What exactly do we mean by the word ‘tolerance’? Over the years the meaning of tolerance has changed – at least the origin and reason for bringing out a law has changed.

The English Toleration Act 1689⤒🔗

In England, there was an Act of Tolerance enacted in 1689. It did not deal with the same issues that concern our nation today, viz Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu, and other religious beliefs conflicting with our values and ideals. The Act was for Protestant Christians who dissented from the Church of England.

The Act was entirely for those who do profess ‘faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ, his eternal Son, the true God and in the Holy Spirit, one God, blessed for evermore; and do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration’. Such dissenting brethren had to subscribe to the above profession of faith! In other words the Act was formulated to accept other Christian denominations who dissented from the Church of England, to free them from the penalties and punishments due to dissenting brethren.

It was also the object of the Act ‘to prevent Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament’. The Act was confined to within the Protestant Christian religion and it assumed opposition to Roman Catholicalism.

It was also necessary for such dissenters, in order to escape penalties and punishments, to subscribe and promise ‘that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any power, jurisdiction, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm’.

So ‘The English Toleration Act’ was created out of a completely different culture from the issues which confront us today in the UK.

We can look at some matters concerning unbiblical toleration, viz, the worldly view of toleration regarding faith and practice, and also look at Biblical toleration and some if its principles.

Unbiblical Tolerance←⤒🔗

Unbiblical toleration is borne out of a culture where there is uncertainty about truth and righteousness. It is the product of an age of indecision of what truth actually is. It’s the result of an ideology that boasts of many truths.

Our own nation at this time is calling for more tolerance towards all religions and faiths, and this is because there is no general conviction that there is only one truth – God’s truth. All opinions are fair game. Any of them could be true – if it is true for you then it is true.

The top hit song from Boyzone ‘No Matter What’ is full of this false ideology. The lyrics of that song say ‘No matter what they tell you – what you believe is true’. Truth in this ideology, is anything that you believe. How awful!

This view may be appealing to our generation, but apart from it being patently wrong, it has many weaknesses. One weakness is that a tolerance that treats all religions as equal reduces commitment. If all religions are the same then it is not important which one you choose. If all religions are the same then there is no incentive to remain faithful to the one you have initially chosen.

One of the complaints we hear today is the lack of loyalty. From football managers to church members to marriage partners there is less and less loyalty and a lack of long term commitment. A written contract is meaningless (especially in the football world), far less reliable is a verbal promise! Might it not be that our age of indecision about the truth has created a culture of disloyalty and less commitment?

A second weakness of this type of tolerance is that it degrades truth from being a fact to being nothing more than a mere opinion. If every view is equally valid, then there is likely to be a denial of fact and a denial of the possibility of absolute truth.

When absolute truth is denied then one resorts to feelings and experiences as the criteria for discerning right from wrong. One is therefore left with an entirely subjective criteria to determine the most important decisions in life! Our generation is in desperate need of a firm anchor as a base on which it can safely build. Absolute truth provides that anchor.

A third weakness of this unbiblical tolerance is that historically it does not work. It has never been truly honest to its own principle of tolerance for all. The Roman Empire was one of the most tolerant powers towards all religions – and yet, in the end, it persecuted Christianity. It was intolerant of Christianity (which according to the authority of Gibbon, was one of the main means for its downfall)!

The Roman Empire permitted all nations to practice its own faith – provided it acknowledged Caesar as Lord. The Christians refused to do this. There is only one Lord. So the Romans decreed that all who would not acknowledge the deity of the Emperor would be put to death. It failed in the end to tolerate all religions – it just simply cannot be done consistently and honestly.

Already in this country we can see the seeds of persecution growing towards Christianity – its claim to be exclusive is unacceptable to the powers that be. Already, in some of our cities, street preachers have been arrested – under the pretense of inciting religious hatred – while they were only preaching the gospel. There is already a prejudice growing against Christianity in the west.

We agree with the establishment principle of a nation having only one religion while exercising Biblical tolerance towards other faiths.

Biblical Tolerance←⤒🔗

Biblical tolerance is borne out of a culture of confidence in the truth and of the certainty of what truth actually is – God’s Word. It borne out of a culture which believes truth will vindicate itself. It is not afraid to ‘compete’ with other faiths. It is unashamed of its convictions and is prepared to debate in public.

Its source book (Holy Scripture) is open for all to read and discuss. As the Reformation was ‘won’ by open debate and public discussion, so today Christians need to assert the truth of their faith and become more vocal in public.

Biblical tolerance advocates a set of basic principles taken from the clear teachings of the Bible. It formulates laws concerning man’s behaviour but does not take to do with man’s conscience or beliefs. The laws are enacted to protect innocents from suffering at the hands of evil-doers.

Biblical tolerance always respects man’s freedom of choice. It leaves mankind with its God-given dignity to choose his own path and destiny. God does not violate man’s freedom to choose, but has endowed mankind with dignity to “work out his own salvation” (Phil 2:12).

From Joshua’s “choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve” (Josh 24:15), to Christ’s commendation of Mary who had “chosen that good part” (Luke 10:42) and to Christ’s final appeal “Whoever desires let him take the water of life freely” (Rev 22:17), the Bible provides mankind with a choice – to choose Christ for His soul or to reject the offered grace. We must respect man’s choice – we do not go to war with him for his choice of faith or of his beliefs.

Christianity is not promoted or advanced by taking the sword. It does not approve of force or coercion. Jesus made that perfectly clear when He rebuked Peter for taking the sword to those who came to arrest Jesus saying “all who take the sword shall perish by the sword” (Mat 26:52). Jesus then proceeded to minister healing! The gospel must always be accompanied with good works!

History testifies that physical force has never helped the Christian Cause. On the contrary, it is when Christianity is being persecuted that it advances, not when it uses physical force to coerce people to believe. Forcing people to believe only hardens their wills. As someone else has said ‘He who is forced against his will, is of the same persuasion still’!

May God give our nation light regarding truth and the exercise of religious tolerance.