Religion - Tolerance level

There is a debate going on in the church today about how tolerant we as Christians should be. On the one extreme you have some who argue we should accept everyone lovingly and let each person hold his own lifestyle, theology, and understanding of Christ without meddling in that individual decision. On the other extreme there are Christians who do want individuals who agree on minute details of theology to attend or join their church.

As I grow in wisdom, a process that will never be completed here on earth, I have become aware of how little wisdom I actually possess. If you are to learn, then you must first believe that you have something to learn. In the spiritual realm, I have no doubt that there is one truth, one way that God would have us to live, one set of rules, one way in which He operates this universe. I do not subscribe to the notion that the truth can vary from individual to individual. However, finding that truth, the very essence of God is something I know I will never completely accomplish. On the day of judgment I am quite sure I will have a few things wrong in my theological stands. I believe I will be right on the big one - that Jesus was the son of God and was crucified for my sins and raised from death so that my faith in Him as my savior along with my acknowledgment of my sins will place me in Heaven. On some of the controversial issues within the church, however, I do not have the audacity to assume I will be correct on every one. Therefore, I attempt to have a good amount of room for theological tolerance, provided that the person is clear on the issue of salvation. I do not feel that we as Christians generally have much tolerance for theological differences. It may perhaps be my lack of self confidence in my own theology, but I feel like if I do not assimilate to the theological beliefs of others than they will look at me with less respect. I also believe that the unchurched views us in this way, many think that to join a church they must accept and agree with all the positions of the church, not just on the issue of salvation and a possible few other tenants that the denomination considers vital to its identity. This prevents successful evangelism.

I will share a brief example of theological differences. There is a divide within the church today about the inerrancy of the Bible, the belief that the Bible is 100% accurate. Both sides have legitimate arguments. On the side that does not believe inerrancy, they will of course have different stances because they can pick the parts with which they disagree. This fact is generally a concern of those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Still, within the group that believes in the inerrancy of the Bible there are many disagreements. Those that are very conservative believe the Bible prohibits women from serving in leadership roles, while moderate conservatives who still believe in the inerrancy of the Bible disagree. There are issues from predestination to the use of alcohol where people who hold steadfast to inerrancy disagree. Interpretations are simply different. This fact has often made me ponder why people are so animated over the issue of inerrancy. If you are free to interpret the Bible how you please, does it really matter if you read something and interpret it slightly differently than the literal translation or just come out and say that the passage is not exactly in accordance with the truth of God? I could go on and on about this issue, but I'll leave it there for now.

The point of this is, from a theological standpoint, it seems to me that we should be tolerant on issues that are not crucial to salvation. An open, polite dialogue is best. The conversations can be fascinating and thought provoking if we do not intimidate others from sharing their full theology. An interesting topic to discuss with our tolerance level is the belief in Hell. Some Christians today do not believe in Hell. Many Christians would take the tone that these people are not truly Christians at all. As I mentioned before, there is one truth, there either is or isn't a Hell, that is indisputable. However, assuming there is a Hell, would one's denial of its existence guarantee that he or she spends eternity there? The gospel continually tells us that our salvation is based on our faith in Jesus Christ and commitment to Him. I see nothing that a belief in Hell is required. From a practical standpoint, a belief in Hell is very useful. It is an excellent motivator for one's self and also to be an evangelist for Jesus, assuming that a person does not want his loved ones to spend eternity there. As a salvation issue, however, is it a determining factor? I don't see how. If a person loves Jesus, believes in Him, accepts Him as the savior of his sins, and lives a life committed to Him, then I believe that person will find himself in Heaven.

This leads me to the other point, the life one leads. Is it committed to Christ? Jesus said that you can tell the type of tree by the fruit it bears. We are to be disciples to of Jesus. Judgment clearly is not ours, but if an individual comes to church on occasional Sundays, professes Jesus as Lord, and does nothing for Him in the rest of his life, it would seem that the faith is somewhat questionable. God cannot be conned through lip service; He sees the heart. It seems to me that perhaps our tolerance level is too high when it comes to those who choose not to serve Christ. Christianity is faith based, please do not misunderstand. However, deeds are a better indication of faith than details of ones theology and we should remember that before we look down with scorn on someone who disagrees with our theology but has a heart to serve Christ.