The Tolerance & Intolerance of Jesus
John 3:16; Luke 18:9-14
There certainly has been a lot of talk about the canceling of Diversity Days by the Viroqua School Board. This bit of news has been broadcast, not only in our hometown paper, but also in the La Crosse Tribune, on channel 8 television and on Wisconsin Public Radio. You may have read some of the 20 letters to the editor in the past two weeks. But you may not have seen this letter. Allow me to read apportion of it “It is encouraging that there are parents and students unafraid to speak up against the misnamed 'diversity' agenda -- which would be better named the anti-White agenda, since its full implementation would lead to genocide of Whites in just a few generations. The upcoming public school board meeting on April 19 will no doubt be well-attended by non-White racial advocates and anti-White agitators; so it is incumbent upon decent White parents and students to attend also -- and let our voices be heard. We can make a difference. http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2617
This letter is from a white supremacist organization based in Hillsboro—Hillsboro, WV that is. From what I could see at least three white supremacist organizations around the country somehow picked up on our local story and are spreading it around. The stated goal of this particular organization is to build “a new White world.” http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/122/index.html Here we have two opposite reactions to the cancellation of Diversity Days—the majority of the letters to the editor in the Broadcaster have spoken out against the cancellation, but you have these white supremacist organizations speaking in favor of the school board’s decision. So who would you side with? Do you agree with these white supremacist organizations or do you agree with the students and teachers? That’s not really a fair question, is it? I certainly do not want to be placed anywhere near a white supremacist group, but I don’t agree with the conclusions of these letter writers.
What is the buzzword associated with this controversy? Tolerance and it’s opposite, intolerance. On the surface it would appear than anyone who would disagree with an issue like diversity days would be hopelessly intolerant while those who support diversity days are nice, tolerant people. In this line of reasoning, tolerance is elevated to the chief of all virtues—tolerance=goodness; intolerance=evil. G.K Chesterton said that “tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.”
Think about what it means to be truly tolerant—you can’t have any convictions at all because you have to believe everybody is right. This is what a consistently tolerant person would look like. You could say to him, “I think diversity day is wrong” and he would reply, “I agree with you.” Another person would say to him, “Well I think diversity day is a good thing.” The tolerant person would say, “I agree with you too. Isn’t it great how we all get along!” No doubt that tolerance is often virtuous, but is it an absolute, Biblical virtue by which to decide all issues and behavior? Rather than have me tell you my opinion, we will explore the answer to this question in the teachings and life of Jesus.
First, turn to Matt. 7:12, For in everything do to others what you would have them do to you. This sums up the Law and the Prophets. It is argued by the tolerance-only crowd that Jesus here represents the quintessential statement on tolerance—The Golden Rule. Do you want to be treated nicely by other people? Of course you do, therefore we must treat others nicely. Don’t disagree with them, don’t judge them—just leave them well enough alone.
When conservative Christians hear a statement like that and they get all fired up and might counter this statement by Jesus with another. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell. (Matt. 18:9) One side presents Jesus as loving and tolerant of all people—a peace-loving man who only wants everyone to be happy. The other side presents Jesus as one who appears somewhat eager to send people to Hell at the slightest sin. Are these the only two options from which to choose—absolute tolerance or absolute condemnation? Is this the only Biblical solution we can bring to this divisive issue in our community? I hope that you can see that both of these are caricatures of Jesus which don’t accurately represent his life and teaching. Jesus has more to say than just “everything goes” or else “everyone is going to hell”. Did Jesus have anything to say about diversity days? Maybe not in a neatly packaged format like we would like, but we do know that Jesus was both appropriately tolerant and intolerant and it is vitally important that we draw our final conclusions only after considering the full range of his teaching.
The first principle is that Jesus is tolerant of all people. “For God so loved the world” as John 3:16 says. What does it mean for God to love the world? A helpful exercise is to look up the word “world” in the gospel of John and the epistles of John. For John, the “world” was a bad place. The world rejected Jesus. The world was full of sin, depravity and people. The world is diverse and perverse. Diversity is good if you mean ethnic and racial diversity. The Bible absolutely revels in and celebrates ethnic diversity because representatives from every tribe, nation, and language throughout the world will bb citizens in Heaven. The world is diverse, but it is also perverse. If we took all of the various forms of sin and celebrated them, it would indeed be a diverse crowd, but this is not the kind of diversity the Bible celebrates. If we held such a celebration we would have to call it “Perversity Day” But in the midst of their diversity and even their perversity, God loved each person in the world. He sent his son Jesus into that perverse world.
Jesus’ enemies called him a “friend of tax collectors and sinners” I can imagine Jesus sitting by the campfire at night and having a conversation with one of his disciples. He could have said, “Did you hear what they said about me today John? They called me a friend of sinners? Isn’t that great?” Jesus would have loved that title and fully owned it. It is one of the best things that could be said of any Christian.
For the Christian, there should never be even the slightest hint of hatred, bigotry, racism or distinction. God assigns the highest level of dignity to every person. Every man, woman and child is created uniquely in the image of God. All image bearers deserve respect and dignity—get this, even if you disagree with them.
Jesus demonstrated this respect for all people by the way he spoke with them. Even though he never compromised the truth, his conversational style was gentle and persuasive. We may disagree with others, but we may not disrespect them. Let me share two stories with you to illustrate the right way and wrong way to do this. About three years ago I had a conversation with a woman at the Landmark. We began to talk about spiritual things and I saw my opportunity to win her over to my way of thinking. At one point I caught her in a logical inconsistency and used a bit of sarcasm to prove my point. She stopped for a moment, looked at me and said, “Are you being sarcastic?” That pretty much ended the conversation right there. Even though I apologized to her, we have never had another spiritual conversation since then.
In another example I prepared ahead of time to share the gospel with an unsaved friend. I wanted to warn him about the dangers of sin. I knew he was a hockey fan so I used an illustration about children playing hockey on thin ice and how it would be my responsibility to warn them. He looked at me and said, “Are you telling me that I am on thin ice?” Once again the conversation was cut short and I didn’t see him for many weeks. Do you where we were the next time we ran into each other? We were at the Park Bowl ice skating rink—on thin ice, get it? I got my message across and we are still friends.
So what made the difference between these two conversations? In the first example my goal, without even thinking about it, was to win the conversation. I was not thinking respect, I was not thinking persuasion—I was thinking of winning. But in the second example my goal was not to win, but to present the truth in a loving and clear way. I didn’t win and he didn’t convert, but I represented Jesus to him. Think about the last disagreement you had with another person. Would that person have described you as being full of respect and gentleness?
Jesus was tolerant of all people—he was a friend of sinners, but he was also intolerant of many things. He was intolerant of self-righteousness. 9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’ 13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ 14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
This is where we need to be so very careful. As Christians we have strong convictions based on the truth. We don’t believe in relativism, but we believe in absolute truth handed down to us by God himself. But the challenge for us is to be confident in our convictions, but not self-righteous in our convictions. How easy it would be for any of us to pray like this. “God, I thank you that I am not like these other people—robbers, alcoholics, adulterers—or even like these homosexuals or those who support homosexuality. I come to church and put my offering in the basket. Lord, I even signed that petition against diversity days. Lord, you know I would never support homosexuality.” Self-righteousness happens when we define ourselves by our outward actions and ignore the attitudes of our heart. I don’t do this and this and this, but I do this and this and this. On the outside we look good, but on the inside we may be full of hatred, bitterness and anger. Jesus is intolerant of self-righteousness.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with signing a petition, but all a petition does is communicate the message, “they’re wrong and I’m right.” That won’t win any arguments, it won’t lead anyone to Christ! Moreover, just because you have the right beliefs does not mean that you have repented of your self-righteousness. As a matter of fact, the more certain you are of your beliefs, the greater the temptation to be self-righteous.
Let’s
try to understand why effective communication with one another is so difficult.
Assume this circle represents the full revelation of Biblical truth. This is THE
word of God—perfect. Now as Christians, do we have a perfect understanding and
application of this perfect truth? Not even close. The part of our circle inside
the Bible is the part of our thinking and lives that in is agreement with God’s
ways, but there is another part of our lives that lies outside the Bible. The
problem is that we often don’t realize how much of our lives lies outside
Biblical truth. We think we are closer than we really are. So when it comes time
to discuss these issues, we think all we need to do is to shape the other person
into something that looks like us. In other words, since we believe we are
following the Bible, if this other person looks and thinks like us, then they
will look like the Bible and become a Christian.
One
way of doing this is what I call the conquer strategy. This is what I did when I
tried to win the argument with that woman by being sarcastic. After all, I have
been to Seminary, I ought to be able to overwhelm her with my massive intellect.
Then she will fall down on her knees and become a Christian.
You might think, I would never do that because I don’t even talk to non-believers. For you it’s not the force of your intellect that will conquer the other person, but the force of your moral life. You think that if you live a good Christian life that people will come begging you to tell them how you do it. And if they don’t come—oh well, that’s their problem, isn’t it.
Others
practice the Pharisee strategy. This is the same basic scenario as before except
you start with the premise that you are better than the other person. “God I
thank you that I am not like this man.” You are convinced you are right and he
is wrong, but you don’t want to be polluted by this person or their beliefs.
What you do is erect a shield, a barrier between them and you. There are some
instances when this is a good strategy. For young people who don’t have
spiritual maturity or discernment, this is the preferred method. You want to
keep them away from false teaching. This is also good for the new believer. But
for the rest of us, this is fearful Phariseeism.
The best method is what I call the tax collector strategy. This begins with a turning from our self-righteousness and praying as the tax collector prayed, “God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” This time, instead of taking our beliefs to them, in humility and love, we take the Bible to them. We show them respect. We listen to their beliefs and try to understand where they are coming from.
When I lived in Prairie du Sac, the leader of the local Unitarian church sent a letter to the editor in favor of homosexuality. I wrote a letter in response and then he wrote another letter. Bu the time we were done we had each written about four letters to the editor. I had never met the man I was debating in print, so I called him one day to get together for coffee. We had a nice little, respectful talk. I did not convince him to adopt my position, but I was able to show love and respect toward him. I believe that through the Biblical truths and my attitudes I was able to represent Jesus to him.
The point is that the people you disagree with, no matter what the issue, are not your evil enemy. They are regular people, who like us, have strong convictions. Most of them are acting out of compassion and think they are doing the right thing. Besides, what is more important—that they adopt your viewpoint, or that they repent of their sins and believe in Jesus Christ? Chances are you will not lead them to Christ by changing their mind about diversity day. But if you show them the truth and love of Christ, over time you may help lead them to Jesus. After that maybe they will change their mind and maybe they won’t.
The thing that separates us from God is sin, not just one particular sin, but all of our sins. God cannot tolerate our unrepentant sin—whether that sin is homosexual behavior or self-righteous attitudes. What has been your basic attitude through this diversity day issue? Have you had a conquer strategy where you think you can win someone over through your intellect or moral example? Do you have a Pharisee strategy of isolation and pride? Or is your heart like that of the tax collector who said, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner.”? Let me finish with Jesus comment about this humble tax collector, “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Rich Maurer
April 18, 2004