Tag Archives: half-truths

LOVE: What kind of tolerance are we aiming for?

Posted on by

In part three of the series The Difficulty of Sharing Our Faith, on GospelCenteredDiscipleship.com, Jonathan Dodson writes on Tolerance. (Parts 1 & 2 dealt with not wanting to be “preachy,” or think sharing our faith must wait until we have a deeper relationship with someone.) Dodson begins part 3:

It can be difficult to share our faith. Sometimes when opportunities arise to share our faith, we shrink back because we don’t want to be intolerant. We don’t want to come across as demeaning of other’s beliefs or exclusivist in our own beliefs. This can be very positive concern, though it has some shortcomings too.

Tolerance as Christian Love

Tolerance can be either an expression of Christian love or intellectual and relational carelessness. How do you know if your tolerance is loving or careless? It depends on what we mean by tolerance. In The Intolerance of Tolerance, D. A. Carson helpfully clarifies the meaning of tolerance. He points out that there are two types of tolerance: old and new.

The old tolerance is the belief that other opinions have a right to exist. This is a very Christian notion. Jesus taught us to love our neighbor, and even our enemy. The Christian ethic of love should compel disciples to tolerate other beliefs and religions. We ought to grant others the right to believe whatever they desire to believe. After all, what people believe is a deeply personal and profound matter. It isn’t like picking out a ripe banana at the supermarket. Our beliefs require much more thought and investment. Love values people and respects the things they hold dear. Since Christians are to love God, neighbor and even enemy, tolerance (believing that people have the right to hold different opinions) can be very loving and respectful. Christianity shouldn’t be coercive or proselytizing; it should be loving and tolerant.

Christianity shouldn’t be coercive or proselytizing; it should be loving and tolerant.

Continue reading →

 

A lesson from London: Who could stand?

Posted on by

Kari writes:

The British Museum. Four enormous statues of Buddha lined the far wall. They towered, enormous, yet frozen in place. Mere idols. Powerless. I turned the corner to head out, into another gallery, then noticed that Jeff was intrigued by something else, clicking a photo with his phone.

Two tall statues stood on either side of a walkway. Shiny with glaze, standing tall and proud with Asian faces and elaborate Chinese dress. The one on the left held a hefty book, probably 8-10 inches thick, like two or three phonebooks all put together. His face looked severe, judging.

The other statue held a slim booklet, more like a magazine, rolled up into a small cylinder in her hand. The plaque explained that in the first century AD the concept of hell was introduced into China. From where it was unknown. But from that time on it was clearly understood that after death there would be judgment. The severe statue with the thick phone-book type volume was holding the person’s evil deeds. The statue with the magazine rolled up was holding the person’s good deeds.

The statues:

Final judgment statues from the Meng Dynasty in China, housed in the British Museum. Statue on the left holds large book making note of "evil works"; statue on right holds small magazine with record of "good works."

They got that part right.

If You, O LORD, should mark iniquities, O LORD, who could stand?
—Psalm 130:3

Where, I wonder, have we lost the reality of guilt? Today guilt is a dirty word, something we’re encouraged to shake off, leave behind, free ourselves from.

But isn’t guilt a critical component of the gospel?

Isn’t guilt the black backdrop that allows the glorious diamond of the gospel to be seen in all its glory?

If I didn’t understand guilt, how could I understand grace?