SUNDAY READING.
VITAL VIRTUES. No. 3.—TOLERATION. John said unto Him: Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy Name, and we forbade him because he followed not us". But Jesus said: ‘ Forbid him not, for there is no man which shall do a mighty work in My Name, and be able quickly to epeak evil of Me. For he that is not against ue is for ue.” —St. John, ix-, 38-40.
(By Rev. A. U. Collins. New Plymouth.) ZEAL THAT IS FANATICISM. Bigot is an ugly word, and it stands for an ugly thing. We associate the word with ignorance and bitterness. We think of the bigot as one who is obstinately devoted to a particular party or creed, and this popular estimate ia probably not far from the truth. Bigotry is the milk of human kindness turned sour. It is the sweet spring water grown rank and foetid through confinement in a shallow and stagnant pool. Bigotry is lack of sympathy and comprehension. It was not always so, for th rt word -bigot is a shortened form of (hr phrase “By God not.” A man was urged to take a course contrary to his conscience and conviction, and he answers “By God not.” That is an honorable course to follow; it is the only course for an honorable man to pursue. The conviction may not be well founded. and the man’s conscience may be very imperfectly instructed, but so long as it is his conviction, he must be true t-o it.
It appears strange that St. John, of all men, should have fallen under the spell of a bitter sectarian spirit- If Simon Peter had done it, we should have felt less surprise, but we regard Saint John as “the apostle of sweetness and light.” But there is a rational explanation. His action was probably not entirely free of vanity and pique, like the churchman who would unfrock the Nonconformist minister, and the orthodox who would denounce the brother who is supposed to hold unsound views, but there was probably a better motive, too. St. John was zealous for his Master’s honor, and feared it might be compromised by the “irregular” service of one outside, the dignity of the Apostolate. The best of men are sometimes lamed on the side of tneir virtues. Zeal easily becomes fanaticism, and steadfastness may not be far removed from obstinacy. TOLERANT TIMES.
We live in a tolerant age. compared with past times- It is not simply that successive Acts of Parliament have removed civil and religious disabilities, and made the bounds of freedom broader yet. There is a kindlier spirit abroad, a more liberal and catholic temper, a greater willingness to seek out points of agreement and see the soul of truth which lies behind even portentious error. A welcome change has come over the minds of men. and the behaviour we ought to maintain towards those who were once denounced and punished as heretics and infidels. Opinions that once had to hide their heads in holes and corners of the earth, or could only be whispered in sympathetic ears, or buried in silence, may now be proclaimed from the housetop. The battle of freedom is not completely won. There are still occasional outbursts of hitter intolerance, political and sectarian.
One of the collectors for the Russian Famine Fund was met with the heartless remark: “Let ’em die; they’re a bad lot!” I have several times heard the statement that the only solution of the Irish problem is to sink the island in the North Sea! One has only to mention Socialism or Bolshevism in some circle to be met with violent invective from •people who have not even a nodding acquaintance with either subject. Party passion can be very blind. Religious prejudice can be very obstinate- It is the bane of public life and the scandal of religion; and yet the liberating of thought and spirit is as remarkable as it is welcome.
SUSPICION AND DISTRUST. But all this liberalism awakens suspicion and distrust in the hearts of some. They believe and openly declare this is “a sign of the last times,” and that no man with deep, firm conviction can or ought to be tolerant. They insist that the growth of tolerance in matters of religious opinion is sure evidence of the decay of faith. They declare that men who have been intensely earnest in their religious beliefs have always been intolerant, and that toleration begins where clear knowledge and deep conviction end; and that the basis of toleration is to be found in indifference and scepticism! I want to make that point clear, for lam going to challenge it. Is it a fact that the growth of tolerance is the sign of the decay of faith? Those who say it is are able to quote authorities. Froude says: “Toleranec at bottom means that no one knows anything about the matter, and that one opinion is as good as another.” Charles Fox declares that “the only foundation of tolerance is a degree of scepticism.” Another writes: “It is a law which in the present condition of human nature holds good that strength of conviction is always in inverse ratio of the tolerant spirit.” Mr. Mallock expresses the same idea in an ensnaring epigram: “Agnosticism is theoretical toleration, and toleration is practical agnosticism.” An American preacher, speaking of the Puritans, said: “They were intolerant, as as all men have always been, and will be, when they are in earnest for truth or error.” Whilst so modern a minister as Dr. Orchard expresses the opinion that “all religions that have held the human heart have been intolerant.”
INTOLERANCE. I remember reading a serman on “The Intolerance of Jesus." where it was argued that the Bible had such passages as “The Lord thy God is a jealous God ” “Thou shalt have none other God than Me.’’ and this that a man must be willing to hate his father and mother if he would be Christ’s disciple. Now I believe the view expressed in the passages I have cited is very common, and that many whose heart inclines them to liberality and charity suffer inward conflict that perhaps they would not give and take so readily if their religious faith were as firm and fervent as it ought to be. In other words, they regaril tolerance as a sign of decay of faith, and not a proof of growth in grace and goodness. Nevertheless I hold, and will try to show, that the idea is false, and that it rests on a mistaken conception of the nature of tol-
erance. I hold that ignorance, indifference and unbelief render’ true tolerance of spirit impossible; that apart from knowledge, conviction and courage you cannot have genuine toleration.
If a man knows nothing, and cares nothing, for the subject under discussion, there is no room for toleration. It is only when knowledge and conviction are met by equal knowledge and conviction, that liberality and charity find scope. Isn’t it true to your own ‘experience that the least informed are the most bigoted; and the best read and the most thoughtful are the most tolerant ? Isn’t it true that, with the spread of education, people - ease to be quite eo dogmatic? Is it not true to say: “If we know all we should forgive all”; but it is true that wider knowledge leads to sobriety of judgment on many subjects.
It is no doubt historically true to say that the Puritans of England and of New England were intolerant men, though there were notable exceptions, as witness John Milton and Roger Williams. The men who so resolutely demanded liberty of conscience did not always accord liberty to others. They would not extend it to any who did not hold what they judged to be the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Their chosen motto was: “Forbearance and and mutual endulgence unto Saints of all persuasions,” only they reserved to themselves the right to determine who were the saints!
IRRITATING DISABILITIES. You see the same thine to-day. People say, we must be tolerant of other men’s opinions on political and social and religious questions, but we must draw the line somewhere. Within certain limits we freely allow divergence of opinion and practice, and we will not subject them to disability or disadvantage. But if they overstep the bounds they are not entitled to consideration. We must draw the line somewhere, and we draw it here at “Protestantism,” or here at “Episcopacy,” or here at “Orthodoxy.” Thus, when it was no longer possible to exclude our Nonconformist fathers from the rights of citizenship, and the advantages of the national universities, attempts were made to penalise “Dissenters” with petty and irritating disabilities.
Thus, also, when and Roman Catholics won the franchise, they were refused representation in Parliament. They might vote, but must vote for a Gentile and a Protestant. Then, when this limit was removed, a Tew or a Roman Catholic could not hold office in the Government! Thus, once more, when a man, who rejected orthodox Christianity, refused to take the oath and claimed to make “an affirmation,’ ’it was only after a bitter and protracted struggle that Charles Bradlaw was allowed to do what the Quakers had always done, that is, make an affirmation instead of an oath; all of which gives point to the words of John Stuart Mill: “In the minds of almost all religious persons, even in the most tolerant countries, the dutv of tolerance is admitted, with tacit reserve. One person will bear with dissent in matters of church government, but not in dogma; another can tolerate everybody short of a Papist or a Unitarian; another, everyone who believes in revealed religion; a few extend their charity a little further, but Stop at belief in God and in the future state.”
CRHISTIAN FORBEARANCE. “It is a melancholy truth, and serves to show how imperfectly Christian people understand the nature of toleration. For as I have said already, there is no true toleration until deep and enlightened conviction meets deep and enlightened conviction. There is a man who knows and cares nothing about evangelical Christianity. For that man to talk about being tolerant is to talk nonsense. He doesn’t know or care. But here are two men who do know and care; they are thoughtful and serious-minded men, but they hold divergent views on Christian doctrine or church ordinances. There you have room and call for Christian forbearance and charity. Neither should scold nor denounce the other; neither should seek to coerce the other. For as Phillips Brooks defines toleration: “It is the willing consent that other men should hold and express opinions with which we disagree, until they are convinced by reason that these opinions are untrue.” That does not mean laxity or disloyalty to truth. What it means is that we recognise the largeness of truth and the limitations of the human mind. Truth is not a small thing. It is great and wide and illimitable as the overhanging sky, and even in the Great Beyond we shall live and learn.
Besides intolerance is irreverence for God and man His child- Can there be any apostacy from Christ greater than to hold and teach that Jesus Christ is the special possession of any one church, and that the members of other communions are to be pitied, or scorned, or hated? “Not Thine the bigots’ partial plea, Nor Thine the zealot’s ban, Thou well canst spare a love of Thee Which ends in hate of man.”
THE RIGHT FEELING. If I were travelling in Italy or Spain, and met a procession of priests and acolites carrying the Host to a dying man, as a sturdy Protestant I should have no reverence for the Host in itself, .and I may even feel contempt for what 1 -regard as a superstition. But there is something more to be considered. There are the people who have a genuine regard for the ceremony, and I have no right to offend their religious feelings by gesture or grimace. Action of that sort might emphasise my Protestantism, but it would stamp me as something less than a gentleman. Under such circumstances I should take off my hat, not out of veneration for the Host, but out of respect for the religious feelings of my fellow men. Our religious views and attachments depend on a variety of things—on birth, education, taste. If we had been born in India we should probably have been a Mohammedan or a Parsec. Some find help in the quiet of a Quakers’ meeting: some in the liturgy of the Anglican Church; some in a brass band and big drum- Why should either scorn the rest? The main thing is that we be true and simple and kind.
“So many gods, so many creeds So many ways that wind and wind, When all the help this sad world needs Is just the art of being kind.” Oh! think of God’s tolerance with us all, with all our ill manners and ingratitude, with our dullness and waywardness! Think how Jesus told of goodness in Naaman the Syrian, and the widow of Zarephath; how He helped the Roman centurion and taught the Samaritans; how He loved the race, and then see how miserable and petty and sinful is the arrogance that thinks only of our nation, our home, our church, our sect, our party, and leads us to unchurch, excommunicate, and scorn those who do not see eye to eye with us! It is the mark of grace to see goodness everywhere and rejoice in every victory for Christ, through men who “walk not with us.”
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19220708.2.85
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Taranaki Daily News, 8 July 1922, Page 9
Word count
Tapeke kupu
2,285SUNDAY READING. Taranaki Daily News, 8 July 1922, Page 9
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Taranaki Daily News. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.