God Hath Spoken

by Harris J. Dark

1. My brethren and I should be the first to preach against the use of unfair methods in opposing those who are thought to be in error. We have suffered more at the hands of such intolerance than we have ever caused others to suffer. In a certain town the members of a denomination threatened to boycott one of their own group if he sold a building lot to members of the church of Christ who were establishing a congregation there, and thus caused him to back out on a trade he had already made. Such prejudiced and unfair opposition was both undemocratic and sinful. To have exercised freedom of speech in a public discussion of religious differences would have been honorable and democratic, but this the denominationalists would not do. They were too “broadminded” and “tolerant.” It is strange that in politics people understand freedom of speech to mean that one may publicly criticize his opponent, while in religion they pretend that it means something entirely different.

2. Sometimes our young people are treated with sinful intolerance at school because they refuse to engage in dances. Sometimes they are treated with intolerance when they fail to take part in the gambling games, games of chance, which are played in some of the schools. Very often when they refuse to go to picture shows they are laughed at and made fun of. It is not a question of somebody’s attempting with love and sincerity to persuade them to change their convictions; too often it is simply a matter of ridicule.

I could give some instances and call names of Christian young people who have been persecuted in public schools because they had a standard of morality and conduct which was different from that of the majority in the school. That is intolerance of a sinful sort. It is the wrong sort of opposition. Endeavoring to teach in love and kindness what one believes, even mistakingly, to be the truth is legitimate; but opposing contrary beliefs and ideals with ridicule and fun-making is wrong.

3. We saw an example of this at the panel discussion last Tuesday night. The chairman of the meeting was inclined to poke fun at some in the audience who arose to ask questions, apparently asking the questions in all sincerity. He would encourage the audience to give them the “horse laugh.” The meeting which was called to promote tolerance manifested intolerance of an ugly sort.

It was said that this meeting was being called to advocate the doctrine that we should discriminate against no one because of his color, his creed, or his race. These three words don’t belong together. Color, creed, and race do not come in the same category. A man is not responsible for his color. He had no choice in it. A man is not responsible for the race to which he belongs. He had no choice in it. He was born that way. But a man does have a choice in reference to his creed. He chooses his creed. He can believe what he wants to believe.

It is not right to put color, race, and creed all in the same class. Certainly, you should not hold a man responsible for his color. You should not hold him responsible for his race. He had no choice in the matter and where there is no choice there is no responsibility. But a man is responsible for what he believes. This the Bible abundantly teaches. For example, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).

4. The irony of the situation was that some colored men, who endeavored to attend the meeting, which was to promote brotherhood of all the races, all the creeds and all the colors, were turned away from the door and not allowed to come in, because they were the wrong color. It is right to make a distinction between a man’s color and his creed, but the distinction ought to be made in favor of not holding him accountable for his color, while holding him accountable for his creed. It seems that the spirit of the occasion was just the opposite. “We won’t hold you accountable for your creed, but if you are the wrong color you can’t come in.” Well, that doesn’t quite make sense, does it?

We ought not oppose error by such illegitimate means as physical or political force, embarrassment and ridicule, or making fun. Such weapons are very powerful; but they are unlawful. We ought not try to get one to be baptized by making fun or ridiculing him. If I caused him to be baptized by physical or political force, or by the force of ridicule and sarcasm, it wouldn’t do him any good. He would be prompted by the wrong motive. One’s obedience to God must be of his own free will.

IV
Intolerance in Schools

1. While I am talking about the advantage which is sometimes taken of people in school, I want to read something from Harry Emerson Fosdick. He is a man that I wouldn’t ordinarily quote or refer to. He is a liberal. There are a thousand things on which I disagree with him, but he has said something in a recent article which I think is worth passing on. I might not even agree with everything in this quotation, but you’ll see the point.