When tolerance isn't necessary

One of the big outcry's in our culture today revolves around tolerance at all cost. Obama recently called for religious tolerance overseas and on a separate occasion while speaking at a 9/11 ceremony. Tolerance is a good thing, but can be used in an undermining way. What I mean is that some believe we should tolerate all things. Should we be tolerant of all views and actions of individuals? The answer is obviously no, because the larger question of what is right and wrong needs to be addressed first.

No one would ever tolerate a known lie, but our society in many ways supposes that we need tolerance above all else. Should we tolerate what is wrong? Recently, Amazon pulled some books dealing with the subject of pedophilia. These books were pulled because of public outcry, but one of the authors defended his book by saying, "This is my attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certain [sic] rules for these adults to follow... I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals, with hope that their doing so will result in less hatred and perhaps liter sentences should they ever be caught." What is alarming is our culture's willingness to promote tolerance above the question of ethics. If tolerance is to be our sole guide then only those in charge will have a say as to what the rest of society must accept.

What about religious tolerance? While it is true that we need to tolerate all religions, it must be understood that not all religions are true. Looking at the myriad of religions around the world it is possible that one of them could be true, but certainly not all of them. Christian apologetics deals with the defence of the Christian worldview (2 Corinthians 10:5). While the Christian is charged with defending and promoting the Christian worldview, this must be done in a loving way and never for the purpose of showing any one up (1 Peter 3:15).

Tolerance is necessary for a civil society, but not in an unrestricted way. In other words, what we tolerate or do not tolerate should be the primary avenue for making decisions. If individuals are constantly told that tolerance usurps all, then aspects of tolerance can become intolerable. The len's by which to view tolerance in society is either an ethical question at heart or it revolves around, "What is truth?"

Who decides?

California's Proposition 8 has generated much controversy of late. Recently Proposition 8 was overturned by a Judge. Proposition 8 was voted on by the people, and made the marrying of same sex individuals illegal. The Judge's decision argued that those who voted for proposition 8 were basically intolerant and that gays/lesbians have a right to marry.

This case is just one of many in the country today that has moral implications. In our country's desire to become more and more secular, power seems to drive the decisions that are made and not natural law. Positive law or man-made law now seems to be rule of the day.

Proposition 8 is just one of many cases that divides the country. For example, the mosque that is to be built near ground zero, though not illegal, begs the question, "What is the right thing to do?" It seems to me that if a Christian church building were to be placed in Kabul, Afghanistan, there would be a tremendous outcry from the entire Muslim community. Likewise, abortion and fetal stem cell research is pushed though irregardless of the moral implications or the will of the people.

In, How Should We Then Live, Francis Schaeffer describes the breakdown of society since the advent of Christianity. [1] Schaeffer points out how man has pulled away from God through politics, science, education, and the arts. He rightly diagnoses how man through time has willfully made the break from God. He calls this human condition "autonomous man."

So, it is in the present where we find autonomous man. Autonomous man has assumed the position of who decides what is right and wrong. Autonomous man is in direct conflict with God to the point where autonomous man says he is god. Who decides? Unfortunately, it seems the autonomous man with power gets to cast the deciding vote in our country today.

[1] Francis Schaeffer's, How Should We Then Live

The grace and truth paradox

There is a great little book with the above title by Randy Alcorn. The book is based on a passage in John where Jesus is described as being "full of grace and truth (John 1:14)."

I was reminded of this passage while attending a meeting of Christian leaders in the community recently. One of the statements from a prominent Christian leader was that we need to accommodate individuals at the expense of truth. Now this is not exactly what was said, but it was implied. One of the great tragedies today occurs when Christians or the Church is willing to water down truth. In reality, this happens when the world has crept into our thought process. In these cases, truth is thrown out in favor of only grace. So many issues that the Church faces revolves around this very point (homosexual marriage, abortion). The cry of tolerance is promoted and truth is trampled upon.

On the opposite side of the coin is when the Christian or Church is so bent on the truth side, that the grace of God is disparaged. When this happens you find a legalistic mindset. Legalism is what Jesus addresses so much during His life here on earth (Matthew 23:4). Legalism is the number one problem with the Church's bad reputation in the United States. Legalism makes the Church look arrogant and judgmental. Truth is important, but without grace it will have no effect on a lost world.

What is needed is both truth and grace. Jesus was full of grace and truth, not balanced between the two, but full of both. If Christians want to be taken seriously, then truth has to be defended and grace needs to be extended. Truth and grace when fully implemented promotes the message of Jesus to a world that so desperately needs Him.

• A case and point dealing with a trampling of God's truth.
• Research showing the arrogance that the Church so often promotes. This would be the trampling of God's grace.
• Video addressing the homosexual issue and how it needs to be addressed with grace and truth.

Coexist at the expence of Christianity?

I often run into the coexist bumper sticker going to work each day. While it is true that we live in a pluralistic society and we all need to get along, I think one of the main issues being pushed is that of tolerance. What is pluralism and what is the message of many that promote the tolerance issue?

Religious pluralism recognizes that this world if filled with thousands of different religious beliefs from Anthroposophy to Zoroastrianism. Thought there are thousands of religious beliefs, with some of the major players including: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism, and the Shinto religion.

Being that many different religious beliefs exist, we should be tolerant of all differences that exist. However, the word tolerance assumes that you already disagree with someone else on a particular issue. It is impossible to tolerate an other's view if you first don't have a disagreement with them. This brings me to the point I believe many individuals hold who promote the coexist slogan. What I think many really want, from the coexist camp, is not just tolerance, but in fact acceptance of all religious beliefs.

All religious beliefs, however, are peculiar in what they believe. You can't truly be a Buddhist and Hindu at the same time, for both religious systems make different statements as to how things are. Likewise, Christianity makes a completely different set of claims that contradicts all other religious groups. The real issue as I see it revolves around the question of truth.

Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me (John 14:6)" This statement by Jesus seems to cause a lot of problems to those in the coexist camp as being a statement of intolerance. For sure, the statement is an exclusive statement, but what the coexist camp fails to address is the truthfulness or falsity of the statement. Jesus statement can't be both true and false at the same time. Either Jesus is the way or he is not.

Dealing with those who hold to a non-Christian worldview can be tricky, but Christians must dialogue with others that espouse different views in a loving and respectful manner. The difficult position that the Christian is in today, deals with the fact that we need to tolerate all views, but Christianity seems to be fair game. As Christians we need to argue for truth first. Truth is what we're after, not acceptance of a false belief.

My way or the highway

In our culture today we hear cries of discrimination and reverse discrimination. In dealing with the issue of tolerance, it seems the only ones who get a free pass are the very ones who are themselves intolerant of others views. Agnostic and Skeptic, Bart Ehrman is championing the cause of tolerance as a wolf in sheep's clothing. In his book, "Lost Christianities," Ehrman closes with a chapter on tolerance. Of course, he weaves the same story that has been woven before, and that is of Christian intolerance.

The major point in the book according to Ehrman is that Christianity (which Ehrman calls proto-orthodoxy) had sufficiently beat to death other legitimate Christian movements that are not considered orthodox. He reasons that orthodox Christianity was the big winner in the past, and because of its intolerance of other legitimate Christian movements it is the lone survivor. He implies that if orthodox Christianity were tolerant then we would see a very different view of who Jesus is and even our ethical system would be different. Consider this point by Ehrman concerning the New Testament, "It is quoted in the Senate to justify war and peace,...of a woman to have an abortion...death penalty...gay rights...slavery. It has been used for good and evil. But where did this book come from? It came from the victory of the proto-orthodox."[1] According to Ehrman, many of the issues today would have been handled differently, had proto-orthodoxy tolerated the other so called Christian groups.

In trying to prove that the proto-orthodox Christians were intolerant, Ehrman says, "The problem was that the Christians refused to worship the other gods, especially the gods of the state. If the state gods had made the state great, then surely they deserved to be acknowledged through acts of worship."[2] Ehrman pushes the lack of tolerance further by saying, "These Christians were exclusivistic in their views. They believed that the one and only true God had given one way of salvation, and that the only way to be right with this God was through this way he had provided - the death and resurrection of Jesus. This exclusivity...bred an intolerance toward religious diversity...Those who did not accept the one true God by believing in the death and resurrection of his Son for salvation would be condemned to the flames of hell for all eternity."[3]

One thing is for certain, Ehrman never hides his disdain for the religion of Christianity. What about Ehrman's charges, are they valid in saying that Christianity was intolerant to other legitimate forms of Christianity? His views are totally inconsistent if Jesus rose from the dead. If Jesus bodily rose from the dead and the Gospels and New Testament epistles make factual, truthful, and historically accurate claims, then Ehrman is simply beating his head against the wall. Ehrman is good at tearing down the "Straw Man," but as of yet, he offers no explanation of how Jesus should really be perceived.

Paul is correct in his epistle to the Corinthians by saying, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith(1 Cor. 15:14)." This it seems to me is Ehrman's hangup. He is unwilling to accept the possibility that Jesus rose from the dead. In Ehrman's worldview, the bodily resurrection is an impossibility, and therefore he feels free to say that Christianity is intolerant and exclusivist, but if he is wrong it doesn't matter what he states. If Jesus did rise, then Ehrman is lost in translation. Ehrman has determined that Jesus did not rise from the dead and because of his unwillingness to debate this issue he is clouded in his views and he becomes the true prophet of intolerance.

Ehrman is a skeptic at heart. His unwillingness to intelligently debate why Jesus did not rise and give reasons to disprove the resurrection make him equivalent to a religious hack. In listening to Ehrman debate and in reading from his numerous works, it is clear to me that Ehrman has nothing to offer as to why his skepticism is legitimate. In fact, skepticism itself is self-defeating. For Ehrman it is, my way or the highway, showing all who the truly intolerant person is.

[1] Ehrman, Bart, Lost Christianities, p. 248
[2] Ibid, p. 255
[3] Ibid, p. 255-256

Can't we all just agree?

In the interview of Robert Wright* (on his book The Evolution of God), he seems to imply that any exclusive claim is just flat out mean spirited, because it is intolerant. The goal of any religion according to Wright is to "make people better" and this is done by not making any exclusive claims. Wright from the outset defeats his own argument in two ways. First, he assumes that truth does not exist, for if it does, then there is only one way. As stated in a previous blog, truth by its very nature is exclusive and therefore it would also be intolerant.

The second mistake of Wright is that his assumption is self-refuting. Wright seems to claim that taking an exclusive stance is intolerant, but his statement itself is intolerant, for he is telling an individual how things really are from an exclusive position. Wright is claiming it is intolerant to be intolerant, when he, himself, will not tolerate any position but his own. It is self-refuting and like saying, There are no sentences longer than 3 words.

Tolerance assumes that someone is willing to listen to an other's view while at the same time disagreeing. You can't be tolerant without disagreeing. Wright states, "Saying one possesses the unique path to salvation creates potentially deadly friction." What Wright assumes is that disagreement can lead to deadly friction, as if, disagreement is bad. It is not that disagreement is the villain here, it is the heart that is at issue. I can respectfully disagree and not want to destroy anyone, so agreement is not the issue.

Wright's overarching problem is his unwillingness to face up to the truth question. Being tolerant is the proper position to take, but dodging the truth question is the real mark of intolerance (in my opinion).

*interview with Robert Wright in Houston Chronicle Belief section (July 31, 2009)