Tolerance is the rule of the day. People are fine if you want to believe what you want to believe ... as long as you don't believe that those who disagree are wrong. They're perfectly happy for you to be a Christian (well, perhaps not perfectly happy) as long as you don't suggest that being a Christian is the only way to go. And if you want to hold a position in the Bible, that's fine -- just don't tell others that their position on the same subject is wrong. You're not allowed to do that. No, no. We need to be tolerant. We need to not only allow others to disagree; we need to accept their views as equally valid.
It starts as a mistaken step. In America, our freedoms of speech and of religion mean that varying speech and religions are equally protected. The next step, then, is to assume that they are equally valid, and this is a mistaken step.
Setting aside (for a moment) truth claims, it becomes readily apparent very quickly that "equally valid" makes no sense whatsoever. In the easiest of examples, a grade school student that claims that 2 + 2 = 4 and his classmate that claims that 2 + 2 = 5 may both enjoy protection in expressing these claims, but it is impossible for both claims to be valid. That is, 2 + 2, whatever it is, cannot be both 4 and 5. That's not just poor math; it's poor logic. So when religions claim "Ours is the exclusive truth", whatever you may conclude about that religion, you cannot conclude that all religions with exclusive truth claims are valid. Logic forbids it.
We as Christians have a difficult position to take. In America we are free to believe what we want. So we believe that Christ is our savior, that Christianity is true, and that the Bible is the Word of God. And no one can complain because we have that freedom. They do complain, though, when we state these things as true. If we are to be faithful followers of Christ, we must conclude that Christ is the only way, not because we're arrogant and intolerant, but because He said so. For us, true arrogance would be to acknowledge that God Incarnate said, "No man comes to the Father but by Me" and say, "Yeah, well, that's not true." Genuine conceit would be to recognize that "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" and then say, "But, of course, all roads lead to heaven." Yet this is the demand of those around us. In other words, we can believe what we want ... as long as we don't genuinely believe it. You're free to hold as true whatever you wish as long as you don't hold it as true.
And, for us, it only gets worse. Assuming that Jesus is the only way and faith in Christ is their only hope and anything else is eternal damnation, what are we to do? They would tell us, "Be more considerate and just don't tell anybody." Really??!! "Excuse me, but you're about to drink poison." "Please, just let me do what I want. You shouldn't be so rude." We're told that we're overbearing if we try to warn people that they're going to hell. We should just ... let them? How is that kind, caring, considerate? How is that a nice thing to do to people?
I get it. Some people (of all religions) can be abrasive. Christianity carries around its share of poor examples of Christianity. Some people are intentionally rude and unkind when they express Christian truth. I'm not suggesting that's a good idea at all. The gospel is already offensive enough; we don't need to be offensive in our presentation of it. On the other hand, if we are allowed to believe that Christianity is true, we are required to believe that Christianity is exclusive. If we are going to be caring people, we are required to speak the truth in love. We are promised that we won't always be warmly welcomed with our message, and we shouldn't complain when that promise comes true. On the other hand, we dare not succumb to a twisted sense of tolerance that eliminates truth and silences genuine love. Tolerance -- accepting as valid -- that terminates truth and love is not a virtue. (Oddly enough, from the other direction, tolerance that accepts as valid the Christian claim to truth seems to be unnecessary. Why is that?) So we're forced to let our lights so shine before men and let God do the work. I guarantee it won't always be pleasant. But, really, what choice have we?
5 comments:
Great article!
Here's how my pastor breaks down tolerance. I think he does a great job...
tol•er•ance \ˈtä-lə-rən(t)s, ˈtäl-rən(t)s\ noun
(15th century)
1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : ENDURANCE, FORTITUDE, STAMINA
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own
b : the act of allowing something : TOLERATION
3 : the allowable deviation from a standard; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece
As you unpack “sympathy”
1 a : an affinity, association, or relationship between persons or things wherein whatever affects one similarly affects the other
b : mutual or parallel susceptibility or a condition brought about by it
c : unity or harmony in action or effect
2 a : inclination to think or feel alike : emotional or intellectual accord
b : feeling of loyalty : tendency to favor or support 〈republican sympathies〉
3 a : the act or capacity of entering into or sharing the feelings or interests of another
b : the feeling or mental state brought about by such sensitivity 〈have sympathy for the poor〉
As you unpack key words like “indulgence” or “indulge”
in•dulge \in-ˈdəlj\ verb
in•dulged; in•dulg•ing
[Latin indulgēre to be complaisant]
(circa 1623)
transitive verb
1 a : to give free rein to
b : to take unrestrained pleasure in : GRATIFY
2 a : to yield to the desire of : HUMOR
b : to treat with excessive leniency, generosity, or consideration
intransitive verb
: to indulge oneself
So, with all of that said, I understand tolerance to mean that I accommodate someone else’s beliefs and adjust mine to meet theirs. I will not do that . . . I may accept, but I will not tolerate. Does that make sense? By the way, these definitions are from Merriam Webster.
I just found this blog, and this is the first post I have read. Can I tell you I ADORE IT!! Straight to the point. It's just the way I like things.
I will return. I'm signed up through Google Reader.
Mike,
If we read "tolerance" to mean "the act of allowing" or "to give free rein to beliefs that conflict with one's own" (which is the correct intent of "tolerance", then most of us do it. We may speak out against those things that aren't true, but I don't know of any Christian, as an example, who has sought to outlaw homosexual behavior. That, to me, is "tolerance".
And ... welcome to the blog.
You, too, Epiphany. Always good to have readers ... especially ones that find benefit.
Our laws in this country must be tolerant as not everyone is a Christian and shares those beliefs. If we allowed our Christian beliefs to dictate the laws of the land, we could not also be considered a free country. (At least not for everyone, only for Christians).
Tolerance, to me, is more of an individual decision. While the state and federal laws may be tolerant of homosexual behavior, I do not have to be. That doesn't mean I go and try to change the laws of the land. It means that in my giving to charities, in my home, in my "space" if you will, I have the FREEDOM to be intolerant of homosexual lifestyle. That also does not mean that I cannot love those who are homosexual. It simply means I will not tolerate their lifestyle in my home, church or other places I choose to involve myself in.
Mike, I agree that there is no call for you to support homosexual behavior, say, in your giving and the like. But that, to me, is not "tolerance". That's support.
To me, supporting (either by word or deed) behaviors that Scripture indicates are bad for people would be an unkind act.
Post a Comment