Tolerance is Not a Christian Virtue

 

Tolerance is a buzz word in modern western society. On the surface, the use of the word 'tolerance' is intended to expand and maintain peace among people of varying religions, beliefs and practices who live in the same communities. The idea of tolerance is rooted in the ideology of love for everyone, which is, in turn, rooted in the non-christian belief that because God is the God of love, then He cannot also be the God of judgment and wrath that the Christians are warning people about. After all, how can a God of love destroy people whom He supposedly made to be gay or lesbian or trans, etcetera? It is this misunderstanding of God's love that has opened society up to it's own usurpation by those of compassionate hearts.

I stated that the surface purpose of the use of the word 'tolerance' is to maintain peace, but I believe that the deeper purpose is to undermine the deep, fundamentally Christian roots of western society. Merriam Webster defines 'tolerance' as "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own". As the church, we are supposed to be defending the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, not offering sympathy and indulging those things which are contrary to those teachings. Satan loves to attack anything that God has implemented and his views are absolutely contrary to the views and desires of God. The nuclear family is a prime target of his. The nuclear family is a picture of the church of God in relation to God.

In Paul's first letter to the church in Corinth, he lays out the hierarchy in heaven and earth as it pertains to God the Father, Jesus the Son, and man and the family unit. In chapter 11 verse 3 we read, "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." This sets God the Father as the head over everything, Jesus the Son as answering to the Father yet over man, and man as the head of the wife, and therefore the family as a whole, while the man answers to both Jesus the Son and God the Father.

Satan has been attacking the nuclear family for as long as it has existed, beginning with Adam and Eve. In the Garden of Eden, the serpent undermined the authority of the man by approaching the woman in order to deceive her, who then lead the man into sin due to his inability or unwillingness to assert his dominion over the woman and rebuke her for her weakness. It is my assertion that had Adam stood firm against the woman and the snake, the fall of man would not have happened (at that time) and Adam would have redeemed Eve by his actions. But that is not the reality of what happened and mankind has been paying the price and repeating the pattern ever since.

But Satan didn't stop there. Practically the next thing that we read about is the sibling rivalry between Cain and Abel, which famously lead to the murder of Abel at the hands of his own brother. This caused Cain to have to flee for his life causing a further rift in the family.

But you may be wondering how this all ties into the tolerance that society now teaches us is the ultimate ideal to which we must all strive. Just think of all of the things of which we are supposed to be tolerant today and when that began. How many of these things are direct assaults on the makeup of the nuclear family? Considering my own lifetime, I recall that the alphabet community used to live in fear of being found out for their "alternative lifestyles" because these were not only considered amoral, but also illegal and carried social and legal penalties. Then, I believe that it was in the 70's that then Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau changed the laws in Canada that homosexuality was no longer illegal. This was not the beginning of the slide down the slippery slope of societal moral decay, but this was a major turning point in the makeup of the country. There has always been marital unfaithfulness and family abuses which are against God's plan, but these were generally found behind closed and locked doors and were still looked down upon by society as a whole. This move by Pierre Trudeau, a professing catholic (little "c"), was an early step towards the government involving itself in moral issues over which it had no authority, and which precipitated an ever increasing moral decline of the citizenry of the country, since it had now become the purview of the government to determine what was morally right and what was not. Anybody who has observed governments for a while knows that they will do whatever is expedient to gain or retain power, and moral absolutes do not fit into that mode of operation. The church has been removed as the moral compass of society.

Of course, we have witnessed an ever growing pace of growth in the "acceptance" of other alternative lifestyle choices over the last several decades; this is, after all, the nature of the slippery slope. Once one step has been taken in the moral degeneracy of society, each and every other moral aberration wants the same type of protection and acceptance that they see others achieve, and the effect snowballs because nobody wants to make the hard decision and draw the line. This is how we have come to the place where Minor Attracted People (MAPs) are pushing to receive acceptance of their desire to have sexual relations with children. We used to call these people pedophiles and have them chemically castrated and imprisoned, yet now we are on the verge of accepting their abomination as normal, and, God forbid, even moving towards making this acceptable and even a normality!!

This is the result of the idea of, if not the use of the word 'tolerance'. While the word has only become a buzz word in the last decade or two, the idea has been catching and spreading like a grass fire. When we capitulate our moral standing and fail to stand against these things, we open the door for more of the same, thus 'tolerance' becomes the knife by which the moral fabric of a society gets gutted.

Today, I have a rare scenario to which I may be exposed. I live in what has historically been a largely Christian part of the country, so I have had little exposure to the insanity of the trans ideology. That is not to say that it does not exist in this area, because it does, but it is still somewhat of an aberration here and I have seen and interacted with very few trans individuals. 

Today, I will be attending a funeral for one of my wife's elderly aunts. While reading the obituary, my wife noticed that one of her cousin's kids seemed to be missing from the list of the family and another name was there instead. As it turns out, 'Adam' has come to think that he should have been 'Eve'.

I don't know this person. We have been somewhat estranged from this side of the family for most of our married life for various reasons, and this specific part of the family lives half way across the country from us, but there is a slight possibility that I may end up having some type of interaction with this he/she. Given that I have been thinking on the notion of tolerance for a little while now, and also given that I am not the type to pretend to be something that I am not simply to keep the peace, this could end up being a very interesting funeral indeed.

You see, I cannot see myself calling this person by their chosen name. Beyond that, I also cannot see myself tolerating the situation by avoiding referring to him in any male gendered language such as calling him "her" or avoiding that type of language all together. Tolerance is the avoidance of hard truths. I am not afraid of hard things and I am not concerned about "becoming" a pariah in the family; I already am to a degree. The real questions are, will I intentionally "dead-name" this person, and will I point out the hypocrisy of Christians tolerating this garbage at what should be a somewhat solemn occasion? 

I have no idea how far I will go. I believe that, for the sake of the family as a whole, I will not intentionally seek out this individual for any purpose whatsoever; this family situation really is not my problem, but if confronted with the issue, I can't say that I won't point out to anybody who may be paying attention the same things that I am pointing out in this article.

As I quoted from Paul's first letter to the church in Corinth earlier, I will quote from his second letter now. In 2 Corinthians 11:19-20, Paul is berating the church for their weakness in their failure to stand against those who would roll over them. Earlier in this very chapter, Paul tells the church that he is jealous for them, as one who has "betrothed" them to Christ and who wants to present them to Him as a "pure virgin" (v.2). Paul states his legitimate concern that he fears that the church is being "lead astray" from the "simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ" through the same means that the serpent deceived Eve in the Garden (v.3). In verse 4 he gives the reason for his concern; "For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully."

Now the word "beautifully" is, in my opinion, a poorly chosen word in this case. Its use seems to indicate to those who are not reading these words thoughtfully, that what Paul is warning them about is not, in fact a warning. We use the word "beautifully" in the English language to indicate a good thing, such as to say that, "You performed that musical number beautifully". This is not what Paul is conveying here. The newer version of the NASB says "this you tolerate very well!" While this is a slight improvement in the language, other versions state it more clearly for the English reader, by saying "you put up with it easily enough" (NIV); "you put up with it readily enough." (ESV); "You happily put up with whatever anyone tells you" (NLT). The statement that they are "putting up" with this false teaching is telling the people that they should not be doing so! They are forgetting what they have already been taught by approved teachers of the Gospel because what they have heard from "false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ" (v.13) seems to be such a wonderful and loving message!

This gets us back to verses 19-20, which state, "For you, being so wise, tolerate the foolish gladly. For you tolerate it if anyone enslaves you, anyone devours you, anyone takes advantage of you, anyone exalts himself, anyone hits you in the face." In the light of their own 'wisdom', these believers have let themselves be duped into believing that tolerance of these false teachings is loving. In their 'wisdom' they have tolerated foolishness. Is this not where we are at today!? Look at what Paul continues with and how it relates to the church today. We are tolerating it when others "enslave" us with false ideas; if others "devour" us and hit us "in the face" with accusations of hate and division; we do not react when others take advantage of our meekness and 'exalt' themselves above us due to their acceptance and tolerance of others whose ideals do not match our own. Paul is speaking to the church today!!

We are not called to accept the errors of our brothers and sisters; we are called to bring them back to a right standing with Christ! When someone is acting in contradiction to clear teachings of the Scriptures, we are to "not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother" (2 Thess. 3:15). James 5:19-20 tells us, "My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, 20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins." We are to correct a brother who has been lead astray from solid doctrine; we are not supposed to 'tolerate' his sin and leave him to suffer the penalties of those sins.

We see in Revelation that Jesus Himself commends the church in Ephesus that they "cannot tolerate evil men", but they test the teachings of those who come before them and deny and decry those teachings that are false. We need to be doing the same! Tolerance should not be an attribute of the Christian church. We are to "stand firm", "having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness" (Ephesians 6:14).

I guess we'll see how this funeral goes. I have no intention of allowing the decay that is brought on by 'tolerance' to continue in my proximity. I hope that you feel the same way.

If this article has helped to affirm your feelings and has strengthened you to stand against the idea of tolerance, please let me know in the comment section below. Also, please feel free to look at other articles that I have written, as can be found on my home page.

Update for anybody who may be curious; I did not have any direct contact with 'Adam' so the funeral was not disturbed by me, but I have been wrestling with what those who affirm his transition who claim to follow Jesus will face when they meet their Saviour. I cannot understand what drives a person to do to themselves the things that this young man has done and will continue to do, nor can I understand how his wife can support him and choose to stay with him through this. This level of dissociation among all of those involved is bewildering to me.