D. A. Carson, a distinguished theologian and author, got the idea for his book The Intolerance of Tolerance on the college lecture circuit.

Whenever he spoke on the subject, the crowds were large and the discussion lively. Eventually, as he continued to mull over the topic, he realized he had to put his thoughts into book form.

“It does not take much cultural awareness to see that the difficulties surrounding this subject are eating away at both Western Christianity and the fabric of Western culture,” he wrote.

In his view, a seemingly subtle shift in the way we define tolerance, from the old meaning of “accepting the existence of different views” to the new one of “accepting different views,” has had profound cultural implications.

“To accept that a different or opposing position exists and deserves the right to exist is one thing; to accept the position itself means that one is no longer opposing it,” he wrote. “The new tolerance suggests that actually accepting another’s position means believing that position to be true, or at least as true as your own. We move from allowing the free expression of contrary opinions to the acceptance of all opinions; we move from permitting the articulation of beliefs and claims with which we do not agree to asserting that all beliefs and claims are equally valid. Thus we slide from the old tolerance to the new.”

And anyone who believes in absolute truth is considered intolerant.

Why Christians should read “The Intolerance of Tolerance”

You will gain a greater understanding of why biblical truth is under assault and be better equipped to defend it.

The big takeaway

In this era of moral relativism, when your truth is considered just as valid as mine, tolerance is regarded as the supreme virtue.

In their own words

“This older view of tolerance makes three assumptions: (1) there is objective truth out there, and it is our duty to pursue that truth; (2) the various parties in a dispute think that they know what the truth of the matter is, even though they disagree sharply, each party thinking the other is wrong; (3) nevertheless they hold that the best chance of uncovering the truth of the matter, or the best chance of persuading most people with reason and not with coercion, is by the unhindered exchange of ideas, no matter how wrongheaded some of those ideas seem.”

“The new tolerance argues that there is no one view that is exclusively true. Strong opinions are nothing more than strong preferences for a particular version of reality, each version equally true.”’’

“Christians do think that Jesus is the only way to God. But does that make them intolerant? In the former sense of ‘intolerant,’ not at all; the fact remains, however, that any sort of exclusive truth claim is widely viewed as a sign of gross intolerance. But the latter depends absolutely on the second meaning of ‘tolerance.’”

Read the first chapter

Denison Forum

I’d like to do something different today. Rather than focus on the “big issues” of the day, I’ll begin with some news that appealed to me personally:

• “Toddler Goes Viral Shredding Slopes”: I clicked on the video hoping to be entertained and was not disappointed.
• “A ‘potentially hazardous’ asteroid more than twice the size of the Empire State Building will make close pass by Earth next week”: I read the story hoping we are not in imminent danger of planetary destruction.
• “Oreo is celebrating its 110^th birthday with a first-ever flavor”: Now I wanted to know the flavor. I bet you do as well.
• “Why one tech startup is going all in on the 4-day workweek”: I was obviously curious to see how relevant this might be to our ministry.
• “Israeli scientists have trained goldfish to drive, in a scene out of a Dr. Seuss book”: This seemed impossible until I watched the video.
• “Hungry badger may have uncovered Roman coins in Spanish cave”: Since I’ve been studying Roman history for many years, this was personally interesting.
• “Jerome Powell says report on digital currencies is ready to go”: Since I understand very little about such currencies, I’m excited to learn more.

Here’s what these stories have in common: they all promise something that will potentially benefit me personally. I am in no sense unique in this regard: research shows that appealing to an audience’s emotions or otherwise offering more of what they already want is the key to getting “clicks.”

How is this fact related to knowing Jesus and then making him known?

Why “the Christian truth is attractive and persuasive”

Psychologist Abraham Maslow made famous the “hierarchy of needs” model:

Public domain image via Wikipedia

As you can see, our highest needs are for “self-actualization” and then “transcendence.” Maslow understood the former as our desire to realize our full potential. As he said, “What a man can be, he must be.” He defined the latter as our desire to give ourselves to something beyond ourselves, as in altruism or spirituality. He equated this “need” with the quest to reach the infinite.

In the entire universe, Jesus is the best source of both.

Because he made us (Colossians 1:16), he knows us better than we know ourselves. Because he loves us unconditionally and passionately (Galatians 2:20), he only and always wants our best for us.

Because he dwells in us by his Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16), he can empower us to fulfill our potential in a way no one else can (Romans 12:2). Because he is God, he can lead us to oneness with the infinite (John 10:28–30).

Pope Francis is right: “The Christian truth is attractive and persuasive because it responds to humanity’s deepest needs.” Human nature does not change. The word of God is perennially relevant because the needs it addressed millennia ago are the same needs we feel today. The promises it made are promises God still keeps.

Why, then, do many Christians not experience in Christ the meeting of our deepest needs?

Breathing out, breathing in

The fault is not his but ours, of course.

When we compartmentalize our spiritual and “secular” lives, we insulate and partition him from the latter and miss the fullness of the former. When we “cherish iniquity in our heart,” we block the Holy Spirit’s ability to work powerfully in our lives (cf. Psalm 66:18). When we refuse to love our neighbor, we show that we have not fully experienced the love of our Father (cf. Matthew 22:37–39; 1 John 4:19).

But when we spend time in the presence of Jesus, listening to his voice in his word and world, worshiping him with gratitude for his grace, confessing all he brings to our thoughts and cherishing his love for us, we must be different as a result. We cannot meet deeply and intentionally with the King of kings and leave the encounter as the same person. We cannot hear “God preaching” in the Bible (to use J. I. Packer’s description) and remain unchanged.

And when we share Christ with others, we experience more of Christ. When we breathe out, we can breathe in more deeply. When we empty our hands to others, we can be filled with the gifts of God.

Jesus told his first followers, “Freely you received, freely give” (Matthew 10:8 NASB). The converse is true as well: the more we give, the more we receive.

“For God alone my soul waits in silence”

To this end, I will close by recommending a neglected spiritual practice for the new year that I believe positions us to experience God in self-actualizing and transcendent ways. 

A Presbyterian minister in Waco, Texas, named Chris Palmer wrote an article recently for Christian Century that I found deeply impactful. Titled “A worship practice Zoom can’t replicate,” it is a call for intentional and contemplative silence as a regular part of the Christian life.

Palmer believes that we need regular, extended times of personal silence to listen to God’s voice through his Spirit, word, and creation. But he also believes that we need times of corporate silence in our worship services so we can hear his voice together.

He cites David’s testimony: “For God alone my soul waits in silence; from him comes my salvation” (Psalm 62:1). Because David made this time for silence with his Lord, he could then write the next verse: “He alone is my rock and my salvation, my fortress; I shall not be greatly shaken” (v. 2).

If we listen to God, he will speak. If we hear the voice of the omnipotent God of the universe, we cannot be the same. We will be empowered to give what we receive. And “the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness can never extinguish it” (John 1:5 NLT).

When last did meeting with God change your life?

NOTE: On January 25, I’m hosting a virtual book launch Q&A to celebrate the launch of my most pivotal work to date, my book The Coming Tsunami — and I’d love for you to attend. During the Q&A, I’ll go in depth about Critical Race Theory, one of the four major “earthquakes” I talk about in The Coming Tsunami that are seismically shifting our world. To gain access to the live Q&A, please pre-order a copy of The Coming Tsunami today. Thank you.

Denison Forum

President Biden delivered a speech on voting rights in Atlanta yesterday afternoon. He called for the Senate to amend its filibuster rules to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which the Washington Post describes as restoring “the federal government’s authority to review certain state voting laws to prevent discrimination,” and the Freedom to Vote Act, which the Post calls “a broader bill that would create national rules for voting by mail, early voting, and other parts of the electoral process.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell disagrees with the Democrats’ efforts to amend the filibuster, of course. He threatens to place a spate of Republican-backed bills on the legislative calendar in response, stating, “Since Sen. Schumer is hell-bent on trying to break the Senate, Republicans will show how this reckless action would have immediate consequences.”

So, which side is right? 

Your answer probably depends on which side is yours.

Why the founders intended political conflict

Why does your answer depend on your side? 

Because “sides” are an intentional part of our governance. Humor me with a very brief Civics 101 overview.

America is not a true “democracy.” If it were, the majority would win every argument. Rather, we are a republic in which the minority has guaranteed rights as well. We have therefore chosen to govern ourselves through political leaders we elect to represent us. Members of the House of Representatives represent geographical districts within the various states; members of the Senate represent the states that elected them; and the president represents the entire nation.

Our elected officials are supposed to advocate for us as if we were in Washington advocating for ourselves. When you wish the government would do something I wish it would not do, our representatives are supposed to find compromises that advance the common good in a collective manner. But when my position cancels yours, as is the case for so many of our issues today, compromise becomes difficult to find.

For example, evangelical Christians have First Amendment religious liberty protection to lead their ministries according to their biblical convictions with regard to LGBTQ issues, or they do not. (The so-called Equality Act says they do not.) Abortion on demand is either a constitutionally guaranteed “privacy right” or it is not. (The Supreme Court will rule on this question later this year.)

Why our divisions are deeper than ever

Add the fact that fewer Americans than ever before trust the “other side” to do the right thing. For instance, CNN reports that the percentage of Americans who strongly dislike the opposition party has risen by 400 percent in the last two decades.

Social media plays an outsized role here as well. Christianity Today public theologian Russell Moore recently pointed readers to a relevant article by Robert Wright, who in turn quoted psychologist Leon Festinger: “People who make public commitments to a position are going to be motivated to bolster it. They’re going to become better and better at generating reasons why they’re right and their would-be critics are wrong.”

As Wright then observes, this is a greater problem than ever. Thirty years ago, it was difficult to make such public commitments. You had to get on television or radio, get a book or article published, and so on. Now anyone with a cell phone can be “on stage.” They can (and often do) voice their opinions on any subject they wish to address. And once they do, they become hardened in defending their position against its critics. And they are more likely to build “echo chambers” whereby they listen only to those who agree with them.

Rather than the consensual process of compromise for the greater good that our founders envisioned, we have a “zero-sum” battle of adversaries who can win only if the other side loses.

Why the God of the Bible is relevant today

Why is the God of the Bible uniquely relevant to such a conflicted culture?

Because this God loves “the world” (John 3:16). He proved it when he chose us long before we chose him: “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).

Whatever your position on abortion, this God loves you. Whatever your thoughts about same-sex marriage and LGBTQ activism, he loves you. Even if you reject his love or deny his existence, he loves you.

Unlike any other supposed deity or entity in the universe, “God is love” (1 John 4:8, my emphasis). Because he is love by his intrinsic nature, there is literally nothing you can do to make him love you any more or less than he does at this moment.

Furthermore, the God of Scripture calls his followers to follow his example: “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God” (1 John 4:7).

Why our faith is vital to America’s future

This is why a spiritual awakening is so urgent for America’s future. Consensual governance requires consensual morality. If we cannot agree on our most fundamental goods and rights (or even if there are fundamental goods and rights), how can we govern ourselves accordingly?

Our founders knew that, as John Adams stated, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” He noted that “the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality.”

And he warned, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.”

Is this what we are witnessing today?

Will you ask God’s Spirit to fill you with God’s love even (and especially) for those with whom you disagree?

Will you ask him to help you use your influence to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) wherever and however you can today?

Will you be part of the problem, or will you be part of the solution to the glory of God?

Denison Forum