In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus described our mission by saying, “You are the salt of the earth and the light of the world”—salt to retard the moral decay and light to overcome the darkened mind, brought about by our race’s sin. Both salt and light INFLUENCE their surroundings. But how can Christians have influence when every time we articulate the biblical worldview, e.g., that marriage is between one man and one woman, that homosexual sex is wrong, or that we should not embrace trans people’s delusion—we are marginalized by the accusation that we are INTOLERANT. This episode puts the concept of tolerance that is often promoted today under the spotlight of Scripture so that we can help those we influence to think carefully about accusations of intolerance leveled at Christians in this cultural moment.
Tim Keller tells the story of being invited as the pastor of a Manhattan church to a panel discussion at a local college with a Jewish rabbi and a Muslim imam—an experience that revealed the current misunderstanding of the word, tolerant. The panelists were asked to discuss the differences among religions. In a courteous, respectful tone, the panelists agreed on this statement: If Christians are right about Jesus being God, then Muslims and Jews fail in a serious way to love God as God really is. But if Muslims and Jews are right that Jesus is not God, but rather a teacher or prophet, then Christians fail in a serious way to love God as he really is. Keller comments, “Several of the students were quite disturbed by this. One student insisted that what mattered was to believe in God and to be a loving person yourself. To insist that one faith had a better grasp of the truth than others was intolerant” (The Reason for God). Christians who lobby for a biblical worldview need to be wise as serpents but harmless as doves, recognizing that the rising generation hears any strong truth claim as intolerance of other viewpoints. As Carl Truman points out, “Criticism of homosexuality is now homophobia, that of transgenderism, transphobia. The use of the term phobia is deliberate and effectively places such criticism of the new sexual culture into the realm of the irrational and points towards an underlying bigotry on the part of those who hold such views” (The Rise & Triumph of the Modern Self). Disagreement now means intolerance and bigotry.
Furthermore, in this cultural moment, tolerance is seen as the highest of virtues--an obvious outgrowth of love. But is tolerance always virtuous and loving? No. We need to help our loved ones and secular friends see that this is a vast over-simplification of tolerance. Society should not be tolerant of murderers, rapists, terrorists, thieves, or landlords oppressing widows and orphans. Tolerating such crimes would certainly be evil.
Before pointing to the misuse of this term in the culture, let’s put ourselves, as Christians under the lens of the correct meaning of intolerance. A careful examination of the word intolerance reveals that it is the failure to have a fair, respectful attitude towards those with whom you disagree. Webster says, it is being unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression, especially in religious matters, or other social, political rights: BIGGETTED. Intolerance is having a hostile attitude towards your opponents and because of that hostility being tempted to treat them unfairly. By this definition, Bible-believing Christians have significant intolerance to confess.
HOW CHRISTIANS PROJECT SINFUL INTOLERANCE TOWARDS NON-BELIEVERS
A. Feeling compelled to verbalize to anyone we meet in the LGBTQ life, “I disagree with your lifestyle.” Can you imagine Jesus feeling compelled to point out everyone’s sin, every time he got to know someone? He was the Holy One in the flesh. He must have seen sin, everywhere he went, in every interaction he had with humans. Where did he find the willpower to bite his lip? He reserved his direct confrontation of sin almost exclusively for the hypocrites—the corrupt scribes and pharisees. In contrast to the urgency to point out everyone’s sin, whom he met, Jesus seemed to be compelled to express unconditional love. The same radical acceptance he had demonstrated in asking for a drink from the cup of the woman at the well of Samaria, he exhibited in his relationship with Zacchaeus. First, he expressed radically valuing Zacchaeus. He said, Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at your house today.” The bystanders understood Jesus’ message to Zacchaeus exactly that way, for Luke tells us, And when they saw it, they all grumbled, “He has gone in to be the guest of a man who is a sinner.” It was after tasing such unconditional love that Zacchaeus repented. “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold” (Lk 19:1-10). Jesus’ unconditional love led Zacchaeus to see his sin, not confrontation. Often, when we have opportunities to speak into the public arena, courageous Christians who obey the promptings of God’s Spirit to speak up, seem compelled to prove other’s arguments wrong, rather than confidently using questions to ask what their friend’s opinion is. Proverbs 18:2 points out, A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. We need to relax and increase our winsomeness by asking for other’s thoughts on various topics!
B. We project intolerance toward non-believers by social distancing from those who swear, tell dirty jokes or are in the LGBTQ life. As a biker friend of mine used to say, “Christians treat sinners like lepers—like they are afraid they might get some of their sin on them.” This attitude in the hearts of some Christians is difficult to hide. David Kinnaman of Barna Research conducted an exhaustive study of what 16-29-year-old non-Christians think of Christians. He published his findings in the book, UnChristian: What a New Generation Really thinks about Christians and Why It Matters. Here is what he found: The gay issue has become the “big one,” the negative image most likely to be intertwined with Christianity’s reputation. Outsiders say our hostility towards gays—not just opposition to homosexual politics and behaviors but disdain for gay individuals—has become virtually synonymous with the Christian faith….When you introduce yourself as a Christian to a friend, neighbor, or business associate who is an outsider, you might as well have it tattooed on your arm: anti-homosexual, gay-hater, homophobic. Admittedly the media routinely identify Bible-believing Christians with members of the tiny Westboro Baptist Church hate group holding signs that say, “God hates fags.” As unfair as this criticism is, it is worth searching our hearts over!
C. The third way we project intolerance is unintentional. Yet it widens the gap between Christians and non-Christians in the thinking of many. It is mistakenly focusing too much on how Christ changes lives. Many non-Christians think that Christians are just better people than they are. The irony is that we feel like we can’t share our failures with them because we always have to show how Christ has changed our lives. But, as John Leonard, in his book, Get Real, observes,
The opposite is true. When we are not honest about our struggles and our faith, we distort the gospel and may be putting false barriers in the way of those we are so anxious to bring to Christ. We want others to see Jesus in us, when it would be so much better if they instead saw someone in need of Jesus….In our desire to show others how different we are because of Christ, we are not making ourselves any more appealing to the nonbelievers around us….We must work at being normal so that others can imagine themselves being able—and by God’s grace, deeply desiring—to be followers of Jesus.
D. We project intolerance by devaluing the lost, secular, world. This is a failure to grasp what theologians call common grace. While humanity is totally depraved and deserving of God’s wrath, God graciously blesses all men with a measure of his unmerited favor. This is called God’s common grace. The image of God in man (his moral nature) is marred by the fall, but not destroyed. Common grace includes all undeserved blessings that natural man receives from the hand of God: rain, sun, prosperity, health, happiness, natural capacities and gifts, sin being restrained from complete dominion, etc. The doctrine of common grace explains how a man can be totally depraved and yet still commit acts that are, in some sense, “good.”
A useful way to get at this concept is to consider the problem of good. Christians know the answer to the problem of evil. “If God is so good, why is the world so bad?” Because of human sin. But another logical problem emerges—the problem of good, namely, “If we’re all so bad, why is the world so good? Why do non-Christian firefighters go back up the stairs to save a non-Christian financial worker. How is it that non-Christians can be responsible for so much goodness, truth, sacrificial love, and beauty? The answer is God’s common grace towards the creation he loves. Understanding this truth is life-changing! Theologian Scott Kauffmann writes, An appreciation for common grace can help set us free from so many of the fears, prejudices, and UnChristian behavior we so often wallow in as Christians, as we pursue relationships, evangelism, work, cultural engagement, and arts and entertainment…God is the author of truth, beauty, and goodness wherever and whenever they are found. And they can be found nearly everywhere—in virtually every person, place, situation, or idea that ever existed. (www.fermiproject.com). Christians in the twentieth century have a history of being hostile towards culture, and non-Christians, mistakenly thinking that is what it means to “love not the world.” But God loves and values every part of his creation. So should we.
E. We project intolerance by subtly thinking that homosexuality and other sexual sins are worse than OUR sins like pride. Jesus said, “to whom much is given, much is required” (Lk 12:48). As we teach the rising generation to be discerning, we risk that discernment leading to a critical spirit if it is NOT combined with deep humility about our own shortcomings. Jesus said, Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? (Matt 7:1-3).
Judgementalism is the result of discernment + pride. We are to be discerning of other’s spiritual condition. This is clear in the next verses. Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you (vs 6). The remedy for judgementalism is NOT the “tolerance” being promoted by some in the culture at the expense of whether their ideas are true. Today, many in the culture use the word tolerance to mean accepting every person’s ideas about truth to be equally valid. But we are called to be discerning.
HOW THE MEANING OF TOLERANCE HAS BEEN CHANGED
As men who understand OUR times, like David’s men of valor understood THEIR times, we must help the rising generation see that the meaning of the word tolerance has been changed today. Disagreement is mistakenly labeled intolerance or phobia. We need to not only hep our loved ones understand this reality but have the courage to challenge those who call our opposition to destructive, anti-biblical worldviews, intolerant. We need to say, “Excuse me, but I think you meant to say disagreement, not intolerance. This is America—a democracy where everyone has the right to disagree.”
Christians are being accused of intolerance for not accepting all truth claims as equally valid. We need to help others see the difference between a subjective truth claim, which is really an opinion, and an objective truth, which corresponds to reality, as it is. A four-year-old learning addition may insist that 2+2=5. She has every right to believe that. But the truth is that 2+2=4. Truth is intolerant of error. Truth rejects all claims that 2+2= anything other number than 4. All opinions about what 2+2 equals are NOT EQUALLY VALID. The idea that every person has a right to offer his opinion is confused today with the concept that every person’s opinion is equally valid. Here are three truths that we need to help the rising generation, and those around us see. (The Colson Ctr, What Would You Say). First, some people mistakenly treat subjective opinions as though they are objectively true. Second, understanding the difference between subjective and objective truth claims can be a matter of life or death. Third, caring people help others understand the difference between subjective opinion and objective truth.
A. Some people mistakenly treat subjective truth claims (opinions) as though they are objectively true. If I say, “Boston crème pie is the best dessert,” that is a subjective truth claim. Everyone is entitled to their personal, subjective opinion about a variety of claims, from what they prefer for dessert, desire in a new car, or series they watch on Netflix. But some cultural influencers say that ALL truth claims are a matter of personal or cultural perspective. This makes no sense. Certainly, the subjective worldview of every human affects the way he or she perceives objective data that they evaluate. But truth is what corresponds to reality. There are some who say the holocaust never happened. The Holocaust Museum proves this truth claim false. There are some who say that lynching of blacks in the South were rare. The new, Legacy Museum in Montgomery Alabama, proves this subjective truth claim false. Subjective truth claims are opinions. They are not equally valid with OBJECTIVE truth. It is not intolerant to say SUBJECTIVE truth claims are wrong. They do not correspond to true reality.
B. Understanding the difference between subjective and objective truth claims can be a matter of life or death. Christian apologist, J. Warner Wallace uses the analogy of poisonous mushrooms to make this point. He says,
Imagine, for example, you’re foraging for edible mushrooms with a friend. Your goal is the tasty Asian “paddy straw” mushroom, a variety of mushroom that is used extensively in Asian cuisines. You find one, but your friend abruptly stops you from picking it. “That’s not a ‘paddy straw’,” she says. “That’s a ‘death cap’ mushroom. They look alike, but ‘death caps’ are called that for a reason: they are extremely poisonous!” You smartly decide to leave the mushroom alone. What made your friend’s statement about the “death cap” mushroom true? Was it simply her subjective opinion? If you held a different opinion about the mushroom, would that have rendered it safe to eat? Is the truth about the poisonous nature of the mushroom grounded in your subjective opinion or in the nature of the mushroom itself? Your friend’s declaration is an excellent example of an objective truth claim. The “death cap” mushroom is poisonous for anyone who eats it, whether they would personally affirm the claim or not.
Truth corresponds to reality. “Death cap” mushrooms have killed people. This truth is intolerant of the error of thinking all mushrooms are edible.
C. Caring people help others to understand the difference between subjective and objective truth claims. Love is intolerant of truth claims that harm. Going back to the mushroom illustration. Suppose after her first warning, you answered, “I think your wrong. I never heard of death cap mushrooms. This looks just like the picture in the book of paddy straw mushrooms. Should your friend have just said, “Your truth is your truth, and my truth is my truth?” Of course not. Love required her to be INTOLERANT of your deadly WRONG view. Love does NOT mean tolerating destructive behavior. The common cultural idea that tolerance is the way to love others is false. Accepting another’s mistaken ideas and behaviors instead of lovingly trying to get them to change is, in fact, the biblical definition of hate. Consider God’s advice to parents, Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him (Prov 13:24). Loving parents are intolerant of their child’s wrong behavior! They know that allowing him to continue down the path is destructive.
For Further Prayerful Thought:
- What thoughts from the podcast stimulated your thinking about how Christians project intolerance?
- How would you summarize the way the meaning of the word, tolerance, is being misused by many today.
- How would you winsomely argue against defining tolerance as accepting everyone’s truth claims as equally valid. Why is such tolerance actually unloving?
