One of the most beautiful things about Scripture is its ability to reconcile concepts that are commonly interpreted as opposites with an elegance rarely presented in any other literature. Whether directly, in a particular portion of text, or thematically, in its general character, it is a defining biblical characteristic, the acknowledgment of which has life-giving implications.
The most familiar example of this may be in our Lord’s saying “the last will be first, and the first last, (Matthew 20:16)” meaning, of course, that forfeiting prestige is indicative of a higher spiritual status.
There is also the harmony of suffering and joy, expressed perfectly by James when he writes, “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness (James 1:2).”
Rebuke and affection are likewise at peace in multiple instances. Psalm 141:5 says, “Let a righteous man strike me—it is a kindness; let him rebuke me-it is oil for my head…”
Again, Scripture alone successfully and appealingly marries obedience and liberty, providing us with the only blueprint for a form of submission which leads to an immeasurably fulfilling life.
“For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freed man of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ (1 Corinthians 7:22).”
It is important to note that Christ’s life demonstrated the compatibility of every one of these ideas. There has never been, and will never be, a humility as noble as a God who became a man, nor a suffering so deep as the crucifixion for a joy so great as to sit “at the right hand of the throne of God,” nor rebukes so loving as those of Jesus to His disciples, nor an obedience so liberating, both to Christ and to us, as that of God the Son to God the Father.
One can easily see the joy in these truths, as well as the bleakness with which the Christian life would be cursed without God’s providence in unifying these concepts. Now, if this balance is to do the Christian any good, it is necessary that he be aware of it. The affection of a rebuke can only be felt if the one receiving it understands the good intentions of the one rebuking.
With this biblical pattern in mind, I would put forth that there is a particular deception which has planted itself in the collective attitude and is growing at an alarming rate. It is a misunderstanding of two perfectly united terms which hinders unbiased perception and reasoning, favoring emotional rather than logical responses in the context of social discourse. I am speaking of the false dichotomy of condemnation and tolerance.
It is important that these terms be clearly defined, since each have very ambiguous and touchy social nuances attached to them, which do not reflect their true definitions. In this case, the word ‘condemnation’ is to be understood entirely non-religiously, strictly as an expression of disapproval. Likewise, ‘tolerance’ is to be read without its political or religious connotations of ‘appraisal’ or ‘approval’, but only as in ‘patience’ and ‘endurance’.
The world always embraces sin, vastly outnumbering Christian adherents, and each instance of this is a unique and highly sensitive issue which is very difficult to address without sharp emotional backlash. Still, a Christian, if he/she desires to be effective towards his/her cause, must be equipped for this, and will not be unless the marriage between these two concepts of condemnation and tolerance is honored. Only then will the body of Christ be able to love unconditionally while disapproving unapologetically. And when the enemy accuses believers of being hateful and judgmental, the church may instinctively identify the lie behind that statement and counter it with the truth.
However, we have not done this. Rather, we have been indoctrinated by the other side. They have successfully convinced us that to disapprove is to be intolerant, and that intolerance is akin to hate; we have wrongly adopted the false notion that condemnation is assault. Consequentially, our Christian response to sin is confused and ineffective because we ourselves are not convinced of the authenticity of our own religious responsibility.
In his ‘Confessions’, St. Augustine writes, “For no man loves what he endures, though he may love to endure.” This may be the best motto for our predicament, because it both justly condemns the sin and honorably bears it. For if the sin is not condemned, what is there to tolerate? And if one chooses not to suffer sin, then he is impatient. This is our duty: to be inextinguishably confident in our disapproval of sin and statically tolerant and loving of those who practice it. This is no contradiction.
So it is when the forces of evil rally against God’s people, commanding us to condone their sin. They claim they want tolerance, but what they really want is endorsement. When faced with plain objection, it is mislabeled as hostility and hatred. In the midst of this unfounded yet conquering worldview, let us instead celebrate the union of these two Christian practices, the condemnation and tolerance of sin, loving the world as Jesus our Savior did, while standing unashamedly for biblical truth and morality.