The Irrationality of the Modern Concept of Intolerance

One of the most overused buzzwords today is the word intolerant. Anyone who opposes abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration, embryonic stem cell research, or government controlled health care as intolerant and a bigot. During an interview with Baptist Press, Chick-fil-A president and COO Dan Cathy was asked about the Chick-fil-A’s support of the traditional family. He responded,

“Well, guilty as charged…We are very much supportive of the family—the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that.”

Cathy’s comments sparked intense media frenzy. Cathy was labeled an intolerant, anti-gay, homophobic bigot. Chick-fil-A restaurants were picketed by opponents, and proponents flocked to show their support.

Christians who take a stand against any belief or practice that is opposed to Biblical teaching are labeled intolerant. It is intolerant to say homosexuality is a sin; it is intolerant to call abortion murder; it is intolerant to suggest that men and women should have different roles; it is intolerant to claim that non-Christians will go to Hell.

Is Christianity intolerant? Does the Bible teach intolerance? What does it mean to be intolerant?

What intolerance means

According Dictionary.com, the word intolerance means:

1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.
   

The word tolerate means:

1. to allow the existence, presence, practice, or act of without prohibition or hindrance; permit.
2. to endure without repugnance; put up with.

In other words, the traditional meaning of intolerance is an unwillingness to allow or put up with things with which one disagrees. It involves prohibiting or hindering practices that one finds offensive or disagreeable. Under this traditional understanding of tolerance, a person cannot tolerate something with which they agree; to tolerate means to disagree, but to permit in spite of disagreement.

In modern American politically correct thinking, however, there has been a subtle shift in this meaning. Intolerance now means to oppose any belief or practice. If a person thinks any practice or belief is wrong or immoral, they are now labeled intolerant. Note the subtle difference. Intolerance used to mean prohibiting or hindering beliefs and practices one disagrees with. Now, it means to simply disagree. If a Christian merely believes abortion is a sin, they are now labeled intolerant. If one merely suggests that same-gender marriage is wrong, they are now intolerant bigots. The meaning has shifted from prohibiting that with which one disagrees to merely disagreeing.

Where does this new concept of intolerance come from?

This new concept of intolerance as merely believing an idea or practice is wrong is firmly rooted in the philosophy of relativism. According to Dictionary.com, relativism is “any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments.” In other words, what’s true for you may not be true for me; there is no absolute truth. Relativism is a core belief in humanism, liberalism, and postmodernism. It’s the foundation of American political correctness, and, unfortunately, many Christians have been seduced by this philosophy as well.

In any worldview based in relativism, it is meaningless to say something is absolutely wrong. Right and wrong are entirely determined by circumstances, culture, and personal beliefs. For a relativist, the statement, “You should not do X because it is wrong,” is nonsense. A practice may be wrong for some people in certain circumstances, but since truth is relative, and absolutes do not exist, one cannot claim a practice is always wrong, or wrong for anyone but themselves.

When the Bible states that adultery is wrong, this teaching is inconceivable to a relativist. There are no absolutes, so claiming adultery is wrong is nonsense. It’s like saying blue is wrong, or vanilla ice cream is wrong. Right and wrong are totally determined by the preferences of the individual, depending on the circumstances.

There are several problems with relativism. First, the concept is self-contradictory. According to relativism, absolute truth does not exist. However, this belief is held as absolute truth! If absolute right and wrong do not exist, then anyone who believes is absolute right and wrong is wrong. But, since wrong does not exist, they cannot be wrong. The relativist absolutely believes that absolutes do not exist! On this basis alone, relativism should be rejected – it’s a logical impossibility.

Living with an irrational worldview

When one actually tries to put a relativistic worldview into practice, the irrationality becomes even more pronounced. Since relativism posits that absolute right and wrong do not exist, it would be illogical to say murder, rape, child abuse, or assault are absolutely wrong. Yet, in practice, almost all relativists would say they are absolutely wrong. How do they get around this paradox? Most would state that a practice is immoral only if it harms someone else. So, in practice, there are absolutes; it is absolutely immoral to harm others. The philosophy of relativism completely unravels when put into practice. Yet, most people who hold to this view don’t understand the irrationality of their beliefs.

Let’s take it a step further. Since absolute right and wrong do not exist (except, of course, that we cannot harm others), the concept of sin is inconceivable. When a Christian says that abortion is sin, the relativist is forced to conclude that the Christian is wrong in his belief. But, this is a contradiction – right and wrong don’t exist for the relativist!

This brings us back to the concept of intolerance. For the relativist, any claim that an idea or practice is wrong is intolerant. Right and wrong don’t exist, so when the Bible calls certain practices sin, it completely contradicts the very foundation of the relativist’s worldview.

When applied to the gay marriage issue, when a Christian says gay marriage is wrong, the relativist is forced into the illogical conclusion that the Christian is wrong. The Christian is claiming that absolutes exist, that gay marriage is absolutely wrong. The relativist finds this position is intolerable – in the traditional sense of refusing to put up with or respect. The Christian belief cannot be permitted, because, if true, it means the relativist’s entire worldview is wrong. What’s ironic is that in calling the Christian belief intolerant, it’s actually the relativist that is intolerant.

The modern definition of intolerance is intolerant of other views, and is inescapably hypocritical. Those who hold to this view of intolerance are unavoidably hypocrites. It is hypocritical to be intolerant of others for their perceived intolerance, yet the modern definition of tolerance forces it.

What the Bible says

Romans chapter 1 gives a very clear description of the consequences of this sort of thinking:

¹⁸ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, ¹⁹ because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

The Bible makes it clear that all people know that absolute truth does exist; but those who reject God suppress the truth. God reveals Himself to everyone, but most people refuse to accept Him, and come up with other philosophies and beliefs to replace the truth.

²⁰ For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ²¹ because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Professing to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Rejection of God produces futility in thinking. It leads to irrational philosophies like relativism. Any worldview or philosophy apart from the Word of God is foolishness. It leads to belief systems that are completely irrational, yet are clung to by people because they reject the only Truth.

²⁴ Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, ²⁵ who exchanged the truth of God for the lie…

This is why, I believe, so many people get upset with Christians like Dan Cathy for saying he supports the “biblical definition of the family unit.” Non-Christians are trying to suppress the truth; Christians who speak out bring the truth back out in the open.

Is God intolerant? Guilty as charged.

The Bible makes it clear that God does not tolerate sin: “For the wages of sin is death…” (Romans 6:23a). The Bible also makes it clear that the ONLY solution for sin is Jesus Christ: “…but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23b). God does not tolerate sin, because sin separates us from Him. God’s love demands that while He cannot tolerate sin, He has provided a way for us to be reconciled to Him: ^“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

Because of His holiness, God cannot tolerate sin; but, because of His love, He cannot leave us without a Savior from that sin.

Intolerant Toleration – Part 4 – The Chick-Fil-A Saga

Definition of TOLERATE

2 a : to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction

b : to put up with

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tolerate

Definition of INTOLERANT
2 a
: unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters

b
: unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intolerant

---

Chick-Fil-A president Dan Cathy made the following statement recently in a radio interview on the “Ken Coleman Show:”

“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say ‘we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”

Dan Cathy

The entire interview can be heard here. The quote above is found about 31 minutes into the interview.

First, notice what was not said: Cathy did not say same-gender marriage should be prohibited. He does not say homosexuals cannot work at Chick-Fil-A, nor does he say homosexuals are not welcome at Chick-Fil-A. He does not say homosexual marriage should not be put up with, permitted, or allowed. He says nothing about taking away freedom of expression, or taking away rights.

What does he say? He says he believes God will judge our nation for our pride and arrogance in disregarding what He says about marriage. He also prays for God’s mercy.

By definition, Cathy’s statement was not intolerant.

What have those opposed to Cathy’s statement said?

The mayors of Washington, DC, San Francisco, Boston, and Chicago have all stated that Chick-Fil-A will be prohibited in their cities. DC mayor Vincent Gray called Chick-Fil-A “Hate Chicken.” Mayor Edwin Lee of San Francisco tweeted, “Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.”

Philadelphia City Councilman James Kenney told Cathy in a letter to “take a hike and take your intolerance with you. There is no place for this type of hate in our great City of Brotherly and Sisterly Affection.” He plans to introduce a resolution at the next council meeting condemning Chick-Fil-A.

College students are using online petitions to demand the chain is removed from campuses including University of Illinois, Ball State University, College of Charleston, University of Kansas, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Wichita State University, and Minnesota State University.

Websites like boycottchickfila.com have been popping up, along with multiple Facebook pages calling for boycotts and banning Chick-Fil-A.

Who are the intolerant ones? Which group advocates prohibiting opposing views? Which group wants to hinder the other? Which group is “unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters?” Which group is trying to ban the other?

Those who call for boycotts of Chick-Fil-A and the politicians who want to take away Chick-Fil-A’s right to do commerce in their cities are the intolerant ones. It’s one thing to disagree with a position, like Dan Cathy has done. It’s another thing to call for sanctions, boycotts, and legislation against those who disagree with you. In the name of tolerance, people like Vincent Gray, Edwin Lee, and James Kenney spew their intolerance of anyone who disagrees with them.

Intolerant toleration.

Bigoted anti-bigotry.

Hypocrisy.

Again, it’s apparently not intolerance to be intolerant of Christianity.

But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! ~ 2 Timothy 3:1-5

Intolerant Toleration – Part 3: Canadian Edition

Intolerant toleration continues to be alive and well.

Last week I wrote a blog about a speech on bullying given by Dan Savage during which he ridiculed Christianity and the Bible, and called the Christians who walked out “pansy-assed.” A few days later, I followed up with a blog about the April 30, 2012 article on the Huffington Post website where author John Shore defends Savage’s remarks.

Swinimer

Now, it’s a different situation, this time in the rural community of Chester Basin, Nova Scotia. According to an article on Christianpost.com, as well as several other sources, William Swinimer, a student at Forest Heights Community School in Chester Basin, has received multiple in-school suspensions for wearing a T-shirt that reads, “Life is Wasted Without Jesus.” Last week, he was also handed a five day out of school suspension, which ends Monday. According to school officials, other unnamed students complained that the T-shirt was intolerant of their non-Christian beliefs. Swinimer says that he was told the shirt was a form of “hate talk.”

According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (similar to the Bill of Rights in the United States),

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

So, according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Swinimer’s T-shirt is protected under both freedom of religion and freedom of opinion and expression. What about the charge that the T-shirt is “hate talk?” According to a Canadian government publication,

Under s. 319(1) of the Criminal Code, anyone who communicates statements in a public place and thereby incites hatred against an identifiable group where such incitement leads to a breach of the peace is guilty of an indictable offence punishable by two years’ imprisonment or a summary conviction offence

Any person charged … has available four special defences … 2) that an opinion or argument on a religious subject was expressed in good faith

First, the phrase, “Life is Wasted Without Jesus,” does not “incite hatred.” Second, there is no “identifiable group” mentioned on the shirt. Third, there was no “breach of the peace.” And fourth, the phrase, “Life is Wasted Without Jesus,” is clearly “an opinion or argument on a religious subject was expressed in good faith.”

According to Canadian law, Swinimer’s T-shirt is clearly not “hate talk.” However, the suspensions imposed for wearing the T-shirt are clearly a violation of his rights to freedom of religion and freedom of opinion and expression.

According to Fox News,

Swinimer confirmed that he had been disciplined a number of times for wearing shirts with religious references.

“I’ve found that they have dissed Christianity quite a bit,” he said. “I do not want to be disrespectful of anybody else’s religions. I don’t want to put down anybody’s opinions. All I want to do is stand up for rights and freedoms of Canadians.”

The school does not have a dress code and Swinimer said students wear a variety of t-shirts. But he said for whatever reason, his Christian shirts seem to get him sent to the office.

“They treat other religions differently than they do Christianity,” he said. “The staff and principal and school board have been very hostile toward Christianity.”

But, he said, they promote other religions in the school.

“If they can pick on Christians in this school, what can they pick next?” he wondered. “Christianity in that school is not being treated the same way. I’m being discriminated against because of my religion.”

Swinimer did not violate the school dress code; the school does not have one. Someone was “offended,” and school officials arbitrarily decided to punish Swinimer for expressing his Christian views.

Pinch-Worthylake

It was not Swinimer who acted with intolerance; it was school board superintendent Nancy Pinch-Worthylake and other school officials who acted with intolerance toward Christianity in the name of tolerance of all other worldviews. Pynch-Worthylake said that because the phrase on the shirt is directed at the beliefs of others, it is “problematic.”

“If I have an expression that says ‘My life is enhanced with Jesus,’ then there’s no issue with that, everybody is able to quickly understand that that’s my opinion about my own belief,” she said. “If the shirt were to say ‘Without Jesus, your life is a complete waste,’ then that’s clear that it is an opinion aimed at somebody else’s belief.”

Such semantic hair-splitting is very poor excuse for the persecution of Swinimer’s right to express his Christian beliefs. In the name of tolerance, school officials demonstrated bigoted intolerance of Christianity.

Earlier today, Swinimer and his pastor met with the South Shore Regional School Board. The board ruled that Swinimer will be allowed to wear the T-shirt. According to CBC News,

Pinch-Worthylake said the board will use this incident as a learning moment for everyone, adding that it is time to move on.

“We’re going to be working with students around how they can express their religious views and other views appropriately, and how we work together when those views may be interpreted or misinterupted by others,” she said.

I can only hope and pray that Pinch-Worthylake and the other school officials take their own advice, and use the incident as a “learning moment.” Intolerance is wrong, especially when directed at young people by those placed in authority over them.

As Christians, we must never hate others because they believe differently than we do. Rather, we are commanded to love both our “neighbor” and our “enemies.” At the same time, we must stand up for the truth, and “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15).

However, Christians are not supposed to just sit back and accept the double standard of intolerant tolerance directed at us. It’s time for us to stand up to the bullying and prejudice directed at us by those that hate God and Christians.

“I believe there are things that are bigger than me. And I think that I need to stand up for the rights of people in this country, and religious rights and freedom of speech,” Swinimer told CBC News Thursday.

Intolerant Toleration – Part 2

Savage

Last week I wrote a blog about a speech on bullying given by Dan Savage during which he ridiculed Christianity and the Bible, and called the Christians who walked out “pansy-assed.” I pointed out the incredible hypocrisy of bullying Christian students during an anti-bullying speech. Numerous other commentators have also denounced Savage’s comments as being extremely out of line. Even GoProud, a gay advocacy organization, condemned Savage’s comments, stating,

“”There is nothing incompatible between being a Christian and believing that all people should be treated equally, and Dan Savage’s attacks on Christianity only fuel those on the extremist fringe who oppose gay rights…Dan Savage should apologize for his comments and should apologize to the high school students in attendance who he called ‘pansy-asses,’” continued LaSalvia. “It is ironic that someone whose claim to fame is fighting bullying would resort to bullying tactics in attacking high school students who were offended by his outrageous remarks.”

Now, in an April 30, 2012 article on the Huffington Post website, author John Shore defends Savage’s remarks. Shore writes,

The controversy is due to Mr. Savage calling bull**** those parts of the Bible that throughout history been used by “Christians” unworthy of the name to justify the Holocaust, condone slavery, oppress women, and victimize gay people.

Shore

I find it interesting that Shore never mentions the fact that Savage called the students “pansy-assed” for walking out. It would be difficult to argue that public name-calling is not bullying, so Shore conveniently ignored that part of the controversy.

Shore begins justifying Savage’s anti-Christian rant by pointing out that the conference was titled Journalism on the Edge. “And there, amongst all this journalistic edginess, was Dan Savage, being edgy.” Shore’s rationale for justifying Savage’s public ridiculing of the Christian faith is that he was being “edgy” and delivering the message he was expected to deliver. Savage was not being edgy; he was being a bigoted bully. This was not the message he was expected to deliver; the event organizers have issued a public apology.

Shore continues:

You know, it’s almost like the people who put on this conference, as well as a small but now (thanks, media machine!) significant number of individuals who attended it, don’t even know what the word “journalism” means.

Shore seems to think that Savage’s rant was “journalism,” and that anyone who can’t see that must be ignorant. A bit more subtle than calling them “pansy-assed,” but name-calling nonetheless. Shore continues:

Speaking as a person who for twelve years made his living as a journalist, I admire your dedication to the journalist’s creed: When you personally disagree with something someone is saying, get up and leave. If that’s not what Jesus meant by, “The truth shall set you free,” I can’t imagine what he did mean.

Again, much more subtle than Savage, but still ridiculing Christianity. Shore is implying that it’s not OK to oppose homosexuality, but it’s OK to ridicule the beliefs of Christians. Am I the one who sees this as hypocritical?

By endorsing Savage’s bullying tactics, Shore also becomes a bully. The people who perform the actual attacks on the victims aren’t the only bullies; those who sit back and encourage them are bullies, too. Shore is just as much a bully as Savage; the only difference is that Shore is more subtle in his assault.

The most irrational part of Shore’s argument is the “P.S.” at the end:

P.S. What immediately become a meme amongst Dan’s critics is that those who walked out of his talk felt bullied by him. But that’s impossible. People get bullied because of who they are: how they look and act, what they say and do. Perceived as being in some critical way weak or lacking, victims of bullies are selected for persecution; they are pulled from the pack before being pointedly and repeatedly victimized. The people who walked out during Dan’s talk were not separated from their peers by anyone. They were content to do that themselves. They were not frightened or cowed. They were offended. They felt that by disparaging what amounts to their God, Dan had transgressed beyond their capacity for toleration. And they were pleased to show their intolerance of Dan’s words by protesting against them in the manner they did. Theirs was not an act born of suffering. It was a proud show of disdain.

Shore states, “People get bullied because of who they are: how they look and act, what they say and do.” The Christian students in Savage’s audience were bullied because of who they are: Christians; how they acted: they walked out; and what they say: they oppose homosexuality based on their Biblical beliefs. He states, “The people who walked out during Dan’s talk were not separated from their peers by anyone.” Not physically, but the Christians were emotionally, socially, and ideologically singled out by Savage’s abusive comments. He also stated, “Perceived as being in some critical way weak or lacking, victims of bullies are selected for persecution; they are pulled from the pack before being pointedly and repeatedly victimized.” Both Savage and Shore see conservative Christians as intellectually weak and morally lacking; both have singled out Christian teens as the targets of their comments; and now that Savage and Shore have teamed up in their bullying tactics, the Christian teens that walked out have been “pointedly and repeatedly victimized.“

Both Shore and Savage are correct when they assert that using the Bible to rationalize hatred, bigotry, and bullying is wrong. As a Christian, I agree that it is wrong for Christians to pull Biblical passages out of context to justify un-Biblical, un-Godly beliefs and behaviors, such as bullying. However, it is also blatantly hypocritical to use the same tactics to mock the Bible, call Christians names, and bully Christians both verbally and in written form.

Bullying is wrong, whether directed at LGBT people, at Christians, or at anyone else. My basis for making this statement is the Bible. Christians are told to “love your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:18, Luke 10:27, Galatians 5:14). Attitudes like Savage’s and Shore’s really don’t surprise me, though. Both have rejected the authority of God’s Word. Shore calls himself an “Unfundamentalist Christian,” and rejects a literal, straight-forward understanding of the Bible. Savage calls parts of the Bible “bullsh**.” Without the absolute standard of the Word of God, they have no basis for their morality or ethics, other than themselves. And, when a person is their own ultimate authority, morality and ethics are whatever is convenient at the time.

---

Dan Savage did offer an apology for his remarks.  But, he then defends his remarks.  “I did not attack Christianity. I attacked hypocrisy. My remarks can only be read as an attack on all Christians if you believe that all Christians are hypocrites. Which I don’t believe.” 

That’s not what he said during his speech.  He called the Bible “bullsh**,” which is an attack on the beliefs of all Bible-believing Christians.

Intolerant Toleration

Tolerate  verb \ˈtä-lə-ˌrāt\

2 a : to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction
    b : to put up with <learn to tolerate one another>
synonyms:  let, permit, allow

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tolerate

One of the most highly overused buzzwords in American culture today is tolerance, along with its antonym, intolerance.  According to many people, intolerance has become the greatest evil.  Anyone who disagrees with abortion, homosexuality, universal health care, gun control, open immigration, or welfare is intolerant; anyone who supports the death penalty, big business, or public expression of religious belief is intolerant.  The list could go on ad infinitum.

It’s interesting to note that the words tolerate, toleration, and intolerant, do not appear anywhere in the United States Constitution, nor in any of its amendments.

What is Toleration?

What does it really mean to tolerate something or someone?  According to the dictionary definition, toleration involves allowing or permitting things with which one does not agree.  It means that a person puts up with ideas and practices they may disagree with or find offensive.  For example, I am personally offended by the odor of fish; I despise eating fish, and the smell is disgusting to me.  To me, the odor of fish is about the same as the odor from a gym shoe that has been left in a locker for far too long.  However, I tolerate other people who eat fish in the lunchroom at work.  I don’t ask them to leave because they are violating my right to a fish-odor free work environment.  If the odor becomes too offensive to me, I simply find someplace else to eat.

When the word tolerate is used in most political or religious discussions, it means something very different.  When the argument is made that Christians are intolerant of gays, what is usually meant is that Christians disagree with the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) lifestyle.  The meaning of the word “tolerate” is shifted from “to allow to be” to mean “to agree with and endorse.”  If a person believes the LGBT is immoral, they are labeled as “intolerant.”  If a person does not agree with and endorse the beliefs of others, they are labeled as intolerant.

Is it Always Wrong to be Intolerant?

There are times when it is obviously wrong to tolerate certain beliefs or behaviors.  For example, if a 2-year-old wants to play in the middle of a busy street, it should not be tolerated.  Nearly everyone would agree that rape, child abuse, and armed robbery should not be tolerated.  These things should not be permitted or allowed under any circumstances.  Clearly, tolerance of child molestation would be immoral; therefore, intolerance is not always a bad thing.

The problem arises in the fact that our culture does not have a universal standard for defining morality and ethics.  Most people, regardless of their political or religious persuasion, would agree that society should not tolerate immoral and unethical behavior.  Where we disagree is in defining what is immoral and unethical.  In general, liberals consider abortion and gay marriage to be basic human rights; conservatives consider them to be abhorrent.  Conservatives generally consider gun rights and competitive capitalism as basic freedoms; liberals consider these things repugnant.  Americans do not have a consensus on the morality or ethics of most issues, and as a result, the divisions between Americans have never been greater.

The Consequences of “Tolerance”

Judges 17:6 (NKJV) ⁶ In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

In Israel, the king stood for an absolute standard.  When there was no king, or when the king tolerated it, the people always chose to do whatever they felt they could get away with.  They worshipped idols, murdered each other, raped the women, and committed other atrocities.  When they had a king who followed God’s Word and refused to tolerate open sin, the people lived in peace.

In American culture today, there is no absolute standard, and people are doing whatever they think they can get away with.  Crime has skyrocketed; the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer; teen pregnancy, drug addictions, child abuse, poverty, and many other evils are at or near their all-time highest levels.  The economy has tanked, hatred has risen, and there is no peace.

Because in America we have come to view tolerance as our supreme value, we are suffering the consequences.  America was founded on Biblical values, and the country thrived.  However, now that we have largely abandoned those values, America is a land of discord and upheaval.  We have reaped what we have sown.

Intolerant Toleration

Dan Savage

What bothers me most about the entire “tolerance” movement is the hypocrisy.  Let me give an example.  At a recent National High School Journalism Convention, journalist Dan Savage, who is gay, was scheduled to give a speech on tolerance and bullying.  What he gave was an intolerant, mocking rant against Christians and the Bible.  When students walked out on his speech, Savage publicly called the students “pansy-assed” for leaving.  Apparently it’s intolerant and bullying to believe homosexuality is a sin, but perfectly acceptable to publicly mock and verbally bully Christian teens.

LINK TO VIDEO OF SPEECH

There is a modern myth that believes that true tolerance consists of neutrality. It is one of the most engrained presuppositions in a society based on relativism.  In reality, however, there is no neutrality; the presupposition of relativism is itself a non-neutral bias.  In effect, the doctrine of tolerance leads to the view that all beliefs must be accepted – except the belief that some things are absolutely right, and others are absolutely wrong.  It’s OK to be intolerant of intolerant people.  The logical silliness of this position is that, by being intolerant of intolerant people, one becomes an intolerant person.   It’s a self-refuting, unworkable, hypocritical belief.  All worldviews, beliefs, and behaviors should be permitted and embraced – except those that disagree with this position.  Such incredible hypocrisy!

The Christian Response

As a Christian, how should I respond to the issue of tolerance?  In the Romans 12:18, Paul exhorts the Christian: “If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.”  Those who follow Jesus Christ are called to love all people, despite their lifestyle, sexual orientation, or beliefs.  However, we are not to accept or endorse sin.  It sounds cliché, but Christians truly are called to love the sinner, but hate the sin.  God hates sin; but, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

Unfortunately, some who call themselves “Christians” haven’t gotten this through their thick skulls yet.  Idiots like Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist “Church” are even more evil and hypocritical than people like Dan Savage.  Both ignore God’s call to love your neighbor as yourself , but if one claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ, yet still hates people, I can’t help but doubt that they’re actually saved.  Jesus said we would know the true believer by their fruit; when a “Christian” is full of hatred and intolerance, their fruit says they aren’t true Christians.

How should a Christian engage the political process regarding the issue of “tolerance?”  I think it’s important to oppose abortion, poverty, homosexual marriage, euthanasia, corporate greed, and similar moral issues.  It’s also important to stand up for our rights under the United States Constitution to believe as God has directed, and to publicly express those beliefs. Ultimately, however, we need to realize we cannot create moral behavior through legislation.  The only way to restore the Biblical values that America was founded on is to change people’s hearts and minds, one person at a time.  It is only by the saving power of Jesus Christ that sinners’ hearts and minds can be changed; it is therefore the Christian’s prime responsibility to share the Gospel.  America can only be restored when Americans once again turn to God as the foundation for their worldview, and this will only happen when individual Americans receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  Yes, we need to continue to influence the political process with Biblical principles and practices, but our true impact will be to see people come to Jesus Christ.

Evangelical Christians also need to be very careful that they do not embrace un-Biblical beliefs simply because they are “conservative.”  Because we hold to conservative moral beliefs, there is a tendency to uncritically adopt other conservative principles without searching the Scriptures to see if they are valid.  The words of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are no more the Word of God than the words of Dan Savage or Barack Obama.  Christians must base their beliefs on the Bible, not the ideas of men, or else they will end up just as hypocritical as any non-Christian.