The Delimma of a Zero Tolerance Police

The first time I heard the term, “Zero Tolerance Policy,” was in the wake of the Columbine tragic shooting. I was intrigued by the term. Schools, motivated by Federal Government funds, decided to take a strong stand against violence, and I applauded them. In the wake of the shooting, two boys came to a school in Greene County, Tennessee dressed in overcoats like Columbine shooters. They thought it was going to be funny as they carried no weapons. But the outcry was loud and they were suspended. Personally, I was glad. It looked like the “Zero Tolerance Policy” was going to work.

Then other reports began to surface which began undermining the purpose of the policy. The first was an Eagle Scout holding a 4.00 GPA in school. He had never needed disciplined and was, by all accounts, a model student. Then he returned from a camp out and failed to unload all of his camping equipment from his truck. In the back was a hatchet and a knife. The student, under the new “Zero Tolerance Policy” was expelled from school. Another account involved a kindergarten child who, in a “boys being boys” moment, bit his cookie into the shape of a gun. The student was expelled because of the policy on guns in school.

Holding a “Zero Tolerance Policy” does sound like one is taking a strong stand against crime and behavioral problems. Advocates claim that the policy levels the playing field so that it eliminates any room for discrimination. Thus, punishment is unilaterally given for those who are in possession of weapons on school grounds, or bullying, or possessing drugs or any kind.

I can see how Christians are drawn to the “Zero Tolerance Policy.” They can point to Scripture showing God acting unilaterally in punishment for sin. So Nadab and Abihu are executed for offering “strange fire” in the Tabernacle (Lev. 10). Uzzah is killed for touching the Ark of the Covenant (2 Sam. 6:6-7). And in the New Testament God puts Ananias and Sapphira to death for lying to the Holy Spirit concerning the amount of money they gave to the church (Act. 5:1-11).

As powerful as these stories are, they are outliers and exceptions to the rule for how God deals with his people. God’s merciful judgments are far more numerous than his justice judgments. He spared justice for Adam and Eve when they ate the forbidden fruit. He spared justice for Cain when he murdered his brother. He spared justice for Moses for failing to maintain God’s holiness before Israel; God allowed him a view of Cannan. He spared justice for David over Bathsheba, though the fallout in his family seemed punishment enough. The truth is God does not operate out of a “Zero Tolerance Policy;” he works from a grace and mercy position.  

The “Zero Tolerance Policy” has not curbed the violence like it has promised (i.e. look at the number of school shootings). The policy does not distinguish between opioids and a baby aspirin (i.e. the same punishment for distributing opioids is the same punishment for giving a student an aspirin for a headache). It tends to be a quick fix for long term problems. It tends to embolden those in position of power and weaken those who have no say. And some studies have suggested that the policy targets minorities (i.e. it does not level the playing field).

So if God built his relationship with humanity based on a “Zero Tolerance Policy” in regard with sin, who would escape punishment? As Paul quoted the Psalms in Romans 3:10-18, his answer is clear: no one. If God treated us exactly like we deserve, none of us could stand before him. But God doesn’t treat us like we deserve, does he? So if God has rejected a “Zero Tolerance Policy” as a mandate to deal with humanity (i.e. you and me), why do we keep thinking that this policy is a good policy to follow?

Soli Deo Gloria!
(i.e. only God is glorified!)