Tolerance Without Compromise
Tolerance Without Compromise
Michael Wold
“What is the difference between tolerance and compromise?” The difference between the two is simple, but usually overlooked. The definition for tolerance is as follows: “to put up with; to bear; to endure.” The definition for compromise is as follows: “to give up (one 's own interest, principles, or integrity.” Do you see the difference? This should help: Christians should receive the outcasts of society, the prostitutes, the homosexuals, the abandoned and abused, but we should receive them into something- the church. Consequently, if we receive them into the Church and don 't protect her, allowing them to continue living in sin, than we are indeed being tolerant-of sin! If this ever be the case, we have compromised. We hear much in public discourse about the need for tolerance, usually presented as the non-judgmental acceptance of all perspectives. Of course, those who stand for truth are often branded as narrow-minded, intolerant and judgmental. Unfortunately, this is often the case when it comes to Christianity. In the following paragraphs, we are going to answer the essay question from the perspectives of Edmund Burke, author of the Reflection on the Revolution, our cultures, and the Scriptures.
The Christian religion (Catholic or Protestant) certainly was not tolerated after the French Revolution, and more than that, the revolutionaries sought to destroy it utterly. The revolutionaries were humanists and atheists, who believed that mankind, by themselves, could form and establish a perfect society. Burke 's assessment of tolerance is simple. In theory, the heralded “new teachers” boast of their tolerance of new opinions and ideas, but Burke argues the following: “That those persons should tolerate all opinions, who think none to be of estimation, is a matter of small merit. Equal neglect is not impartial kindness” (pg 259.) As for the religion of this new republic, it is not one of tolerance, if anything it is
Michael Wold
“What is the difference between tolerance and compromise?” The difference between the two is simple, but usually overlooked. The definition for tolerance is as follows: “to put up with; to bear; to endure.” The definition for compromise is as follows: “to give up (one 's own interest, principles, or integrity.” Do you see the difference? This should help: Christians should receive the outcasts of society, the prostitutes, the homosexuals, the abandoned and abused, but we should receive them into something- the church. Consequently, if we receive them into the Church and don 't protect her, allowing them to continue living in sin, than we are indeed being tolerant-of sin! If this ever be the case, we have compromised. We hear much in public discourse about the need for tolerance, usually presented as the non-judgmental acceptance of all perspectives. Of course, those who stand for truth are often branded as narrow-minded, intolerant and judgmental. Unfortunately, this is often the case when it comes to Christianity. In the following paragraphs, we are going to answer the essay question from the perspectives of Edmund Burke, author of the Reflection on the Revolution, our cultures, and the Scriptures.
The Christian religion (Catholic or Protestant) certainly was not tolerated after the French Revolution, and more than that, the revolutionaries sought to destroy it utterly. The revolutionaries were humanists and atheists, who believed that mankind, by themselves, could form and establish a perfect society. Burke 's assessment of tolerance is simple. In theory, the heralded “new teachers” boast of their tolerance of new opinions and ideas, but Burke argues the following: “That those persons should tolerate all opinions, who think none to be of estimation, is a matter of small merit. Equal neglect is not impartial kindness” (pg 259.) As for the religion of this new republic, it is not one of tolerance, if anything it is
Bibliography: Omnibus III ESV Bible Reflections on the French Revolution, Edmund Burke