Tolerance and that sort of stuff

What is 'tolerance'? It used to mean putting up with what you did not like. I 'tolerate' the neighbour's irritating outside telephone buzzer, for example. But a new meaning has been introduced by 'postmodern' types. Now 'tolerance' means accepting evyone as equally valid. And there's a catch. According to this new definition of tolerance, such 'tolerance' is only to be extended to the 'tolerant'. Eveyone else is 'intolerant' and therefore not worthy of tolerance.
A clever wheeze, this. It's a classic case of newspeak (for which see George Orwell's 1984). Just as in 1984 the Ministry of Peace dealt with war, so this 'tolerance' is really intolerance given a new name. The old concept meant that, as Christians, we allowed other religions to exist, though we disagreed with them and sought to evangelize their adherents who are going to hell. In new-style 'tolerance' that is 'intolerant'. No, the 'tolerant' thing to do is say they are all going to heaven. And that is why so many Churches have stopped talking about the Wrath of God, about Hell and judgement. Well, not on my watch. If that's 'intolerant', then I'm intolerant. But I'm not looking to persecute anyone. Some of my forefathers were refugees who fled to England because of religious persecution in France. Others were Primitive Methodists who were stoned and assaulted in the streets because they were not Church of England. THERE is real religious intolerance.

And finally, those Catholics who chased my forefathers out of France, those self-righteous Churchmen who wrecked the chapel where my Primitive Methodist ancestors worshipped, they tolerated those who agreed with them. There's nothing surprising about that. Any man can love a man who agrees with him. It's loving your enemies that is Christian.

Why 'Strict'?

The term 'Strict Baptist' evokes the image of 'heavy shepherding' to many. In fact it is a term referring to Church order (it is in fact short for 'reSTRICTed Communion). Strict Baptists are Baptists who believe that the Lord's Supper is properly administered only to those who have been baptised. We find in the Scriptures no record of anyone being admitted to the Lord's Table who has not previously gone through the waters of Baptism, and therefore seek to follow the Lord's will in this matter. Because of this we have often been accused of being unloving. Nothing could be further from the truth. One of the greatest defenders of the Strict Baptist position, Dr. Joseph Kinghorn of Norwich, was on excellent terms with many who were not Baptists, and acted as mentor to John Alexander, the Paedobaptist pastor of the Pinces Street Congregational Church. Yet Kinghorn would not admit Alexander to the Lord's Table because the Lord Himself had placed Baptism before the Lord's Supper.
We do not deny that those churches that differ from us are churches. Of course they are. Furthermore, we do not hold them to be wilfully disobedient. They are mistaken, and we will bear gently with them.
We know of no Presbyterian Churches that are NOT 'Strict Communion', that is, that do not require those coming forward to the Lord's Table to have first been baptised according to the Presbyterian understanding, and we think it strange that, according to the open communion principle, Baptist Churches should be the only ones that are NOT strict communion!

Day One.

Welcome to the Strict and Particular Blog. Unlike our other blog at Free St. George's, this is a more wide-ranging blog. Our subjects come from all over the place, but they will all be addressed from a Strict and Particular Baptist perspective. We may deal with Strict and Particular Baptist distinctives, or with current events, book reviews - indeed, just about anything.