Christianity Will Not Be Tolerated
A recent article from OneNewsNow.com reported that the new Administration may have a decidedly different view of the National Day of Prayer from the Bush Administration. While President Bush always embraced the National Day of Prayer with an official White House observance, this year’s organizers say that they have yet to hear that the White House will be holding such an official observance. The article goes on to say that certain advocacy groups are trying to break what they perceive to be the National Day of Prayer Task Force’s monopoly on the event. Apparently, these groups sent a letter to President Obama asking him to declare the National Day of Prayer a day for all Americans of all faiths, and even for nonbelievers.
The objection, of course, is that the National Day of Prayer Task Force is a Christian organization promoting prayer in Jesus’ name to the God of the Bible. To use one of the more ubiquitous buzzwords of our day, the aforementioned advocacy groups would prefer that the National Day of Prayer Task Force be more tolerant of people of other faiths, or, no faith at all, which I presume to mean atheists and perhaps agnostics. (As an aside, one has to wonder exactly how an atheist would participate in a day of prayer. From what I know of atheists, they would consider the idea rather absurd.) This is simply the latest example of the increasing perception and presentation of Christians as being intolerant of anyone who does not believe as they do.
Understanding that people who identify themselves as Christians may or may not behave in a manner that is in keeping with biblical teaching (that is a subject for another article), let us take a step back and ask the question that is truly being asked, "Are Christians intolerant because Christianity is intolerant? Is Christianity intolerant of other religions?" The immediate problem we encounter when answering this question is that the definition of the word "tolerate" has been hijacked, of late, as have many other words in our language whose definitions we all basically agreed upon at one time. Since he who defines the terms controls the argument, many Christians may be finding it frustrating, if not impossible, to convince those outside the faith that they really are not intolerant bigots.
The word tolerate simply means "to permit". It means "to put up with, to allow the existence, practice, or presence of." However, the more and more common use of this word and its many derivatives, especially in the context of conversations about Christianity, has come to mean "to accept as right, true, or valid; to ascribe equal value to a differing position, belief, or lifestyle." How we answer the question, "Does Christianity tolerate other faiths, even unbelievers," depends on which definition of tolerate we are talking about.
According to the dictionary definition, the first definition offered above, Christianity is tolerant of all people without dispute. Jesus made it clear that the kingdom of God was open to whoever wanted to enter it by faith in Him. In the parable of the wheat and the tares, he made it clear that unbelievers were not to be uprooted, rejected, scorned, or persecuted by believers. "Let them grow together," Jesus said, "until the day the Father comes to separate them." Paul said in Romans 12:18, "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." To live at peace with everyone, especially those who do not accept Christ or Christianity, requires tolerance in the purest sense of the word. To not allow someone to practice Hinduism or Islam or Judaism or Atheism, to forbid it, would hardly foster peace. The fact is that there is not a single teaching in the New Testament instructing Christians to not put up with or allow the existence, presence, or practice of unbelievers. Indeed, Brian Toon, the vice chairman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force, made it a point to say that all Americans of any faith were welcome to organize their own prayer gathering or attend one organized by the task force. Unfortunately, he said that some have sought to abolish the National Day of Prayer instead, which brings me to my next thought.
Compare the actual Christian teaching on tolerance to how Christians themselves are being treated in this country. We are constantly being opposed at every turn in public life, being told we cannot pray, cannot preach, cannot express our values or promote Christian doctrine. We are told we can be Christians if we wish, but we are not to bring our Christianity to the state house, school house, voting booth, board room, or pretty much any other area of public life upon which government has placed its hand (which, these days, is just about everything). It is becoming increasingly evident in our society that it is Christianity that will not be tolerated, not all these other faiths that imply such persecution at the hands of Christians.
Do not be deceived into thinking that all certain activists want is a seat at the proverbial table. "Just acknowledge that we are welcome to participate in the National Day of Prayer, and we will be satisfied." If that were true, we would not be having this debate, for that has already been done. No, what is demanded is "tolerance" under the new-and-improved politically correct definition. We are to stop praying in Jesus’ name, because that is so exclusive and intolerant of the Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Atheists. Really? Are the Muslims going to stop invoking the name of Allah or Mohammed when they pray? Will Hindus drop the universal "Om" from their prayers? Such suggestions are preposterous for adherents to those faiths, of course, and yet somehow it is perceived as fair and equitable that Christians deny their faith in the name of tolerance.
How is it tolerant (using the dictionary definition) to demand that a Christian be more tolerant (using the politically correct definition) of Islam by acknowledging that it is "just as true, just as likely to be valid, on equal moral footing as Christianity"? Will a sincere Muslim do the same for Christianity? No, of course not. If we will just take a moment to examine this rationally, it will be easy to see that if two faiths make mutually exclusive claims to truth, it is impossible for them both to be correct, at least not in a rational universe. Christianity teaches that Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life" and that "no man can get to the Father [God]" except through Him. Islam teaches that there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet. They both cannot be right. That’s not bigotry. That’s LOGIC.
Now, some may seek to rectify this impasse by suggesting that God has chosen to reveal himself to different people in different ways. However, to accept that explanation, one must accept that God is a dissembler of sorts, if not an outright liar. Neither a Christian nor a Muslim could ever accept this and be what he claims to be. Others might argue that, somehow, we "know" that God doesn’t really exist. Therefore, it doesn’t matter what religion you are. It’s just a social construct, anyway. If that is the case, then why persecute Christianity? On what basis is the value judgment being made amongst religions? While it may have happened somewhere once, I have yet to hear of an atheist taking a Muslim to court over some public display of religion. However, there seem to be daily examples of legal proceedings of atheists versus Christians. (I am speaking in terms of my own perception, of course. I do not have first-hand knowledge of every legal proceeding in my country. All I know is that when atheist sues Christian, it makes the news. When or if atheist sues Muslim, not so much.)
It is frequently argued that the real objection those who are not Christians have to Christianity is the aggressive nature with which Christians attempt to "push their beliefs on everyone else". This is a disingenuous argument, however, for a couple of reasons. First, there is the underlying assumption that it is wrong for Christians to try to persuade people to become Christians. The only logical foundation for such a moral judgment ("Christian evangelism is wrong") would be the belief that Christianity is not true. If it is true, how can anyone be harmed by being invited to join? In non-cultic, authentic Christianity, no one is, or indeed can be, forced to convert. Sharing one’s beliefs and trying to convince another that they are true is not the same as forcing another to accept those beliefs and live by them. Second, the demand that Christians keep their Christianity out of public life is, in itself, the very intolerance of which they are accused. Whose beliefs are being forced upon whom? Who is not tolerating whom?
It seems neither illogical nor unfair that a nation in which more than 80% of the population still calls itself Christian, notwithstanding the actual practice of that 80%, that a National Day of Prayer would be predominantly Christian. The cries of exclusion and intolerance are simply the result of contradictory worldviews. In the end, the true measure of tolerance will lie in who is permitted to exist, practice, and be present in everyday public life. If current trends continue, it may not be the Christians.
No comments yet.
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
