Critics would charge just the opposite. they would say that Christians 
are too intolerant; we alienate, condemn, embarrass, and shun people we should be reaching. And indeed there is a move afoot to portray the American Church as a bigoted, dogmatic, narrow-minded bunch. But despite the Fred Phelps’ of the world, it appears the American Church is actually drifting Left when it comes to tolerance.
George Barna has been compiling statistics on the Church for decades. But a review of last year’s research conducted by the Barna Group provides “a time-lapse portrayal of how the religious environment in the U.S. is morphing into something new.” From Six Themes of Change in the Church:
The postmodern insistence on tolerance is winning over the Christian Church. Our biblical illiteracy and lack of spiritual confidence has caused Americans to avoid making discerning choices for fear of being labeled judgmental. The result is a Church that has become tolerant of a vast array of morally and spiritually dubious behaviors and philosophies. This increased leniency is made possible by the very limited accountability that occurs within the body of Christ. There are fewer and fewer issues that Christians believe churches should be dogmatic about. The idea of love has been redefined to mean the absence of conflict and confrontation, as if there are no moral absolutes that are worth fighting for. That may not be surprising in a Church in which a minority believes there are moral absolutes dictated by the scriptures.
Events like the recent Big Tent Christianity operate on the assumption that the Church’s intolerance, among other things, has narrowed the parameters of God’s House. Barna’s findings, however, reveal just the opposite. We “avoid making discerning choices for fear of being labeled judgmental” and are increasingly lenient, believing there are fewer issues to be dogmatic about.
So is the Church intolerant or too tolerant?
Those who typically charge Christians with intolerance often do so by pointing to Jesus. He loved the outcast, they say. He accepted sinners and offered forgiveness. And indeed He did! However, I must admit: Jesus does not strike me as a great role model for tolerance.
- Was Jesus tolerant when He said, “If you do not believe I am the one I claim to be, you will die in your sins” (Jn. 8:24)?
- Was Jesus tolerant when He said He was the only way to God (Jn. 14:6)?
- Was Jesus tolerant when He drove the money changers from the temple (Matt. 21:12)?
- Was Jesus tolerant when He claimed not to bring peace, but a sword (Lk. 12:51)?
- Was Jesus tolerant when He drove away potential disciples by saying they must eat His flesh and drink His blood (Jn. 6:66)?
- Was Jesus tolerant when He called the religious leaders “hypocrites, “serpents,” and a “brood of vipers” (Matt. 23)?
- Was Jesus tolerant when He told the invalid He’d healed to “Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you” (Jn. 5:14)?
- Was Jesus tolerant when He warned of “false Christs” and “false prophets” who would deceive many (Matt. 24:24)?
- Was Jesus tolerant when He spoke about hell (Matt. 13:42, Matt. 25:41, Lk. 16:24)?
- Was Jesus tolerant when he told the prostitute to “go and sin no more” (Jn. 8:11)?
All that to say, Jesus does not strike me as a model for “tolerance.” He was pretty black and white. He challenged people’s sins, incited controversy, and actively drove others away. Heck, even those He forgave He challenged to stop sinning unless something worse happen. Yikes! Of course, this is not to diminish the fact that Jesus WAS kind and loving, that He wooed people to Himself through His grace and mirth. The point is, the “tolerant Jesus” portrayed by many critics and/or religious liberals is a myth.
The above article summarizes, “There is a place for tolerance in Christianity; knowing when and where to draw the line appears to perplex a growing proportion of Christians in this age of tolerance.”
When it comes to tolerance, “knowing when and where to draw the line” is the issue.
The “new tolerance” renegotiates lines. The “old tolerance” reinforces them. The “new tolerance,” rather than expounding the boundaries of the Church, actually eliminates the boundaries for the Church. For where there are boundaries, there must be intolerance. Alas, what the Religious Left really seeks is not tolerance, but fewer boundaries.
So what do you think, is the Church intolerant or not tolerant enough?
Great post Mike and a subject dear to my heart. I think the church in general should be way more tolerant in loving our neighbors, as to include all God’s children. And that means we should stop judging, because that God’s job. But it should be way less tolerant in their standpoints. The only way the church will survive is if we stand up for what we believe in and be as radical as Jesus was. The Bible is in many areas fairly black-and-white in my opinion so why aren’t we? In the end, I think people are attracted to radicalism. I don’t think there has ever been a lukewarm movement that has inspired people to join…
That’s a good point about people being “attracted to radicalism,” Rachel. Perhaps one reason the Church is not connecting with people is not because she’s too rigid and un-bending, but because she’s too middle-of-the-road and wishy-washy. Thanks for your comments!
“The “new tolerance” renegotiates lines. The “old tolerance” reinforces them. The “new tolerance,” rather than expounding the boundaries of the Church, actually eliminates the boundaries for the Church.”
excellent.
the church seems undefined to me. legalism didn’t/doesn’t cut it, but neither does no boundaries at all.
Now, because of Bradley Wrights book: Christians are hate-filled hypocrites…and other lies you’ve been told, I’m suspicious of anything Barna reports.
Good article, but I am curious: What exactly is the church tolerating more of? Love? Sin? I’m not sure what you’re saying.
I just listened to a sermon from 2009 at my church on homosexuality…I have never in my life heard someone so lovingly say that something is a sin, but just because of this fact that doesn’t mean homosexuals shouldn’t be welcomed into the church. The pastor’s point was, we’re all broken, but if we truly desire God we must turn from the ways of this world – while at the same time loving our fellow broken human beings.
Might I suggest if you’re going to say the church is becoming overly tolerant, you list examples?
That’s a fair point, Bob. I could have used some examples. I was assuming that my reference to the Church moving Left would illustrate my perspective. Talk about tolerance from a progressive point of view almost always has to do with the same things — which you rightly intuit by mentioning your pastor’s message about homosexuals. All that to say, I think the Church is tolerating more sin in the name of love.Thanks for commenting.
Do we mean “tolerant” as in “Not making ontologically exclusive claims,” or as in “Acknowledging and respecting the shared human dignity of our neighbors”?
I think we’ve got problems in both areas, though in opposite directions.
Another Barna study last year showed that no less than 40% of all the unchurched people in America say they avoid church because of past negative experiences with Christians. Somehow I can’t believe all those negative experiences were of the “They’re too tolerant and loving when they should be firm and dogmatic!” variety.
I write to lots of people who have been extremely disenchanted, burned-out, and hurt by the church (or more precisely, by religious people). Legalism, harshness, condemnation, elevating doctrines above people– that’s what’s turning people away from Jesus these days. Look up “Spiritual Abuse” on the Internet for an eye-full. Tolerance (in my second sense) is exactly what we need more of.
Regarding the list, Jesus did say “Go and sin no more,” but He immediately preceded that with “Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone” and “Neither do I condemn you.” People won’t hear the former until they’ve heard the latter, I think. Though of course there’s a precipice on either side of the road!
We are certainly called to not be judgmental. We are called to live life by God’s terms, not our own. And neither is antithetical to the other. Because we can never judge a fellow human being’s soul, that’s God’s job, and it is the height of arrogance to stand in God’s stead to deliver hell and condemnation.
But there are truths, and we violate them at our own peril. It is just as loving to warn someone that jumping from a skyscraper will kill you as to warn that sin will destroy you. If we didn’t warn them, it means we don’t love them.
The problem comes when such warnings are perceived by either side as judging. Then one either becomes proud (Thank you Lord that I’m not like that publican over there,) or defensive (How dare he/she play on my guilt).
And Jesus’ parable of the publican and the pharisee is brilliant, in that if you read that and find yourself saying, “Whew. Glad I’m not like that Pharisee,” then you’ve just committed the same sin as he did.
Handing out warnings, as many prophets have discovered, tends to get you in hot water for those who would rather you justified their sin than say it’s wrong. But doing so is not necessarily being judgmental. It could be the height of love, whereas those who say, “It’s all okay, let’s not worry about that and just get along,” are not always being loving.
Tolerance=intolerance. The more our leaders cry “tolerance!” the more intolerant our society is toward free speech and free thought. Tolerance means staying w/in specific parameters. Tolerance is a prison. The cry for it reminds me of the cry for “peace! peace!” It’s a trap, a lie–we don’t want it–not in the world’s way. I’d rather throw my lot in w/ God, as David did (when he was given his choice of punishments) because God is not tolerant, but he is just and merciful.
Well, the gospel is equal parts truth (law) and grace (forgiveness). So the church needs to be equal parts truth and grace, too. But the church is made up of imperfect sinners, so I don’t know if we’ll ever get the balance exactly right. This isn’t to say we should stop trying.
Perhaps more of my intention in this post is to challenge the assertion that the Church is predominantly intolerant. I just don’t see that. There are definitely bigots and legalists and chauvinists and haters of all kinds in the Church. But I do think there is validity in the Barna assertion that “There are fewer and fewer issues that Christians believe churches should be dogmatic about.” We are becoming dogmatic about NOT becoming dogmatic which, to me, is more dangerous than being overly-dogmatic about dogma.
I say the church is intolerant because people are intolerant. Intolerance is a matter of self-preservation. But, oddly, human intolerance is often irrational and not based off moral precepts (or dogma). I understand this kind of irrational intolerance intimately and have experienced it over and again. And, honestly, I’d rather have it that way because human intolerance is speckled w/ irrational kindness and mercy. The top-ground control grid of “tolerance” is never kind or merciful.
So depending on who you ask, the church is becoming simultaneously more tolerant and less tolerant?
I suppose it depends on what your definition of “The Church” is.
Whether the Church is too-tolerant or intolerant, I think the real root of the problem comes down to the Church being too ignorant. So many professing Christians don’t know what the Bible really says about issues or about who Christ is and how he operated–like you illustrated, Mike. And they don’t WANT to know, I find so many times. They don’t want to study, they don’t want to learn. They want to keep their personal image of God – be it a Judge of “everyone but me” (for the intolerant) or as a big ole teddy bear who just wants to slobber you with kisses no matter what you’ve done or what you ARE doing (for the “too-tolerant”).
I’ve been in church nearly my whole life, and I swear it’s just the same three sermons over and over, but the Bible is really, really deep with so many intricate lessons and pictures of people’s lives and is, at once, mysterious but also really clear on what’s important in life and what’s important to God. When you really study it–really learn it–I think you begin to understand how to make that balance between loving, yet remaining firm on the standards and truths. I think it sinks in.
But that’s when you have to divide “church going” with “truth seeking”. Don’t get me wrong–I’m all for finding a local body of believers to join with, but I think that’s for other purposes, such as encouragement and accountability and fellowship. I don’t think I’ve ever looked at a church service as a place to really grow and mature in Christ. That’s something you have to actively seek on your own, I think.
Interesting. I think tolerance is such a strange concept, because it’s impossible to ever be fully tolerant.
I think the problem is that evangelical Christians often think there is only way to read things or interpret them. I think it’s important that we respect that there are other valid ways of interpreting the Bible and even that some people can love God, wish to serve Jesus, and have very different viewpoints on how that’s done.
Amy,
The problem with that theory is it is relativistic in nature. There can be only one truth. There are non-essentials that we’ll never know for sure until we get to heaven, but there are certain things that even Christians take too many liberties with (i.e., Some evangelicals believe same-sex marriage is ok).
Well that’s a perfect example of what I mean…I am one of those Christians who supports same sex marriage.
Hi Amy! Wherever we draw the tolerance / intolerance line, the truth is that everybody draws one. Even folks who say the Church should be more tolerant, draw lines on what they think is acceptable. For instance, regarding same sex marriage, even those who support it draw lines against other forms of marriage and/or relationships (incest, polygamy, etc.). So I think the issue is always what governs where we draw our lines, not the lines themselves. Which is why the same sex issue always comes back to our “interpretation” of Scripture.
I’m not one to believe that “there is only way to read things or interpret them.” But if we’re not careful in that reasoning, we will slowly erode our basis for interpreting anything. We become the individual arbiters of what’s tolerable.
Amy, you can always comment here. Love the discussion. Grace and peace…
Well, you’re certainly entitled to that belief, even if it does ignore explicit Scripture to the contrary. 🙂 Good thing for both of us this isn’t a salvation issue, which many try to extrapolate for even the most minor squabbles.
To get back to the main article, the tolerance issue is wildly paradoxical. If I don’t compromise my belief on the sin of homosexuality (I use this one because it is one of the most oft-debated), I’m intolerant. But at the same time, many proponents for same-sex marriage have no tolerance for my belief because like me, they are firmly entrenched in them.
People often confuse tolerance with respect. I *always* respect the views of others, even if they don’t agree with mine. Respect is a pillar of the love that Christ commanded.
I agree (and thought I tried to say in my first comment) that there’s no such thing as absolute tolerance.
I DO struggle with the idea of a secular government barring same sex couples from getting married based on the religious beliefs of some. However, I fully support your right to think same sex relations are against the will of God, and I understand why you would come to the conclusion. I just have a harder time with it when that belief is set as the standard for all–making it illegal for same sex couples who don’t share your beliefs to get married and enjoy the same rights a heterosexual couples does.
I think THAT’S why the church comes across as intolerant–not so much because the ideas are different but it seems like everyone is expected to share those same beliefs or adhere to them. Does this make any sense?
It makes perfect sense, Amy. Sometimes knowing God’s truth is a burden to me only because I expect everyone else to know and believe it too….and that isn’t realistic at all on my part.