Why are Christians So Intolerant of Other People's Beliefs?
Those outside of the Christian faith often cite “intolerance” as a major criticism of Christianity: “Christians are so intolerant of other people’s beliefs.” But what if rejection of Christians/Christianity is actually the more intolerant stance? My goal in this article is first to help you see that intolerance is unavoidable, no matter what viewpoint you hold on any topic and secondly, to help you see that Christianity is actually the most inclusive worldview, exercising the most tolerance. Let’s dig in.
First, let’s start with a definition that we can work from. Dictionary.com defines intolerance as “an unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect opinions or beliefs contrary to one’s own.” Cambridge dictionary defines it as “the fact of refusing to accept particular ideas, beliefs, or behavior, especially because they are different from your own, or refusing to accept people who are different from you”. I think both of these definitions fit the sentiment that is often being expressed in our scenario, which we will call “Christian intolerance” going forward for sake of simplicity.
So, based on those definitions, intolerance is essentially a lack of acceptance for views (or people who have views) contrary to your own. It’s saying, “If you don’t agree with me, there’s no place for you at my table.” “It’s my way or the highway.” “If you don’t accept my way of thinking, you are ‘excluded’.”
The problem with the idea of intolerance is that taking a stance on anything, literally anything, whether it’s religion or politics, or the school PTA, will automatically exclude some. To say something is true or right inherently makes opposing things false or wrong. If I say, “Purple is the best color,” I’m also saying (without words), “Yellow and red and blue, etc are NOT the best colors.” To state anything is true is to draw a line in the sand and therefore, “exclude” or be “intolerant” of other statements. This isn’t in and of itself a bad thing; it’s simply the way truth and objectivity work.
People often criticize Christianity because the Bible says that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Him. To believe this is true means to believe that every other religion is wrong, including a lack of religion. This isn’t the result of Christian opinion; this is an objective requirement of truth. In fact, the non-religious show the same “intolerance” to Christians (and every other religion for that matter). By stating that “there is no God”, they are saying that every other belief system that has a god, be it the God of the Bible, Allah, or any of the other numerous gods of other religions are wrong. In this way, the non-religious are “intolerant” of all religious beliefs. Another example is the universalist who says, “All paths lead to the same place. Believe in Jesus, or Allah, or whoever you want; we will all end up at the same place in the end.” On the surface, they seem to be extremely “tolerant” of all religious views. But what about the views that say that’s not true. Christianity says Jesus is the only way. Islam says you must be more good than bad. Mormonism believes heaven looks a lot different than the Heaven described in the Bible. All these beliefs can’t be true at the same time; they are objectively opposed to each other. So, by a universalist saying, “we all end up in same place no matter what religion you practice”, they are expressing intolerance for many religious views that say contrary.
Where I hope we have landed the plane at this point is at an acknowledgement that having any kind of opinion or stance on anything “excludes” and is “intolerant” towards something else. But is that really a bad thing? Do we really want to live in a world where we slap negative labels on people just because they don’t share the same stance on any particular viewpoint we have? If that’s the case, every person you know is intolerant because there are no two people who share 100% agreement on every possible stance; that’s the beauty of individuality. I think a more appropriate way to express this kind of “intolerance” is to simply say you disagree.
However, what I think is helpful here is to recognize that there are really two sides of intolerance. The first side of intolerance, what I’ve labelled as disagreement above, is the objective side. That’s what we’ve been discussing up to this point; truth demands that anything opposed to it is false. And I don’t think that’s where most people have this “Christian intolerance” criticism. I think what most people in this camp are trying to express is a second side of intolerance, that places a subjective value on a person based on whether they agree with you or not.
Going back to my example earlier, when I say, “Purple is the best color,” I am objectively intolerant to the other colors being considered the best. Another way to say that is, “I disagree that yellow or red or blue is the best color.” However, if I say, “People who don’t think that purple is the best color are dumb,” now I am assigning a subjective value to the people who hold an opposing viewpoint to me. Disagreeing is one kind of “intolerance”; devaluing another person based upon differing viewpoints or beliefs from your own on any given topic is a different kind of “intolerance”.
Honestly, disagreement is a healthy kind of intolerance. Disagreements are how we grow and adapt and innovate as a civilization. Disagreement is an indication that we are fighting for truth and justice and what is right. Claiming disagreement as “intolerance” carries a connotation with it that I don’t think is quite fair. Disagreement often gets lumped into this “Christian intolerance” conversation, but I think where people are really getting hung up, and rightfully so, is with the second side of “intolerance”, with being devalued as a person because of their differing stance. It’s not the disagreement that is the problem; it’s the value they are being given or not being given based solely upon their stance on an issue. Many assume that because they disagree with Christians, that the Christian is exercising this second kind of “intolerance”, that the Christian is now thinking less of them for disagreeing with them. And this is really what I think the heart of the question we are addressing here is.
Don’t get me wrong. There are people out there who call themselves Christians who do that, who devalue another human for disagreeing with them. Just like there are people out there who believe in Mormonism or who are Pro-Choice or who drink alcohol, and they devalue people for disagreeing with them. Just because someone who dons a specific label devalues people based on disagreement, doesn’t mean that everyone who dons that label devalues people based on disagreement. That’s not a fair correlation.
Also, just because disagreement exists doesn’t automatically mean devaluing is happening; that’s not a fair assumption either. The two are not synonymous. Just because someone is “objectively intolerant” of your views (aka disagrees) does not necessarily mean that they are “subjectively intolerant” of you (aka that they hate you or think less of you). The reason people are “subjectively intolerant” is not because of their belief systems themselves; it’s because of how those people are exercising those belief systems. If someone is being “subjectively intolerant” to you or someone you know, don’t blame their belief system; the problem lies in the heart of the person and how they are exercising that belief system.
Christianity does not teach subjective intolerance. In fact, quite the opposite. The Bible teaches that every person has value because they are made in the image of God. A person’s value is not determined by what they do or even what they believe; they are made in the image of God and therefore they are valuable. Every single person. Period.
What the Bible does teach is objective intolerance. The Bible teaches us there is a right and a wrong. The Bible teaches us what is true about who God is, who we are and what He has done to restore our relationship with Him. And the Bible teaches us to stand firm in that truth and to defend that truth. We are to exercise “objective intolerance”, exposing false truths and errors in thinking. But the Bible calls us to do that while maintaining “subjective tolerance”. And more than tolerance, love! We, as Christians, are to love and honor every person as a valuable image bearer of God, despite whether they agree with us or not.
What does this look like in practice? It means we love the Satanist, the LGBTQ+ person, the woman who has had an abortion. We love the murderer and the rapist. We love them, teaching them what the Bible teaches is true, and their response to that truth does not affect our opinion of them. We call them out of living in the false truths that lead to death and despair. We are “intolerant” of the drug addict’s addiction; we get them help, we teach them truth, and we love them the same the whole time, whether they are spitting in our faces or praising Jesus next to us. Our worth is not in what we do or what we believe; it’s in Him who made us in His image and the blood shed on each of our behaves to reconcile us to God.
In summary, Christianity is objectively intolerant. There is only one way to Heaven, one way to God. His name is Jesus. Every other way is a lie and will lead you to Hell. In that truth, we, as Christians, are unashamedly (objectively) intolerant. There is no room for lies when the truth of people’s eternity is at stake. But we proclaim the most tolerant, inclusive God, who welcomes each and every person to come to Him. The murderer, the adulteress, the addict, the thief, the apathetic, the belligerent; we welcome them all, because He welcomes them all. As we welcome them in, will we remain objectively intolerant? Will we call them to stop doing the behaviors that are destroying them? Absolutely! But as we do that, we maintain a love and compassion for them as human beings who struggle just like we do. We may struggle in different ways, but none of us is perfect. And just as we are valued by God, we seek to value every other human in the same way; uncompromising in truth, and limitless in mercy because that’s who God is and who He has been towards us.
First, let’s start with a definition that we can work from. Dictionary.com defines intolerance as “an unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect opinions or beliefs contrary to one’s own.” Cambridge dictionary defines it as “the fact of refusing to accept particular ideas, beliefs, or behavior, especially because they are different from your own, or refusing to accept people who are different from you”. I think both of these definitions fit the sentiment that is often being expressed in our scenario, which we will call “Christian intolerance” going forward for sake of simplicity.
So, based on those definitions, intolerance is essentially a lack of acceptance for views (or people who have views) contrary to your own. It’s saying, “If you don’t agree with me, there’s no place for you at my table.” “It’s my way or the highway.” “If you don’t accept my way of thinking, you are ‘excluded’.”
The problem with the idea of intolerance is that taking a stance on anything, literally anything, whether it’s religion or politics, or the school PTA, will automatically exclude some. To say something is true or right inherently makes opposing things false or wrong. If I say, “Purple is the best color,” I’m also saying (without words), “Yellow and red and blue, etc are NOT the best colors.” To state anything is true is to draw a line in the sand and therefore, “exclude” or be “intolerant” of other statements. This isn’t in and of itself a bad thing; it’s simply the way truth and objectivity work.
People often criticize Christianity because the Bible says that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Him. To believe this is true means to believe that every other religion is wrong, including a lack of religion. This isn’t the result of Christian opinion; this is an objective requirement of truth. In fact, the non-religious show the same “intolerance” to Christians (and every other religion for that matter). By stating that “there is no God”, they are saying that every other belief system that has a god, be it the God of the Bible, Allah, or any of the other numerous gods of other religions are wrong. In this way, the non-religious are “intolerant” of all religious beliefs. Another example is the universalist who says, “All paths lead to the same place. Believe in Jesus, or Allah, or whoever you want; we will all end up at the same place in the end.” On the surface, they seem to be extremely “tolerant” of all religious views. But what about the views that say that’s not true. Christianity says Jesus is the only way. Islam says you must be more good than bad. Mormonism believes heaven looks a lot different than the Heaven described in the Bible. All these beliefs can’t be true at the same time; they are objectively opposed to each other. So, by a universalist saying, “we all end up in same place no matter what religion you practice”, they are expressing intolerance for many religious views that say contrary.
Where I hope we have landed the plane at this point is at an acknowledgement that having any kind of opinion or stance on anything “excludes” and is “intolerant” towards something else. But is that really a bad thing? Do we really want to live in a world where we slap negative labels on people just because they don’t share the same stance on any particular viewpoint we have? If that’s the case, every person you know is intolerant because there are no two people who share 100% agreement on every possible stance; that’s the beauty of individuality. I think a more appropriate way to express this kind of “intolerance” is to simply say you disagree.
However, what I think is helpful here is to recognize that there are really two sides of intolerance. The first side of intolerance, what I’ve labelled as disagreement above, is the objective side. That’s what we’ve been discussing up to this point; truth demands that anything opposed to it is false. And I don’t think that’s where most people have this “Christian intolerance” criticism. I think what most people in this camp are trying to express is a second side of intolerance, that places a subjective value on a person based on whether they agree with you or not.
Going back to my example earlier, when I say, “Purple is the best color,” I am objectively intolerant to the other colors being considered the best. Another way to say that is, “I disagree that yellow or red or blue is the best color.” However, if I say, “People who don’t think that purple is the best color are dumb,” now I am assigning a subjective value to the people who hold an opposing viewpoint to me. Disagreeing is one kind of “intolerance”; devaluing another person based upon differing viewpoints or beliefs from your own on any given topic is a different kind of “intolerance”.
Honestly, disagreement is a healthy kind of intolerance. Disagreements are how we grow and adapt and innovate as a civilization. Disagreement is an indication that we are fighting for truth and justice and what is right. Claiming disagreement as “intolerance” carries a connotation with it that I don’t think is quite fair. Disagreement often gets lumped into this “Christian intolerance” conversation, but I think where people are really getting hung up, and rightfully so, is with the second side of “intolerance”, with being devalued as a person because of their differing stance. It’s not the disagreement that is the problem; it’s the value they are being given or not being given based solely upon their stance on an issue. Many assume that because they disagree with Christians, that the Christian is exercising this second kind of “intolerance”, that the Christian is now thinking less of them for disagreeing with them. And this is really what I think the heart of the question we are addressing here is.
Don’t get me wrong. There are people out there who call themselves Christians who do that, who devalue another human for disagreeing with them. Just like there are people out there who believe in Mormonism or who are Pro-Choice or who drink alcohol, and they devalue people for disagreeing with them. Just because someone who dons a specific label devalues people based on disagreement, doesn’t mean that everyone who dons that label devalues people based on disagreement. That’s not a fair correlation.
Also, just because disagreement exists doesn’t automatically mean devaluing is happening; that’s not a fair assumption either. The two are not synonymous. Just because someone is “objectively intolerant” of your views (aka disagrees) does not necessarily mean that they are “subjectively intolerant” of you (aka that they hate you or think less of you). The reason people are “subjectively intolerant” is not because of their belief systems themselves; it’s because of how those people are exercising those belief systems. If someone is being “subjectively intolerant” to you or someone you know, don’t blame their belief system; the problem lies in the heart of the person and how they are exercising that belief system.
Christianity does not teach subjective intolerance. In fact, quite the opposite. The Bible teaches that every person has value because they are made in the image of God. A person’s value is not determined by what they do or even what they believe; they are made in the image of God and therefore they are valuable. Every single person. Period.
What the Bible does teach is objective intolerance. The Bible teaches us there is a right and a wrong. The Bible teaches us what is true about who God is, who we are and what He has done to restore our relationship with Him. And the Bible teaches us to stand firm in that truth and to defend that truth. We are to exercise “objective intolerance”, exposing false truths and errors in thinking. But the Bible calls us to do that while maintaining “subjective tolerance”. And more than tolerance, love! We, as Christians, are to love and honor every person as a valuable image bearer of God, despite whether they agree with us or not.
What does this look like in practice? It means we love the Satanist, the LGBTQ+ person, the woman who has had an abortion. We love the murderer and the rapist. We love them, teaching them what the Bible teaches is true, and their response to that truth does not affect our opinion of them. We call them out of living in the false truths that lead to death and despair. We are “intolerant” of the drug addict’s addiction; we get them help, we teach them truth, and we love them the same the whole time, whether they are spitting in our faces or praising Jesus next to us. Our worth is not in what we do or what we believe; it’s in Him who made us in His image and the blood shed on each of our behaves to reconcile us to God.
In summary, Christianity is objectively intolerant. There is only one way to Heaven, one way to God. His name is Jesus. Every other way is a lie and will lead you to Hell. In that truth, we, as Christians, are unashamedly (objectively) intolerant. There is no room for lies when the truth of people’s eternity is at stake. But we proclaim the most tolerant, inclusive God, who welcomes each and every person to come to Him. The murderer, the adulteress, the addict, the thief, the apathetic, the belligerent; we welcome them all, because He welcomes them all. As we welcome them in, will we remain objectively intolerant? Will we call them to stop doing the behaviors that are destroying them? Absolutely! But as we do that, we maintain a love and compassion for them as human beings who struggle just like we do. We may struggle in different ways, but none of us is perfect. And just as we are valued by God, we seek to value every other human in the same way; uncompromising in truth, and limitless in mercy because that’s who God is and who He has been towards us.
Posted in Hot Topics
Posted in Charlie Kirk, Religious Intolerance, Intolerance, Exclusivity, Disagreement, Devaluing, Politics, Religion, Political Disagreement, Religious Disagreement, Moral Disagreement, Charlie Kirk assassination, Charlie Kirk murder, tolerance, acceptance, human value, calling out of sin, Love
Posted in Charlie Kirk, Religious Intolerance, Intolerance, Exclusivity, Disagreement, Devaluing, Politics, Religion, Political Disagreement, Religious Disagreement, Moral Disagreement, Charlie Kirk assassination, Charlie Kirk murder, tolerance, acceptance, human value, calling out of sin, Love
Categories
Tags
Archive
2025
March
April
May
June
July
What is the Bible?What is the Gospel?What is Sin/Sinners?Who is Satan/demons?What is Holiness?What/Who are Christians?What do Christians mean when they speak of "the Cross"?What is a denomination?What is a doctrine?What is baptism?What is Communion/the Lord's Supper?What is the Trinity?Sex, Lies, and MarriageWhy Would I Want to be Saved?Who is Jesus?The Purity PrincipleMarriage MattersDying to RestCompassion in Daily Life
August
2024
February
March
April
2023
May
November
December