Tolerance

People always seem to be willing to speak for Jesus—whether they know Him or not. They conclude that He says and thinks what they say and think—whether they know the Scriptures or not. Generally speaking, they speak out of ignorance and do not cite any Scriptures as a foundation for their principles or conclusions. Should they manage to quote a verse, it is usually out of context or misapplied.

One of the most recent examples of such presumption was published in the Orlando Sentinel on April 9, 2015. In a letter to the editor written by Gary Ramsay of Orlando, he first refers to people who "go to church" and "Easter Sunday." First of all, "going to church" is not a Biblical expression, although it is commonly used; it is based on the false notion that the church is a building where Christians meet. The fact is that Christians are the church, and in the New Testament, which was written in the first century, brethren did not even own buildings, as is our custom today.

"Easter Sunday" is likewise foreign to the Bible, although the King James mistranslated Passover as "Easter" and slipped it in Acts 12:4. No translation in the last 200 years has used the word; more importantly, the concept is not in the New Testament. Christians since Century One have met every first day of the week to honor the death of Christ (Acts 20:7). The reader undoubtedly already knows these two facts; they are only cited to show that Mr. Ramsay is not as familiar with the Scriptures as he thinks he is.

He goes on to say that the reason we observe "Easter" is due to intolerance, by which he likely means that Jesus was nailed to the cross because of the intolerance of the Jews. But that is not exactly the case, either, although intolerance was involved. Other motivations entered into what occurred. Pilate knew that the Jews had delivered up Jesus out of envy (Matt. 27:18). When the Jewish council met, one of them lamented concerning Jesus: "If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation" (John 11:48).

Peter, after telling the Jews publicly that they "killed the Prince of Life" (Acts 3:15), added: "Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as also did your rulers" (Acts 3:17). Did not Jesus say the same thing on the cross when He prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do" (Luke 23:34)?

The Jewish leadership committed a huge blunder by rejecting the evidence that proves Jesus to be the Son of God. The council acknowledged: "What shall we do? For this Man works many signs" (John 11:47). With the proof before their eyes they refused to accept the significance of the miracles that Jesus had done, such was their envy.

Intolerance of Others' Beliefs

The Jews were not simply intolerant; they were ignorant, motivated by envy, and were so hard-hearted as to reject the Deity which Jesus taught concerning Himself. Mr. Ramsay refers vaguely to the intolerance of others' beliefs in the news and is probably referring to the Pizza Place in Indiana, in which an employee said she would not cater pizza at a homosexual wedding. The writer's response is to argue thus:

How understanding would many of these people be if they were refused gas at a 7-Eleven because of their National Rifle Association bumper sticker? If they were refused lodging at a motel because of a Christian license tag? If an Easter or Christmas cake wouldn't be prepared by an agnostic baker.

Yet many find it perfectly acceptable to refuse service to an individual or group of individuals they might not agree with.

These comparisons reek of fallacies. These examples do not compare with anything that occurred in Indiana. In the first place, no one was refused any service there; that situation involved nothing more than a hypothetical question posed by a female reporter who was trying to make a name for herself at anyone else's expense.

In the first place, has anyone been refused service at a 7-Eleven? Who monitors each car's bumper stickers to see if anything offensive is on it? This is nothing more than silliness! Besides, if NRA supporters kept being refused service, they could simply remove the troublesome sticker, and no one would know the difference. Similarly, do those operating motels run out to check license plates? If a car had a sticker that said, "Death to Americans!" or threatened Christians or Jews with extinction, the owners might notify the police of a possible threat, but anything short of that would probably not elicit a response. Incidentally, should a desk clerk refuse a room to two teenagers who have no proof of marriage?

The third example is a bit better but still does not deal with the issue properly. People who own bakery shops (or any other business) do not expect every customer to agree with all their private views. Likewise, customers do not ask business owners what religion, political party, or social clubs they might belong to. If a gas station owner is atheist, Jewish, Muslim, or Christian, we will still buy gasoline from him. However, if he puts up a sign saying, "All of my profits are going to fund jihadists," he will probably alienate his customer base. But none of these things are occurring unless someone knows of an isolated incident that has not made the national news yet.

Do Owners Have Rights?

But now the picture needs to shift a little. Most pizza places are not going to ask questions about their customers' beliefs and probably will not refuse to serve them if they have green or purple hair, are laden with tattoos, or have metal studs sticking out of their foreheads. It is their establishment, and they are in business to make a profit. However, suppose someone operates a catering business, and they do cakes and other pastries for special events. Do they have the right to turn down a request for an event?

For example, it has been noted that at least one such business specialized in creating toppings that were lewd. What if a bakery were contacted and asked to create such offensive bads (ordinarily, they would be called goods) for the Playboy Mansion or some similar concern? Have they no right to say that such a request is both offensive and tasteless and that they will have nothing to do with it? If they are not allowed to make that decision, would that not say that a business owner has no freedoms and that once he opens a shop, he has no say-so at all concerning what he does?

Likewise, one might prepare a number of cakes or assorted fattening sugar treats for homosexuals, Jews, Arabs, and atheists, but why can he not refuse to go to the site where a homosexual wedding is taking place when he considers this a travesty of the holy institution designed by God? Most of us would have the good sense not to invite Muslims to cater a Christian conference that exposes Muhammad as a false prophet, which he was. Why would homosexuals insist Christians take part in something that is equally offensive to them? By the way, homosexuals might quit pressing Christians on this subject and find a Muslim baker to cater their "wedding." (They stone homosexuals, don't they?)

Obviously, the thought Mr. Ramsay put into this issue and the examples he provided are woefully inadequate. It is this kind of understatement or mischaracterization of an issue that people often remember as sound bites even though what has occurred has not been properly reported or framed.

Some are still castigating Hobby Lobby for what they never did in the first place. Hillary Clinton made this speech:

I find it deeply disturbing that we are going in that direction," Clinton said. "It is very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer's health-care plan because her employer doesn't think she should be using contraception."

She knows this indictment of Hobby Lobby is not true. The case was never about providing contraception, period—which may be why those sales clerks continue to work for them. Out of 21 (or so) kinds of contraception available, Hobby Lobby only objected to four because they involve terminating the life of an already-existing baby. Female employees working at Hobby Lobby still have plenty of access to those birth control pills that only prevent pregnancy. It is therefore a lie to say the company is imposing its values. [If she spoke without knowing the facts, she has had plenty of time to correct her remarks since.] Many try to manipulate public opinion through various means.

Teaching Morality

Mr. Ramsay claims that he "teaches values and morals to my children through my actions." It is certainly the case that children learn a great deal by the actions of their parents. Much can be learned about Jesus from watching how He dealt with others as well. But He also taught moral principles, such as "love your neighbor as yourself" (Matt. 22:37-40). However, He also labeled adultery as sin (John 8:1-11) and said that fornication (which includes homosexuality, incest, etc.) was the one cause for divorce (Matt. 5:32; 19:9).

Loving one another does not mean foregoing the condemnation of sin. Jesus was quite bold in publicly calling the scribes and the Pharisees hypocrites, blind guides, fools, serpents, and a brood of vipers (Matt. 23:13-33). The Lord did not resort to name-calling. These are accurate assessments of their character, and He explained precisely how these terms applied to them. Jesus was physically tolerant, but He exposed their hypocrisy so that all would realize their enormous spiritual defects.

Toleration Versus Truth

The letter to the editor closes with the author "guessing" that Jesus would approve toleration of Christians, Muslims, whites, blacks, grays, or gays. Jesus does not tolerate even all Christians, as evidenced by what He had John write to the seven churches in Revelation. He threatened to remove some candlesticks and told others to repent! No Muslims existed in the first century, but Jesus opposed the traditions of the Jews even among His own people (Matt. 15:1-9). Jesus told a Samaritan woman she worshipped she knew not what (John 4:20-24); He would have no difficulty telling a Muslim the same things.

Blacks and whites only have a difference in pigmentation. Skin color is not a moral issue. Who are these grays—extraterrestrials? Gays are practicing homosexuals, and that is a moral issue. It is a sin—one of hundreds—which made it necessary for Jesus to die on the cross. Jesus died for us while we were yet sinners (Rom. 5:8), but we must give up practicing the sin! Jesus loves every sinner and provided each one an opportunity to have them forgiven. He does not tolerate sin, but calls for a changed life. He will wash away with His blood the sins of all those who are baptized for their forgiveness (Rev. 1:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16). No ultimate toleration exists for those who reject the evidence.