Beginning in the fall of 2000, Paramount Studios plans to begin airing a television show hosted by Dr. Laura Schlessinger, the enormously popular talk-radio psychiatrist. Yet Paramount has been bombarded with protests against this decision because of Dr. Laura’s insistence that homosexuality is deviant behavior, a conclusion she reached after her conversion to Orthodox Judaism. The protesters vociferously decry the show because of Dr. Laura’s hateful intolerance. Their website, stopdrlaura.com, proclaims that the issue is not one of free speech, but one of “tolerance and fairness.”[i]

          The publication of a Southern Baptist prayer guide for the conversion of Jews has produced similarly noteworthy controversy, as have prayer guides for Hindus and others. Such an act was deemed incredibly uncouth. Abraham Foxman, the president of the Anti-Defamation League, is reported to have responded that “it is pure arrogance for any religion to assume that they hold ‘the truth’.” The critics agree that such a claim demonstrates gross intolerance.

          Many observers have suggested that the greatest, perhaps even the only sin left in our culture is the sin of intolerance. But what does is mean to be tolerant or intolerant? Stories like those above typify the popular conception of the definition of these terms. While participating in a television roundtable discussion on the Southern Baptist prayer guides, Rabbi Schmuley Boteach exclaimed, “I thought I was living in an enlightened world where people respected each other and had tolerance.[ii]”  The tolerance spoken of here implies acceptance and affirmation of any and every viewpoint and behavior, and more importantly, the rejection of any claims to absolute truth. On the same program, the rabbi instructs the leader of Jews for Jesus, who applauds the effort of Southern Baptists, “to embrace tolerance, because clearly your belief system that you have now adopted is leading to you be intolerant.[iii]” What makes Jews for Jesus or the Southern Baptists intolerant? For that matter, why is Dr. Laura considered intolerant? The underlying reason for this charge is the fact that they disagree with the others. The perception is that intolerance is inherent in any public moral commitments, and so in the name of tolerance one should refrain from expressing such truth claims[iv]. Publicly holding to a moral commitment necessarily implies that those who disagree are wrong, and that is, to them, very offensive. That is the transgression of Dr. Laura and the Southern Baptists, and the culture is firmly reprimanding them.

          Tolerance, it seems, is not what it used to be. The historical definition of tolerance carries with it the implication that there is disagreement and disapproval. To tolerate a particular behavior or viewpoint would be to find it objectionable but allow it to continue. Francis Beckwith reminds us that true tolerance assumes that there are opposing viewpoints which cannot all be true, and “presupposes that someone is right and someone is wrong, which implicitly denies moral relativism.”[v] Don Carson describes the recent shift in the definition, observing that until recently “a person was considered tolerant if he or she held strong views but insisted that the other person had the right to give his or her views. That person was still considered very tolerant. Nowadays, tolerance is increasingly taking on a different hue. It means that a person has no strong views or no strong views except the strong view that you mustn't have strong views.[vi]” 

The postmodern conception of tolerance, however, is firmly rooted in a relativistic value of neutrality. Because truth is relative and every belief system must have equal worth “we are constantly beseeched to be ‘nonjudgmental,’ to be wary of crediting our beliefs with any greater validity than anyone else’s.”[vii] To do so would be the height of arrogance. Our present environment opposes truth claims, believing that “pluralism no longer means tolerating competing ideas, but rather forced neutrality,” where no person or group has a right to make a truth claim that could offend another.[viii]

Such neutrality is impossible, because in every life and belief system, “some concern eventually emerges as paramount,” everyone bows to something[ix]. Carson’s statement above raises an interesting point here. Even popular tolerance is not, indeed cannot, be completely “tolerant” (according to the modern definition of the word). Thus Daniel Taylor observes: “it is widely acknowledged that no moral person tolerates everything… Given that everyone agrees that some things should not be tolerated, the real issue should not be whether one is tolerant or intolerant, but what's included on one's list.”[x]

While this is quite obviously true in reality, suppose it was not. A person in such a situation would not be described as tolerant but as indifferent. If a person had no ultimate allegiance or concern but was really indifferent, that person would never disagree with anyone, and would thus have no need to for tolerance.[xi] Indeed much of what passes for tolerance in our day is simply moral apathy and indifference. It has been noted that “The least tolerant person is the person who accepts everything, because such a person is not required to overcome any internal objections.”[xii]

Speck argues well that, rather than promoting tolerance, the kind of relativistic being discussed here, and advocated in the culture, actually fosters intolerance. He reasserts that it is impossible for contradictory truth claims regarding one issue to both be true and valid. Ultimately, he argues that to have a personal belief about what is true while admitting that such a belief may not be true for another person leads to normlessness, which eventually leads to tyranny, quite the opposite of tolerance.[xiii] After all, the relativist cannot be consistent and yet claim that the Holocaust was wrong, because a great many people may have earnestly believed that it was right “for them.” Clearly the advocates of “tolerance” would never tolerate the ideas of Hitler even if he never had the opportunity to act on them.

Many scholars and pundits alike have been amused to point out that the advocates of the new tolerance seem terribly intolerant of truth claims like those described above, a point which serves to illustrate the fact that such tolerance is ultimately impossible. Many are simply unable or unwilling to confront the fact that postmodern tolerance is unavoidably inconsistent and impossible to maintain. In the same statement, Harold Kushner at once denies being a relativist and yet asserts that “My sense is there ought to be a way to affirm that my religion is true without having to say everybody who disagrees with me is wrong. I would insist a religion is true if it makes a person a better person when he or she lives by it.”[xiv]

Kushner’s statement (which without doubt echoes a popular view) reveals that the postmodern mindset is more concerned with subjective feelings than objective truth, and is dependent upon human thinking. This provides insight into the causes of the shift in the popular understanding of tolerance and its supreme importance in our culture.  Pannenberg believes that the cause can be traced to the “relativizing of the formerly absolute authority of moral norms… with the emphasis upon individual freedom as the final authority in the conduct of life.”[xv] He goes on to suggest that the need for “tolerance” exists because people continually want to claim personal exemptions from formerly absolute moral norms. The new tolerance arises from the “question of how the formulation and observance of general norms can be made subservient to individual preference.”[xvi] Thus this postmodern notion of tolerance is ultimately a way out of personal responsibility for our own actions and beliefs. If I affirm that there is no absolute truth and that every person has the right to determine what to believe and how to live, then I remove any restrictions from doing what I want and any accountability for my actions. I am only responsible to myself.

          What, then, is the Biblical response to the call for tolerance? Should we be tolerant? Obviously that depends upon the definition of tolerance being employed. If tolerance is akin to moral indifference or relativism, than the answer is absolutely not. As we have seen, many people assume that each individual has a right to determine what is right for them, and that to challenge their individual autonomy with a truth claim is to be intolerant. They ask who has the right to question what is wrong or right for them. The Christian perspective clearly believes that the Creator God “is in a position to tell us how we ought to think and act. The divine Creator has fashioned us in accordance with his wise purposes, and God has given us instructions for living.”[xvii] At the heart of Christianity is the belief that there is a God who has revealed Himself through His Word, the Bible. As our Creator, God has every right to place expectations on us and teach us how to live. In the prophecy of Isaiah 45, God clearly addresses those who challenge His authority and asserts His rights as Creator, saying “do you question me about my children, or give me orders about the work of my hands? It is I who mad the earth and created mankind upon it…” (Isaiah 45:11-12).

          So what should be the biblical response to divisive issues like homosexuality? How should we respond to those whose opinions and lifestyles are not biblical? Working from the traditional definition of tolerance, which assumes disagreement and/or disapproval, should Christians be tolerant? Or should we, as some would argue, forget about what the world thinks and stand up for what we know to be true?

          I would argue that we do not necessarily have to choose between the two extremes, as no dichotomy exists between them. Perhaps the most instructive example of tolerance in the Bible is found in John 8:1-11. The religious leaders bring a woman caught in adultery and ask if she should be stoned. His famous reply is that whoever is without sin should cast the first stone. After they leave, Jesus does not condemn the woman and tells her to sin no more. This story certainly supports a tolerant stance towards sin, recognizing that all of us are sinners and deserve punishment. But we should not fail to notice that Jesus doesn’t give approval to the woman’s actions or lifestyle, as He commands her to “leave your life of sin” (NIV). Jesus responds by both upholding moral law and showing sincere compassion to the sinner in not publicly condemning her and offering her a chance to mend her ways.[xviii]

          Compassion, love, and humility characterize Jesus’ response. Is this how “Christ ones” typically respond to sins such as homosexuality or to those who practice other religions? Oftentimes when Christians stand up for morality they are seen as arrogant and pigheaded. Should we be troubled by the fact that Christians are often portrayed as “the pit bulls of the culture wars?” Daniel Taylor thinks that in many ways the portrayal is justified. He points to the fact that, within the Christian subculture, too many people use the same kind of emotional, sensationalistic rhetoric as organizations such as the ACLU. He also argues that our collective moral outrage is unbalanced, almost always directed towards sexual issues to the neglect of other societal ills such as racism, poverty, and others.[xix] Too often our strong condemnation of sin (and sinners) becomes sin itself, and only damages our greater cause.

          Our response to sin must be in line with Christ’s response to that woman. He showed compassion because of His love and desire for her to lead a changed life. In dealing with such emotionally driven cultural issues as homosexuality, we must continually remind ourselves of our primary purpose, which is to glorify God and make disciples. Too often we become consumed with winning cultural and political skirmishes and lose our focus. We must remember Paul’s admonition to the Philippians, that in all situations “conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ” (NIV).

Only God can open the eyes of the blind and change the hearts of the wicked, just as He did for us.

Some Christians would see tolerance as a tacit capitulation to sin that necessarily compromises the faith. We must remember, however, that true tolerance requires firm commitment; it is founded upon the “epistemological reality of first principles that are beyond question.”[xx] Leal suggests that the “true case of tolerance will be one where suspension of outward judgment is matched by a continuation of the commitment which made that judgment appropriate.”[xxi] In choosing to be tolerant I have made a moral commitment, and simply choose to endure someone else’s contrary commitment. Tolerance does not necessitate a refusal to speak the truth.

What is the extent of tolerance? Put another way, when is it appropriate to tolerate evil and untruth, and when is it appropriate to draw the proverbial line in the sand? Tolerance has been described as an Aristotelian type virtue. As such “it is a mean between two opposed vices, one of them characterized by excess and the other by deficiency.”[xxii] In this sense it is similar to courage, which rests between cowardice and foolhardiness. Like other such virtues, the location of true tolerance in such a spectrum is best determined on a case-by-case basis through practical wisdom. We might add that practical wisdom should here be governed by Biblical wisdom.

The Bible commands us to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). The advocates of postmodern tolerance often criticize Christians on the grounds that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, which Jesus clearly taught. They assume that to mean, however, that we should accept people just as they are. Yet that is only where love begins. Experience will affirm that real love does not always tell us what we want to hear, but often challenges us for our own good. Christian love is true love, and as such it “has a critical edge. It cannot be equated with unconditional ‘acceptance.’” [xxiii] Such love will accept the homosexual or the Hindu as they are, but will care enough to share the truth with them, however unpopular or difficult it is to bear. This was the argument Albert Mohler made to Rabbi Kushner on CNN in defending the Baptist efforts to convert Jews. We must not forget the combination of truth and love as we address sin in our world.

The key to presenting the truth in love is to do so with humility. Perhaps a lack of humility in making truth claims has been at the root of the negative perceptions of Christians discussed above. For humility “is essential when pronouncing another position as wrong, else one’s opponent can become an object to deride rather than a person made in the image of God.”[xxiv] Scripture abounds with admonitions to be humble, to “consider others better than yourselves” (Philippians 2:4).  We cannot become “puffed up” or arrogant with the truth. We must remember the words of James, that “whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it” (James 2:10). We have all sinned and are all deserving of God’s wrath. Our claim to truth stems from nothing but the grace of our Creator God, who has chosen to reveal His truth to us in spite our own rebellion and sinfulness. Ultimately the only thing that distinguishes my life from that of a radical homosexual activist is the grace of God. When I come to grips with that fact, I will surly be more humble and compassionate in my presentation of truth to that activist. Rather than arrogantly trumpeting my morality and his immorality, I will show the love of the Savior who died for us both. Then maybe the activist will be drawn to that same Savior and likewise made whole. Shouldn’t that be our goal?

This leads us to the ultimate case of tolerance, and that is found in God Himself, who tolerates our gross sinfulness and forbears judgment. Every moment that God’s wrath is withheld is evidence of His tolerance. Observe, though, that God’s tolerance does not eliminate or mitigate His coming judgment; it does not compromise His divine character. The Bible frequently speaks of the coming judgment of God because of the iniquities of men. One needs look no further than Sodom or the Babylonian exile for examples of this. God’s forbearance, His willingness to tolerate our sin is truly remarkable. Yet that is only the beginning. God does not just tolerate us, He loves us, so much so that He humbled Himself as a man (a servant) and died on a cross (Philippians 2). There we see the perfect picture of tolerance, love, and humility.

As emulators and ambassadors of God, shouldn’t we seek to respond to the sin around us in a similar manner? Thus tolerance is only the beginning. We do not tolerate just for the sake of tolerance, but in order to show the gracious love of God in the hopes that sinners will repent of their sins and honor Him. In this case tolerance is certainly not indifferent or compromising, it is seeking a higher goal and a higher good. We’re often reminded that Jesus told us not to judge others, but many forget that God will one day soon. His justice will one day prevail and the truth will be plain to see. So it is not our place to judge, but it is our responsibility to speak the truth in love and with humility. We must learn how to be committed to truth while showing compassion and love for those who oppose it. Only then will we truly demonstrate what tolerance really means, and perhaps the truth will be more evident to others in our lives than in our arguments.