Over the past several years, "tolerance" has become quite popular. The politically correct crowd shoves its distorted idea of tolerance in our faces at every turn, preaching tolerance for all sorts of attitudes and behaviors. Their perverse version of tolerance has been intensified over the last decades by the progressive push to normalize and even celebrate sexual deviancy.

If exercised properly, tolerance can be a good thing, even a positive character trait. Dictionaries define it as "the capacity for or practice of allowing or respecting the nature, beliefs, or behavior of others even though one might not agree with them. The ability to endure, bear with or hold oneself up against." The politically correct crowd ignores the fact that tolerance also means "the permissible deviation from a specified value" or "the leeway for variation from a standard." Tolerance can apply to different things, persons, behaviors, or ideas, and the allowable tolerance or leeway from the standard can differ for each.

A while back, I had to replace the CV joint on a car—what we used to call the driveshaft, which connects the power from the engine to the wheels via the transmission. The driveshaft has a splined end that slides into another shaft in the transmission. The tolerance is such that the two shafts fit precisely so a mechanic can easily take them apart or reassemble them. However, the tolerance is tight, not allowing the two shafts to slip when the power is engaged. If the tolerance is exceeded, the shaft will begin to slip, and before too long, the driver will find himself stuck on the side of the road!

In the current culture, there is no such precision with moral issues. Anything goes! In progressives' minds, a standard no longer exists. If it feels good, do it—and the rest of society must tolerate it! If a person objects, they label him as intolerant, which to these people is offensive. They cry, "Where's your love?"—"love" being another word they have mis-defined.

Consider the term "politically correct." People used it infrequently until the latter part of the twentieth century, and its early use did not communicate the social disapproval usually implied today. In May 1991, in his commencement speech at the University of Michigan, then-U.S. President George H.W. Bush used the term:

The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism, sexism, and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expressions off-limits, and even certain gestures off-limits.

The problem has progressed far beyond his concerns. Now one can face prosecution under hate-crime laws for certain speech. But it goes beyond being told what we can and cannot say. In the American Speech journal article, "Cultural Sensitivity and Political Correctness: The Linguistic Problem of Naming" (1996), Edna Andrews posits that the usage of culturally inclusive and gender-neutral language rests on the concept that "language represents thought and may even control thought." Her proposal derives from the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which purports that a language's grammatical categories shape its speakers' ideas, thoughts, and actions. She suggests that politically moderate conceptions of the language-thought relationship support the "reasonable deduction . . . [of] cultural change via linguistic change." That is, change the language people use, and the culture will change accordingly.

Some opponents of political correctness and multiculturalism insist that progressives' ultimate goal is to undermine Judeo-Christian values. The radical agenda is to control thinking as well as speech. If some narrow-mindedly resist, they will be labeled as intolerant and bigoted, and they will be sidelined or, as the present term puts it, canceled.

The late comedian George Carlin, an advocate of free speech, once said:

Political correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination. I'm not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.

The very ones pushing tolerance for all are, in reality, the most intolerant of all! Their methods are just another way to control people, force change, and expose and silence those who differ from them or support a higher standard, such as the law of God.

As Dr. Herman Hoeh said in a sermon a few decades ago, "If it's in the world, it's in the church." It is difficult not to be affected by what is happening around us in the world. But society's present confusion should drive us to evaluate what we tolerate in ourselves. The examination might reveal that we tolerate things we should not.

Jesus writes to the church in Thyatira:

I know your works, love, service, faith, and your patience; and as for your works, the last are more than the first. Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. (Revelation 2:19-20)

His description of this church begins as among the most commendable given to any of the churches, but the second verse reveals a few things that are not right. He specifically exposes their following a prophetess who has led them into sexual immorality and idolatry.

It is hard to pinpoint exactly what He means here. The name "Jezebel" immediately suggests the wife of Ahab, King of Israel (see I Kings 18). No name in all the Bible conjures an image of immorality more than Jezebel! As a Phoenician princess, raised on the paganism of Baal worship, she did not have the moral foundation many Israelites had. It would not be surprising if she had seduced King Ahab to marry her. Is our Savior referring to someone of like character?

In I Kings 18:19, we find Jezebel controlling 850 prophets of Baal and Asherah. The text says they ate at her table, implying both provision and familiarity. Later, I Kings 21 relates how she took matters into her own hands, using Ahab's signet ring to sign letters in his name to have Naboth killed so the king could own the land he had coveted and whined about. Was this the first time she had acted in her own interest like this? She regularly persecuted God's prophets such that many were forced to go into hiding. Even Elijah, one of the greatest prophets, was terrified of her (I Kings 19:1-3)! She stands as a type of the great harlot of Revelation 17:1-6.

In any case, Jesus seems to refer to someone or some system influencing members to accept ungodly ideas and practices. Specifically, she sways them into carelessness in worship and sexual matters. They tolerate religious and sexual practices that God soundly condemns. Have we let the world's perverse language weaken our commitment to the high and holy standards of our God and His Word?

In Revelation 2:21-22, Jesus says of the end-time Jezebel, "And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds." Like Old Testament Jezebel, whose end was to be thrown to the dogs (II Kings 9:30-37), Thyatira's Jezebel will be "cast . . . into a sickbed" to die a grisly death by disease. Her followers, those who succumb to her deceptions, God will cast "into great tribulation"! They will have to undergo severe testing to determine if they will return to the true worship of God.

The apostle James writes in James 1:21, "Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls." God is merciful, willing to give us ample time to repent and reject the Jezebel influencing our lives. We must stop tolerating the sin we see in ourselves but instead, "Pursue . . . holiness, without which no one will see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14).