Tolerance, Cheeks and Tunics

We live in a polarized society, you might even say there is a war going on between the secular and the sacred. By and large it is a propaganda war, with the media heavily biased in favour of the secular. As in most wars there are atrocities on both sides. In a previous post I mentioned the militants in the marketing of evil. On the other hand, much as it grieves me to admit it, not everything that call itself Christian is Christ like. Hypocrisy is rife in both extremes, but one suspects that the depths of Hell are reserved for the religious hypocrite.

What is sure is that Christ directed His most scathing comments at those who claimed to know (and love) God but who propagate and practice hate and bigotry (Matthew 23:13). Christ told us to love our enemies, and as they drove cruel spikes through His hands and feet asked the Father to forgive them. Perhaps He is the only one who always practiced what He preached. He taught us to turn the other cheek, and if our tunic is taken from us, to give our coat too (Matthew 5:39, 40). To be Christ like is to follow these teaching. May the Lord have mercy on us all as we must all fail here at times. On the other hand, there is a (diminished) secular version of all this. It's called tolerance. Now tolerance is surly a good thing, but the version of it demanded by the doctrine of political correctness is a perverted tolerance.

Tolerance has been defined as: 'a fair, objective attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry'. In terms of this definition, Jesus was surely tolerant. But as noted above this does not mean He never criticized others. Jesus judged with righteous judgement and His objective judgement was that the Pharisees were hypocrites. Jesus did not keep His opinions to Himself lest they offend others, nor did this tolerance keep Him from making His strong opinions known to others.

On the other hand, the tolerance advocated by the doctrine of political correctness disallows all of these things. I mentioned previously the strategy of jamming which has to do with disallowing or shouting down any dissenting view. Part of the technique employed here has been to label all disagreement as intolerance, hate or phobia. Hypocritically though this form of “tolerance” preachers intolerance to all who dare to express an opinion that goes against it. What kind of tolerance is this that will tolerate only those opinions with which it agrees? It is as I say a hypocritical and perverted form of tolerance which, in the end, is not tolerance at all!