Tolerance

The commune of Christiania, in the heart of Copenhagen, Denmark, was supposed to be like Paradise. But life in this fallen world is always impacted by human sin.

Founded in 1971, Christiania was devised as a post-60s anarchistic utopia. It was a place where people could live outside of Denmark’s market economy, free to build their houses where and how they wanted, to sell marijuana for a living, and to live as they pleased as long as they didn’t harm their neighbors. Denmark’s government oscillated between attempting to bring the community to heel or turning a blind eye as residents flouted property laws and drug laws.

But now, after 50 years, with worsening gang violence and fresh attempts by the government to normalize the commune, some residents see their dream of an alternative society fading. The infamous Pusher Street, once operated mostly by residents but now overrun by gangs, may be the first domino to fall.

One lifelong resident said, “Growing up in Christiania was the best childhood ever. We had freedom. Pusher Street was very nice back then … Five to seven years ago [drug dealers] got much tougher. Now they only want profit. They don’t bring good vibes.”

Christiania has long embraced cannabis while shunning more dangerous substances. But as gangs overtook the drug trade, harder drugs made their way in, along with some of the violence of organized crime. After a recent shooting, Christiania’s residents, who operate a consensus democracy where decisions are made by unanimous assent in town-hall-style meetings, settled on two conclusions: that Pusher Street should be shuttered permanently, and that the state should intervene—an extraordinary step for the anti-establishment community.

Possible Preaching Angles:

This shows the power of original sin. Even when we try to recreate “paradise,” it never lasts for long.

According to a 2022 poll, most Americans believe the United States Congress is morally corrupt. Sixty-three percent of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, told pollsters they believe the House and Senate are immoral.

Nearly 9 out of 10 said morality is important to them, but at the same time, only a few people prefer a moral candidate to an effective one. The poll asked Americans:

Would You Prefer a Candidate Who Is More Moral but Less Effective?

26% More moral

19% More effective

40% Neither

15% Don’t know

Many have discussed whether or not radiation from cell phones causes cancer. Author Douglas Fields writes about the fact that some people are fearful of radiation from their cell phones, but that fear indicates the lack of understanding in regard to dosage:

There is a vast difference, for example, between a microwave oven and a cell phone. Just try cooking a burger with your phone. The word “radiation” strikes fear in the heart of the average person. But radiation is a normal part of our environment, cast down on us together with the warming rays of the sun. Radiation emanates from the smoke detectors in our homes and from dishes that use uranium salts in their ceramic pigments. But all are perfectly safe because the radiation levels are low.

Still, some are skeptical and they recommend not allowing children to use cell phones except in emergencies, and to avoid carrying cell phones on the body. Fields points out:

The debate and research go on. This seems strange given the abundance of known agents and activities that do cause cancer but fail to strike the same fear in the hearts of most people. Alcohol, tobacco, sunburn, toxic organic chemicals in industrial and home products are all real but accepted risk. Yet the cell phone and invisible radiation from power lines scare many. Looked at objectively, the reason is simply fear of the unknown. Everyone understands alcohol and sunburn; few understand radiation, and so they fear it.

Possible Preaching Angles:

Christians wonder, how serious is friendship with their world? How much sin will hurt me? How can I be in the world but not of the world? Low doses of sin can be overlooked, but they can combine for a very serious effect in our spiritual lives.

In the book The Faith of Elvis, Billy Stanley, half-brother of Elvis, shares poignantly of the ups and downs of Elvis’ walk with the Jesus. On a more humorous side he shared this encounter between Elvis and Sammy Davis Jr.:

It was a kind of a funny thing, and also serious in a way, but one time in Las Vegas, he was talking to Sammy Davis Jr. Sammy noticed Elvis wearing both a Star of David and a cross necklace—two things that don’t normally go together because they represent two distinct religions: Judaism and Christianity.

Sammy said, “Elvis, isn’t that kind of a contradiction?”

Elvis looked at him and said, “I don’t want to miss heaven on a technicality.”

When people refer to political corruption in American politics as a cesspool, it’s usually just a metaphor. But in one recent case, the term could be taken literally.

In early April, former Hawaii state representative Ty Cullen was sentenced to two years in prison for taking bribes in order to influence legislation restricting the use of toxic cesspools in properties around the state.

Industry analysts believe that cesspools proliferated in Hawaii during the latter half of the twentieth century. This was when infrastructure investments in things like sewer lines were outpaced by the money to be made through rapid development. New cesspools have been banned since 2016.

Cullen was charged because of his involvement in legislation that affected cesspool conversions, which are costly construction upgrades. The news has caused consternation among political players, but rejoicing from environmental advocates. Stuart Coleman, director of Wastewater Alternatives said, “We were joking that, ‘Oh, now these politicians have given cesspools a bad name.’”

Possible Preaching Angle:

When public servants behave dishonorably, they confer dishonor on the offices that they hold, and people lose faith in local authorities. In the same way, servants of God cause a loss of trust when they behave dishonestly.

Best-selling Muslim author and renowned critic of Islam, Irshad Manji shook the religious world with her ground-breaking and highly acclaimed book The Trouble with Islam Today. Translated into more than 30 languages, Manji writes about the lack of inquiry and freedom of thought and speech that pervades across the entire Islamic world.

In 1972, her devout Muslim family immigrated from East Africa to a suburb of Vancouver, British Columbia, when she was four-years-old. She writes that she came to believe in the basic dignity of every individual not from Islam, but "It was the democratic environment to which my family and I migrated." A couple of years later, her always frugal parents enrolled her in free baby-sitting services at a Baptist church when her mom left the house to sell Avon products door-to-door.

There the lady who supervised Bible study showed me and my older sister the same patience she displayed with her own son. She made me believe my questions were worth asking. The questions I posed as a seven-year-old were simple ones: Where did Jesus come from? When did he live? Who did he marry? These queries didn't put anyone on the spot, but my point is that the act of asking always met with an inviting smile.

She cites another example at her junior high school and her evangelical Christian vice-principal.

[The majority of students] lobbied for school shorts that revealed more leg than our vice-principal thought reasonable. After a heated debate with us, he okayed the shorts, bristling but still respecting popular will. How many Muslim evangelicals do you know who tolerate the expression of viewpoints that distress their souls?

Of course, my vice-principal had to bite his tongue in the public school system, but such a system can only emerge from a consensus that people of different faiths, backgrounds, and stations ought to tussle together. How many Muslim countries tolerate such tussle? I look back now and thank God I wound up in a world where the Quran didn't have to be my first and only book.

A video from content creators Aperture gives a brief overview of the basic questions people ask about personal morality: "If I steal from the rich and use it to feed the poor, is that good or is that bad? If I drive over the speed limit to get my sick child to the hospital, is that good or is that bad? What is good? And what is bad? What is morality, and do you, as a person, have morals?"

Morality is what society treats as right and acceptable. They’re the standards of thoughts and actions that everyone in a group agrees to follow so they can all live peacefully. Stealing is against the law. However, a lot of people would consider stealing a piece of bread to save a homeless person from dying of hunger, moral. Driving over the speed limit is a crime, but when it could help save the life of the child in the backseat of your car, it becomes the most noble of actions.

The authors of the video say,

As humans evolve and learn new things, our morals change. This is why morality isn’t stagnant. It evolves with time. Think about issues like pre-marital sex, same-sex relationships, abortion, marijuana use. These are all things that were considered immoral long ago. But today, society is beginning to accept all of these as moral. We’ve learned to be tolerant of people regardless of their personal beliefs or preferences. And while not everyone might agree to all of these things or practice it themselves, things seem to have flipped. ...

You can watch the video here.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Society is changing, but in the wrong direction. What was once immoral, is now considered moral as long “as no one is hurt.” But God’s law never changes because it is based on his holy nature. Society can attempt to redefine right and wrong, but that doesn’t change God’s law.

Americans are worse at The Price Is Right than they used to be. On the game show, which has been running since 1972, four contestants are asked to guess the price of consumer products, like washing machines, microwaves, or jumbo packs of paper towels. The person who gets closest to the actual price, without going over, gets to keep playing and the chance to win prizes like a new car. In the 1970s, the typical guess was about 8% below the actual price. These days, people underestimate the price by more than 20%.

This finding comes from research released in 2019 by Jonathan Hartley, at Harvard University. A longtime fan of the show, Hartley was inspired to conduct his research after reading a paper that reveals contestants don’t use optimal bidding strategies. Hartley wondered what else the data might show. He found that the accuracy of people’s guesses sharply decreased from the 1970s to the 2000s, and then stabilized in the 2010s.

So, what accounts for guesses getting so much worse? Hartley thinks there are three economic factors that are the most likely culprits:

First, inflation in the US was much higher in the 1970s and 80s. When inflation is high and variable, people become more attentive to prices, noticing they are paying more for goods than before.

Second, the rise of e-commerce may have made people less sensitive to price. As a result, people may feel less of a need to do price comparisons.

Third, there are more products than ever. There are 50 times as many products at a grocery store than 80 years ago. This also might make it harder for The Price Is Right contestants, along with the rest of us, to know how much stuff costs.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Are believers getting worse at recognizing sound doctrine and genuine Bible teachers and churches? If so, it is because they are paying less attention to the study of biblical doctrine, are less aware of doctrinal issues, and are confused by the hundreds of varieties of churches, denominations, and even cults.

A new worship center in the former East Berlin represents the ultimate secular view of religion. It also reflects the kind of cultural future the American left envisions for the US.

The House of One, to be built on the foundation of a demolished church, will enable Christians, Jews, and Muslims to worship under one roof. Each faith will have its own sanctuary surrounding a central hall that will serve as a place of public encounter. Contractors will lay the foundation stone in May, 2021, and construction is expected to take four years.

Roland Stolte, a theologian involved in the project said, “East Berlin is a very secular place. Religious institutions have to find new language and ways to be relevant, and to make connections.” In other words, religion must conform to, not challenge, the secular ethos.

The House of One embodies the secular view of religion as secondary, if not destructive, to human identity and progress. The divinities being worshiped are not Yahweh, Jesus, or Allah but diversity, multiculturalism, and inclusion.

Maureen Mullarkey, writing from a Catholic perspective, believes the Holy See has fallen into that trap. “This is politics. It is not testimony to those matters of personal sin and redemption at the core of the Church’s reason for being. … The Church’s pope (Francis) would put a spiritual face on the aims of secular politics.”

Replacing transcendent values with political ones often brings despotism. Americans see that now in the left’s hypersensitive tyranny, embodied by cancel culture, and hostility toward conservative religious ethics. East Berliners saw it for 45 years under communist domination.

In Berlin today, the House of One also reflects capitulation to the postmodern zeitgeist (spirit of the time). As one theologian said, “This is not a club for monotheistic religions—we want others to join us.”

Atheist Angel Eduardo argues that keeping our beliefs to ourselves, while avoiding confrontation and promoting harmony, is actually harmful and immoral. Beliefs are the “engines of our actions. They’re foundational to how we think and behave, and they have consequences.” He admits when atheists tell Christians and people of other religions to keep their beliefs to themselves, they don’t truly grasp what they are asking:

We rarely think about this from the perspective of the believer. For them, every encounter is of paramount importance. They are truly convinced that you are in danger and that they possess the keys to salvation. ... Their proselytizing is a moral act, even when we consider it a nuisance. However misguided or wrong they might be, their actions are motivated by a desire to make our lives (and afterlives) better. ... It’s hard to imagine how the consciences of the ethically devout are burdened by every skeptic they’ve failed to convert. ... How much worse would that guilt be if they’d instead been unwilling to try?

Eduardo wants atheists and skeptics to be more understanding:

Imagine us atheists indifferently watching the religious waste their lives believing nonsense. What would it say about us if we didn’t try to talk them out of it, to help them save what little time they have left on this mortal coil, because we’ve chosen to keep our beliefs—or unbelief—to ourselves? Sure, we’re being polite in the moment. We’re exercising tolerance, in our own myopic way. We are living and letting live, but at what cost? Not one I’m willing to pay.

Possible Preaching Angle:

This fresh perspective should give Christians even more motivation for sharing our faith.

In his book, author Mark Clark wrote:

If you want to understand the dogma of religious pluralism, consider a scene from the comedy movie Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby. If you haven't seen it, Ricky is a professional race car driver whose car crashes during a race. Thinking he's on fire, he runs around the track crying out, "Help me, Jesus! Help me, Jewish God! Help me, Allah! Help me, Tom Cruise! Use your witchcraft on me to get the fire off of me! Help me, Oprah Winfrey!"

In other words, when it comes to god, you'd best hedge your bets. One god doesn't necessarily exclude the other gods, so don't limit yourself to just one when you can believe in all of them at once! This concept has its roots in Hindu and eastern philosophy, and has largely been adopted in Western culture. It can be found in several popular versions:

I am absolutely against any religion that says one faith is Superior to another. I don't see how that is anything different than spiritual racism -Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

My position is that all great religions are fundamentally equal. -Mahatma Gandhi

One of the biggest mistakes humans make is to believe there's only one way. Actually, there are many diverse paths leading to God. -Oprah Winfrey

Pluralism’s basic premise is that all religions are true, or at least partially true; and have value. And in our culture, it is considered narrow-minded and judgmental to believe anything else. So how do we respond to the theology of Ricky Bobby?

Homeowner Jerry Lynn was trying to figure out where he should put a hole in his wall for a TV wire. He went up to the second floor of his house and lowered his wife's alarm clock on a string through an air vent—according to a story from CNN, he "thought he could listen to the alarm, which he set to go off after 10 minutes, and know where to put the hole."

But then the string broke. The clock fell. Lynn was still able to use it, though; when the alarm went off, "[h]e could still hear where he needed to poke a hole in the wall."

And then the alarm kept going off every night at the same time—for 13 years.

Lynn had figured the batteries in the clock would likely die soon, but each night he and his wife would be treated to about a minute of beeping that could be heard "from any room on the first floor."

Lynn told CNN that they don't mind the beeping: "It's kind of cute." But NPR reports that the nightly alarm became "too much to bear," and the clock was removed from the wall.

Rather than throw it out, though, "[t]he clock now sits on their mantle, still set for 7:50 p.m."

Potential Preaching Angles: What do we have in our lives that we've just learned to "deal with," to ignore or sweep under the rug? What can we instead ask God to transform as we move away from "conform[ing] to the pattern of this world" (Rom. 12:2)?

It seems everything we see in media has a political tinge to it these days, and television commercials appear to be no exception. Some have been offering perspectives of conservative nostalgia, while others liberal idealism—but one ad (produced by Heineken) seems to attempt to straddle these deep divisions at work in the world by conducting a sort of controlled "experiment."

The ad begins by showing several individuals describing their unbending political and social opinions and their disdain for those on the other side of the issue. The individuals with divergent views are then paired together and guided through a series of tasks requiring them to collaborate and get to know one another. After they seem to achieve true camaraderie, they are shown the individual footage taken before the experiment, where each had described their hardline stances and disgust for people with differing opinions. After hearing the "truth" about one another, the participants are then told that they may leave, or stick around and spend time with the other person. The ad closes with each group electing to stay and talk, in spite of seemingly insurmountable differences.

Potential Preaching Angles: The point of the ad is not to blindly tolerate and accept sin; the point is that the Gospel opens doors to its enemies instead of closing them.

The British theologian Leslie Newbigin told the following story to illustrate how different cultures water down the claims of Jesus:

When I was a young missionary I used to spend one evening each week in the monastery of the Ramakrishna Mission in the town where I lived, sitting on the floor with the [Hindu] monks and studying with them the Upanishads and the Gospels. In the great hall of the monastery, as in all the premises of the Ramakrishna Mission, there is a gallery of portraits of the great religious teachers of humankind. Among them, of course, is a portrait of Jesus. Each year on Christmas Day worship was offered before this picture. Jesus was honored, worshipped, as one of the many manifestations of deity in the course of human history.

But this wasn't a step toward leading people to faith in Jesus Christ. It was actually what Newbigin called "the cooption of Jesus into the Hindu worldview." He explains:

Jesus had become just one figure in the endless cycle of karma and samsara, the wheel of being in which we are all caught up. He had been domesticated into the Hindu worldview. That view remained unchallenged. It was only slowly, through many experiences, that I began to see that something of this domestication had taken place in my own Christianity, that I too had been more ready to seek a "reasonable Christianity," a Christianity that could be defended on the terms of my whole intellectual formation as a twentieth-century Englishman, rather than something which placed my whole intellectual formation under a new and critical light. I, too, had been guilty of domesticating the gospel.

Leighton Ford, evangelist and brother-in-law of Billy Graham, once met the former boxing champion Muhammad Ali at a hotel in Sydney, Australia. Ford listened as Ali regaled a group of admiring onlookers before introducing himself as "Billy Graham's brother-in-law." Ali's face lit up as he said, "Oh Billy! Billy! I love Billy! I went up and saw him at the house at Montreat and he signed a book for me." Ford explained what happened next:

We got into a very interesting conversation. He was not only very articulate, he was also a very bright man. Of course earlier in his life Ali had become a Muslim, but he told me and the onlookers, "You know I have travelled all over the world. And I have seen all these different religions. It seems to me that they all have the same thing. It's kind of like you have a river, and you have a lake, and you have a pond, and you have a stream. But they all have water in them, so they are all the same, aren't they?"

I said, "Muhammad that is very interesting. But suppose you have all of them and suppose they are all polluted. Then you would need a purifier, don't you? You see that's who Jesus is. Jesus is the purifier." And he thought about that for a minute and he said, "That's good. I had never thought about it quite like that. Jesus, the purifier."

I know that Muslims don't refer to Jesus as "the Son of God" because they interpret that in some physical way that God had relations with Mary, which of course isn't true. So I told him, "Did you know that in the Bible Jesus is called the Second Adam?" And he said, "I didn't know that." I said, "Yes, you see there was the first Adam that God made in the first creation. Then the second Adam was Jesus, the new creation, in whom everyone can become new." And he said, "I've got to think about that."

Well it was 30 years ago and I haven't seen him since. I know that "The Greatest," as he called himself, has met the One who alone is really the Greatest, because all great ones pass away. But he has come face-to-face with the One great God. I wonder what Muhammad Ali had to say, or maybe he would say, "God what do you have to say?"

An August 2015 poll from Barna highlighted what's been called our "new moral code." Here are the percentages of those who agreed "completely" or "somewhat" with the following statements:

• "The best way to find yourself is to look within yourself"—91 percent of U.S. adults agreed; 76 percent of practicing Christians agreed.
• "People should not criticize someone else's lifestyle choices"—89 percent agreed; 76 percent of Christians agreed.
• "To be fulfilled in life, you should pursue the things you desire most"—86 percent agreed; 72 percent of Christians agreed.
• "The highest goal in life is to enjoy it as much as possible"—84 percent agreed; 66 percent of Christians agreed.
• "People can believe whatever they want, as long as those beliefs don't affect society"—79 percent agreed; 61 percent of Christians agreed.
• "Any kind of sexual expression between two consenting adults is acceptable"—69 percent agreed; 40 percent of Christians agreed.

Based on these results, David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons conclude: "The morality of self-fulfillment is everywhere, like the air we breathe. Much of the time we don't even notice we're constantly bombarded with messages that reinforce self-fulfillment—in music, movies, video games, apps, commercials, TV shows, and every other kind of media."

A study by a couple of researchers at the University of Toronto and at James Madison University in Virginia proved something that we may already know. The study, provocatively called "Cognitive Sophistication Does Not Attenuate the Bias Blind Spot," concluded that we cut ourselves more slack than we give to others. No surprise there, right. But writing about this study in the New Yorker, Jonah Lehrer explains why we do this. He claims that we all have "bias blind spots" because there's a mismatch between how we evaluate others and how we evaluate ourselves. Lehrer writes:

When considering the irrational choices of a stranger, for instance, we are forced to rely on [how they behave]; we see their biases from the outside, which allows us to glimpse their [errors]. However, when assessing our own bad choices, we tend to engage in elaborate introspection. We [study] our motivations and search for relevant reasons; we lament our mistakes to therapists and ruminate on the beliefs that led us astray.

As an example, if we drive crazy through traffic it's because we have an important meeting or we don't do it that often, and so forth. But if someone else cuts us off in traffic there's one simple, observable explanation: he's a jerk. Lehrer concludes "[our bias blind spots] are largely unconscious, which means they remain invisible to self-analysis and [resistant] to intelligence." In other words, being smarter won't help you see your own junk. As a matter of fact, more intelligence may add to the problem.

Dr. Rosaria Butterfield, a former tenured professor at the University of Syracuse, was a committed and comfortable lesbian until she had what she described as a "train-wreck conversion" to Christ. At one point in her life, she wrote, "As an unbelieving professor of English, an advocate of postmodernism … and an opponent of all totalizing meta-narratives (like Christianity, I would have added back in the day), I found peace and purpose in my life as a lesbian and the queer community I helped to create." Today she is married to Pastor Kent Butterfield, and mother of four adopted children and numerous foster children.

After her conversion, she describes an encounter with a female counselor who wanted Dr. Butterfield to bend her message about homosexual practice. The woman asked Butterfield to state publicly that homosexual practice is not inherently wrong. Butterfield writes:

When I entered her office, she directed me to a comfortable chair and made one simple request: "Rosaria, I want you to change your message." I found this a bold and disarming request, and so I told her that I come in the gospel of peace. She said, "Change your message." Finally, I asked her what I ought to change in my message. She said, "Tell people that it is only in your opinion that homosexual practice is a sin."

I responded by letting her know that I am not smart enough to have this opinion, but that this is the position the inspired and inerrant Word of God upholds. It comes to me from the historic Christian church … through the pages of Scripture, and so on down to me. I told her that changing my message would involve denying the plain meaning of Scripture, the testimony of the church, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and the gospel. But to the postmodern mind … her request seems reasonable enough: just own this position of mine as a personal point of view. But claiming something that is a universal truth to be a mere matter of personal preference is a lie by omission. This is the Bible's message, and apart from Christ, I am more condemned by it than the woman who made this request.

In 1927, the famous English poet and essayist T.S. Eliot became a Christian and was baptized and confirmed. Prior to his conversion, Eliot belonged to London's Bloomsbury Group, a small, informal association of artists and intellectuals who lived and worked in the Bloomsbury area of central London. But when news of Eliot's conversion hit the news, the Bloomsbury Group responded with shock and even disgust. The writer Virginia Woolf, the de facto leader of the group, penned the following letter to one of her peers:

I have had a most shameful and distressing interview with dear Tom Eliot, who may be called dead to us all from this day forward. He has become a [believer] in God and immortality, and he goes to church. I was shocked. A corpse would seem more credible than he is. I mean, there's something obscene in a living person sitting by the fire and believing in God.

Toward the end of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, there's a scene where Harry, Ron, and Hermione are about to break the rules and leave their dormitory after-hours to stop the bad guy from stealing a powerful magic artifact. Before they leave, though, they must face none other than Neville Longbottom, a rather bumbling, ineffective student in their class. "You're sneaking out again, aren't you?" Neville asks. "I won't let you. You'll get [our classmates] into trouble again." He fails to stop them, and Harry and his friends manage to stop the villain. But, surprisingly, at the end of the year banquet, headmaster Dumbledore gives the greatest honor to Neville. "It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies," he explains, "but just as much to stand up to our friends."

Although Neville never becomes truly close with Harry, Ron, or Hermione, he still stumbled across two of the key traits of a friend or an accountability partner: the ability to recognize patterns of sinful behavior, and the courage to call the person out on them.