The Tolerant God

My last three posts have all been on the issue of tolerance, so I figured I might as well conclude the week with a fourth post on the same issue, except this time looking at it through a theological lens: what does the Bible say about tolerance?  It says quite a bit about it when it comes to Christians interacting with each other and with the world, but as this piece from Desiring God points out, it may be most beneficial to realize that our God is a tolerant God.

When you think about all the things God has to tolerate in his creation, you can be humbled pretty quickly.  The ultimate, infinite, perfect Being of the universe exists (albeit, transcendently) with a finite, fallen creation.  Why would he bother?  Because God is patiently waiting for his plan to come to fruition, and while he waits he has to tolerate all of the sin and corruption of the world.  He is not bound to tolerate it - he could put an end to this whole thing any time he wants.  But because he is merciful and longsuffering, he has graciously chosen to tolerate the pride and ignorance of human beings.

To get a better idea of what this must be like, try to imagine the incarnation: God becoming man.  Jesus leaves the glories of heaven where everyone is worshipping him, to come to a place where people will despise and hate him; he leaves the feasts of heaven in order to come to earth and be perpetually hungry; he leaves the splendor of heaven to come to earth where he essentially lives as a homeless man; and the list goes on and on of how Jesus sacrificed elements of his divinity in order to come as a human being.  Why would he do it?  Only one answer: love.  Why does God not just destroy the world and everyone/thing in it?  Because he's loving and kind, and because he has a sovereign purpose that he's working out.

One thing the DG article doesn't bring out though, is God's intolerance.  Yes, God is definitely tolerant, but he is also intolerant (I think it's important to acknowledge that these two characteristics can and must exist simultaneously - see below), although not in the way that we think of when we hear the word "intolerance" used in modern speech.  God is intolerant toward any and everything that goes against his nature and character, or in other words, sin.  God will not tolerate sin.  Yes, he puts up with sin, but he will not ultimately tolerate it or allow it.  In the end, he will judge and punish all sin(ners).  One need not glance at the cross for too long to see God's utter hatred and intolerance for sin.  All people will know God's intolerance toward sin by way of his wrath and judgment in one of two ways: either through the death of his Son on the cross, or by spending eternity in the lake of fire.  One way or another, God's intolerance toward sin must be acknowledged and meted out.

I once heard Paul Washer say that someday he wanted to do some studying and develop a series of messages on the hatred of God.  People balk at that idea - the hatred of God?  God can't hate - God is love!  As Paul Washer says, that's exactly right, and because God is love, therefore he must hate.  Think about it: what do you love?  If you love it purely, then you hate its opposite.  If you love your kids, then you hate the thought of losing them; I love life, therefore I hate abortion.  Love necessitates hatred.  Tolerance necessitates intolerance (this is what's missing from the general public's understanding of these concepts - we can't all be tolerant).

As we've been talking about in our intergenerational Sunday School class this summer, God invites (commands) us to be like him.  He wants us to conform to his character (with the aid of his Holy Spirit).  Christians can and should be tolerant of other Christians and even toward those who hate God.  We cannot, however, tolerate sin in our own lives.  In this sense we have to be intolerant.  God also wants us to be intolerant of those things he is intolerant of: injustice, oppression, evil, etc. - anything that goes against his nature and character (the way this intolerance manifests itself in our lives is another topic for discussion, however, beyond the scope of this post).

Praise God that, although he is well within his rights to do away with the entire universe, that he is longsuffering, tolerant, and faithful to his promises.

The Tolerance Buzz Saw, Part III

The tolerance just doesn't stop coming.  Do me a favor and tolerate this article for a few seconds.  It's pretty short, and it talks about what I've been talking about for two posts now: how our understanding of tolerance is contradictory and hypocritical.

D.A. Carson (a very smart guy who writes really well) has recently put out a book that I haven't read but have wanted to (just can't bring myself to buy it), called The Intolerance of Tolerance  In the book, Carson approaches the tolerance conversation by noting that there is "old" tolerance and "new" tolerance.  The old kind is the kind that is actually somewhat beneficial.  Carson says that old kind accepts the existence of different views.  By contrast, the new kind of tolerance accepts different views.  Pretty significant difference there.  

Check out the article, and if you're really ambitious, buy the book.  

The Tolerance Buzz Saw Strikes Again

This post will serve as a convenient follow up to yesterday's post, and serves even better as an example of the hypocrisy and irony of the tolerance position that people take nowadays in the public square.  The guy in the video below took it upon himself to go through a Chick Fil A drive thru and give the employee in the window a piece of his mind (while supposedly "taking money" from Chick Fil A by ordering nothing but a free water).  But he went even beyond that and decided to post the video on Youtube.  Not a smart decision on his part.  The company he works for got wind of the video, wasn't too impressed by his "intolerant" behavior, and quickly canned him (read the press release from Vante, his employer here, and watch the video of the encounter here).

Here's a transcript of the most relevant parts of the video:

Guy (before he gets to the window): "People have to have their Chick Fil A anti-gay breakfast sandwich.  Mmm.  Always tastes better when it's full of hate.  Mmm.  Yeah.  Love it...Here I go."
Guy: "Hey, how you doing?"
Employee: "Fine."
Guy: "Good.  Is this my free water?"
Employee: "It is."
Guy: "Awesome.  You know why I'm getting a free water, right?"
Employee: "I do not."
Guy: "Because Chick Fil A is a hateful corporation."
Employee: "I disagree.  We don't treat our customers differently."
Guy: "I know, but the corporation gives money to hate groups.  Hate groups.  Just because people want to kiss another guy."
Employee: "I have to stay neutral on the subject.  My personal beliefs are that it should stay out of the work place."
Guy: "Yeah, I believe that too.  I don't believe corporations should give money to hateful groups."
Employee: "I'm really uncomfortable that you're video taping me."
Guy: "I totally understand.  I'll take my water."
Employee: "It's my pleasure to serve you always."
Guy: "Oh yeah, of course.  I'm glad that I can take a little bit of money from Chick Fil A and from hate groups.  Have a great day."
Employee: "Well, we're always happy to serve everybody."
Guy: "I don't know how you live with yourself and work here.  I don't understand it.  This is a horrible corporation with horrible values."
Employee: "We're here to serve you in any way that you need."
Guy: "You deserve better."
Employee: "Well, I hope you have a really nice day."
Guy: "I will.  I just did something really good.  I feel purposeful.  Thank you so much."
Employee: "Have a nice day."
Guy: "Thank you so much.  I'm a nice guy, by the way, and I'm totally heterosexual.  Not a gay in me.  I just can't stand the hate, you know?  It's gotta stop. It's gotta stop, guys.  Stand up.
Employee: "Drive safely."
Guy: "Alright.  Thanks guys."

If this guy can watch his own video and not see the hypocrisy in his words and actions, there's not much hope for this country (intellectually, that is).  Here are my thoughts on this video:

1. To ambush an innocent employee just doing her job is about the most classless thing I can think of.  All this guy wanted to do was harass an employee of Chick Fil A while making what he thought would be a cool video for him and his friends.  Thank goodness that backfired.  And on that note, props to the employee.  She remained calm and courteous the whole time.

2. The guy opens the video by mockingly saying that the Chick Fil A breakfast sandwich tastes better because it "Always tastes better when it's full of hate."  He then proceeds to drive up to the window and berate and innocent girl after ordering a water.  Apparently water tastes better "when it's full of hate" too.  Are you trying to tell me what he did wasn't spiteful?  Dare we say hateful?  What does he call his actions toward the employee?  Loving?

3. He says that Chick Fil A gives money to hate groups.  Now, I'm not sure what groups Chick Fil A supports financially, but I'm pretty sure they're not hate groups.  They're probably groups that support the biblical definition of marriage.  See my previous post on the Tolerance Buzz Saw to see how general disagreement on the issues has turned into matters of hate for some.  It's become increasingly popular and acceptable to label those with whom we have disagreements as being hateful.  This is scary, and has far-reaching ramifications especially for Christians.

4. "I don't know how you live with yourself and work here...This is a horrible corporation with horrible values."  The first part of this statement is shockingly offensive, considering he has no idea who this woman is.  The second part of this statement harkens back to my previous post as well, since the judgement of Chick Fil A's "values" as being "horrible" is determined solely by this man's opinion and personal preferences.  Why are they horrible?  Because he says so, and for no other reason.  And so apparently he has the authority to label Chick Fil A, their employees, and anyone associated with them as being "hateful."

5. I'm a bit confused by the man's insistence on his heterosexuality.  Why did he say that?  To prove a point?  It actually sounds a bit to me like he's referring to homosexuality as though it is something to be ashamed of.  What a hater.

Todd Friel makes a great point by saying that all value judgments, be they moral or otherwise, are borrowing from Christian principles.  Unless one has an ultimate moral authority to which he or she ultimately appeals, one cannot make definitive moral judgments.  In other words, you can't say definitively that something is right or wrong unless you believe that there ultimately is a standard of right and wrong.  Unless you believe in an absolute moral standard you can't make judgements - you can only have preferences.  You can prefer things one way or another (such as preferring to allow gay marriage), but you can't say that things definitely are one way or another.  As Friel says, we need to start calling people on that.  You can say you prefer something a certain way, but unless you appeal to an absolute authority other than yourself, you can't make a moral judgement.

As I said earlier, this video just goes to show how the intellectual level in the public discourse of the issues in this country today is on a startlingly steep decline, and that's unfortunate for everyone involved.

The Tolerance Buzz Saw

Wow.  Quite the firestorm brewing about Dan Cathy's recent statements in favor of a "traditional" view of marriage, thereby denouncing homosexual marriage.  A lot of it took place while I was on vacation, but people all over the country are still up in arms (on both sides of the argument - today was Chick Fil A Wednesday, when supporters of the restaurant were encouraged to eat their), and mayors are refusing to allow Chick Fil A to come into their cities.  Quite the hubub!  I've eaten at Chick Fil A only twice in my life during a trip to Atlanta.  I've got no personal connection to the restaurant or reason to defend it (in fact, I remember being a bit let down when I learned they only served chicken!).  My opinion has to do with the way people present and respond to the arguments and views of those they disagree with.

This whole controversy just goes to show the lunacy of the "intolerance" position that people take against others who oppose their views.  It's like a trump card: don't like what someone is saying about you?  Just label them as being intolerant, and you're automatically the one whose rights are being infringed.  I always chuckle when people pull out the "tolerance buzz saw" as Dough Wilson calls it.  "We support your right to free speech.  Now shut up," Wilson says of the sentiment of the tolerance crowd.

The ironic thing about tolerance and intolerance, as the words are used in common speech in english, is that anyone who vilifies someone else by labeling them as "intolerant" doesn't realize that they themselves are actually intolerant of at least one thing: those whom they have deemed intolerant.  In other words, those who hate intolerance are intolerant of intolerance.  The sad thing is that people don't realize this when they pull out their own personal tolerance buzz saw.

What is also interesting is that those on the conservative side of the aisle are constantly accused of forcing their values on other people.  What is the criticism of Chick Fil A for expressing their views, if not forcing values (the value of homosexuality) on those who disagree with the homosexual agenda?  It's just goofy, and it's sad to see people put aside reason and logic and instead embrace emotion and hate mongering in the public square.

Furthermore, by what standard do people label others "intolerant?"  Who gets to decide what behaviors and attitudes are tolerant, and which aren't?  Clearly, as the terms are used in our society, the standard by which we judge tolerance and intolerance in others is subjective, and moreover, based upon personal preferences.  There is no tolerance scale by which we can judge who or what is intolerant.  It simply boils down to a person's preferences.  If you don't like what I'm doing, you can call me intolerant.  That's all you need for cutting someone up with the tolerance buzz saw: just disagree with them.  That's it.  That's the standard.  The problem with this word and its use in the public square is that it carries significant overtones of discriminatory ideas.  That is, when you call someone intolerant, you're not just stating disagreement with them - you're accusing them of discrimination against a group of people or set of ideas.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Can't we just disagree?  Do we have to be accusing each other of hate when we disagree?

Christians, however, do have a standard to which they can appeal: scripture.  We can say that things are right or wrong not because we personally prefer them, but because the Bible says so.  You may disagree with it in public or private discourse on the issues, but at least you're not disagreeing with my own personal preferences - you're disagreeing with the Bible.  Here are some examples of people judging from the subjective standards of personal preferences, taken from the Chick Fil A controversy:

1. The mayor of Boston wrote a letter to the local newspaper in which he urged Chick Fil A to "back out of your plans to locate in Boston."  He went on, "You can't have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population."  Discriminates?  Really?  What gives him the authority to deem Dan Cathy's affirmation of the biblical view of marriage as discriminatory?  Who made him the judge of what is or is not discrimination?  Isn't it just his opinion that Chick Fil A is discriminating?  Can he prove it?  No.  It simply comes down to the fact that, according to him, those who do not affirm the homosexual agenda are bigots.  There's no other standard being applied here but his own.

2. A Philadelphia city council member actually wrote a personal letter to Dan Cathy, president of Chick Fil A saying, "Take a hike, and take your intolerance with you."  He plans to condemn the company openly at the next city council meeting.  Again, why does this guy get to decide that Cathy is being intolerant?  Answer: he doesn't.  He only gets to express his feelings and his personal preferences.  But as soon as you tack the "intolerance" label onto someone, it's taken to a whole new level.  Also, as stated above, it's laughable that this guy, telling people to "take their intolerance with them," doesn't realize that - by his own standard - he needs to leave town too, as he is likewise intolerant.

3. The final, and what I consider to be the most ridiculous response to the Chick Fil A controversy comes from Rahm Emanuel, mayor of Chicago.  He said, "Chick Fil A's values are not Chicago's values."  Oh really?  And just what are Chicago's values?  Quite obviously, Mayor Emanuel believes that his values are also Chicago's values.  To make such a broad, overarching statement is absolutely ludicrous.  Allow me to explain.  Two or three years ago my wife and I drove down to Charleston, South Carolina for a friend's wedding.  Our route took us right through Chicago.  As we drove through the city I was horrified at how literally every other billboard on the highway was an advertisement either for a strip club or adult video store.  I vowed at that time to never drive through Chicago with my kids - at least not during daylight.  Given my propensity to believe that strip clubs and pornography tend to denigrate our society, destroy marriages, and hurt families, would it be right of me to say that Chicago's values are not my values?  Yes indeed.  But that's based on my own values - my own preferences.  Mayor Emanuel's statement is likewise based on his values.  And who is he, and what are his values that give him the right to make such a statement?  Nobody.  He's a nobody.  Why does he get to force his values on others?  Do I have the right to purge Chicago of strip clubs and adult video stores based on my values?  Certainly not.  And neither does Rahm Emanuel or anyone else have the right to condemn Chick Fil A based upon his or her own personal set of values.  How do people not see the subjectivity of this line of thinking?  It's sad, really.

The difference between my values and Emanuel's values is significant.  If we just debate our values, we'll find ourselves in a never-ending circular argument, since I can always appeal to what I like, and someone else can always disagree by appealing to what they like.  Neither of us has an objective standard to which we can appeal.  As a Christian, however, I can trace my values to scripture to show how and why God says certain things are right or wrong.  They aren't just my values - they're God's.  This changes the argument completely, and it is why Christians must stop entering into the public square quoting statistics, social science studies, and promoting conservative, traditional values.  Instead, we must enter the public square by saying "This is what God says."  I don't care what statistics you have, or how many social studies you have.  This is what God says.  Statistics and studies can be and are always based on a particular presupposition.  The word of God is not.  Appeal to that.  We can disagree, but at least I have an objective standard to which I can appeal.  The only standard that these guys listed above can appeal to is themselves, which is not a very persuasive or weighty authority.

Here's another interesting thing to think about: would each of these men be willing to admit that for the first three and a half years of his presidency (not including his presidential campaign before his first term in office) President Obama was an anti-homosexual, discriminating bigot?  After all, he didn't come out in support of gay marriage until very recently.  In fact, he seemed to have been adamantly opposed to it, especially during his campaign.  Couldn't we say that President Obama's values, until very recently, "are not Chicago's values" (which screams with even more irony, considering Rahm Emanuel was on Obama's staff during his presidency)?  Would these same guys be willing to describe Obama's supposedly newly found support of gay marriage to be a process of overcoming his own demons of anti-gay discrimination and bigotry?  Don't hold your breath.

My point in this whole post is that I'd like to see people elevate the intellectual level of the public discourse when it comes to these serious issues.  Throwing out subject accusations that are based on personal preferences are neither persuasive nor helpful in the conversation.  Let's talk.  Let's just do it with civility and with our brains.  We can do better than simply leveling a trump card of intolerance, or chopping people up with our tolerance buzz saws.

A Couple Things

There were a couple things on the interwebs that caught my eye today, which I want to comment on here (an A la Carte of sorts).  I usually run into all kinds of interesting things on the internet each day, but these things today especially got me thinking.

1. John Piper posted a bit about the Olympics (it's actually an excerpt from a 1992 sermon of his).  I've shared before about how I love the Olympics, and also how my respect for Olympic athletes has dwindled as of late.  This sentiment from Piper, however, brings out a neat way of thinking theologically about the Olympics.  Take a look.

2. The second item is not necessarily from the internet, but from an episode of the Wretched Podcast I listened to today.  Todd Friel asked the question, "Is hunting for sport an OK thing to do?"  By "hunting for sport" he means killing animals not for their meet, and not to beneficially control their population, but just for the sake of killing an animal.  He finds at least these three reasons for why killing animals is permitted: killing for the sake of food, killing for the sake of taking dominion of the earth (like when animals disturb the human population, e.g., gophers digging holes in your yard), and killing to control animal populations (such as deer that would starve to death due to overpopulation).  All three reasons have significant theological implications.  He could not, however, think of a biblical justification (based on the charge from God for human beings to take dominion of the earth) for killing animals for sport, and therefore, I think his opinion was that killing for sport was wrong.  I'm not sure if I agree with him or not, but it has me thinking about it, and that's never a bad thing.

This got me to thinking, as I have taken up both turkey and pheasant hunting in the past few years.  I even purchased my own shotgun (as opposed to having to borrow from friends or family) this past year so I could go hunting with my own equipment.  I have to admit that these hunting experiences I've had over the past 3-4 years have been some of the funnest times of my life.  There's no rush like a tom turkey responding to your call from a hundred yards away, and then having him inch closer and closer until you can get a good shot at him.  I've been turkey hunting three times but have only only been able to shoot one once, and it was one of the most thrilling moments of my life.

In all the hunting experiences I've had, I've always harvested the animals for their meat.  That is, I've always used them for food (smoked pheasant is pretty tasty, although you have to make sure you don't swallow any lead shot as you eat it!).  But I've never been in a position where I would go without if I hadn't hunted these birds.  That is, I didn't have to shoot them and eat them in order to survive.  The primary purpose for my shooting the birds was for the thrill of the hunt, not out of a need for food.  Is that immoral?  Again, I'm not convinced that it is, but it's a good thing to think about.