Blessed Are The Tolerant?
by Roger Andersen

Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:19

I recently told a Christian friend that I was disappointed that my twenty-one year old daughter went to a popular play called The Vagina Monologues. No sooner did I express this than she jumped all over me like I was some sort of dinosaur.

“It’s a perfectly acceptable show about women’s feelings!” she insisted. “There’s nothing wrong with it at all.”

I was branded as “old fashioned” and possibly homophobic, sexist, or chauvinistic, as well. However, for me, just the name is reason enough not to patronize the show. I find it offensive and childish. More significant, though, is my problem with the subject matter. The show includes narratives about the rape of a thirteen year old girl by an older woman, the story of a dominatrix who “gives pleasure to women”, complete with a vocal demonstration of a triple orgasm, and the story of a casual affair with “Bob” who loved to just stare for hours at this girl’s pubic area.

My daughter is an adult and I don’t have the right to tell her which shows to see and which not to see. But I still feel it is appropriate to express my concerns about going to see that type of show. My friend, however, felt strongly that this was a perfectly fine show for any of us to see. I think she felt I was intolerant.

I could provide other stories about Christian parents who want to be “hip” and who no longer express Christian views about profanity, overtly improper dress, premarital sex, homosexuality, drugs (as long as it is just pot), drunkenness, cohabitation and other behaviors that are clearly proscribed by our faith. Some people might feel that expressing such views would be hypocritical if we were guilty of a few of these things in our own youth. However, if we have repented from those sins, then it is not hypocritical at all! The real issue, however, is Christians who fear that they will be labeled as intolerant. How do we resolve this dilemma?

Tolerance, according to the dictionary¹, is “sympathy for or indulgence for beliefs or practices different or conflicting with one’s own”. The very nature of tolerance, therefore, is “conflict” or disagreement. “Indulge” is also an interesting word – with a subtle definition. The dictionary lists the following synonyms: pamper, humor, spoil, or mollycoddle. The word “indulgence”, therefore, doesn’t even convey a great sense of respect! If anything, these synonyms suggest some condescension. Thus, tolerance simply implies non-interference with other’s choices (provided they do not interfere with our own choices!), despite disagreement and possibly even some disdain.

But this is not the definition which is evolving in our culture today. In fact, society now says that tolerance includes respect for other beliefs and practices as though they are equally valid with our own belief system. If I express the view that it is wrong for an unmarried man and woman to cohabitate, in today’s society I am intolerant, even though I am doing nothing to interfere with their legal right to cohabitate. I may even sympathize because I know that in my youth I could have easily been tempted into such an arrangement – or participated in similar sinful behaviors with which I disagree today (and knew was wrong even back then). It doesn’t matter. In today’s society, simply the conviction that my view is right and another is wrong is the essence of intolerance.

Many non-Christians say that we are not only intolerant, but we are also self-righteous hypocrites because we don’t follow Christ’s example of tolerance. But was Christ really tolerant?

I think it depends on which definition you apply. If you use the first definition, that which is in Webster’s Dictionary, I think Christ was tolerant. He did nothing to prevent people from sinning. He didn’t organize protests, taunt, ridicule or make fun of non-believers. In fact, he ate, drank and socialized in the homes of disreputable people. He seemed to “indulge” them. Matthew 11:19 says:

The Son of Man came eating and drinking and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners”’.

Christ associated primarily with people who were “sinners”. Yet Jesus hung out with them. He disagreed with their lifestyle and He was clearly outspoken about it, but He ate and drank with them. Though He encouraged them to change their life, He did nothing to prevent free choice. He didn’t hate them, avoid them or ridicule them. In fact, he befriended them. By this definition He was truly tolerant.

The one area, however, in which Christ was clearly intolerant, was with self-righteous people who claimed spiritual leadership. Matthew 21:12, for instance, tells us that Jesus came into the temple and physically drove out the people doing business there because they were desecrating the place. He interfered with what they were doing – he was very intolerant of their activities!

Christ’s message to sinners is generally gentle, but whenever He speaks to the self-righteous Pharisees, priests or Sadducees you can feel His anger and intolerance. In fact, I don’t think He ever sought to preach to them (though He did respond to their questions) and He never socialized with them. Christ understood that whereas there was hope for a sinner to repent, a self-righteous person sees no need for repentance. He captured this truth in Matthew 21:31 when speaking to the temple priests and elders:

I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.

Christ’s meaning is simply that tax collectors and prostitutes were more likely to repent than the self-righteous priests or Pharisees. He was not, however, preaching acceptance of the prostitute’s lifestyle.

But if we say that tolerance requires one to acknowledge other beliefs and lifestyles as equally valid (or true), then Christ was exceedingly intolerant! His message in John 14:6 is very clear:

I am the way, and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.

He didn’t say, “I am one of several equally valid ways.” He also didn’t say “Most people come to the father through me and some through other means.” And though He socialized with sinners, His message to them was always, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near” (Matthew 4:17). Though Christ would not interfere with the freedom of choice, He was clear that repentance and following His commands were prerequisites for salvation. There are no “equally valid options”.

Some people, however, try to point to the story in the gospels of the condemned adulteress as a good example of Christ’s true tolerance. In this story the Pharisees schemed to bring an adulteress before Jesus in order to trap Him. They asked Jesus if they should put her to death, as prescribed under Mosaic Law, and Jesus replied (John 8:7):

If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.

Scripture says that the crowd became conscience-stricken of their own sin and they dispersed, leaving the woman free to go. Jesus, some people would say, taught them “tolerance”.

Actually, Jesus knew that they had no right at all to condemn her and He was pointing that out to them. They were guilty of two sinful acts. First of all, scripture says that the woman was “caught in adultery”. It’s pretty obvious that it’s impossible to catch a woman in the act of adultery without also catching the man! Jewish law required that both should be punished. Yet they only brought charges against the woman and let the man go. To punish a woman and not a man for the same act was a clear injustice. Jesus recognized their corruption.

In addition, Roman law did not permit Jews to carry out executions. Though death was the penalty for adultery under Jewish law, Roman law forbade them from carrying it out². The Pharisees, however, planned to trap Christ into siding with either Jewish law or Roman law. Their intent was evil. Jesus would not take the bait by advocating civil disobedience but neither would he deny the fairness of Jewish law. He simply pointed out to the Pharisees that by their corruption they were not fit to judge.

When the crowd left, Jesus turned to the woman and said, “Go now and leave your life of sin.” Some say that Jesus forgave her, but I see no evidence that she asked for forgiveness at the time. Rather, as with all of us, Jesus was saying that He would not judge her until her death. She still had time to repent and seek forgiveness. But there was still going to be a judgment.

Clearly, Christ could not be said to have been tolerant if the definition of tolerance is accepting that other views have equal validity as our own. This new definition of tolerance should really be defined as “total absence of any convictions”. It is absolutely incompatible with Christianity. Jesus specifically warned us not to be seduced by the world’s claim that many views and lifestyles are valid:

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Matthew 7:13-14

The “broad road” is the path of today’s tolerance in ideas and lifestyles – and it leads to destruction.

We follow the tolerance example of Christ. Our views, as taught to us in scripture, are unchanging and uncompromising. It is, however, not our role to prevent or interfere with choices that other adults make. We don’t disrupt others from expressing their views in the appropriate forums, nor do we expect others to prevent us from doing so. We express our views and convictions in an intelligent and loving manner and accept the right of others to do the same. We do not prevent the choices that others make, so long as they don’t encroach upon our own freedom of choice to follow Christ. If “tolerance” is simply non-interference with the choices and beliefs of others, despite clear, honest and open disagreement, then Christians should be eminently tolerant, as was Christ.

But we follow Christ, not the views of the world, even if this is not “hip, modern or tolerant”. When we try to conform to the world, too often we must turn away from our Lord. Let us demonstrate tolerance by loving our neighbors, as Christ did, but let us be intolerant about the so-called “wisdom” of the world which denies Christ.

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this age? 1 Corinthians 1:20

¹ Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition
² Death sentences could only be given by a Roman court.

Comment Please...
Your feedback on this article, Blessed Are The Tolerant?, is welcomed and appreciated. By providing your thoughts, you can have an influence on what appears in my next book.