Tolerance, the Dangerous Virtue
Introduction: One doesn’t normally think of virtues as being dangerous. It’s vices that are dangerous. But probably any virtue we can think of—love, patience, peace, honesty, you name it—can become a vice if applied in the wrong way or with the wrong motive. I think that is especially true of the virtue our Scripture passage focuses on this morning, the virtue of tolerance.
Tolerance is a rather hard trait to get a handle on. If I were to ask you to raise your hand if you are a tolerant individual, I would imagine nearly everyone would raise his hand. The reason for this is that we tend to rate ourselves by comparison to others and to attach other labels than “tolerant” to those who are different from us. For example, supposing you think of yourself as “tolerant,” you probably think of people more tolerant than yourself as “liberal” or “wishy-washy,” while those who are less tolerant would earn the term “bigoted” or “nitpicker.”
Yet that hardly seems fair, or at least it hardly seems meaningful. There must be some firmer standard of tolerance than that to go by. And I think there is. True biblical tolerance is presented to us here in Luke 9:49-62
“Master,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”
As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?” But Jesus turned and rebuked them, and they went to another village.
As they were walking along the road, a man said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.”
Jesus replied, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”
He said to another man, “Follow me.”
But the man replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”
Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”
Still another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family.”
Jesus replied, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.”
I believe this passage teaches us that we should be tolerant toward other believers, even tolerant toward non-believers. In fact, the only one to whom we should not be so tolerant is ourselves. So let’s start with what Jesus teaches about tolerance toward other believers.
Tolerance should characterize the disciple’s attitude toward other believers.
John seeks approval for his “defense of the faith.” An interesting thing seems to be going on as our passage opens up. Does John just bring up the subject of the strange exorcist out of the clear blue? I think not. Look back at verse 46: “An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest.” We noted last week how ironic it was that such an argument should take place when three of them have just come down from the Mount of Transfiguration, where they had been privileged to see an extraordinary glimpse of the glory of Jesus Christ.
Jesus is gentle with them, however. Though they aren’t arguing right in front of him, he knows their thoughts, and taking a little child he says to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For he who is least among you all—he is the greatest” (Luke 9:48). Jesus’ purpose with the child is to teach them that greatness in the Kingdom is not measured as it is here on earth; it’s not the rich and the powerful and the influential and the intellectual who are great—it’s those who reach out to the least of these.
Then immediately we read these words, “‘Master,’ said John, ‘we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.” Do you see the connection? Do you see it? No. There is no connection, but I believe that is the point. John is trying to change the subject as fast as he can. He’s been caught red-handed, arguing about greatness while Jesus is talking about servanthood. And now the only way to save face is to change the subject.
Suddenly he remembers something he did the other day that he had forgotten to brag about. What a perfect time to bring it up! “Jesus, we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us. What do you think of that?”
Jesus responds, “OK, John, you want to talk about this other topic? Fine, let’s talk about it. You blew it. You shouldn’t have tried to stop this man who was casting out demons.”
Jesus censures John for his intolerance. Now John probably really believes that what he has done is to defend the faith against outsiders. But in point of fact, he has only defended his own ego. If we were to read between the lines, here is what John is saying about this other man: “He has no business doing what he’s doing because he isn’t one of us twelve. He doesn’t know Jesus as well as we know him. We told him not to use Jesus’ name because we’ve got a trademark on it. Our method of casting out demons is copyrighted, and he hasn’t paid us any royalties.”
What’s really ironic is that this other disciple, whoever he is, seems to have been actually driving out demons, whereas in verse 40 Jesus’ disciples had failed in their own effort to drive a demon out of a boy. That doesn’t seem to matter to John. If the man doesn’t have a degree from the right seminary, if he isn’t a five-point Calvinist, if he’s not pre-trib, if he doesn’t hold the right union card, he’s not legitimate.
You know, this kind of exclusive attitude is as old as the hills. In fact, it goes back a long time before John. Please look in the Old Testament book of Numbers, 11:24-29:
So Moses went out and told the people what the LORD had said. He brought together seventy of their elders and had them stand around the Tent. Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke with him, and he took of the Spirit that was on him and put the Spirit on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied, but they did not do so again.
However, two men, whose names were Eldad and Medad, had remained in the camp. They were listed among the elders, but did not go out to the Tent. Yet the Spirit also rested on them, and they prophesied in the camp. A young man ran and told Moses, “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.”
Joshua son of Nun, who had been Moses’ aide since youth, spoke up and said, “Moses, my lord, stop them!”
But Moses replied, “Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the Lord’s people were prophets and that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!”
We do not need to be nearly as jealous for the Lord’s sake as we are. He is big enough, and his church is big enough, and the needs of a lost world are big enough that we don’t have to be bloodhounds on the trail of every conceivable deviation from our personal viewpoints.
Jesus offers a guiding principle on tolerance. And that principle deserves careful explanation and analysis. Do you see it there in verse 50? “Whoever is not against you is for you.” Jesus is saying that there is no neutrality in the spiritual realm. Some people pride themselves in being agnostics, but the fact is that everyone is either for God or against him. There are only two sides to the spiritual battle. The man who is truly casting demons out in Jesus’ name is certainly not working against Jesus, so he is to be welcomed, not opposed. He’s on the right side.
Perhaps you are more familiar with another principle Jesus offered which reverses the two key elements in this principle. Consider Luke 11:23: “He who is not with me is against me.” Now which is it? Well, both are true. One scholar aptly points out that the saying, “Whoever is not against you is for you,” gives the test a man should apply to others, whereas the saying, “Whoever is not with me is against me,” is the one he should apply to himself.
Now in addition to Jesus’ principle, I would like to offer some other guidelines for tolerance toward other believers. Some of these are straight out of the Bible; others employ what I would call “practical wisdom.”
You don’t have to agree with every other Christian on every minute issue. There seem to be many people in Christianity who cannot tolerate any deviation from their own views and methodology. They are black-and-white thinkers, very insecure with any difference of opinion. But I am convinced that part of maturity, especially spiritual maturity, is being able to co-exist with disagreements and ambiguities. And it’s absolutely essential within a church family that people be willing to disagree amicably, if you will “to agree to disagree.” Another way to put it is that in the church unity is essential; uniformity is boring. God isn’t looking for all of us to think alike. No believer should be afraid to vote no.
John Wesley, the great and godly founder of the Methodist Church (most of which he wouldn’t recognize today) offered some very sage advice:
“The thing which I resolved to use every possible method of preventing was a narrowness of spirit, a party zeal … that miserable bigotry which makes many so unready to believe that there is any work of God but among themselves. We think and let think.” [i]
Neither do you have to join him. Jesus didn’t say to John, “You should join forces with the man who is casting out demons in My name.” He didn’t even say, “You should let him join you in your efforts.” Rather he said, “Do not stop him.” As a pastor I am asked to join, promote, and attend a wide variety of seminars, prayer meetings, evangelistic efforts, and other religious functions. Most of them are good. Most of them are solid and biblical. But I don’t have time for all of them. And I don’t feel comfortable with all of them.
God doesn’t expect me to join all these efforts (other people may, but God doesn’t). Neither, of course, does he expect me to stand up here and denounce the ones I am not comfortable with.
You don’t have to refrain from all criticism. There are times when one must call a spade and spade and when mistakes need to be pointed out in order to avoid greater problems in the future. On another occasion Wesley is reported to have said,
“I have no more right to object to a man for holding a different opinion from mine than I have to differ with a man because he wears a wig and I wear my own hair; but if he takes his wig off and shakes the powder in my face, I shall consider it my duty to get quit of him as soon as possible.” [ii]
I have, over the years, publicly criticized Bill Gothard for being too legalistic, Robert Schuller for avoiding the subject of sin, and both Jimmy Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart for their lack of moral integrity. I have criticized Westminster Christian Academy for refusing to allow their teachers, administrators, or board members to attend our church. But I have done nothing to hinder these ministries, and I will not.
The Bible encourages us to speak the truth in love, which means that our criticism should be informed and honest, and our goal should be correction, not destruction. One organization that has been the subject of some pretty harsh criticism in the past year is Promise Keepers. A graduate of the seminary I attended wrote a book taking PK apart limb by limb, accusing them of compromise, a watered-down gospel, and a host of other evils. I don’t know this man, but his book is full of half-truths, innuendo, and distortion. If I had the opportunity, I would like to ask him, “What are you doing that is revolutionizing men’s lives and helping them to understand and keep their promises to their wives, their children, their church, and their God?”
A fourth guideline to help determine whether we should be tolerant of a fellow-believer is …
Ask, “Whose side is he on?” Jesus allows for only two sides in the spiritual battle. There are no middle-of-the-roaders in spirituality, no uncommitted delegates. I grew up in a very conservative church atmosphere where Billy Graham was viewed very negatively, primarily because he cooperated with the mainline denominations when setting up his crusades. I’ve often asked the Graham critics, “Whose side is Billy Graham on? Is he on Satan’s side?” Frankly, a few of them thought so. Dr. Bob Jones used to forbid students at his university from even praying for Billy Graham.
Now, be careful here, for there are some religious people who are on Satan’s side, and we need to be courageous enough to say so. But let’s not identify everyone with whom we disagree as an enemy of the Cross. Fifth,
Ask, “Is he preaching Jesus Christ?” This guideline comes from the Apostle Paul. He tells us that even a man’s evil motives should not cause us to oppose him if he is preaching Christ. Turn to Philippians 1:12-18:
Now I want you to know, brothers, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel. As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly.
It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.
Some of Paul’s fellow-believers were trying to make life difficult for him, probably questioning his motives and maybe even suggesting that he wouldn’t be in prison if he were trusting God as he should. But Paul refused to play that game. He refused to respond in kind. So long as their message was true, so long as they were preaching Christ, he would rejoice rather than seek revenge.
Take Gamaliel’s advice in Acts 5:33-40. Gamaliel was an unbelieving lawyer, but even unbelievers can have insight into human nature. I think we can learn something from this Pharisee and lawyer.
When they heard this (that is, the apostles’ teaching about Jesus), they were furious and wanted to put them to death. But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed them: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
This is a wise piece of advice to anyone who feels called to be a watchdog for the church. The church needs watchdogs, but not self-appointed ones. God is able to protect his church, and the last thing we should want is to be found fighting against God.
Don’t let your tolerance extend to sin or serious false teaching. I have called tolerance the dangerous virtue because it’s very easy to allow it to go too far. We desperately need to learn to distinguish between major and minor issues. Years ago several key families came to First Free from another evangelical church here in West County because the pastor tolerated an elder in that church who didn’t believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. That’s serious false teaching.
On the other hand, is it so serious if two people disagree on whether the rapture is pre-tribulational or post-tribulational, or whether we baptize infants or dedicate them, or whether the Lord’s Supper is a memorial or involves the real presence of Christ? Is anyone going to go to heaven or hell because of such issues?
Now I’ve spent a lot of time on our first point, namely that tolerance should characterize the disciple’s attitude toward fellow-believers. Let me quickly go on to our second point, namely that
Tolerance should characterize the disciple’s attitude toward unbelievers also.
Now this point may surprise us a bit. Most of us can accept that fellow believers deserve a break and we should give them the benefit of the doubt. But unbelievers? That seems to be the message of the very next paragraph in Luke 9.
James and John propose instantaneous judgment on the Samaritans, but Jesus rebukes their intolerance. Here’s what’s going on in verse 51 and following. Jesus has resolutely set his face toward Jerusalem, where he will offer his life as a sacrifice for sin. The quickest way to get to Jerusalem from where he was would be to travel through Samaria. Palestine, you see, was divided basically into three parts. There was Galilee in the north, Judea (with its capital of Jerusalem) in the south, and Samaria was in between. There was a lot of racial hatred, however, between full-blooded Jews and the people of Samaria, who tended to be of mixed race – part Jewish and part Syrian. Orthodox Jews would always cross the Jordan River, travel south, and then re-cross it again so as to avoid Samaria. Not Jesus. He loved the Samaritans and constantly sought out opportunities to minister to them.
On this particular occasion he sends messengers ahead into a Samaritan village to rent motel rooms and get reservations at the local café. After all, a group of a dozen travelers could strain the resources of a small village if they arrived unexpectedly. When the Samaritans hear, however, that this band of Galileans is headed for Jerusalem, they refuse to rent them any rooms or give them any kind of welcome at all.
James and John, nicknamed appropriately “the Sons of Thunder,” are incensed. They are ready to spend hard-earned shekels in that town, and these half-breed clowns are refusing. They asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?” That’s a pretty serious response to being turned away at Motel 6, I’d say. It’s also pretty brash. They seem to assume they possess the power to do it and all they need is permission.
I’m willing to give them credit for plenty of zeal and significant devotion to Jesus. But they fail completely to understand the nature of Christian service, and they are not alone. It is not unusual today to see an angry Christian face on television, expressing some form of condemnation on our society at large. Some have even resorted to brute force or violence to try to stop sin. Is that our only option? In verse 55 it says, “Jesus turned and rebuked them, and they went to another village.”
Jesus rebukes their intolerance. Jesus’ rebuke seems to be based upon three things:
Their intolerance was motivated by anger and revenge. You know, it’s possible for us to be zealous for the honor of God in a spirit which puts us out of fellowship with God. Paul calls it “zeal without knowledge” (Romans 10:2). In our loyalty to Christ, however zealous it may be, we must be constantly on our guard that we do not act with a spirit that is out of harmony with his, or follow methods of which he would not approve.
They ignored extenuating factors. The old Indian proverb seems appropriate here: “Never criticize a brother until you’ve walked in his moccasins two weeks.” The moccasins the Samaritans were wearing were five centuries of put-downs, racism, prejudice, and bigotry from the Jewish people. The result was a great deal of hate and antagonism. The disciples refused to take that into consideration.
Judgment was not their job. “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay.” (Deuteronomy 32:41; Romans 12:19) Revenge is not Christ’s way of dealing with rejection. Revenge is not an option for the Christian.
So far we have seen that tolerance should characterize the disciple’s attitude toward other believers and even toward unbelievers. But, we learn at the end of chapter 9 that there is a place for intolerance.
Intolerance should characterize the disciple’s attitude toward himself.
Jesus says, in effect, “Do you want to be intolerant of someone or something?” Try being intolerant of your own lack of total commitment. In another of his hard-hitting messages on the prerequisites for true discipleship, Jesus speaks of three kinds of would-be disciples, the hasty disciple, the hampered disciple, and the hesitating disciple.
The hasty disciple and the uncounted cost. The hasty disciple has too much self-confidence. He comes to Jesus all gung-ho and says, “I will follow you wherever you go.” But Jesus is skeptical and responds, not by signing him up, but by offering a strong dose of truth-in-advertising. No one can ever say that he was induced by Jesus to follow him under false pretenses. In effect, he says, do you know that my followers cannot count on luxurious living. To the contrary, discipleship may involve deprivation. Jesus isn’t promising homelessness or hunger or persecution, just admitting that such things are possible, and the potential disciple needs to come in with his eyes open. In regard to the second man, the hampered disciple, this time it is Jesus who initiates the contact.
The hampered disciple and the unburied corpse. He calls the man to follow him. But the answer he gets back is, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” Now that seems noble enough, especially since in Jewish circles burial took precedence over the study of the Law, over temple service, over the observance of circumcision, etc. But since Jews always buried their loved ones within 24 hours, I would suggest that it is likely this man’s father isn’t even dead yet. I think he is requesting permission to stay home until his father dies. He may still be middle-aged and in good health. In other words, this is a put-off.
Jesus will not play second fiddle. True discipleship is not something we fit into an already busy life. Even the most intimate family ties must be laid aside when the call comes to follow him. More important than caring for the physically dead is preaching the offer of eternal life to the spiritually dead.
The hesitating disciple and the unforsaken circle. The hesitating disciple volunteers to be a disciple, but has a condition attached: “First, let me go back and say good-by to my family.” That too seems like a reasonable request. But perhaps Jesus knew that while saying good-by the man would be distracted and he would change his mind. It has been said that in everything there is a crucial moment. If that moment is missed, the thing may likely never be done at all. Jesus replied to the hesitating disciple, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.”
Have you ever wondered how farmers get their rows of corn so absolutely straight? When I was a teenager I worked on my uncle’s farm in Northfield, Minnesota. He taught me that the key to planting straight rows was looking way into the distance at a certain spot on the horizon, usually a fence post, and driving straight to that spot. If you look down or back or sideways, even for an instant, the row would be crooked. The key to discipleship is likewise keeping our eyes on the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus, as Paul so aptly put it in Philippians.
In reading Jesus’ demands for discipleship, I’m reminded of a verse of army graffiti:
Soldiers who wish to be a hero
Are practically zero.
But those who wish to be civilians
Lord, they run into the millions.
Is that true of disciples as well? Are there some of us who are even now AWOL in the service of the King?
Conclusion: In conclusion this morning, I would suggest that tolerance is of two kinds. Some are called tolerant who are indifferent to biblical values, who couldn’t care less, and who would as well see one set of values triumph as another. Others are called tolerant who, though cherishing certain values, are prevented by wise modesty from using belligerent means to enforce those views on others.
Tolerance of the first sort makes true morality almost impossible. But a tolerance based on wisdom and humility gives strength of spirit and courage of conviction, while recognizing that each man’s ultimate responsibility is to God alone. Be lenient toward others, one sage put it, but severe toward yourself. May God spare us from the tolerance of indifference and endow us with the tolerance of humility and love.
Tags:
Tolerance
Intolerance
Criticism
Gamaliel
False teaching
[i]. John Wesley, quoted by William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke, 131.
[ii]. Barclay, 131.