Anonymous Asks (414)

“Should Christians be tolerant of other people’s beliefs?”

Some questions have no easy answers, not because the Bible is unclear, but because we cannot be sure what is really at issue. Provided we are paying attention, answering today’s question requires asking several more:

• How do you define tolerance?
• Which beliefs?
• Under what circumstances?

If we cannot first answer these secondary questions, we will not be in any position to answer the primary question.

1/ How Do We Define Tolerance?

Usually, when we want to know what a word means, we can consult a dictionary. The problem with the word “tolerant” is that a large percentage of our population now uses it in a sense utterly foreign to what’s in the dictionary. Our own Immanuel Can wrote about the original meaning of tolerance a few years back:

“Historically speaking, the word ‘tolerance’ actually derives from a Latin root word tolere, meaning (lit.) to put up with something. That is, to put up with something you don’t like or with which you don’t agree. Until recently, that was the way most people understood it.

This made sense. It used to be quite clear to people that you don’t need tolerance for things you like. So if someone were ever to ask you, ‘Would you tolerate me giving you a hundred dollars?’ you’d look at her like she’d lost her mind: there’s no tolerance needed for such things. But if someone asked you to tolerate the noisy activities of repairmen at his house — the clutter of trucks, the banging of hammers, the smell of paint, and so on — you’d understand quite well what he was asking. Tolerance is for offensive things. A person who is tolerant of others does not agree with them; he puts up with them out of a higher principle, like respect for their needs over his own.”

Historically, people granted tolerance somewhat grudgingly, recognizing they were serving some transcendent cause or value in the process of putting up with something they would rather not. That’s not the way we use the word today. Not at all.

IC again:

“Modern ‘tolerance’ has less to do with allowing people the right to free choice, and more to do with pretending that you actually approve of and admire all their choices — whatever they may be. You’re never to contradict anyone, tell them they’re wrong or that what they’re doing is bad; no matter what, you’re to smile and pretend it’s all sunshine and roses.”

That pretty much gets it. Christians can do old school tolerance and sometimes should, depending on the answers to our next two questions. I cannot see any circumstances under which we should do Tolerance 2.0, unless the “belief” difference in question is so trivial it’s a non-issue.

2/ Which Beliefs?

Some beliefs are always unacceptable, even if they have their basis in someone else’s religion. For example, some Islamic sects reserve the right to murder infidels or family members in the name of honor, or to sexually mutilate children. These are unacceptable beliefs. The Christian who quietly “turns the other cheek” when they are discussed and keeps his opinion to himself is being a coward.

Other beliefs, like that abortion is a woman’s right, or that men can become women and vice versa, are equally intolerable even if they have no obvious religious basis, and even if their practice is government sanctioned. The Christian who fails to express God’s view of them when confronted about them is being unfaithful, not tolerant. I believe any sin for which God will eventually judge a society as a whole falls into this category. If you are taking tax dollars from my labor to fund MAID or Planned Parenthood, I believe I have not just a right but also an obligation as a Christian to disagree with you in whatever ways are lawful, public and opportune, even if there is a social cost involved.

Still, there are some beliefs that do not require me to express an opinion. Those who hold them will give a personal account to their Creator for their choices in that area. For example, if a group of church elders believes grape juice in individual disposable cups is an acceptable substitute for wine in a common cup, I disagree. I will also zip my lip and commune. That’s actual tolerance.

3/ Under What Circumstances?

Circumstances play a huge part in answering our question. For example, there’s no question that if I go to an Islamic country, even as a missionary, I am going to have to “tolerate” their beliefs, no matter how repugnant they may be to me personally. My expressions of disapproval are going to have to be somewhat more judicious and limited than they might be in Canada, not because I am a coward, but because I want the opportunity to share my faith, however discreetly. If I am not willing to “tolerate” an Islamic society to some extent, I may as well pack up and go home. I’m not going to be any use.

In Canada, Bill C-9 comes into force in a week or so. It removes a longstanding legal defense that previously protected people from hate speech charges when expressing opinions “in good faith” based on a religious text. There is concern in many quarters that the bill may effectively criminalize the quotation of scripture in certain situations. The authorities hope it will lead to a level of self-censorship that promotes the illusion of social harmony. No matter how it plays out, C-9 is likely to change the circumstances under which Christians disagree with the moral status quo and with other religions by appending the potential for significant cost to the expression of opinion.

So then, circumstances play a big part in answering our question. It’s not just what we are being asked to tolerate, but where, because we need to know who has the final word. Tolerating a single expression of DEI sympathy in a local church is on a very different scale from tolerating the all-pervasive influence of another religious culture while living in that culture, especially one that has political implications and an enforcement arm.

A Prudent Response

All such considerations factor into how a Christian presents himself to those around him. Deciding when a believer should be tolerant and when the interests of Christ are better served by steadfast intolerance of evil is no easy task. It requires prayer, discernment and a careful assessment of the possible good and bad outcomes of both positions.