Questions about Tolerance

[Murph]

Have been following a discussion on a secular messageboard regarding tolerance. It is an interesting view of how the word...via a microcasm, my own community, views tolerance today.

Have put this quesiton in the Bible section because we use the Bible as our ruler...a way to measure our response and to construct our response to the world in which we live.

It was my own daughter who posed the question, she says, "I have been thinking a lot about tolerance, what it means, and how to practice it in my life. Please know that I am not trying to be a smart donkey. I really do want to understand. But I have a few questions. If I am tolerant, am I still allowed to have likes and dislikes? If so, am I allowed to voice my opinions?"

She asks if any groups/lifestyles are excluded from "tolerance"? She goes on to use the illustration of Westbrook as an example of something which can't be tolerated. I noticed she didn't use the "hot button" topics like abortion and homosexuality right out of the chute.

The bottom line question seems to be, what constitutes "tolerance?"

In todays social and political climate it is a hot question. How, as Christians, are we to respond to it?

In light of the current discussion about tolerance in government and in society it is a timely question. I thought maybe it would be good to look to the Bible for a timeless answer.

[Murph]

Thought it was interesting that Websters has as synonyms... forbearance, long-suffering, sufferance, patience

[Caretaker]

tol·er·ance
noun \ˈtä-lə-rən(t)s, ˈtäl-rən(t)s\
Definition of TOLERANCE
1
: capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina
2
a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : toleration
3
: the allowable deviation from a standard; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece
4
a (1) : the capacity of the body to endure or become less responsive to a substance (as a drug) or a physiological insult especially with repeated use or exposure <developed a tolerance to painkillers>; also : the immunological state marked by unresponsiveness to a specific antigen (2) : relative capacity of an organism to grow or thrive when subjected to an unfavorable environmental factor b : the maximum amount of a pesticide residue that may lawfully remain on or in food


sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : toleration


There are several versions of the well-known statement attributed to the German anti-Nazi activist, Pastor Martin Niemöller (his family name can also be writted without the umlaut as "Niemoeller"). The following is said, by someone who heard him speak at Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur, GA, in 1959 (or 1960), to be what he actually said:

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

[Deleted]

A thoughtful paragraph from one of my books, "Therefore Stand" by Wilbur M. Smith.

W. M. Ramsay, “Paul in Athens,” in the Expositor, 5th series. 1895. Vol. II. pp. 275, 276. Unamuno, the Spanish philosopher, has caught the real meaning of the reaction of the Athenians to Paul’s message, with his usual power of insight. “This admirable account plainly shows how far Attic tolerance goes and where the patience of the intellectual ends. They all listen to you, calmly and smilingly, and at times they encourage you, saying: ‘That’s strange!’ or, ‘He has brains!’ or, ‘That’s suggestive!’ or, ‘How Fine!’ or, ‘Pity that a thing so beautiful should not be true!’ or, ‘This makes one think!’ But as soon as you speak to them of resurrection and life after death, they lose their patience and cut short their remarks and exclaim, ‘Enough of this! We will talk about this another day!’ . . . And even if this belief be absurd, why is its exposition less tolerated than that of others much more absurd? Why this manifest hostility to such a belief?” Miguel de Unamuno: The Tragic Sense of Life. Eng. trans. London. 1931. pp. 49, 50.

***

Today, when we hear the word "tolerance" it is generally in the defense of the homosexual lifestyle, and when we hear the word "intolerant" is is almost always used in context of "Far right", "conservatives", "radical religious loonies."

I believe we are firmly ensconced in the age where the Word of God says that men will call evil good and good evil.

God cannot tolerate sin, therefore, neither can we. Love at the expense of doctrinal truth is a unity that will love people straight into hell - fearing to speak to them of hell for fear that we will offend them . . . well, we WILL offend them - Jesus told us so.

Do not confuse the Westboro bunch - they are a group of seventeen family members - all extremely left wing (even campaigned for Al Gore), and they make their money off of lawsuits whenever they can claim that their rights have been violated. They are neither baptist, nor Christian.

[Murph]

The messageboard on which the discussion is taking place is secular not Christian. I would suppose the question at hand is how would a Christian address the quesitons posed in the discussion?

[Deleted]

If we turn to the Bible for a timeless response to this queston, I would turn to II Corinthians 6:14-21:

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty" (II Corinthians 6:14-18).

I doubt that it can be presented any clearer.

It is our unwavering mandate to stand . . . to stand first of all on the Scriptures, secondly upon our convictions. Convictions can only be grounded upon the clear doctrinal texts of God's Word. We are to have a strong faith that the Word of God will not return again void, but will accomplish the pleasure of God and will prosper in that purpose for which God sends it.

There is no such thing, really, as temperiing our speech so as not to hurt the feelings of our adversaries - we must remember, in fact, that they are not only our adversaries but enemies of God as well. Even members of our own family that refuse first of all to be redeemed by the precious blood of Jesus Christ and those that refuse to walk in the light of the Lord if they are redeemed - need to hear from us in no uncertain terms that they are facing the judgment of God either in an eternal hell or in eternal loss of rewards.

I do not see any middle ground.

To your daughter's question, are we allowed to have likes and dislikes? I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that if we "like" something we should be able to "do" something?

A Christian, in regards to spiritual truths is not allowed to have an opinion at all if it is a thing clearly presented in Scripture - these are absolutes. If something is not clear, a Christian may have their preferences - and allow some room for disagreement, and have grace in that disagreement.

However, the world is not going to permit us to voice our views without conflict.

Nowhere do I see where we are to back down from the conflict, so it is probably best to keep things to ourselves if we are not prepared to defend them.

I hope that I have answered - trying my best to make sense out of what is in my brain and bring it to the printed page.

[Murph]

You did indeed answer and thank you and Drew both for you replies.

Mountains on which we stand and sometimes it becomes necessary to stand and defend. One will eventually follow the other.

Knowing my daughter's modus operandi, she had an ulterior motive for starting that topic. It will be interesting to see what it is.

[Caretaker]

In regards to Christ and those who follow Him, tolerance is a "one-way street".

Christians are always fair game for the intolerant, but do not let the Christian be intolerant of others.

Of course Westboro Baptist Phelp's cult are not Christian.

[Murph]

In my opinion what the Westboro people are demonstrating in not an example of tolerance or intolerance nor anything even remotely related to being Christian...

but is a prime example of Satan driven evil...

[Caretaker]

Jan 18, 2011 12:10:51 GMT -6 Murph said:

In my opinion what the Westboro people are demonstrating in not an example of tolerance or intolerance nor anything even remotely related to being Christian...

but is a prime example of Satan driven evil...

Exactly!!!

Phelps is an apostle of hate, backed by his family cult of lawyers. I pray for this evil man to be struck down like Saul on the Damascus road, the heart of stone to be broken asunder, and the Lord Jesus to be revealed to these lost souls.