On J. P. Moreland

Sorry for my absence for an entire week. There are reasons, but they are not that important Let’s get back to it. I wanted to exegete a little bit out of that passage found in James 1:2-4, 12, (it’s what we are studying in our home fellowship) but got stuck in J. P. Moreland’s Kingdom Triangle (Zondervan, 2007). Can’t seem to get out of the postmodern assault on the Church. Hopefully I’ll soon get to some biblical passages for analysis on this site. But until then - Have you noticed how much we as Christians have polarized in our evaluation of those who disagree with ourselves? I certainly agree that we should draw swords whenever we feel that biblical absolutes are being adulterated, whether we come from a leaning toward the political/religious left, or from the political/religious right. It seems, however, that our swords are drawn more toward each other as apostate Christians, than toward the substance of what we have to say. That’s how I got interrupted. I came across this passage in Dr. Moreland’s book and thought that it was worth passing on. See what you think.

We are now in a place where we can fruitfully discuss tolerance. The principle of tolerance is often associated with the debate about relativism. It is often thought that this principle is implied by relativism but is at odds with some form of absolutism because the latter is dogmatic and judgmental while the former is more tolerant in orientation. In order to evaluate this claim, we need to get clear on what the principle of tolerance is.

As already noted, two senses can be distinguished. According to the classical sense of the principle of tolerance, a person holds that his own moral views are true and those of his opponent are false. But he still respects his opponent as a person and his right to make a case for his views Thus, someone has a duty to tolerate a different moral view, not in the sense of thinking it is morally correct but quite the opposite, in the sense that a person will continue to value and respect one’s opponent, to treat him with dignity, to recognize his right to argue for and propagate his ideas, and so forth. Strictly speaking, on the classic view, one tolerates persons, not ideas.

In this sense, even though someone disapproves of another’s moral beliefs and practices, he or she will not inappropriately interfere with them. However, it is consistent with this view that a person judges his opponent’s views to be wrong and dedicates himself to doing everything morally appropriate to counteract those views, such as using argument and persuasion. It should be clear that the classic sense of tolerance is really an absolutist position and is inconsistent with relativism. If a person does not hold another position to be morally false, what is there to tolerate? Surely, it is not just the fact that one doesn’t like the view in question, but that he judges it mistaken. (p. 103 – emphasis mine)

“One tolerates persons, not ideas.” For those of us who have polarized concerning various ideas, I fear that we judge ourselves and our Christian walk based upon those ideas, and not based upon our worth as brothers and sisters in Christ. Unity preaches good but when tested in our Western culture seldom translates to reality. If that train is still coming, it seems apparent that we need to be a little less arrogant in our relationships toward each other. There will be an apostasy - I understand that - further, there will be a winnowing and separating of the wheat - I understand that as well - but let’s wait until the world causes that sifting before we judge who is, and who is not a brother or sister. Of course there are so-called Christians who are already manifestly false. If one feels strongly about confronting such a person then one should do so before the Lord and with much fear. As for the rest, they will be manifested when the world-system that hates the Church is loosed upon us. There are those who will remain faithful to Christ and His Church, and those who will not. Testing will reveal our nature at that time. Selah