How do young people today define sexual morality? Do they believe two unmarried teenagers are actually having sex when they engage in oral sex? Does reaching the age of eighteen make having premarital intercourse okay? Who defines virginity? Who determines whether sexual activity is right or wrong? Is porn really such a big deal? Where do most of our young people find their moral compass?
For sixteen-year-old Samantha, sexual intercourse is okay at age eighteen. “My boyfriend and I talked sex over,” she said, “and we both agreed that doing it [sexual intercourse] sometime in our senior year (two years from now) would be a good decision.”1 According to Samantha, premarital sexual intercourse is right for her at the “appropriate” age.
Samantha is a typical sixteen-year-old who wrote anonymously about what she thinks defines sex and virginity. She and her boyfriend engage in oral sex but do not define that as “having sex.” She says, “People have begun saying that oral sex is a type of sex, so I have had sex and that I am no longer a virgin, but I find this very inaccurate. I think people should have their own view on what their virginity is.” Samantha goes on to explain that to her, virginity is “a frame of mind.” She concludes, “Right now I consider myself half a virgin…. Until you have felt the full thrill and intimacy of sex to its greatest extent with someone you truly love, you are still a virgin in my mind, but maybe that’s just me.”2
This sixteen-year-old determines for herself the definition of virginity and when it’s right to engage in sex. Her moral compass is aligned with a cultural narrative about truth. Her attitude represents that of the majority of young people today. In the minds of most teenagers, there is no universal standard for sexual morality or absolutes beyond a person’s own view as to what makes sexual activity right or wrong. As Samantha said, “I think people should have their own view,” and, “and we both agreed that doing it sometime in our senior year would be a good decision.”
This perspective is reflected in such oft-heard statements as these:
• “No one has the right to tell me what’s right or wrong for me.”
• “I can’t tell you what’s right or wrong; you must decide that for yourself.”
• “It’s wrong to try to impose your morals on someone else.”
• “I have the right to do whatever I want as long as I’m not hurting anyone.”
• “Those may be the values your parents taught you, but my parents taught me different.”
• “Look…that’s your opinion.”
• “Listen to your heart.”
When moral truth becomes a matter of opinion, personal preference, or the individual’s views and feelings, then practically anything goes. Recently an article surfaced in a mainstream magazine about a forty-two-year-old man’s obsession with having sex with a horse. He insisted, “There’s nothing wrong with it.” After he shared his sexual preference with a clinical psychologist, she concurred with him and stated that he didn’t need treatment for his “attraction.”3 In a culture of tolerance where the individual decides morality, morality has no bounds.
Cultural tolerance has had a significant influence on this generation in a number of areas but most notably in the area of sex. Mary Eberstadt, an author and senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, makes this point: “Rather than a product of any rich philosophical tradition, the new tolerance is, at root, about sex; it’s a descendent of the sexual revolution.”4 That is certainly the case, and we will deal in more depth with the sexual aspect of morality in later chapters. Yet the damaging influence of cultural tolerance is not limited to sexual morality. We need to be aware of how an “anything goes” culture is influencing our children’s perception of the authority of the Bible, their concept of what is virtuous, their ideas of honor and courage, and even their understanding of justice. All of these values, for the most part, have been shaped by the culture rather than scripture. The Bible is the very foundation on which our faith and morals rest. When that foundation is eroded, almost anything goes.
As we have said, cultural tolerance propagates the view that all religious beliefs and moral truth claims are equal and individually determined. While many young people from Christian homes accept that viewpoint, they will at the same time assert that the Bible provides a description of moral truth. That may at first seem contradictory because it doesn’t make sense to believe we create our own subjective moral truth while at the same time believing the Bible to be the source of objective moral truth.
The explanation of this apparent contradiction centers on whether you use a definite or indefinite article. To you perhaps the Bible is the source of moral truth, even though you likely value tradition, the wisdom of elders, the conclusion of experts, and a variety of other sources. To many of our young people it is a source of moral truth. In other words, the Bible is not considered to be authoritatively true for everyone. It is only true and authoritative to those who choose to believe it to be so. Therefore, if each of us is responsible for creating his or her own truth, then it follows that the Bible may be one’s chosen reference guide in developing one’s own brand of morality. This is how many Christian young people see the Bible today.
The doctrine of cultural tolerance has taught our young people to view the Bible quite differently from the way you probably view scripture. They see the Bible not as a universally true revelation of the one true God but as a mere resource, a set of inspirational stories and helpful insights that offer guidance in creating one’s own “truth.” That helps to explain why many Christian young people adhere to some biblical standards but violate others. We’ve talked to thousands of young people who say that adultery is wrong but premarital sex is okay. As a youth speaker and part-time high school teacher, I (Sean) have seen many young people who claim to be pro-life take a friend to an abortion clinic when she’s in trouble. Many of them honestly think they are doing the right thing even though their choices violate the teachings of scripture. This is no doubt how Samantha views the Bible. She and an entire generation tend to go to the Bible not to discover the truth and bend their lives to it accordingly but to use it as sort of a self-help book to help them form their own version of what’s true and false, good and evil, right and wrong. And sadly, this is a growing trend among older generations of Christians, too.
On a recent episode of Super Soul Sunday with Oprah Winfrey, former mega-church pastor Rob Bell claimed that the Christian church will become irrelevant if it doesn’t quickly reject some of its antiquated teachings. When asked by Oprah if the church is “moments away” from embracing same-sex marriage, Bell replied, “Absolutely…I think culture is already there, and the church will continue to be even more irrelevant when it quotes letters from 2,000 years ago as their best defense.”5 In other words, the Bible is an antiquated book that the church must ignore or face irrelevance.
Most people in today’s culture see the Bible primarily as a religious book that arose from the religions of Judaism and Christianity. In their minds, these are merely two among many viable religions in the world. The Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) is considered to contain the religious views of the Jewish people. The New Testament lays out the religious views of Christianity and its founder, Jesus. If you choose to adhere to Judaism or Christianity, you are free to glean from their religious teachings and rituals as you like. Or you can choose from hundreds of other world religions and their subdivided groups. In fact, you can pick and choose your beliefs smorgasbord style and create a religion tailor-made just for you. It doesn’t really matter what religion or religious book you choose to believe; the one universal truth is that you have the right to create your own truth.
If this thinking has influenced your children, and it probably has, how do you counter it? Can you just come right out and say, “Wait just a minute! What the Bible teaches constitutes the only true religion in the world. If you don’t believe the Bible, I’m sorry, but your beliefs are just dead wrong.” As you can imagine, taking that approach is not a wise choice. The responses of the fathers of Renee and Chad in our earlier stories demonstrate that a reactive, us-versus-them approach is rarely successful. Having been influenced to believe it’s up to the individual to create his or her own truth, our young people are naturally uncomfortable with any suggestion that one particular viewpoint is true for everyone. That discomfort is understandable in the light of how they think of the Bible—as an optional set of religious teachings adopted by a particular religious group. Of course this is not what the Bible is or what it’s about. But since our young people are operating from a different viewpoint, it is important that we take that viewpoint into consideration when we talk to them about truth, morality, and biblical authority.
When you discuss the Bible, do not refer to it simply as a spiritual book that teaches us how to live, but as a road map leading one toward the discovery of true reality. The biblical narrative about moral truth teaches that the Creator God revealed himself to Moses and the prophets at given points in history. While the Bible contains poetry, psalms, apocalyptic literature, and parables, it is ultimately a true account of God’s relationship with humanity. Moses and the other writers of scripture documented their encounters and messages from God, and these encounters are substantiated by historical evidences and fulfilled prophecy.
Yes, scripture is the source of Judaism and Christianity, which are religions. Yet the Bible is unique among all other religious writings in that it is based on historical events backed up by credible historical evidence. The Creator of the world revealed himself first to Moses and the prophets saying, “I am the LORD; there is no other God. I have equipped you…so all the world from east to west will know there is no other God. I am the LORD, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:5–6). He then took on flesh and revealed himself in the person of Jesus, God’s Son. The New Testament writer said, “Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. And now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. God promised everything to the Son as an inheritance, and through the Son he created the universe” (Hebrews 1:1–2).
The one true God’s communication to humanity and the whole of Christianity as a religion is based on three primary realities supported by evidences. These are often referred to as the pillars of the faith. These pillars, as listed below, need to be taught and ingrained within our young people.
• The historic reliability of scripture. “All Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16). Scripture is not merely an inspirational book. All scripture is “God-breathed,” which means the written words in the Bible are from Creator God. Since its words come from God, the Bible can be trusted as a reliable historical document, and we have credible evidence to substantiate that reality.
• The deity of Christ. We also have credible historical evidence to back up Christ’s claim that he was and is the Son of God “who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). If Christ is not who he claims to be, Christianity is not true.
• Christ’s bodily resurrection. Without Christ literally rising from the dead, his promise to give those who trust in him eternal life would be meaningless. The apostle Paul put it this way, “If Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins. In that case, all who have died believing in Christ are lost” (1 Corinthians 15:17–18). But Christ did rise from the dead, and compelling historical evidence supports this reality.
If the Bible can be proven to be historically inaccurate, if Christ’s claim to be God is not historically credible, and if Christ’s resurrection can be shown to be a hoax, then Christianity is not a religion worth trusting in. By this view there are certainly good moral teachings in the Bible on how to live and treat one another. But without assurance of the authenticity of Christ’s deity, death, and resurrection, they are nothing more. If the Bible were no more than that, it could offer no hope of a life after death. The apostle Paul concluded that if Christ wasn’t who he claimed to be and did not bodily rise from the dead “we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world” (1 Corinthians 15:19).
But of course that is not the case. Considerable evidence exists to prove that the God-breathed words of scripture are historically reliable. And when you share those evidences with your children, they inevitably come face-to-face with the claims of Christ. At that point, if they’re honest with themselves, they will encounter an inescapable conclusion: scripture accurately reveals that Jesus is the risen Christ and the only way to the one true God. Of course, that conclusion flies in the face of their cultural conditioning. But with repeated emphasis on how the Bible is historically accurate and reliable, you will likely be able to equip your children to see God’s Word for what it is—a true revelation of the one true God and his Son Jesus as the Savior of the world.
As a university student and skeptic, I (Josh) didn’t just have doubts about the validity of Christianity; I set out to disprove it. Specifically, I wanted to show that the Bible is historically unreliable and that Jesus was by no means the resurrected Son of God. I knew that Christ, with his claims to be God, was the linchpin of Christianity. So I reasoned that if the historical document containing the evidence of Christ’s virgin birth, his miracles, his messianic prophecies, and his resurrection could be exposed as inaccurate, then the foundation of Christianity would surely crumble. If I could show that the Bible is historically unreliable, I could invalidate all the claims of Christ, including his purported resurrection.
I failed in that quest, of course, because the evidences I discovered convinced me that the Bible is historically reliable—unquestionably so. And that is when I came face-to-face with the awesome truth that God’s Word is his revelation to the human race. He wanted to communicate his merciful and masterful plan to the world to redeem his lost children and restore them to a relationship with him for all eternity. I saw that his message was for me. Eventually I placed my trust in Christ, and he transformed me into his redeemed child. Since that time I have been sharing his message and the truth that God’s Word is reliable, Christ’s claims are verifiably true, and Christ’s resurrection is backed up by credible evidence. In fact, I authored a book specifically to help deepen your conviction in the reliability of scripture. It is entitled God-Breathed (Barbour Publishing, 2015). Its purpose is to help you bring your children face-to-face with the undeniable power and historical reliability of God’s Word.
Let your young people know the Bible isn’t a mere resource or a set of inspirational stories and helpful guidelines from which we can form “our own truth.” It is the means by which the one true God has chosen to reveal details of himself to each of us. When we hold a Bible in our hands, we are cradling a holy book to be reverenced and hungered after because its reliable words reveal the God who offers us eternal life. Showing that the Bible is the true, inspired Word of God is an important first step. But the ultimate question is whether we will personally obey God’s teaching. Do we really consider the Bible an authoritative moral source for how we live our lives? Will we follow God’s truth even if it makes us uncomfortable, unpopular, and upset?
Another thing cultural tolerance influences is our concept of virtues. There are certain ideals, such as honor, integrity, courage, respect, self-control, and civility, that we all admire and want our young people to embrace and emulate. We have an innate sense of what these virtues are and how they are reflected in a person’s life.
We, and our culture at large, know that it is honorable to defend our nation against terrorist regimes and dictators who threaten our freedom. As a nation that upholds the rule of law, we are to honor and promote the good, defend the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and seek to protect the citizenry against lawlessness and corruption.
Those who advocate cultural tolerance no doubt agree with that position. They too are interested in the advancement of these virtues around the world. What many may not realize, however, is how the doctrine of cultural tolerance undermines the very virtues they claim to uphold.
While we all may have a sense of what is evil and what is good, under the philosophy of cultural tolerance, evil and good can only be relative ideals. Without an objective truth—a set of universal moral values—good and evil are defined by the individual, community, or society. Therefore we have no moral basis by which to judge another person, community, or nation for what they do or don’t do.
We as a society are, for the most part, appalled at the atrocities of terrorist groups like ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), Al Qaeda, Hamas, and dozens of others that kill innocent men, women, and children in the name of their cause. Yet without a belief in and adherence to an objective and universal moral truth, who is to say that what they do is wrong? Don’t they have the same right to choose their own morality as Chad and Renee? Aren’t Chad and Renee forced by their philosophy of cultural tolerance to endorse and celebrate the choices of these terrorist groups and their right to make them?
This is the very dilemma Europe currently faces with the growing Islamization of their continent. British prime minister David Cameron has proclaimed the death of multiculturalism and has called Muslims to embrace British values, such as freedom and equality. “Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream,” Mr. Cameron said. “We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong.”6 And yet the deeper question is where Britain got these values in the first place.
Social ethics professors Brad Stetson and Joseph Conti get to the heart of the issue: “It is the Judeo-Christian moral tradition of western culture—with its moral realism and commitment to transcultural and transpersonal truth—that decisively has the conceptual resources to mandate [traditional] tolerance and consistently denounce immoral practices.”7 Even the notorious atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche recognized human equality “as another Christian concept” that “furnishes the prototype of all theories of equal rights.”8 More recently, Luc Ferry, also an atheist philosopher, stated bluntly that the Christian notion of equality was “unprecedented at the time, and one to which our world owes its entire democratic inheritance.”9 Even though Christians have been imperfect in their practice of tolerance, Christianity itself provides the only suitable basis for tolerance and human rights.
Take advantage of current events to talk to your children about what makes terrorist acts wrong. We are asked to be tolerant of what everyone else believes, so why aren’t we tolerant of terrorists? In fact, make the point that intolerance of terrorism is appropriate. We ought to intolerate terrorism because terrorism wantonly destroys. God is the author of life. The Destroyer is one of Satan’s names. This line of reasoning should help you lead your young people to the inescapable conclusion that unless there are objective and universal moral values, like those that reside in the character of God, no one really has the right to judge even the worst atrocities of terrorists. It is only because the eternal God is righteous by his nature and has revealed himself to us in his Word that we have the basis for knowing that evil (that which does harm) is categorically evil and that honorable men and women are categorically honorable.
Former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura was highly criticized when he spoke out against the late Chris Kyle. Kyle wrote the bestselling autobiography American Sniper. The book sold millions and was adapted into an Oscar-nominated movie. Kyle was a decorated US Navy SEAL and the most lethal sniper in US military history. He served four tours in the Iraq War and was credited with 160 confirmed kills. He was considered an honorable serviceman and a hero by most—but not by Jesse Ventura.
On a radio call-in show, Ventura made this statement in reference to sniper Chris Kyle: “A hero is not how many people you’ve killed…. Do you think the Nazis had heroes?…When they invaded France, and if a Nazi soldier killed a hundred people that had lived there, would he be classified a hero in Germany?”10 Ventura’s questioning seems harsh and disrespectful of US servicemen. But to be consistent, those who accept cultural tolerance would have to agree that a Nazi sniper, an Al Qaeda terrorist, or a Hamas bomber would be considered honorable heroes by their respective governments and organizations as well. A Nazi sniper is being courageous for fighting for his fatherland. An ISIS or Al Qaeda terrorist is convinced that he is advancing a just and holy war against evil infidels in the world. Most modern-day terrorists claim God is on their side and their murderous acts are just.
The point is, under cultural tolerance we cannot say for certain who is truly honorable and just. It all depends on what values one chooses to believe in, and that choice is solely up to the individual—there is no objective morality. And this is true for societies as well as individuals. If culture were the basis of morality, then we could never morally condemn cultures that mistreat women, abuse gays, or kill infidels.
When we ground our morality in the God of the Bible, however, we can clearly judge terrorism as evil. Certainly many atheists also believe terrorism is wrong and are quick to condemn it. The question is not whether they believe it is wrong, but what source they rely on to make that judgment. Our friend Frank Turek observes, “To have an unchanging objective standard of justice, you don’t need molecules—you need an objective, unchanging judge who has supreme authority. Humans can’t provide that. Human beings are changeable and do not hold absolute authority over other human beings. You need God for that. If there is no God above Hitler and every other human being, who says murder is wrong?”11 Turek makes the point that since atheists have no objective standard for morality, they must borrow from the Judeo-Christian worldview when they make moral judgments. For more on this topic, see Frank Turek, Stealing from God (Carol Stream, IL: Navpress, 2014).
When we lead our young people to the conclusion that moral values come from a God who is perfectly just and righteous, they can know which virtues are truly virtuous. Because God has given us a clear standard for human attitudes and actions in his Word, we can discover what is truly honorable, courageous, and right.
If moral truth is subjective and relative, then concepts such as justice are dangerous. If there is no moral code above human beings by which to ground objective human value and responsibility, a virtue like justice for all is subject to the whims of a voting majority or a powerful minority.
Let’s say I (Sean) sell you my imaginary Maserati for the ridiculously low, low price of $5,000 cash. You are elated with your bargain until police show up at your door to confiscate the car. They tell you it is actually a stolen vehicle. You claim innocence because you thought you had purchased a car with a clear title. You take me to court to exact justice, only to find out I “own city hall.” The courts, the police, and the politicians are in alliance with my corrupt scam to steal cars, sell them for a low price, and have them confiscated by a corrupt police force. You would quickly conclude that justice could not be rendered for everyone as long as a powerful majority is corrupt.
Unless justice is rooted in a moral authority beyond those with the most power or even with the most votes, there cannot be true justice for all. History provides countless examples of injustice when a powerful minority decided to take undue advantage of the weak or the majority in a society failed to protect the rights of the minority. Unless a majority group or a powerful minority commit to a higher moral code beyond themselves, justice will fail. Human slavery is a graphic illustration of how justice miserably fails to protect a minority in absence of adherence to a higher moral code.
The Babylonian Code of Hammurabi records that as far back as the eighteenth century BC the human slave trade was an established institution. From then until the mid-1800s, slavery was a common practice in most countries, including America. Was justice being served even though a majority of the world’s communities condoned it? No! Even though people believed slavery was okay, the dignity of African-Americans and all others who were enslaved was being violated nonetheless. In America our collective sense of morality now condemns the enslavement of another person. Yet for centuries “civilized” communities permitted it, and even now human trafficking and bond slavery still exist in many parts of the world. Only a higher, more righteous source of morality can ground true justice, and that source is the holy and just God of the Bible. “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne. Unfailing love and truth walk before you as attendants” (Psalm 89:14).
It’s from God, not ourselves, that we find true justice. Yet in the view of some, the God of the Old Testament and Christianity in general is not concerned at all about justice in the world. They see Christianity as an evil empire imposing its will on the masses and threatening to suppress the free expressions of humanity. The late Christopher Hitchens, an outspoken atheist, said, “Religion poisons everything.”12 Famed nineteenth-century atheist Friedrich Nietzsche claimed that Christianity “seeks to work the ultimate corruption, nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of the soul.”13 These strong accusations could not be further from the truth.
Although there are those past and present who, under the banner of Christianity, have waged war against the innocent, enslaved people, and otherwise brought disgrace on the name of Christ, this is only a small, sad corner of the whole picture. And fair-minded people understand that those who committed these evils violated the clear teachings of Jesus. Though these “Christians” were guilty, Christianity itself was innocent, condemning their practices as clearly wrong.
From God’s interaction with Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and the early church, it was understood and taught that life was sacred at every stage. Justice, charity, and human rights are grounded in the fact that we are created in God’s image with value, dignity, and worth.
The beauty of God’s intolerance of injustice was evident when he spoke through his prophet Amos with this message: “This is what the LORD says: ‘The people of Israel have sinned again and again, and I will not let them go unpunished! They sell honorable people for silver and poor people for a pair of sandals. They trample helpless people in the dust and shove the oppressed out of the way’” (Amos 2:6–7).
God put the concept of slavery, more accurately servitude, into perspective for his nation Israel. Because God was intolerant of human abuse, he provided guidelines for how foreigners would be treated: “Do not take advantage of foreigners who live among you in your land. Treat them like native-born Israelites, and love them as you love yourself. Remember that you were once foreigners [slaves] living in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God” (Leviticus 19:33–34).
Since slaves were often foreigners, they were to be treated like employees by Israel rather than as property to be mistreated. “You must not mistreat or oppress foreigners in any way. Remember, you yourselves were once foreigners in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:21). God’s constant reminder of what it felt like to be oppressed in Egyptian slavery was a reminder of the need to treat everyone with human dignity.
Slaves in Israel had a high degree of status, rights, and protection unheard of in the ancient Near East. Scholars universally recognize this fact. Slaves were included in religious life, were granted a weekly Sabbath rest (that is, had a day off), had to be set free if bodily harm was inflicted on them, and had the opportunity for freedom every seven years.14 Furthermore, God condemns slave traders in the New Testament (1 Timothy 1:9–11).
It can be demonstrated that God’s mercy and justice as our model has fostered societal justice and provided more positive contributions to society in general than any other force in history.
Atheists and other detractors of Christianity often fail to point out that it is the natural propensity of humans to be self-centered and think only of themselves that has brought such misery and suffering on the masses. The core problem is our broken human nature. The gospel is actually the antidote to this propensity, for it is only through transformation by the Spirit that our natures can be made new (2 Corinthians 5:17).
Greed, corruption, abuse of power, and a basic disregard for others spring from self-centeredness. As Jesus said and history demonstrates, evil comes from within the human heart (Mark 7:14–23). Left unchecked, human nature will always revert to self-serving ways that seek to gain at another’s expense. On the opposite side of the moral spectrum, making the interest and care of others as important as your own creates goodwill and harmony and meets human need. This is at the center of Jesus’ moral teaching—it represents the very heart of God’s nature. Jesus said, “Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12).
Looking out for the interests of others—especially those in need—is the core value of Jesus’ message and the basis for true justice. We are to humble ourselves to be servants to others because Jesus humbled himself to the point of death for us. According to the apostle Paul, “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:4–8 ESV). The sacrifice of Jesus is at the center of Christianity and is the basis for our putting the interests of others above ourselves.
This sense of justice fostered by adherence to the commands of the God of justice is a radical message now, and it was certainly so during the time of Christ. Within the Roman Empire during the first century, enslaving others was commonplace. Abortion was rampant. Parents abandoned virtually all babies that were deformed or otherwise unwanted. Women had few rights.
Yet during this time James, a disciple of Jesus, made a radical statement: “Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you” (James 1:27). These early Christians rejected the cultural practice of allowing abandoned babies and orphaned children to die on the streets. Instead, they would pick them up and adopt them into their own homes. What caused them to do this? It was a morality derived from a higher moral code than their own preferences—it was from God. The intolerance of the early Christians was a beautiful thing. They believed that everyone—including the poor, the homeless, the handicapped, the sick—was made in the image of God with dignity and worth. They were utterly intolerant of injustice, and they did whatever they could to correct the injustices they saw in society.
If we were to highlight just a few of the positive influences that biblical morality has had on justice and caring for others, they would include the following:
• the high value of human life
• care for the sick in creating hospitals
• literacy and education for the masses
• abolition of slavery in the Western world
• the elevation of women
• high standards of justice and civil liberties
• benevolence and charity work
Cultural tolerance, with its claims of equality and justice, falls woefully short of promoting true justice. Real justice is found in God and our adherence to his Word. When talking with your young people, use examples such as slavery, human trafficking, racism, and other forms of human oppression to help your young people understand this vital point. The idea that all concepts of truth are equal and determined by the individual cannot lead to a system of justice for all. That can only be accomplished by an adherence to the Author of true justice. The psalmist put it best when he wrote: “He gives justice to the oppressed and food to the hungry. The LORD frees the prisoners. The LORD opens the eyes of the blind. The LORD lifts up those who are weighed down. The LORD loves the godly. The LORD protects the foreigners among us. He cares for the orphans and widows, but he frustrates the plans of the wicked” (Psalm 146:7–9).
The doctrine of cultural tolerance undermines the authority of scripture, provides no foundation for what is truly virtuous, and offers no real basis for justice. But perhaps the greatest damage cultural tolerance is inflicting on the thinking of this generation is in the area of sexual morality—especially as it relates to the meaning of love, acceptance, and sexual boundaries. The previous stories of Renee and her parents and Chad and his father offer us an ongoing illustration in the chapters to follow on how to counter cultural tolerance’s distortions of love and sex.