Christians: Intolerant Haters Since AD 33

Pliny the Younger, a Roman governor of Bithynia who, as Michael Kruger wrote in a recent post, thought that “intolerance of the Roman gods was enough of a reason to kill Christians, despite their [as noted by Pliny himself] holy lives,” commented back in the second century on the “stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy” of Christians who would not yield to the culture.

This obstinacy has been getting us into trouble for 2,000 years whenever a government makes the upsetting discovery that Christians place the authority of Jesus (as expressed in the unchangeable Bible) above that of civil authorities and so can’t be bent to their will no matter what. And I mean no matter what. The horrific tortures Christians have suffered over the ages are innumerable.

But guess what? We’re still here. And we’ll still be here 500 years from now, if Jesus hasn’t returned by then. I think our culture still does not know our God-enabled stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy. They still have hope that some pressure will convince us. But once it sinks in that they’ve met an immovable force…well, what happens next has not, in the past, proved to be fun for Christians. If a rock can’t be convinced to move along and stop impeding traffic in the middle of the road to progress, then the only thing left is to work at removing it.

Enter Michael Kruger’s post: “Regarded as ‘Intolerant Haters’: What’s New?”

In the midst of the high-octane cultural wars of the last several years—particularly the debate over homosexual marriage—evangelical Christians have been slapped with all sorts of pejorative labels. Words such as bigoted, arrogant, exclusive, dogmatic, and homophobic are just a few.

But two labels particularly stand out. First, Christians are regularly regarded as intolerant. Christians are not only regarded as intolerant religiously—because they affirm the words of Jesus that “no one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6)—but they are regarded as intolerant ethically, because they refuse to approve any and all behaviors as morally good. 

Christians are also regularly (and ironically) regarded as haters. Apparently, our modern world regards the act of telling people they’re wrong as a form of hatred. It is never explained how the charge does not apply equally in the other direction, since those who make this charge are telling Christians they are wrong.

Needless to say, such a situation can discourage Christians in the modern day. We might be tempted to despair and think that the church is entering into dark days. But a little historical perspective might be useful. Truth be told, this is not the first time Christians have received such labels. Indeed, pejoratives were given to Christians from the beginning.

Read the rest of what Michael Kruger has to say about two ancient leaders who accused us of hatred and intolerance. He says these stories are both frightening and encouraging.

Do I have the strength and courage to stand with Jesus no matter what? Absolutely not. Though I’m committed to it, I have no delusions of grandeur about my own ability to do so. But thank God, I know that I am kept for Jesus Christ, and I trust Him to give me what I need when the time comes for me to need it.

Comments

[dave]

People form opinions about other people based on their own biases. It is natural for someone who knows nothing but hate to judge others as being hateful. It’s natural for greedy people to assume that money motivates everyone. Or as with Freud asserting that sex and aggression motivates everyone.

The Scriptures support them in their views, calling it the “flesh”, or our sinful nature.

And the Scriptures further state the flesh still taints Christians even though they are no longer under the overwhelming power of it.

So there might be a little truth to their charges about Christians being intolerant and hateful. But, as Christians oppose sin in their own lives, it requires opposing sin in the lives of others, because it is a sin not to try to reach them.

We also, instead of not just sinning, try to put good works in the forefront, doing to others as we would have them do to us. This alone produces much of the friction misinterpreted as “hate”, when it is “love” they oppose.

[DGFischer]

Great care must be taken to understand the nature of "Christian hatred." In other circumstances, as exercised by others, it would best as taken as "righteous indignation."

In understanding "Christian hatred," it must focus on the object, which is more conceptual than personal, Two Scriptural points:

You who love the Lord, hate evil.
He preserves the souls of his saints.
He delivers them out of the hand of the wicked. (Ps. 97: 10)

Hate evil, love good,
And establish justice in the courts. (Amos 5: 15a)

Consider the object is conceptual (sin) and not personal (sinner). Often the problem is the cultural milieu that has slipped, reversing the moral poles. Much of the work of the Old Testament prophets was that of addressing this flipping of the culture, such as in Micah:

I said,
“Please listen, you heads of Jacob,
And rulers of the house of Israel:
Isn’t it for you to know justice?
You who hate the good,
And love the evil;
Who tear off their skin,
And their flesh from off their bones. (Micah 3: 1,2).

Enlightening in Amy's post is the remark of Pliny where the complaint of the Christian's refusal of doing homage to the gods as a disincentive to the economy. Too many times I hear of the dire consequences of snubbing the dollar power of the LGBT. Well, for the same principles of the conscience, the confessing Christian refused to burn the incense on the Roman imperial altar. The culture is not authoritative to the Christian. On this point, Rob Bell is just flat out wrong.

A fair-minded person would at least inquire what it is with the prevailing culture that prompts such resistance to the latest trend in post-modern thought. It would lead to a proper frame of what motivates the Christian, rather than a simplistic reduction to any disagreement as motivated by "hate."

Two New Testament citations to show that there is consistency in the Christian addressing the culture:

If you were of the world, the world would love its own. But because you are not of the world, since I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. (John 15: 19) The world should not expect a Christian to alter his/her convictions with the cultural whim du jour. But, the culture should not be threatened by this ...

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. (Mt. 5: 43-45)

Two direct commands of Christ. How is one to compel a person against his/her deepest held commitments?

[Jim Pemberton]

The issue is at the heart of the gospel proclamation. While a healthy measure of understanding must be made by believers that unbelievers are blind to sin in its full definition as a transgression against God, it must nevertheless be brought to light as the fundamental need of fallen people for a divine savior.

It is therefore out of grave concern for the eternal condition of the unbeliever that the believer points this out. Nevertheless, inasmuch as the unbeliever is blind to sin, (s)he is likewise typically blind to the love that motivates the believer in pointing it out. It is precisely God who is hated by the unbeliever and as those called to serve him as proclaimers of his revealed truth, unbelievers hate believers as well as God. But because sin is uncomfortable to face, unbelievers accuse believers of precisely what they themselves are guilty of. But we have been warned of this in scripture and should expect no less. The fact that we must endure being falsely called "intolerant" and "haters" for simply proclaiming what we believe is part of what we are called to suffer in this world.