Today is the International Day for Tolerance.
And when it comes to our current cultural climate – with the diversity of lifestyles, beliefs, and religions – tolerance is the greatest virtue. That’s not to say it is new. Tolerance as a concept has been around since the beginning as tribes and governments have had to make decisions about what they will tolerate and what they will not. But its value may be the highest it has ever been right now, particularly due to the popularity of relative truth and moral subjectivity in Western culture. “Who are you,” many ask, “to tell me that I’m wrong?” And without an answer that they will find satisfactory, many of us are left to simply put up with what we don’t like or what we think is wrong.
That’s tolerance. And Christians shouldn’t practice it. Here’s why:
Tolerance Treats Symptoms, Not Problems
Under tolerance, you can be a bitter, racist, hateful bigot and so long as you don’t let that out, you’re good. And if our goal is simply to keep that kind of thing bottled up on the inside so nobody gets hurt, tolerance works just fine. But there is a better way: treat the problem. This, by the way, is exactly what Jesus was up to when he said, “You’ve heard it said…do not murder and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment. But I tell you anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.” (Matthew 5: 21-22). Keeping people from acting out their hate is good, but it would be far better to eliminate the hate.
Tolerance Is a Vicious Cycle
Practicing tolerance as a way to address hate is akin to popping breath mints to address smoking – if the mints work, all the more reason to keep smoking! Or, if you prefer, tolerance is like a man who covers up his affair by lavishing gifts and attention on his wife. If his efforts work, his wife will have no clue and that enables him to continue the affair without fear of getting caught. Tolerance is our breath mint for our addiction to cigarettes, our lavish gift to cover up our affair. Because tolerance treats symptoms instead of problems, the problems are permitted to hide. And like most things that are kept hidden, the problems get worse. That, of course, leads to more tolerance. As long as we’re permitted to practice tolerance, we have no reason to address the problem of hate in our hearts.
Tolerance is a Copout…Love is Our Calling
As followers of Jesus Christ, we have an obligation to live like He did. I don’t know about you, but I can’t find any story in the Bible wherein Jesus encounters someone who believes or lives differently from Him and He responds with a sigh saying, “I don’t like who you are or what you’re doing, but I guess I don’t have a choice but to put up with it.” On the contrary, the Bible tells the story of Jesus giving His life for those who were offending him – we’re called to the same kind of love. We don’t have the luxury of tolerating offensive people when we’re busy dying for them. Tolerance is a poor substitute for love.
If we do this, if we forsake tolerance and embrace love, we’ll change the questions that define today’s thinking. Imagine if, instead of being asked who we are to tell others they are wrong, they asked, “Who are you to love me? Who are you to tell me I have value?”
“Who are you to die for me?”
If interested, check out our “From Tolerance to Love” resource on our Resource Page.
Also, check out our Press Release “Jesus Would Not Advocate Tolerance Says House Church Leader”.
Is your definition of tolerance “ambivalence toward the behavior of others?”
Paul asked the Corinthians, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?”
Paul was intolerant of sin in the assembly, but ambivalent toward sin outside the assembly. “God will judge those outside,” he says. We cannot say, however, that Paul was ambivalent regarding the plight of sinners (1 Cor 9:22).
What people do is irrelevant when they do not believe in Jesus Christ. Their behavior is not the issue; their unbelief is.
By: John Ramsey on November 16, 2009
at 5:50 PM
John,
so is unbelief a sin? and if so, who gets to say so?
By: travelersnote on November 24, 2009
at 3:18 PM
This is a great question and probably worthy of hours of discussion.
Paul says, “Whatever is not from faith is sin,” so, yes, unbelief is sin. The more relevant question may be, who should confront a brother who is sinning? In short, within the assembly, the answer is anyone. In Matthew 18, Jesus said, “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.”
The harder question is who has the right to expel a believer from the assembly, and the answer again from Matthew 18 is everyone. That is everyone, collectively, not anyone specifically.
Jesus encouraged boldness in this regard saying, “Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” The unity of the assembly is the indication that the decision is guided by the Holy Spirit.
The goal is repentance and restoration, even as Paul told the Corinthians to reaffirm their love for the one whom they had expelled (2 Corinthians 2:5-11).
I think the modern church gets this backwards, sometimes. We care too deeply about what the world does or does not do, but we tolerate what we should not tolerate from our brothers.
On the other hand, everyone whom I know who has been expelled from a church was expelled not by the majority, but by a controlling minority. In that regard, the church also errs.
By: John Ramsey on November 24, 2009
at 6:35 PM
thanks! i would almost add that at times, grace is given to those outside of church rather than those inside. like somoene once said ‘ christians are the only ones who kill their own wounded. interestingly enough in Matthew 18 the author wasn’t saying we should confront on any and all issues, because the background was that the pharisees were trying to force new followers to follow certain rules. and so, the author is essentially challenging us and others who might create outsiders to be dealt with because the law can easily make outsiders.
i think for me i have let god deal with those who have sinned or whether they have or not, paul n the first 4 chapters of Romans challenges the church not to judge one another within, the word in greek for ‘judge’ connotes divine justice…essentially he says ‘dont judge because then you assume that you are god’…i think early on in my development, i would have thought it was my place but then i was reminded of the grace that covers me and how we are all learning and how rather than correction, god chose an act of love to draw me in, so i now feel compelled to do the same…
By: travelersnote on November 26, 2009
at 12:30 PM
I tell my kids that they can always find people to help them justify themselves, but such people are not their friends. Paul told Timothy, “correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.”
You are right, that the goal is not create outsiders, but rather we should care deeply enough about people within the assembly to correct them, first personally then collectively. This is not to drive them away, but to build them up.
By: John Ramsey on November 26, 2009
at 7:10 PM
thanks John!
wouldn’t it be better if we let God do that?
I am curious with the verse for “forgive others 70×7″ which is hebrew metaphor for immeasurably.
in matthew 18 15-20, Jesus uses story and jewish hyperbole to remind the disciples that it is not about who is the greatest, but how they use their influence on the “other”.
in the psychological field their is a behavioral model called Relationship Impact Model, a friend of mine uses this in their kids home (a christian ministry) where they expend themselves on “raising” these kids by never noticing their mistakes or “sins”, but rather focusing on their good personality traits and the positive things they bring to the table. kid after kid comes back after growing out of the program and states that it is that model that has helped shaped them into better human beings. which i think essentially is what Jesus might have wanted??
in all the verses above it is important to remember they were written by people in a certain time in certain place in a certain context (even my verses i have shared)…and so if we take that conversation out about who is the greatest (from Matt 18); then it becomes a verse about correction, yet in context it becomes a completely different charge.
By: travelersnote on November 27, 2009
at 12:03 PM
I think there’s a difference between “forbearing one another in love” ( http://bit.ly/7BLnNC ) and condoning or ignoring egregious behavior.
Until recently, my daughter worked in a residential treatment facility. Without negative consequences for negative behavior those kids would have killed each other, their caregivers, and themselves. They tried to do those very things on multiple occasions. Not all children require that type of rigor. Having raised two great adult children and with two little girls still at home, I can say what works with one does not work with another.
With childrearing, the goal is not to impose a specific set of behaviors, but rather you try to nurture specific skills such as honesty, a work ethic, respect, discretion, and discernment. In the assembly, there is a natural order such as in the family. The elder are supposed to shepherd the younger (1 Peter 5:1-3). The younger are supposed to respect the elder (1 Timothy 5:1-2). The goal within the assembly is perfecting spiritual maturity. Now, some might mistake the desired outcome for a specific set of behaviors, but spiritual maturity is really an unwavering relationship of faith.
In many cases, I must overlook what I see as deficiencies in my brothers’ faith, just as they forbear my deficiencies. I don’t want to nitpick at anyone, nor do I want anyone to nitpick at me. Nevertheless, I have see brothers practicing immorality blatantly and without repentance. I have seen these situations overlooked, and I have seen the devastation that results. I have also seen other brothers rescued from themselves.
Jude writes, “Have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them from the fire; and on some have mercy with fear.” In each case, the goal is the same, but the methodology differs.
By: John Ramsey on November 27, 2009
at 1:15 PM
I would say that the Father-Child metaphor is insufficient when explaining the paradigm shift of grace-driven living.
Interestingly enough the word for ‘correct’ is paideu in the Greek it connotes learning with the innocence of a child. Most people might think it means castigate or tell someone that they are wrong. Yet the connotation is more of one that encourages one to rediscover their own innocence.
Also Paul chose his words carefully, I would assume, and if in Timothy he says “scripture is good for…” then Paul is saying scripture is good for it, not that it is our responsibility to do so, but that it is the person’s responsibility to do so. See, the danger is that we have the log in our own eye. Jesus was essentially saying that we all get it wrong, and that he isn’t afraid of us getting it wrong. Now, that is freeing. That is grace. That is dependency.
Also, I would say it is imperative to remember that Paul had a context that we weren’t present for. So we can only assume based on what scholars say for the context. And so, naturally we will already take it out of its context, because we weren’t living in that context. And so, the challenge for us today is to discover what it means to rewrite or write scripture, or even better said, be the pages rather than cull the pages.
Jesus invites us all into relationship, but it is a relationship smothered in grace. And scripture only paints what others thought of God. Their perception of him and how they lived it out and they invite us to do the same thing. To love one another, to love our enemies, to see past all of our faults, and yes, maybe even depend on grace to change people at any expense.
I like the conversation
By: travelersnote on November 28, 2009
at 6:08 PM
The conversation is great. I thank you.
We are called into a relationship of grace by faith. God’s declaring us righteous based upon faithfulness is one common thread between the Old and New Covenants. Now, grace is not earned, but neither does it come without expectations (Matthew 16:24 and 1 Corinthians 6:20). We are not our own. Nor do we live unto ourselves. According to 1 John, we are called into loving relationships with one another.
The relationships within the assembly are familial. Don’t think I’m saying there needs to be some type of patriarchal hierarchy where some old man is always right. Nevertheless, relationships should like family, and there is a natural order where older look out for younger and stronger look out for the weaker (Romans 15:1).
To the extent that we are family, we are responsible one for another. The writer of Hebrews exhorts, “See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God.” The responsibility is collective and relational; Paul speaks to brothers. He goes on to say, “Encourage one another each day as long as it is called today, that none of you should be hardened by sins deceitfulness.” Now “encourage” is a good positive reinforcement kind of word. I like encouragement, but “encourage” is not the only tool in the box.
Paul had no problems publically confronting Peter when Peter was wrong (Galatians 2:11). Paul called attention to Peter’s hypocrisy, but Peter didn’t react by feuding with Paul. In fact, Peter later equates Paul’s letters to “other Scripture.” Peter accepted correction, although it was probably unpleasant at the moment.
Paul told Titus how to deal with those from Crete, “Rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith.” He told Timothy, “Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.” I don’t know how this would work in the context of a mega-church, but I know that it works in a family.
You speak of context. Paul speaks to Titus about the context of his ministry affirming that “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” Titus was not going on an evangelistic trip. He was identifying and appointing elders within the assemblies on Crete. The Cretans were, in fact, liars, evil brutes, and lazy gluttons for whom Christ died.
Paul told Titus, “Encourage and rebuke with all authority.” Titus was to do both, as either became necessary.
Love is not always genteel.
By: John Ramsey on November 28, 2009
at 9:04 PM
You are right. Love isn’t gentle. It is downright scandalous. Gentle is almost domesticating the proper attributes of love. A great example of love in action would be from Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables. Where the criminal gets caught in the act of stealing the vicars silverware and when the police catch the criminal and bring him back to the vicar to confront the situation, the vicar decides to absolve the criminals actions with an act of grace, not of correction. In fact, at the end of that conversation the vicar states that he has purchased the criminals soul because of this act. there is something incredibly redemptive in grace, that you can’t get from correction.
i do believe that there are times to correct people, don’t get me wrong, but when it comes to our views of God, I think Paul might have been wrong, but in this instance he was right only because paul was trying to sustain the inclusivity of Christs’ message.
I think within certain circles of Christianity there is this need to feel like we are responsibility to correct one another, and we might even use verses to support this view, but when the Bible was written it was attempting to be doctrinal. Human history has shown that it is men that create doctrines and systems of beliefs, and yet, God is against them. Some might even see the Bible as a plumbline and may even use a verse for this, yet, scripture points us to a person or another way to say it, is that it points us to walk in the way of Jesus, follow God rather than a book. Jesus never points us back to what we now call scripture, when he says law, to a Jew they didn’t think the OT, they thought the law, a document, a record of God interacting with man that they took too seriously and Jesus was reminding them that God, life and the way things should bea are discovered outside of the book by living out our relationship with God.
Sometimes we treat the bible like a manual, when we do this, it minimizes the power of story and how story-driven the book really is and how it is a commentary not on how to do things, but how others did things within their context and time. This view widens up the possibilities of learning immensely, learning about one another, about God, about truth, and about life to name a few. When we seek to quote verses out of a context within which we were never physically present for, there is naturally going to be a subjective element to what we find and claim as truth. So, naturally in this environment, truth becomes subjective. And a psychologist might even add that on earth, there is no fully objective truth because we are created as subjective beings. But, God knows this and isn’t scared of the differences we come up, so I ask, why are we? It seems because we want to control the epistemological development of ideas that by nature are going to subjective. I think it would be healthier to say, “my intepretation of God and scripture leads me to think that correcting one another is beneficial to a relationship”. The Jews defined taking God’s name in vain, not as putting the word damn after God, but actually saying “God said this” or “God told me to tell you this”, why? Because we are subjective and God is objective and they thought a human attaching their authority to a statement God said would cheapen who God was. Amazing stuff…
Thanks!
By: travelersnote on November 29, 2009
at 9:49 AM
sorry i meant “it was attempting NOT to be doctrinal”….ooopss
By: travelersnote on November 29, 2009
at 9:50 AM
Jesus said, speaking of the Law, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
Paul likewise affirmed the Law, saying, “Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.” The Law serves a purpose, that is to say, no one can be justified based upon works.
Did the Jews miss the point of the Law, yes. Probably in the same way that churches attempt to automate Christianity. Maybe this the point of your latest comment.
However, I think it is too simplistic to say, “when the Bible was written it was not attempting to be doctrinal.” Surely, there are books and passages that are not doctrinal. For instance, we do not offer our daughters as burnt offerings just because Jephthah did (Judges 11:39) even though Jephthah was commended for his faith in Hebrews 11.
The Gospel of John is an eyewitness account, as you would say, a story. Yet, John writes, “these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”
Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, and life by faith in his name are doctrine and this is the entire purpose of John’s Gospel. They were also non-negotiable. In 1 John, he speaks of antichrists, saying “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” These were those who taught doctrines in opposition to the Gospel which John taught. Paul also stood firm on doctrine in Galatians 1. The entire books of Romans and Hebrews are doctrinal dissertations.
Paul squelched possible objections from the Corinthians saying, “Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.” Paul was telling the Corinthians, “This is doctrine!”
Certainly, we interpret Scripture subjectively. Nevertheless, our subjectivity does not alter the underlying truth. Ultimately, what we think does not establish truth about God. God is immutable.
I know that different churches or denominations pull Scripture out of context to establish indefensible traditions. Some of these teachings may be intellectually dishonest. Others may be misinterpretations. We don’t need to trifle with these things. Toss all the extrapolations made by theologians over the centuries, I won’t care, but Scripture and the doctrines of Scripture are foundational. “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of Christ.”
We might disagree on the meaning of a passage, so what? We should affirm the truth of the passage. Paul told the Philippians, “if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.” I think the NIV is inferior here, but I’m quoting it anyway.
As we walk in relationship with Jesus Christ our perceptions and understandings change. This is good. It is called growth.
You and I do not have to agree, but neither should we equivocate our message as you suggest. Our message may be imperfect; Paul tells us, “We know in part and we prophesy in part.” Yet Peter tells us, “If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God.”
This is an awesome privilege. Yet when we speak with authority, our speech (however incomplete) should be consistent with God as he has revealed himself through Scripture (1 Timothy 3:10-17).
By: John Ramsey on November 29, 2009
at 8:31 PM
Great conversation going on here, guys! Keep it up!
By: Ken Eastburn on November 30, 2009
at 7:48 AM
You said: We might disagree on the meaning of a passage, so what? We should affirm the truth of the passage. Paul told the Philippians, “if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.” I think the NIV is inferior here, but I’m quoting it anyway.
So because you or I affirm the truth does that make it truthful? Is truth something that seeks our affirmation?Are the plumblines of truth bound by 66 books or God? I would argue that it is dangerous to assume that we humans can come to a place where we say we “know” this is truth. However, I would agree that truth is an experience. But truth is much bigger than one person, one verse or one perspective. Once we bring it to that point, truth becomes reduced to nothing more than either a few bible verses or a few cliches.
I tend to be passionate about how the views saw the world and the scriptures, not because I agree with them, but it makes sense to understand their point of view and why and what they said. It helps us turn the corner properly.
I would reiterate that none of scripture is doctrinal. If you read the definition of doctrine and then apply that phraseology to scripture, it minimizes the intentions of the writers, of which we do not know wholeheartedly. Doctrinal approaches to scripture minimize the force behind the words and intent of the authors who had an audience they were attempting to engage within a certain period of history. I think too many times in churches we get taugh that scripture is this manual we live by or is a plumbline we gauge all we do. When apparently those who were living scripture didn’t do it all the time, and yet God isn’t railing agains them that they are doing something wrong. Sure, he gets frustrated at them…but he never quotes scripture to them directly from his own lips or mouth or personage. Depending on how you see scripture, you might say that God spoke through people, which I would agree with. But, these people are bound to get it wrong as well. And so we must recapture the art of the campfire. The jews sat around and had this bonfires where they would share story after story of how god rescued them and how real he was to them, they didn’t sit around these campfires deliberating doctrines…but encountering the Shekinah face-to-face when they told these stories…awesome stuff!!
By: travelersnote on December 1, 2009
at 7:28 AM
This is such a difficult concept to grasp for those of Faith and not. For example, if I disagree with your decisions or choices, I can still love you. But many seem to feel that if one disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle or gay marriage, they are a bigot and filled with hate.
We’re too quick to toss out Scripture in support of why homosexuality is a sin and how God created traditional marriage…than to try and love someone even if they’re different.
We don’t have to tolerate agendas designed to redefined marriage but we can love people where they are in life and for wanting something more than what they have.
By: Rick Garner on December 6, 2009
at 7:43 PM
[...] what’s the problem with that? It is a self-defeating goal. It is like tolerance…if it works, there is no reason to solve the real problem – in this case, their unbelief and/or [...]
By: To those shallow enough to be offended by “Happy Holidays”: « intimate.stranger. on December 8, 2009
at 10:31 AM