So, should Christians be tolerant? Well, that depends. If tolerance means compromising our belief in the message of Jesus Christ, the story of the Bible, or historic Christianity to avoid conflict with others, then no. But if tolerance means that we strive to live unwavering in our convictions and at the same time love others unconditionally, then yes. In this sense tolerance would look a lot like embracing prostitutes, tax collectors, drunks, and other sinners like ourselves. It would look a lot like emptying ourselves of our spiritual pride, looking beyond people’s actions, and seeing them as people who matter to God. It would look a lot like submitting ourselves to the will of God and laying down our lives for those who desperately need His mercy and forgiveness.

In other words, it would look a lot like Jesus.

The post Should Christians be tolerant? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.

Although most Christians agree that war is sometimes necessary in self defense (See the ATQ article When Is a War Just?), and nominal “Christians” have often wrongfully launched or participated in wars of aggression, genuine, New Testament Christianity would never be the cause of war.

The New Testament is neither hostile towards non-Christians, nor does it rationalize aggression against them.

Christianity’s core beliefs are clearly defined by the New Testament:

1. Humanity is sinful and needs redemption.

2. God loves the entire human race, regardless of race, gender, or cultural background.

3. The perfect life and atoning death of Jesus Christ provided our redemption.

4. Jesus is the “firstborn of many brethren” (Romans 8:29), the model for Christian living (John 17:16-26).

The New Testament views all people—including Christians—as sinners in need of forgiveness and calls on them to repent their sins, accept God’s free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ, and live gratefully, lovingly, and obediently with Jesus as their model. It portrays all people as equal in spiritual worth, whether rich, poor, male, female, slave, or free (Acts 17:26; Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:9-11; 1 Peter 2:9). It also separates spiritual authority from governmental authority (Mark 12:16-17, John 19:11, John 18:36-37).

The New Testament requires Christians to be concerned for their enemies (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:20-34; Acts 7:60; 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, 13; Ephesians 5:1-2); to shun self-righteousness (Matthew 7:3-5; John 8:3-11; Romans 5:8-11; Galatians 6:1); to repudiate the idols of ethnic pride and privilege (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 10:30-37; Luke 17:11-19; John 4:9); to refrain from judging other people’s hearts (Matthew 13:24-30); to realize that one’s responsibility to God is of a higher order than one’s responsibility to the state (Mark 12:13-17); and to forgive repentant sinners and forswear revenge against them (Luke 23:34; Romans 12:14-21; Ephesians 4:31).

Only when flagrantly distorted and misapplied can the words of the New Testament be taken to imply that Christians should forcefully impose their faith on others. The gospel of Jesus Christ commands Christians to overcome evil with good; realize that love and forgiveness are essential to the establishment of God’s kingdom; be conscious of the distinction between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world; and be humble as sinners who have not only been forgiven but graciously given the power to live an obedient life.

The post Why Is New Testament Christianity Opposed to War? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.

Based on Jesus’ own actions, we can be sure He didn’t mean we should ignore and tolerate evil. Jesus wasn’t passively tolerant toward people who were doing evil things and promoting evil values. He often made judgments regarding their actions and confronted them ( Matthew 21:13; 23:13-36 ; John 6:70-71; 8:39-47 ).

Jesus taught in the tradition of the Old Testament prophets who consistently confronted evil—even at the risk of their lives¹ ( 2 Samuel 12:1-12 ; 1 Kings 18:18 ). Like the prophets, Jesus illustrated that love is sometimes expressed through confrontation. If we love our neighbors as ourselves, we must at times be as willing to compassionately confront evil and self-destructiveness in their character as we are in our own. A father who gives his children anything they want spoils them. Likewise, our heavenly Father would ruin us if He set no limits for us and indulged our every whim. Love for our neighbor involves the same principle. There are occasions when God requires us to confront serious error and sin.

When we confront sin in the right spirit, we are acting in love, not judging in the sense of Jesus’ words in this verse. When motivated by love, we won’t be self-righteous and feel that we are better in the eyes of God. A loving heart is humble, knowing that before a holy God all people are equal ( Romans 3:9,23 ;Galatians 3:22 ; 1 John 1:8 ).

Judging, as Jesus condemned it in these verses, is unforgiving condemnation—a hypercritical, self-righteous, vindictive spirit that continually seeks to uncover the faults of others while overlooking one’s own sins.²

Jesus’ warning against this kind of judging emphasizes that any measure we use to judge other people will be used against us. He said, “For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you” ( Luke 6:38 ). Jesus teachings elsewhere ( Matthew 6:14-15; 18:23-35 ) made it clear that self-righteous, unforgiving people will not be forgiven by God. Their rigid, unforgiving hearts demonstrate that they aren’t the children of God ( 1 John 3:14-15 ). Their refusal to forgive others demonstrates that they have never experienced the purifying power of the Holy Spirit in their own life.

Personal experience illustrates the truth of Jesus’ words. When we judge other people self-righteously and vindictively, they will respond to us in the same way. In contrast, if we are patient and compassionate, the people in our lives tend to overlook our minor failures and flaws.

More subtle, but no less damaging, is the internal effect of an unforgiving, judgmental spirit. Since we naturally project our own attitude upon others, judgmental people usually assume that other people are as vindictive and judgmental as they. This puts them under the crushing pressure of living up to their own harsh, unforgiving expectations.

Jesus’ words in this verse don’t require us to be passive in the face of evil. They require us to confront it in the spirit of compassion, humility, and love.

1. In fact, Jesus specifically identified Himself with the Old Testament prophets and told His enemies that they hated Him for the same reason that their fathers hated and killed the prophets ( Matthew 23:29-37 ).Back To Article
2. Jesus made this clear a few verses later when He said, “And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the plank in your own eye” Or how can you say to your brother, “Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,” when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother’s eye ( Luke 6:41-42 ). Back To Article

The post What Is the Meaning of Jesus’ Teaching About Judging? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.

Pantheistic religion can’t quell the violence of human nature because it is incapable of defining good or evil. For Pantheism, everything that exists is an aspect of God. Violence, vengeance, and destruction are just as truly expressions of the divine will as are peace, forgiveness, and restoration.  If evil can’t be defined, no stand can be taken against it. ¹

Unlike pantheism, ideologies and nationalism are capable of defining “good” and “evil”, but rather than subduing the natural violence of mankind they encourage and channel it.  Nationalism channels violence against “evil” national “enemies.”  Ideologies set up categories to define who is “good” and who is “evil” and channel violence against the “evil.”  (Communism, for example, defined the “working class” as “good” and landowners, business owners, and investors as “evil.” Unregulated capitalism declares anyone or anything “evil” that interferes with the accumulation of wealth.)

Monotheistic religions (including historical perversions of Christianity) also channel violence rather than suppressing it. Like nationalism and secular ideologies monotheistic religions set particular criteria for defining people as “good” or “bad”. Sometimes their members are defined more by ethnicity than religious dogma and adherence to creed or ritual.  In other cases membership is based on assent to a particular set of doctrinal beliefs and participation in a defined pattern of religious behavior. Whether membership is determined by birth, creed, or ritual, people deeply committed to monotheistic religions view themselves as God’s chosen and non-members as heathen or infidels. Monotheistic religions are naturally theocratic and incompatible with separation of church and state, tending to establish strict legal codes that govern even insignificant details of life. Historically, whenever a monotheistic religions holds political power it treats non-members as second-class citizens at best, and often subjects them to full-scale persecution.
²

The hostility of monotheistic religions towards non-members isn’t coincidental.  The core beliefs of every monotheistic religion except New Testament Christianity include the express goal of conquering and ruling the world. ³

Whether their worldview is dominated by nationalism, pantheism, monotheism, or some ideology, the natural inclination of human beings is to resolve the tension of social and personal struggle, suffering and sin by identifying other groups as scapegoats. ⁴ Genuine Christianity doesn’t look to birth, creed, or behavior for deliverance.  Christianity looks to Jesus Christ.  He fulfilled the moral law and fully paid its penalty, thus removing its curse. He was the perfect “Lamb of God” (Genesis 22:8; John 1:29; Revelation 7:17; 21:23; Hebrews 4:15; 9:28) who forever removed the need for a scapegoat. He obliterated the curse of the law (Galatians 3:10-14) with its guilt, fear, self-righteousness, and compulsion to treat outsiders as scapegoats and restored our relationship with God.

Based on the life and works of Jesus Christ, the gospel incorporates the moral law but transcends it.  It offers a response to sin and conflict that doesn’t place the blame on others. It doesn’t define righteousness entirely on the basis of birth or outer works of loyalty or ritual. It sets the highest standards for moral purity (Matthew 5:48) at the same time as it declares that all people—including Christians—are sinners, worthy of condemnation and incapable of saving themselves. In Christ God provided a means of redemption from violence, offering us forgiveness and a means of living on a plane higher than that of our fallen nature. (Romans 5:20-21)

The only alternative to imposing an unjust order on a society by means of government violence is a society that bases its values and laws upon its model of a holy God who rewards good and punishes evil within a context of mercy and grace. A society founded on the gospel is the only society capable of defending truth and justice without scapegoating others. This is the kind of society that fulfills God’s original purposes for Israel. This is the kind of society that followers of Christ should strive to build.

1. The cult of Thuggee, worshipers of the Hindu goddess Kali, provide a vivid illustration of the problem. The following information is from a Wikipedia article on the Thuggee cult.
   

   Thuggee (or tuggee) (from the Sanskrit root sthag (Pali, thak), to conceal, mainly applied to fraudulent concealment) was an Indian cult worshiping Kali whose members were known as Thugs. It was allegedly a hereditary cult with both Muslim and Hindu members that practiced large-scale robbery and murder of travelers by strangulation. Induction was typically passed from father to son, with the women of the household being kept ignorant of the cult activity.

   The Thugs were a well-organized confederacy of professional assassins, who in gangs of 10 to 200 traveled in various guises through India, wormed themselves into the confidence of wayfarers of the wealthier class. When a favorable opportunity arose, the Thug strangled his victim by throwing a handkerchief or noose around the neck, and then plundered and buried him. All this was done according to certain ancient and rigidly prescribed forms and after the performance of special religious rites, in which the consecration of the pickax and the sacrifice of sugar formed a prominent part. From their using the noose as an instrument of murder they were also frequently called Phansigars, or “noose-operators.”…

   The will of the goddess by whose command and in whose honor they followed their calling was revealed to them through a very complicated system of omens. In obedience to these, they often traveled hundreds of miles in company with, or in the wake of, their intended victims before a safe opportunity presented itself for executing their design; and, when the deed was done, rites were performed in the deity’s honor, and a significant portion of the spoils was set apart for her.

   The fraternity also possessed a jargon of their own (Ramasi), as well as certain signs by which its members recognized each other in the remotest parts of India. Even those who from age or infirmities could no longer take an active part in the ritual murder continued to aid the cause as watchers, spies, or dressers of food. Because of their thorough organization, the secrecy and security of their operation, and the religious pretext in which they shrouded their murders, they were recognized as a regular tax-paying profession and continued for centuries to practice their craft, free of inquiry from Hindu or Muslim rulers.

   Both of the sects into which they were divided by the Nerbudda river laid claim to antiquity. While the northern, however, did not trace their origin further back than the period of the early Muslim kings of Delhi, the southern fraction not only claimed an earlier and purer descent, but adhered also with greater strictness to the rules of their profession.

   The earliest authenticated mention of the Thugs is found in the following passage of Ziau-d din Barni’s History of Firoz Shah (written about 1356):

   “In the reign of that sultan [about 1290], some Thugs were taken in Delhi, and a man belonging to that fraternity was the means of about a thousand being captured. But not one of these did the sultan have killed. He gave orders for them to be put into boats and to be conveyed into the lower country, to the neighborhood of Lakhnauti, where they were to be set free. The Thugs would thus have to dwell about Lakhnauti and would not trouble the neighborhood of Delhi any more.” (Sir HM Elliot’s History of India, iii. 141).

   Thuggee was suppressed by the British rulers of India in the 1830s, due largely to the efforts of William Sleeman, who started an extensive campaign involving profiling, intelligence, and executions. A police organization known as the Thuggee and Dacoity Department was established within the Government of India and remained in existence until 1904 when it was replaced by the Central Criminal Intelligence Department. The defeat of the Thugs played a part in securing Indian loyalty to the British Raj.

   According to the Guinness Book of Records the Thuggee cult was responsible for approximately 2,000,000 deaths.

   The story of Thuggee was popularized by books such as Philip Meadows Taylor’s novel Confessions of a Thug, 1839, leading to the word “thug” entering the English language. John Masters’ novel The Deceivers also deals with the subject. A more recent book is George Bruce, The Stranglers: The cult of Thuggee and its overthrow in British India (1968). The two most popular depictions of the cult in film are the 1939 film, Gunga Din and the 1984 Indiana Jones film, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Both films have the heroes fighting secret revivals of the cult to prevent them resuming their reigns of terror. (Wikipedia) Back To Article

2. Respecting their tendency to legislate lifestyle and morality, it difficult to distinguish between monotheistic religions and ideologies like secular humanism. Although “non-religious”, secular humanism, communism, and other ideologies can be just as demanding and inflexible in establishing a required set of behavioral standards and religions. For example, it is hard to imagine a more stifling and inhuman existence than that demanded by the atheistic ruling classes in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World or George Orwell’s 1984. Many thinkers today are acutely aware of similar autocratic, legalistic, and profoundly inhuman tendencies in modern “politically correct” liberal “humanism”. Back To Article
3. In sharp contrast, there is absolutely no basis in the New Testament for a Christian agenda to conquer the world though political and military power or to politically force people of other religions to bow to Christ. See the ATQ article, Why Is New Testament Christianity Opposed to War? Back To Article
4. See the ATQ article, What Is the Underlying Cause of Violence? Back To Article

The post Is Christianity Less Inclined to Violence Than Other Religions? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.

The post Isn’t It Always Wrong To Be Intolerant? appeared first on Our Daily Bread Ministries Canada.