The real question is by what standard we judge what is to be tolerated, and what is not. In the West, and for that matter in much of the East, the question of an ethical or moral standard was really more of an assumption than a real question. It was because for the first 1800 years or so of our history everyone assumed Christian values. Things, ideas, behavior etc. were judged tolerable or not based on The Word of God. In other words, there was one basic standard for morality.

So far so good, but then comes the rise of the enlightenment and rationalism followed by the hangover we call postmodernism. Suddenly skepticism came into vogue and almost overnight, the idea of objective truth (that is truth tied to some sort of a standard) became (almost) outdated. As one wise man put it, “Everyman did what was right in his own eyes”.

However, how does that sort of toleration lead to tyranny?

The reason is that when man replaces the objective truth of God’s word for another standard (whatever it may be) he has in fact recapitulating the age-old sin of the first Adam, who tried to be like God. Theologian RJ Rushdoony put it (roughly) like this: “when you reach the level of no further appeal, you have reached the god of the system” and it’s commonly understood that one sort of god does not tolerate any other sort of god very well. Therefore, the struggle for power begins.

I really like the movie Gangs of New York. It is a movie with some very graphic scenes but like many of Scorsese’s movies; it is making a good point by asking a good question. The question is “who is the biggest and toughest gang in New York?” and the answer is of course the US government. This brings us back to the question of tyranny. For, as I have pointed out, at the end of the day gods (and governments) will only tolerate themselves, and those that view themselves in terms of it. Like the gangs of New York, there may be room for slight variations but only very slight. The state becomes a monistic tyrant that will only allow reflections of its own image. Tolerance becomes tyranny and the only cure for that is The Trinity. How that is so is a question I will attempt to take up in my next post.

However, that sort of toleration (toleration of my own sin and shortcomings) does little to sway the opinion of  those who consider me to be so very intolerant.  For after all think of the list of things I simply cannot abide:

1. Abortion (for any reason).

2. Public education (in most instances).

3. Same sex “marriage”.

4. The “enlightenment”.

5. Promiscuity.

6. Adultery.

The list could, of course, be expanded.

Now the real question to ask, I think, is why I cannot tolerate the above for after all at least half the list involves activities and or ideas that are, more or less, “victimless”. So what business is it of mine what people do in the privacy of their homes?  How can you be intolerant of things you are not involved in, or are not being asked to be involved in?  Why even care?

The reason of course is that truly, there are no victimless crimes, nor can there be. For God in His wisdom has so constructed and ordained the world that every action, whether secret or public, touches everyone to a greater or lesser degree. Let’s take for example pornography (I know, I know it’s not on my list). What harm (some fair-minded fellow will ask) can possibly come from someone looking at pornography, especially in private.

The harm done though is there and it’s subtle (at least at first). For pornography teaches the person viewing it to consider people (in most cases women) as objects. Not as people but as things, things to be used (and even abused) as I want for my own personal gratification. Therefore, I cannot tolerate it, on Christian grounds and on humanitarian grounds as well (though there is little or no difference).

Now this has the interesting effect of turning the tables. For now, my so-called intolerance is truly seen as concern for the well-being of my fellow man. Moreover, those that tollerate are seen in a much different light.

The funny thing is that those that tolerate the sorts of things I have listed (things condemned by God) are actually the intolerant. Intolerant of life, of others well being and happiness and even, unbelievably, true freedom.

Interestingly its often the case that the most “tolerant” are the most tyrannical.

Jesus answer of course is not only concise but is right in keeping with the sorts of things He had already been doing: loving people.

Now to say that love of one’s neighbor is at the heart of the Law would not have been any more controversial in Jesus day than his first answer (love God with all your heart, soul, mind, body and strength). The problem was of course just who Jesus considered to be His neighbor for you see the real problem was this: Jesus loved (and still loves) sinners.  Jesus was always welcoming sinners, and the sinful and the unclean into His company and to His table.  Now that was something that the scribes, Pharisees, and Herodians simply could not put up with in a Messiah or anyone else. It was a real stumbling block for it made religion and personal effort of little or no value. Worse than that it placed sinners (that is people who were not only sinful but also well aware of it) in a place above those who saw no need for forgiveness at all.  That sort of thinking was controversial for it had the very real effect of turning things upside down, and of making the first last and the last first. Jesus actions and teachings were a real obstacle to some in His day and are still an obstacle today. Yet its one for which I am very grateful. For if it is true that Jesus Christ loves sinners it is also true that He loves me.

Take for instance anger.

In a child, anger is usually an understandable response and is generally related to, or is an expression of, indignation of some sort. For instance, you wake up one morning to what sounds like a demolition crew in your living room and find that the cause of the noise is little Johnny knocking holes in the wall with a hammer. You respond by taking the hammer away from Johnny which (predictably enough) causes Johnny to cry, howl, dramatize and so forth; which gets him nowhere and nothing but a spanking. A commendable situation all the way around for soon you won’t have to worry about Johnny and hammers; unless of course you give in.

But, you may ask yourself, shouldn’t I give in sometime? Is being lenient always bad?

Well, that depends, of course, on what we are allowing. In some instances being lenient, (which is a form of grace) is fine, but I would say that in the case of (sinful) anger we have no leeway for if we give into a child’s anger we can be sure that even though we missed an opportunity to educate, education still happened, but of the worse possible sort. For anger quickly, very quickly, becomes a means of manipulation and manipulative children grow into manipulative adults who learn to use anger, or the possibility of it, in a very effective way. Therefore, men learn that they can avoid dealing with problems or hearing bad news or any number of things by becoming angry. We have all heard it at one time or another “let’s not bring this up for we don’t want to make you know who angry”.

Yet it can get worse for this sort of ungodly anger can quickly become a form of covetousness for what is coveting but desiring that which God (through one means or another) has said we may not have. Anger is a way of getting something that God has said “no” to. Therefore that man who gets around his responsibilities (family, ecclesisiatical or other) by being such a touchy jerk that no one wants to bring anything to his attention is, by his anger, seeking something God has said he must not have; in this instance peace or rest or inactivity.

But it gets worse for covetousness is also, according to Scripture, a form of idolatry and idolaters are notorious manipulators. Its an evil brew and one full of unintended consequences, for our lives and for our families and for our future. The angry man may just want  to be left in peace, but peace is something he will never find. For anger produces turmoil and never produces the righteousness that comes from God. For an angry man will never grow up.

From the standpoint of biblical theology, we are led to think of the return of YHWH to the temple, and to Zion, and the attending notions of the defeat of Israel’s enemies (usually the Babylonians) and her freedom. Of course, if we take this line of interpretation we have to the ask the question just who the Babylonians are in this story.

In light of Jesus use of role reversal (“the first shall be last”)  the answer is predictable.

Role reversal, by the way, is a very common theme in Matthews’s gospel and once you are aware of it, you see it everywhere. It is especially the case in the text at hand for after the “rich and famous” are thrown out of the temple, who does Jesus then receive but the blind and lame, just as the revolutionaries who were turning the house of praise into a den of robbers are replaced by children singing Hosanna to Christ. Jesus then quotes Psalm 8 in justification as the cries of the children still the objections of the enemy and avenger.

So again, we find an idea that keeps on repeating itself in the gospel. Setting things right (that which Jesus has been doing) involves putting the “top rail on the bottom and the bottom rail on the top” or as Luke relates in Acts “turning the world upside down”.

That is exactly what the Gospel is about, the proclamation that sinners can be justified, the dead raised to life and the rich and famous left out in the cold.

Good stuff, don’t you think?