Yes, we’ve all seen the bumper stickers on the tailgates of Subaru Outbacks: “Coexist”, and among others, “Tolerance”… and whatever else is trending in the liberal world. And it’s spelled with different sacred symbols, suggesting equality among people from every religion.
It’s cute.
But wrong.
We live in a culture obsessed with the idea of tolerance. (And I don’t just mean religious tolerance). In classrooms, students will no longer answer questions directly, when posed by professors. Instead, they will either ask another question or they will form their answer with the inflection of a question. Rather than holding the confidence that certainty allows, students will answer even the most obvious questions with a timid air of skepticism. Many will preface their responses with, “This could be totally wrong but…” or “I might be way off but…”
Why?
Because we are afraid of being wrong.
In our culture, it is better to be uncertain than wrong. People who confidently express their views are seen as arrogant, close-minded, and bigoted. This is manifestly demonstrated in our obsession with the word “like”. Nobody wants to commit to a statement fully, so everything is “like” something else. This isn’t very noticeable until you remove the word “like” from your vocabulary. Then, you’ll hear yourself actually committing to statements in ways that aren’t comfortable, because too much certainty is expressed. “Like” dilutes our language. “Like” is like a spice to our sentences that like adds ambiguity rather than leaving us like fully committed to what we’re actually saying.
Yet, in a world where no one is wrong…
No one is right either.
Promoting religious tolerance is admirable in some senses. I understand that I would much rather live in a world where people from different religions don’t behead their opposition, participate in genocide, or excommunicate their family members for believing differently. I always seek to love my enemies and treat people from all different worldviews with the respect they deserve as rational human beings. Yet, if we are all right, then no one is, since some say that others are wrong. Obviously, someone can’t be right about someone else being wrong while that person is also right (at least in a world where logic works). Moreover, if I posit full ideological tolerance, I’ve undermined my own belief. The moment I begin to preach tolerance, I’m expressing my own intolerance for intolerant people. So I’m being intolerant.
And while this belief seems harmless, it stands as one of the most difficult forms of persecution that the church deals with today.
In many ways, Christians are united under a common call to spread their belief (and this is common in most religions). Yet, the tolerant culture answers this call with a plea for silence. If a Christian (or a Mormon, or Jehovah’s witness, etc.) attempts to evangelize, it is seen as an intolerant act. “Who are you to tell me what I should and shouldn’t believe?” is the typical response. (Even though this line of thought falls victim to the same regressing problem that universal tolerance faces, it is, at its foundation, self-defeating and warrants no serious consideration). This has bred a generation of churchgoers who believe firmly that others ought to be evangelized, yet, they are too afraid to do anything about it for fear of offending those who hold different views. It has led to a church full of cowards, buckling beneath the pressure of society. The culture screams at the church to be tolerant, and the church responds with morbid paralysis, too afraid to offend a lost generation so desperately searching for truth, who fall deeper into confusion while demanding silence from those with whom the truth lies.
This is why, as a Christian, I cannot accept the doctrine of tolerance. (And if you are tolerant of me, you’ll understand). According to Christianity, Jesus came to save sinners through His sacrifice, and salvation lies only through believing in Him. If you don’t believe in Him and embrace this reality, you go to hell forever. It’s a pretty simple concept, but carries weight no one was ever meant to fully process. Yet, if it is true, then my highest calling as a Christian is not to be tolerant of other religions, but to ensure that the people I love deeply realize their need for salvation and turn to Jesus. In fact, I can’t do both at the same time, because they’re in direct opposition to one another. I have to choose between offending you (and possibly spending eternity with you) or remaining quiet (and watching you possibly go to hell while I sit back and say nothing)…
May that ellipsis stand as the granddaddy of all ellipses, the most emphatic, reverent silence in existence…
Don’t you see? There is no greater love from a Christian than for him to share his belief with you. He isn’t judging you (unless he’s doing it improperly); he’s loving you! Even if you don’t believe it, he does. And for him to preach to you is love. He would rather create an awkward moment and risk offending you than watch you perish eternally. Tolerance, for the Christian, is the deepest kind of hate there is. For a Christian to believe such ultimate truths and not act on them, watching the world perish while he does nothing, is the worst kind of hate.
It’s like evil.
* 
I could not agree more.
I am deeply intrigued by your examination.
Especially with the “This could be totally wrong but…” or “I might be way off but…”
It seems to me that people say things like this also not because they are afraid of being uncertain about what they think; rather, they relatively certain that their view may be taken disapprovingly by the person they are expressing it toward. Which in itself is arrogant.
Just put it out there, with all honesty, and let us dialogue together about it and build a deeper relationship because of it.
This article hurts me deeply. You preach about Christianity while filling in with snide remarks and rude generalizations that are based solely on superficial reasons as opposed to those of character. If you truly love people who are not already followers of Jesus, this is NOT the way to go about it. Why would I want to listen to what you have to say when (although you claim not to judge me) you already have formed your own opinions about who I am and therefore talk down to me because I have differing beliefs than yours?
The idea of tolerance is to accept each other not for what we believe, but for who we are as God created us.
You can preach consequences all you want to a nonbeliever, but the threat of an eternal hell to someone who doesn’t believe in one is really just silly. Getting to know someone and accepting them as a good person regardless of their faith is a better way to show them the love of Jesus.
As far as the ambiguity of today’s society, I am scared by that as well. To err is human, that is something that today’s society has understood better than any of the past. The reason “I may be completely wrong here…” is acceptable is because it is humble. Confidence is an essential tool for humans, but humility is also. To preface what you say with a disclaimer that you might be wrong is not a sign of your inability to be confident, but rather the knowledge that you are an imperfect human (as we all are) and that you are capable of being wrong. To be confident in your views is not bigoted, closed-minded, or arrogant in the least. However, refusing to give a chance and actively listen to truly think about an opposing view of yours is. If you expect someone to listen to you and have the possibility to be converted to Jesus, you must be willing to listen and give them the same opportunity to speak their piece with a clear and open mind.
You’re a great guy Corey, be a beacon that those in the dark can look to, not a torch to drive them away.