tolerance

How often do we evangelicals hear and repeat statements like “America is a great nation because it was founded on Judeo-Christian values”? In this unsolicited commentary, I’d like to humbly express my dissent from this view and briefly discuss a critical theological issue about which we evangelicals appear to be confused.

I must insist from a historical perspective that if America is indeed a “great” nation (whatever one takes this to mean), it is not because the authors of the U.S. Constitution gave us Judeo-Christian values, but because they gave us a truly remarkable concept called religious freedom. To me, the wisdom and brilliance of these authors was not in their insistence upon a Christian worldview, but in their insistence that individuals be guaranteed the right to pursue and select their own worldview. When we thank our Lord (correctly) for the opportunity to worship freely, exchange copies of the Scriptures, and preach the Gospel, we should remember that this right does not derive from a principle of Christian freedom, but from a principle of religious freedom. The strength of the U.S. Constitution arises, therefore, from its simultaneous promise of religious freedom to believers and non-believers alike. If we find ourselves wishing that the non-believers were a little less free to express and promote their views and consequent behaviors, we must immediately restrain ourselves. By seeking to deny legal freedom of expression to any segment of society, we insult the principle that protects this freedom for ourselves. In short, we as Christians have a remarkable constitutional promise of religious freedom that comes at a price we too often overlook. This price is called tolerance.

In practice, tolerance means that you and I ought not to praise the U.S. Constitution for its protection of religious freedom for evangelical Christians while simultaneously seeking politically to enforce our spiritual perspective (and its corresponding value system) on other Americans. The rights of our non-Christian friends to be unspiritual, to reject the Lord, to disagree with us, and to behave in ways that we find unsavory (within legal limits) must be enthusiastically preserved if our own rights are to be preserved.

Others who share my view have undoubtedly been perceived among evangelicals as supporters of all manner of destructive behavior (e.g. substance abuse, addiction, sexual promiscuity, violence, materialism, pornography, adultery, abortion, etc.) This is untrue. I abhor these activities, as do you. The essence of this commentary concerns not whether such behavior is evil (it is), but how we, as Christians, ought and ought not to confront other Americans whose actions are not consistent with our own worldview. I think our response is very often unsatisfactory because we forget the critical balance between freedom and tolerance in American society.

Although we have the right and responsibility to express honestly, publicly, and politically our opinions on issues of morality and ethics, we seem all too often oblivious to the risks of trumpeting our ethical and moral standards without primary emphasis on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I think that it is both a political and a theological mistake for evangelical Christians to enter the political arena with the explicit goal of an American ethical and moral revival. Even if you disagree with this position, please take a moment to consider my reasoning.

When Christians unite to oppose what they perceive to be immoral or sinful, we are too often representing ourselves as Americans whose primary goal is to change the behavior of other Americans by restricting freedoms. The bottom line is a patent advertisement by Christians that the essence of Christianity is a series of restrictions on freedom. Is this how we want to be presenting Christianity to America? I must protest.

When we present Christianity to non-Christians as a system that seeks to restrict freedom of behavior, we cause alienation and we promote a heresy: that the behavior of Christians is the basis of their relationship with God. All our well-intended efforts to correct immorality and unrighteousness often serve only to imply that the elimination of these offending behaviors is the goal of Christianity. It is not. The theological truth expounded so vibrantly by St. Paul is that if we please God, it is not because of our behavior, but in spite of our behavior. God has chosen to set aside our actions (which, if you haven’t checked lately, are still sinful and no less imperfect than the behavior of non-Christians) through our voluntary acceptance of his grace as manifested in the atonement.

Like you, when exposed to the evils of our society, my first response is usually frustration and a (misplaced) sense of righteous indignation. Then I consider tolerance, the price of freedom. Then I think of Jesus Christ, and realize that the problem is not behavior. If the problem were behavior and the standard were God’s standard, we’d all be instantly and justly condemned as imperfect. None of us is reconciled to God by behavior. No, the problem is spiritual. If we are serious about addressing this real problem, you and I must share with individuals the Gospel of repentance and atonement in Jesus Christ. It is grace that we must promote, not good behavior. I ask that you and I give thoughtful consideration to the concept of tolerance, and redouble our efforts to facilitate the process by which God first changes hearts, then changes lives.


1991