HAD THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH BEEN TOLERANT OF DIVERGENT FORMS OF CHRISTIANITY?

Some contend that the Christianity of today has become rigid, calcified, and judgmental, while Early Christianity was tolerant and even to the point of accepting of many different varieties of the Christian faith. Consistent with this thinking, one Facebooker had responded to me:

·       I welcome your understanding of the Christian faith. However, you seem to be very unwilling to accept the varied expressions of the faith that you find in others.

In essence, he was calling me “intolerant.” Is there a role for intolerance within the Church, according to the Scriptures, or does the NT preach the acceptance of many diverse expressions of the Christian faith? This is a very important question, because we are often shamed into silence with charges that we are bigoted, homophobic, judgmental, and intolerant “haters.” However, our Apostles and evangelists had often been charged that they were intolerant of the religious people, whom they sought to evangelize.

However, the Bible teaches us that there are many things that we shouldn’t accept within the Church. The Apostle Paul’s epistles are a veritable list of the things that the Church mustn’t tolerate:

·       But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)

Consequently, the Church must not allow the promotion of a different Gospel or teachings from what had been revealed. Of what did this Gospel consist? Everything that Jesus had taught:

·       “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:19-20)

This was the very commission to which Jesus’ Apostles had committed themselves. Jesus had reassured them that the Holy Spirit would enable them to remember His teachings:

·       “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” (John 14:26)

Therefore, the Apostles limited their teaching to the teachings of Jesus, those things that the Spirit had revealed to them. Consequently, they understandably would go no further than what they had received. Nor would they tolerate any alternative teachings:

·       Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. (1 Corinthians 14:36-38)

Not only did Paul assert that what he had written was at the “command of the Lord,” he also demanded that others recognize it as such. We might regard Paul as needlessly rigid and intolerant. However, it had already been made clear to the Church that Paul’s ministry had been miraculously validated by the Lord (2 Corinthians 12:12). Therefore, to argue with Paul was to argue with God. In any event, Paul would only validate what had been authorized by the Lord:

·       If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions. (1 Timothy 6:3-4)

Paul consistently claimed that what he was teaching was according to “the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This is why his dogmatism and intolerance was justified in the thinking of the Church and why other teachings were forbidden (1 Timothy 1:3). He also warned that the Church must not go beyond the teachings of the Scriptures:

·       I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. (1 Corinthians 4:6)

This might sound intolerant of Paul, but adding or subtracting from the Scriptures had always been forbidden (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32). John had also applied the same restrictions to what he had written:

·       I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19)

Diluting or adding to the Word had always been a serious offense. The covenant that God had made with Israel had required them to follow His every commandment. We can also construe everything that Jesus taught as intolerant of anything apart from the Biblical faith. Therefore, He even criticized the religious leadership:

·       “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:46-47)

The religious leadership had added many required “pious” practices, but Jesus would not tolerate them:

·       He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you…”(Matthew 15:3-7)

Intolerant? Yes, but if this is truly a matter of fidelity to God’s very Words, then intolerance was in order. In view of Israel disastrous history of rebelling against God’s Word, preaching this kind of intolerance was also a matter of preaching love – the ultimate concern for the welfare of the Church.

Ezra and Nehemiah had been intolerant of the Jews who had returned to the Promised Land from Babylon because they were marrying neighboring women. They argued that this practice would again bring upon Israel the destruction of their nation and people.

Consequently, intolerance might also be an expression of love. This is why many of us are speaking against a compromising Church that has been shamed into tolerating in its midst practices and beliefs – sexual and otherwise – which will destroy it. Faithfulness requires us to warn, as Christ had warned five of the seven churches (Revelation 2 and 3) of the dire consequences of their disobedience.

We have deluded ourselves to believe that the Church must be all-inclusive of a variety of beliefs and behaviors. While inclusion might make us feel like good people, it defies Scripture:

·       Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said…(2 Corinthians 6:14-16)

While we should welcome all seekers into our churches, we mustn’t make them members, elders, and deacons. While it might seem unloving to draw such a line, love requires us to love God above all else. What does this require of us? Jesus defined love in a manner consistent with the rest of the Scriptures:

·       Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me. (John 14:23-24)

Let us pray that our Lord will open our eyes to His priorities.