Response to:
"Christians are intolerant of other viewpoints."
Response: True tolerance accepts disagreement between viewpoints while treating people with respect.
This challenge maintains that all viewpoints are equally true. All religions and their truth claims are equal. No one should say they are the only ones who have the truth. If a person disagrees with another person's viewpoint they are being intolerant. Christians disagree with other people's viewpoints. Therefore, Christians are intolerant. This logic sounds so attractive. Wouldn't the world be at peace if everyone simply agreed that each other's viewpoints were equally true?
First, if we hold this person to his definition of intolerant he would have to admit that he is being intolerant of the Christian's viewpoint. The challenge doesn't hold up to very much scrutiny.
Let’s play a sample dialog we might have with this person.
Responder: "What exactly do you mean by intolerant?"
Challenger: “Christians are always judging what other people do as wrong or immoral. They should accept that other people's views are just as right as theirs."
Responder: "So you think it is wrong for Christians to tell other people they are wrong and that whenever someone tells another person they are wrong about their beliefs or behavior that is being intolerant? And you think everyone should be like you, too?"
Challenger: "Yes."
Responder: "But aren't you doing the same thing, which is, judging Christians' beliefs and behaviors as wrong? You do not accept their view. And you want everyone to agree with you and think like you. By your own standard you are being intolerant aren't you? Wouldn't true tolerance be giving everyone, including Christians, the freedom to express their beliefs and discuss them rationally? In the free market of ideas the best belief should win, shouldn't it?
The second problem with their accusation is they simply have the wrong definition of tolerance. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary gives the following definition for tolerance: "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own, the act of allowing something." Disagreement is implied by the very meaning of the word. If we both like the same music and agree with each other's viewpoints we don't have to tolerate each other. Tolerance is needed only when we dislike each other's music or disagree over viewpoints. Let's be clear, tolerance does not mean agreement and acceptance of all viewpoints as being equally true.
Third, this charge is leveled mostly at conservative Christians who believe the Bible is God's primary vehicle of revelation and as such claims to reveal what God's views are on a lot of topics, especially on moral issues. What is more, these standards of morality are for all people, in all cultures and in all times. This challenge shows the person's ignorance about the world of viewpoints beside Christianity. All other religions view their own religion as the only true view and all others wrong.
What it boils down to is this person accepts any and all deviations from Christian truth. They have already decided to accept everything but the core values and teachings of Christianity. They think that deviant beliefs and behaviors should be accepted, supported, encouraged and applauded simply because they are deviations. For example, when an artist puts a crucifix in a bucket of urine, they think they should be praised for their "courageous protest against the oppressive tyranny of traditional morality." And when moral people criticize their art they say, "See how intolerant Christians are?" It would be more accurate to say, "Because tolerance involves disagreement see how tolerant Christians are because we disapprove of this artwork."
Fourth, we must see the danger in believing that truth is only relative and not absolute. If there is no finally authority to which opposing parties can appeal then the only way to resolve the conflict is by force. In other words, "Might makes right." Even this challenger doesn't like this option, for they will probably be quick to say, "You can't legislate morality." But this statement is naive. All laws are based on the moral system of those who make and enforce them. So the issue is, "Whose morals will be legislated?" The answer, of course is, the group in power! And that's why those who complain about Christians being in tolerant want to win political power. Its really all about power.
Many people, including Christians, become terrified at the prospect of ultra-conservative Christians coming into majority political power. During a political campaign which included some outspoken Christian candidates one guy had worked up so much fear he told me, "But look at what Christians do when they are in political power - The Crusades, etc. They'll want to lock my girlfriend and I up in prison for sleeping together!" I replied, "Hey, take it easy. I don't think many Christians would want to do that. Jesus certainly wasn't like that."
Like this guy, many people site The Crusades, The Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials and other examples of what Christians can do with power. And even though modern Christian legislators would condemn that kind of misuse of power and avoid it, given enough time and power they would finally repeat the same behavior. But is Christianity to blame? Hardly. It is what is in the heart of man that brings destruction. It is not just so-called Christians who abuse power. The communists of the Soviet Union were atheists and they killed and tortured far more political dissenters in less than a century than the Christian church has in 20 centuries. China and other communist regimes have committed similar attrocities. Muslims have too. Given absolute power and enough time, moral relativists would inevitably do the same, for they are just as human. This is why we should engage in healthy dialog and debate. Ideally, the right morality shouldn't have to be legislated. It should be discovered through dialog and debate and win out in the free market place of ideas.
Conclusion
Finally, the issue is really how we should treat people we disagree with. While all viewpoints are not equally true, all people have equal value because they are created in God's image. Because they are created in God's image we should treat them with respect when we do disagree about things. We can agree to disagree in an agreeable way. Frankly, I don't see those calling for more tolerance practicing what they preach. They want to limit free speech and control what people can and can't do, as well.
Jesus is the best example of true tolerance. He was friends with people whose beliefs He disagreed with and behavior He disapproved of. But instead of locking them up he won them over through love and reason. His tolerance was a true tolerance. Why do you think Jesus could treat people with whom he disagreed with such respect? The Bible tells us right in the beginning that we are made in the image of God and therefore have infinite worth. Jesus claimed to be that creator God in the flesh and could look at the people with whom He disagreed with love, compassion, respect and ultimately forgiveness. As a result prostitutes stopped selling their bodies, alcoholics became sober, thieves stopped stealing and it was all on their own initiative. And this has happened countless times throughout the world since then. He changes people's lives from the inside out. He did mine. How about yours?
References
Copan, Paul. True for You, But Not For Me: Deflating the Slogans that Leave Christians Speechless. Minneapolis: Bethany House. 1998. p. 35 - 37.
Copyright 2005. Gary C. Burger and New Media Ministries. This article may be reproduced and distributed freely as long as it is done so in its entirety. If quoted it must be properly cited as a reference.
