander Campbell is not the only one to recognize that need, nor does he establish our pattern for action. The inspired word of God establishes our pattern for faith and practice in all things (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1:13). The divine mandate for us to be militant and fight the good fight of faith could not be clearer. Let us notice a few passages plainly declaring the divine directive to fight in the spiritual battle for truth and righteousness.
1 Timothy 6:12
Fight the good fight of the faith, lay hold on the life eternal, whereunto thou wast called, and didst confess the good confession in the sight of many witnesses.
The inspired imperative, "Fight the good fight of faith," could not be stated more forcefully. It is firmly connected to the next imperative, "Lay hold on the life eternal." We cannot lay hold on eternal life without fighting the good fight of faith. When we were called in Christ and confessed Him as Lord and Master, we enlisted in His service and took the oath of a soldier in His army. Refusal to fight in defense of the faith now is nothing short of spiritual treason.
1 Timothy 1:18-20
This charge I commit unto thee, my child Timothy, according to the prophecies which led the way to thee, that by them thou mayest war the good warfare; holding faith and a good conscience; which some having thrust from them made shipwreck concerning the faith: of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I delivered unto Satan, that they might be taught not to blaspheme.
The prophecies of Scripture were to lead Timothy so that he might engage in proper warfare. The same is true today. When we by faith hold to the faith, having a good conscience confirming our effort as consistent with our knowledge of the truth, we are both prepared to fight and vigilant to the need for fighting. Faithful saints who take to heart the direction found from God's truth do not look lightly upon error which will lead souls to destruction. They have seen the devastating effects of soul-damning error upon the lives of those led astray. They recall the names and faces of brothers and sisters whose souls have been dashed on the rocky shores of various false doctrines. To them, the effect of false teaching is not merely theoretical -- it is real and it is deadly! They will not stand idly by while the teachers of false doctrine beckon others to be torn asunder on the hidden reefs of destructive error. Faithful Christians who let the word abide in and direct their hearts will fight to deliver the errorist to Satan and save the souls in peril.
2 Timothy 4:1-8
I charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables. But be thou sober in all things, suffer hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil thy ministry. For I am already being offered, and the time of my departure is come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give to me at that day; and not to me only, but also to all them that have loved his appearing.
Paul's parting charge to Timothy again made the connection between fighting the good fight and receiving the incomparable reward. The apostle's life demonstrated the degree to which that fight encompassed every part of his life and focused him on the single goal of eternal life (Gal. 2:20; Phil. 1:21; 3:13-14). The fight required self-control and self-denial (1 Cor. 9:27). It involved opposition to people of repute (Gal. 2:11-14). It was often contrary to popular will (1 Cor. 4:13). At times, it demanded that he stand alone to face the opposition (2 Tim. 4:16). The fight often left him battered, bruised and bloodied literally and figuratively from perils of every kind (2 Cor. 11:23-28). Paul yearned for the rest beyond more earnestly because his daily fight for the faith was an agonizing struggle. Could it be that we fail to long for heaven as Paul did because we have not invested the effort to fight as he did? No mere spectator has the intense yearning for peace that is in the very soul of the man who has paid the price of battle. Brethren, the world and its ways have not changed in character since Bible times (1 Jn. 2:15-17). If we find ourselves more tolerant of that world and less militant than Paul was, it should tell us that we have not fought the good fight as he did. If we refuse to fight, we cannot expect to receive the victory crown in reward as Paul did.
---To be continued next week---