The law of the new tolerance

In the West, we live in a very special time in the history of the church. A strong dechristianization is evident. But more than a simple decline in people's Sunday worship attendance, it is the very Judeo-Christian values ​​that are being called into question. These values ​​have strongly contributed to the development of democracy, human rights, respect for justice and human life. And, in a consequent way, these values ​​have contributed to our standard of living and to a certain well-being that is the envy of the rest of the world, to the point where many choose to leave their countries of origin to immigrate to the West. / p>

But few recognize the obvious now. On the contrary, Christianity is rather decried by the secularized population. Several factors explain this phenomenon. First, like many other civilizations before us, it is precisely our well-being and our wealth that have led us to forget what they were due. Our comfort trapped us. Then, a curious movement arose that turned our vision of society upside down. “Political correctness”, in part in accordance with certain Judeo-Christian values, has however come to strike them head-on. By opposing any offense on the basis of profession, race, gender, culture, religion, beliefs, sexual orientation, physical and intellectual deficits, age, it has redefined tolerance. The old tolerance was to accept that several opposing positions exist and that they have a right to exist, even if our own position is exclusive. The new tolerance forces us to accept the position of others as true, or at least as true as our own. (On the contrast between old and new tolerance, DA Carson's book, The Intolerance of Tolerance (Eerdmans Publishing, 2012) is very illuminating.) So the new tolerance does not tolerate (sic) that we have some judgment on believers of other religions or on homosexuals. The new tolerance does not tolerate religious absolutism. In this, the New Tolerance is the logical application of post-modernism, which argues that no absolute opinion exists, for none can claim to be true.

Ultimately, the new tolerance is that there is One Truth. "I am the way, the truth, and the life" is not a tolerable statement. Hence the clash with Christianity and with a view of the world that has prevailed until now. There is no longer any question of seeking The truth.

Of course, the new tolerance is blatantly illogical. It builds itself on what it denies:
“There is nothing absolute”… and this is absolutely true!
“All opinions are good”… except those which claim that an opinion particular is the right one!

And above all, the New Tolerance uses absolute intolerance of those who disagree with it. And as D.A. Carson points out, it is becoming increasingly clear that the target of this new intolerance is Christianity and Christians. After all, don't they claim that only they know the truth, that only their faith is good, and don't they condemn sinners on the basis of a now obsolete religious law? They are the most intolerant, disrespecting women's choice in the face of abortion, nor the choice of a sexual orientation with which all are born!

Obviously, the new tolerance arose out of the abandonment of an ideological basis inspired by Christianity and of a choice of new values. Or, more precisely, a new law .The old law said not to do to others what we would not like to be done, and this other was defined as such as soon as he appeared in the mother's womb. The new "law" asserts that he is allowed to kill the one who is in the mother's womb if this act of infanticide makes it possible to regain his "freedom" or to avoid a situation that is the least problematic. The old ethics said that a man was made for a woman, and a woman for a man, as their physical and emotional complementarities clearly show. The new ethics consider that no form of sexual relationship can be the object of disapproval, not even that between young, immature adolescents. However, this new ethic still condemns pedophilia and does not (yet?) Accept polygamy. But on what basis?

The old law implied faith in a creator and normative God. The new "law" would be based on a "humanist", "natural" morality. But what is human, and what do we define as "natural"? Across the civilizations of world history, it is easy to see that the "natural" has had many faces, including terror. Nothing is worse than a "natural" morality, because everything is then handed over to subjective personal judgment and, as Christians affirm, this judgment is tainted with the sin with which all are born ... But precisely, our contemporaries deny it. peach. In their eyes, the only real sin is intolerance that they must fight.

In this context, what is the future of Western society, and what is the future of Western Christianity?
What should be the speech and the behavior of the Christian?