Hypocritical Tolerance…

[Rev. Kareem A. Christian]

Why has the church become tolerant to things God is intolerant about? Many today rest their theological debate on the hinges of God commandment of love. But in their effort they have missed the key word, “one another” and who the one another are. If we’re to put the text in context, the one another Jesus was speaking about cannot be the world or the things of the world, but in fact is the church. Jesus wasn’t speaking to the unsaved but rather to the saved when He made this commandment. The disciples/apostles were the recipient of this great command. For those that argue that Jesus was speaking to the world insist that Jesus was hypocritical and was in direct conflict with the written Word of God. But that’s not the case, Jesus is the Word incarnate in flesh; therefore Jesus and the written Word are in complete agreement. In our effort to palatable we have become tolerate of sin and in fact conformity to sin. I was watching a web cast about homosexuality in the church; I was amazed at the number of pastors/preachers who are accepting this abominable lifestyle. Many have argued that God made them that way… which is hypocritical to the written (Logos) Word of God.

The thing that blows my mind is the church tolerance of that which God objects. To take it a step further is the hypocritical tolerance.
Ex: Many claim we’re to love and accept people the way they are… especially when addressing the homosexuality in the church… the hypocriticalness lies in the tolerance of homosexuals but the intolerance of rapists… both parties could make the claim, “that’s the way they are”… but many Christians would tolerate the homosexuals but won’t tolerate the rapists…

Ex: Many today are in agreement with women preachers/pastors….many tolerate them because the world is changing and society accepts them… but on the other hand, many are intolerant of preachers who have more than one wife (polygamy), preachers who are molesters, preachers who are pimps… if God calls who He wills and if God poured out His Spirit on all flesh… then the pimps, molesters, pedophiles, murderers, and polygamy are to be tolerated…

• Hypocritical tolerance is when the church is opposed to homosexuals but tolerate them when they’re the choir directors or musicians…
• Hypocritical tolerance is when the church shuns a young girl that gets pregnant out of wedlock but tolerate preachers who are single and sleep around with many women in the church…
• Hypocritical tolerance is when the church allows a deacon who was caught in adultery stay in leadership but is intolerant of a deacon who plays the lottery or have an addiction

My question for debate: 1. Why is the church/body of Christ hypocritical in their tolerance? 2. Should the church tolerate that which God forbids? 3. Where should the line be drawn if there's any?

[terrance douthard]

ALL I CAN SAY IS THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT CHURCH FOLKS WOULD BE LIKE THIS, BUT I AGREE WITH YOU IT HAS GOTTEN OUTRAGES HOW THE CHURCH HAS COMPROMISED TO THE STANDARDS OF THE WORLD

[Apostle Samuel Medina]

The line has already been drawn, by God in His Word. The church world, on the other hand, is steadily stepping across it, and most often the motive is to have a broader appeal, which leads to higher attendance, and, of course, more money.
This is, however, rarely the only motive. A great deal of why the church has become so tolerant of corruption in so many ways is because many among us in leadership have mastered the art of being a public success and a private failure in our walk with God.

Rather than "come out from among them and be separate," many of us have chosen to hold on to worldly ways, sinful habits and ideologies which displease God, often finding creative ways to justify our ways instead of turning from them.

And yet in the midst of all the confusion and wickedness, God is still calling a remnant to be separate from the broad path to destruction calling them to be entirely His, in deed and not merely in word. There is yet a call to a total consecration which does not compromise in the name of "love," but which rather chooses obedience because of loving God above all else, even above the temporal advantages to be gained through compromise.

Some time ago, the Lord said to me that the western church stood at the brink of both ruin and restoration.

Which will you choose?

[Dawn Davidson]

My brother, with all due respect, is it hypocritical that even God honored the confession of Eve as given in Genesis 3:13 by calling her "Eve", ("life-saver") and establishing her purpose as the "mother of all living" in a garden just giving birth to death? Is it hypocritical that it was God who called a future un-confessed, fallen man Adam, by the name of Adam which by the way meant to be made "ashamed, a hypocrite and man of low-degree"? Where was his post-fall title speaking to the "living" as given by God to a rightly confessed garden Eve? Where was the righteous establishment even of his name? Why did even Adam seek to change his own name in 2:23 from "Adam" to "Man" and to then also demote the name, calling, and purpose of the clearly righteous female from "Eve" to "Woman"? What was he attempting to run and hide from even then? Oh but even tradition can't get you around the Hebrew.

Why is it that it was God who had to compel a disobedient Adam to rightly call the female by name in 3:20, and that being "Eve" and not "Woman"? Why is it that God did not call out to the female at all in 3:9? Might it be because she still lacked in receiving from a rebellious Adam her God-given name as designed according to the very will of God to speak her true garden identity, purpose, and call? Why is it that God did not call the man "Man" in 3:9, according to the mind of Adam but only once again "Adam" as in a man made to be "ashamed, a hypocrite and a man of low degree"? Why? Yet, wasn't it Adam's responsibility to rightly name in the garden? Hmm. . . but I thought so. Further, why do you feel fit to even make God into the hypocrite, that He on one hand would punish a female who He had in fact just given reward?

Help me with these inconsistancies please. And how about the mistaken discernment of Adam in 2:23, in saying that the female was both "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" when she, as clearly stated twice in Genesis 2:21 and 2:22 according to the work even of God, was of his bone alone? Explain please why God himself elected to reject the flesh of Adam, which as we know from Genesis 2:24 was His utmost desire to use, and yet still, cut the flesh of a now bleeding Adam to the bone instead? What exactly was He saying about this dusty man?

And by the way, given that it was the stated desire of God to use the "flesh" of Adam alone in the creation of the female, and yet that flesh was by Him rejected, of what remaining significance might be of that bone? Come now, let us reason this thing out together, shall we?

Even aside from the garden issues, have you no fear in quenching the work of the Holy Spirit? Where does Scripture record that even His work, as is human work, limited? Be very careful, as created things, among both the male and the female, we being of mere men were not created to walk in the realm even of God.

[Dawn Davidson]

Correction to my post above, the name of "Eve" is defined in the Hebrew as "life-giver" and not "life-saver". Must have been a Freudian slip given who she, as a confessed fremale, really represented in the garden.

[Hezekiah Ben Israel]

Wow!!!! lol!! You still on that garden doctrine? That made me laugh to see you talking about this

[Apostle Samuel Medina]

Actually, Adam literally means "red earth" or "red," and later came to mean "man." Your understanding of Hebrew is severely twisted. The fall happened after Adam at the fruit, because, despite your perverted opinion that Adam was of 'low degree,' he was the one in authority, and so their eyes did not open until he ate the fruit.

You appear to have serious issues with masculine authority, and you need to be delivered from the spirit of error.

[Lester Demings Jr]

This happens because people deal with it and will not speak against it.
They have been "scared" into fear of speaking against wrong in the church.
As you see this thread is not huge as any thread on here about homosexuality.
The church can't seem to see wrong in their leaders sleeping around, stealing money and having children out of wedlock but my God let a homosexual come through the door then ALL OF A SUDDEN we have to preach the Word!!!
I find it sad and hilarious at the same time.
The SAME people who I saw in threads stoning homosexuals I don't see them here stoning adulterers, baby makers and thieves in the church.

[Joseph Gill]

In determining any lines to be drawn, we must challenge our feelings to guard against responding in a fleshly manner ourselves. I can use myself as an example. A few years back I was confronted about having "my preferences" when it came to the sinfulness I could not stand versus the sinfulness I could countenance. At the time I was bitterly complaining to another member about a leader whose scruples with church funds were questionable. This dear saint knew, though, that I had been very forbearing of another elder who did not behave with propriety around the single women in the church. So she called me on it: she asked why was I coming down so hard on the thief when I was so understanding towards the lecher?

Well that stung! And though I denied it at first, the Holy Ghost wouldn't let her observation die down in my mind until I had to admit that I was thinking carnally. There were some sins I just shook my head over, but others that made my blood boil. But God sees all unrighteousness as sin, and all sins alike. I realized I needed the Lord's help to become more consistent in this area.

[Hezekiah Ben Israel]

Why is the church/body of Christ hypocritical in their tolerance? Because the church is Israel, and most churches follow the traditions of men, and that is contrary to the Word..

2. Should the church tolerate that which God forbids? No..

3. Where should the line be drawn if there's any? The line should be drawn at the commandments of God.. If it is against the commandments, the thing should not be done.