Administering the Medicine of Disapproval
Regis NicollRegis Nicoll is a Centurion of The Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview. He spent 30 years as a nuclear specialist, and is now a freelance writer who writes on current issues from a Christian perspective. His work regularly appears on BreakPoint online and SALVO magazine among other places. Regis also teaches and speaks on a variety of worldview topics, covering everything from Sharing the Gospel in a Postmodern Generation to String Theory. He currently serves as lay pastor of Hamilton Anglican Fellowship (www.hamiltonaf.org) in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
- 2008 Jan 12
“Replacing the mercy of disapproval with tolerance is replacing medicine with poison." (Robert Hart)
A while back I told a friend that I was attending a local Anglican church. Unhesitatingly, he remarked, "Oh, you mean that homophobic church!" I’ve heard of similar experiences from others in our fellowship.
Such remarks reveal a lack of understanding about the real issue behind the Anglican split; namely, the authority of scripture and apostolic tradition. To be fair, though, I can see why some people make them. It’s because of something I call "selective tolerance."
While evangelical Christians are known for their high view of Scripture, their acceptance of certain behaviors at odds with that standard has not gone unnoticed. As Robert Hart writes, "[Christians] have become more and more accepting of sexual relations that fall far below Christian belief in chastity, to the point where many churches accept unmarried couples, as long as they are not homosexual."
Sadly, selective tolerance encompasses much more than acquiescence toward heterosexual immorality. Moral silence on various forms of self-indulgence, pride, gluttony and other “socially acceptable” sins has allowed Christians to remain in a spiritual orbit overlapping that of their secular neighbors, while the moral voice of the Church has dampened to a murmur.
How did it come to this?
THE SUPREME VIRTUE
One factor is the desire to measure ourselves by looking around rather than up. We believe that a loving God would not condemn a majority of humankind to eternal destruction; so we set our sights on the righteous midpoint—or maybe just a smidgeon above it.
Instead of looking to Jesus to become holy as He is holy, we look to our neighbor. If our sins are not too different than his, we can chill. If they are, we can either work ourselves up to the moral mean or assuage ourselves by what is legally permissible. In fact, civil law has been an effective tool in “defining deviancy down.”
Within a generation after Roe v. Wade, the number of abortions increased 30 percent. During the same timeframe, “no-fault” legislation helped skyrocket the divorce rate by a factor of two, affecting nearly half of all marriages. The recent de-criminalization of homosexual sodomy and the pressure to legalize same-sex marriage and euthanasia continue the tradition of normalizing what were once considered deviant behaviors.
Another factor is cynicism. As noted by George Barna and others, belief in unchanging moral truth is held by a waning number of Christians. I’ve had Christians tell me that since Jesus lovingly accepted everyone, he wasn’t too concerned about moral absolutes. It is a strange argument regarding one who claimed to be the Way, the Truth and the Life.
However, the rejection of absolutes is never absolute. As the acid of cynicism dissolves the obelisk of objective truth into relativistic rubble, one spire remains: tolerance--the supreme virtue in a “live and let live” world that keeps 6 billion sovereigns from mutual destruction.
AN INSIDIOUS RUSE
Tolerance means that any biblical passage can be trumped by sincerity and goodness. As long as a person is sincere and lives an otherwise upright life, his lifestyle choices should be free from criticism or correction. Through that moral lens, even “loving neighbor as self” takes on a twisted shape.
Since I would be uncomfortable—yes, offended—if someone pointed out my faults, I’ll not point out those of my neighbor. By relieving myself of that rather unpleasant task, I avoid mutual awkwardness and discomfort, and I fulfill half of the great commandment to boot! It is a deception more beguiling than the one that charmed Eve.
When Eve took the fruit, it wasn’t because she rationalized that, in some contrived way, she was fulfilling God’s command; she violated it because she rationalized that God’s command was unreasonable. In the modern ruse, you can do what Eve couldn’t: reject God’s commands and fulfill His moral standard at the same time. All you need is love; and that’s spelled
T-O-L-E-R-A-N-C-E. But the truth is another matter.
Tolerating the sin of a brother for fear that a disapproving word might offend, is like the physician who neglects to correct a 300-pound patient about his lifestyle—it may look like compassion, but it is selfish indifference, if not outright cowardice. What’s more—it’s hazardous. As Robert Hart rightly warns, “Replacing the mercy of disapproval with tolerance is replacing medicine with poison.”
Thankfully, the love of Jesus was not the poison of tolerance, but the medicine of intolerance.
AN INTOLERANT MESSIAH
The popular felt-board depiction of Jesus is of a soft-spoken story-teller—bordering on the effeminate—with a wide grin and open arms, welcoming all into His inner circle with nary a discouraging word. Compared with the gospel accounts, the portrayal couldn’t be further off the mark.
Jesus began His public ministry with the call to “Repent!” From there, He launched into a lengthy exposition of attitudes and behaviors identified with kingdom living; He exhorted an adulterous woman to leave her life of sin; He disqualified a rich, young man for his self-sufficiency; He instructed His disciples to rebuke sinful brothers; He nearly started a riot in a violent outburst at the temple, and He even had boorishness to criticize the religious beliefs of a woman who was merely trying to draw a jug of water.
To those who had supplanted the Word of God with the traditions of men (like today’s prophets of tolerance), His words were stinging, even hurtful. In one discourse, Jesus delivered a series of seven shock treatments, each beginning with “woe!” and followed by a moral indictment.
Throughout His ministry, Jesus never skirted wrong-headed beliefs or behaviors. He addressed them, and those who held them, head on, to the point of rudeness according to modern sensibilities. But His corrections were never meant to crush or condemn; they were intended to awaken His audience to the truth that gives life.
Even Jesus’s rebuke of the Pharisees was driven not by anger, but anguish over their spiritual condition. At the end of His sevenfold indictment, He grieves, “How often I have I longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.”
To generate introspection, Jesus often told them parables. One concerned a wedding feast.
THE WRONG ATTIRE
A king threw a banquet in celebration of his son’s wedding. It was staged as a gala event, complete with clothes provided by the king to all attendees. Astonishingly, all of the invited guests refused to come. So the royal invitation went out to the streets and alleys. Once the banquet hall was filled and the festivities set to begin, the king noticed something out of place: a man dressed in his own garb. Incensed over the man’s disregard for the graciously provided attire, the king had the man removed from the royal premises. The story has haunting similarities to the Genesis narrative.
Adam and Eve were guests in the royal residence of
Hoping to conceal their guilt, Adam and Eve hurriedly covered themselves with fig leaves. But their plan unraveled as their newly-sewn garments didn’t match the setting. They were in deep trouble. They had violated a decree punishable by death, they were found out with no credible defense, and were face-to-face with their Judge.
The King had three choices: He could execute the sentence immediately, demonstrating His justice; He could commute the sentence and demonstrate his mercy; or He could grant a temporary stay and demonstrate merciful justice. He chose the latter.
FIG LEAF RELIGION
After expelling Adam and Eve from the garden, God removed their hand-made attire and covered them with the skins of animals. Their coverings would be a constant reminder of the blood shed for them. More significantly, it prefigured the sacrificial system that reached its culmination and fulfillment at the Cross.
Fig leaves, on the other hand, came to represent the scantly, man-made constructions intended to cover up faults and defects. One such construction is the “fig leaf” of tolerance.
Masked behind an ever-affirming face that looks like love, tolerance is neither compassion nor charity but, as Dorothy Sayers put it “a sin which believes nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, loves nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and only remains alive because there is nothing it would die for.”
The thread of Scripture is clear: It was not the apathy of tolerance, but the mercy of intolerance that led to the ultimate revelation of divine love—the coming of the Child whose birth we just celebrated. Like our Father and elder Brother, let us courageously and lovingly impart a correcting word to those who are being marginalized by poor choices and wrong-headed thinking.