"Christians are intolerant of other viewpoints!"

Copan, Paul. True for You, But Not for Me: Overcoming Objections to Christian Faith. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009.

Intolerance commonly has been associated with religion—and not without basis. For example, Luke 14:23 (KJV), which says, “compel them to come in [Latin: compelle intrare],” was used by medieval religious authorities to justify a “conquest theology.”

The Crusades, the Inquisition, and other such abuses certainly are a blot on Christendom’s history. Philosopher John Locke’s Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) was inspired by Europe’s post-Reformation religious conflicts, such as the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648). Today it’s popular to say that religion is inherently intolerant and creates division.

True, there’s a lot of nasty and even terrifying intolerance on the religious landscape. But can’t a religious culture also foster genuine tolerance? And what about secular ideologies that pose an incalculable threat to tolerance? Atheistic communism alone resulted in the estimated killings of some sixty-five million under Mao Zedong in China, a minimum of twenty-five million under Bolshevist and Stalinist Russia, two million under Pol Pot in Cambodia, and millions more throughout the rest of the world.

Genuine Tolerance

The last chapter’s discussion of “judgment” relates intricately to the much-abused term tolerance. Many are surprised to learn that tolerance implies a close relationship to truth. Contrary to popular definitions, true tolerance means “putting up with error”—not “accepting all views.” We don’t tolerate what we enjoy or endorse—say, chocolate, or roses, or Mozart’s music. By definition, we tolerate what we don’t approve of or what we believe to be false.

Tolerance does not celebrate or embrace or accept as legitimate all perspectives. Rather, tolerance is a kind of negative attitude—a dislike or disapproval or even condemnation of beliefs and actions perceived to be incorrect—that allows people to hold to different views without rejecting one another as people. In other words, tolerance involves some degree of restraint toward those who think differently.

If disagreement didn’t exist, then tolerance would be unneeded. It’s the existence of real differences between people that makes tolerance necessary and virtuous. Scripture uses the terms enduring, showing forbearance or bearing with (anech; see Ephesians 4:2; Colossians 3:13). Alexander Pope’s “Essay on Man” also captures the difference between tolerance, compassion, and celebration:

Vice is a monster of so frightful mein [appearance],
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

The contemporary tolerance-as-acceptance view is simply misguided, and it creates massive inconsistencies. Take the matter of “comparative religions” or “religious studies.” The common assumption at the religious roundtable is, “We should consider all religious views equal.” This lowest-common-denominator approach is assumed—without qualification. It isn’t true dialogue, which should begin not by assuming the equality of all religions or truth-claims (the erroneous definition of tolerance) but by regarding the equality of persons. Dialogue implies respect for people, not agreement with their beliefs.

A Christian can respect, interact with, and learn from a Buddhist while still believing on rational grounds that the Buddhist is mistaken on certain core beliefs. In fact, the assumption that conflicting views cannot both be right is an impetus to engage in meaningful dialogue. Dialogue thus becomes an opportunity for both sides to gain understanding, reexamine presuppositions, and clarify positions. True tolerance grants people the right to dissent.

Now, we don’t have to respect all views to be tolerant. For example, I don’t respect the belief that morality is relative. Nevertheless, we must show respect for the image-of-God-bearing persons who happen to hold those perspectives.

Again, Christians criticized for intolerance might ask an accuser, “What do you mean by ‘intolerance’?” If he or she says something to the effect that you’re “not being accepting of another’s beliefs,” gently respond, “But you likewise are not being accepting of my position. You think I’m wrong.” No one can accept all positions as true without falling into egregious contradictions.

One of relativism’s ironies is that it exalts a phony view of tolerance to absolute status. A belief is “true for you” only as long as it doesn’t interfere with what’s “true for me.” The relativist often says something like this: “You can legitimately hold your belief, but you also should be tolerant of other views.” To be a bit more consistent, she should say, “It doesn’t matter what you believe”—period. Yet through the back door popular relativism slips absolutes: “. . . just as long as you’re tolerant,” or “. . . as long as you don’t hurt anyone,” or “. . . so long as it’s between two consenting adults.” Hence, in addition to relativism’s intrinsic absolutism (“everything is relative,” “there are no absolutes”), it holds to yet another universal precept: the hallowed standard of “tolerance.” Relativism is packed full of values presumed true for all people.

Actually, God’s reality makes tolerance intelligible: God, as truth, is the source of truth, and he made human beings in his likeness. Naturalism has no such foundation for tolerance. If nature is all there is, and if humans are highly evolved animals, then why tolerance rather than “Nature, red in tooth and claw”? Why value others—even if we disagree with them—rather than eliminate the opposition?

Realms of Tolerance

What about tolerance within the church? While we should bear with one another (Galatians 6:1), should the church “tolerate” unbiblical activity in its midst? Here we should distinguish between certain spheres of tolerance. For example, living in adultery is legally tolerated, but it should not be ecclesiastically tolerated (within the church) for professing Christians. Church discipline—perhaps even to the point of (temporarily) excluding someone from the community—may be necessary, but its goal should always be restorative and redemptive (e.g., Matthew 18:15; 1 Corinthians 5:5).

Despite the relativist’s presumed and lofty neutrality, he is actually convictionless and therefore a menace to society. Lacking any real standard of truth, relativism makes personal power-grabbing an end in itself. Without truth, power becomes the only game in town. Why respect another’s freedom if objective truth doesn’t exist?

There are many tangible examples of how belief in truth need not lead to violence and hatred. Of the Amish, who are deeply committed to the truth of the Christian faith, Tim Keller (b. 1950) asks and answers the question, “Why will there never be Amish terrorists?”

If we let this sink into our hearts, behind the potential divisiveness of exclusive truth-claims stands an open-armed Savior willing to stoop to the very lowest depths to rescue us and include us in his family. Christ’s saving exclusivism is global, as inclusive as human hearts will allow it to be.

Summary

• Ask what your relativist friend means by (in)tolerant. If by tolerance she means “accepting all views as true,” then you can say, “You don’t accept my view as true. Are you being intolerant?”

• Point out that the historical definition of tolerance—putting up with error—is the consistent one. “Acceptance of all views” doesn’t work because tolerance is closely linked to truth.

• Real discussion doesn’t begin with the acceptance of all truth-claims as equal; it begins with the equality of persons.

• Relativists do assume moral absolutes: “You can’t judge” (“judging is wrong”); “you can’t be intolerant” (“intolerance is wrong”); “you’re free to do what you want—just as long as you don’t hurt anybody” (“hurting others is wrong”). In contrast to non-theistic perspectives, humans having been created in God’s image is the necessary basis for affirming their dignity and worth.

• Different realms or spheres of tolerance: Some things legally tolerated in society shouldn’t be tolerated in the church; persistence in certain wrong actions will require loving, restorative discipline.

• The very example of God taking the position of weakness and dying in our place is a powerful answer to the charge that Christianity is arrogant and intolerant.

Further Reading

Budziszewski, J. True Tolerance: Liberalism and the Necessity of Judgment. Edison, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2001.

Gaede, S.D. When Tolerance Is No Virtue: Political Correctness, Multiculturalism, and the Future of Truth and Justice. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994.