Feb

26

2012

Don Carson|10:15 PM CT

Contemporary Tolerance Is Intrinsically Intolerant

The notion of tolerance is changing, and with the new definitions the shape of tolerance itself has changed. Although a few things can be said in favor of the newer definition, the sad reality is that this new, contemporary tolerance is intrinsically intolerant. It is blind to its own shortcomings because it erroneously thinks it holds the moral high ground; it cannot be questioned because it has become part of the West's plausibility structure. Worse, this new tolerance is socially dangerous and is certainly intellectually debilitating. Even the good that it wishes to achieve is better accomplished in other ways.

Let's begin with dictionaries. In the Oxford English Dictionary, the first meaning of the verb "to tolerate" is "To respect (others' beliefs, practices, etc.) without necessarily agreeing or sympathizing. 3. to put up with; to bear; as, he tolerates his brother-in-law. 4. in medicine, to have tolerance for (a specified drug, etc.)." Even the computer-based dictionary Encarta includes in its list "ACCEPT EXISTENCE OF DIFFERENT VIEWS to recognize other people's right to have different beliefs or practices without an attempt to suppress them." So far so good: all these definitions are on the same page. When we turn to Encarta's treatment of the corresponding noun "tolerance," however, a subtle change appears: "1. ACCEPTANCE OF DIFFERENT VIEWS the accepting of the differing views of other people, e.g., in religious or political matters, and fairness toward the people who hold these different views."

This shift from "accepting the existence of different views" to "acceptance of different views," from recognizing other people's right to have different beliefs or practices to accepting the differing views of other people, is subtle in form, but massive in substance. To accept that a different or opposing position exists and deserves the right to exist is one thing; to accept the position itself means that one is no longer opposing it. The new tolerance suggests that actually accepting another's position means believing that position to be true, or at least as true as your own. We move from allowing the free expression of contrary opinions to the acceptance of all opinions; we leap from permitting the articulation of beliefs and claims with which we do not agree to asserting that all beliefs and claims are equally valid. Thus we slide from the old tolerance to the new.

Which Tolerance?

The problem of what "tolerance" means is in fact more difficult than these few comments on dictionary entries might suggest. For in contemporary usage, both meanings continue in popular use, and often it is unclear what the speaker or writer means. For instance, "She is a very tolerant person": does this mean she gladly puts up with a lot of opinions with which she disagrees, or that she thinks all opinions are equally valid? A Muslim cleric says, "We do not tolerate other religions": does this mean that, according to this cleric, Muslims do not think that other religions should be permitted to exist, or that Muslims cannot agree that other religions are as valid as Islam? A Christian pastor declares, "Christians gladly tolerate other religions": does this mean, according to the pastor, that Christians gladly insist that other religions have as much right to exist as Christianity does, or that Christians gladly assert that all religions are equally valid? "You Christians are so intolerant," someone asserts: does this mean that Christians wish all positions contrary to their own were extirpated, or that Christians insist that Jesus is the only way to God? The former is patently untrue; the latter is certainly true (at least, if Christians are trying to be faithful to the Bible): Christians do think that Jesus is the only way to God. But does that make them intolerant? In the former sense of "intolerant," not at all; the fact remains, however, that any sort of exclusive truth claim is widely viewed as a sign of gross intolerance. But the latter depends absolutely on the second meaning of "tolerance."

Other distinctions can be usefully introduced. Go back to the assertion "Christians gladly tolerate other religions." Let us assume for a moment that the first meaning of "tolerate" is in view---i.e., Christians gladly insist that other religions have as much right to exist as their own, however much those same Christians may think the other religions are deeply mistaken in some respects. Even this more classical understanding of "tolerate" and "tolerance" leaves room for a certain amount of vagueness. Does the statement envisage legal tolerance? In that case, it is affirming that Christians gladly fight for the equal standing before the law of all religious minorities. Of course, from a Christian perspective, this is a temporary arrangement that lasts only until Christ returns. It is a way of saying that in this fallen and broken world order, in this time of massive idolatry, in this age of theological and religious confusion, God has so ordered things that conflict, idolatry, confrontation, and wildly disparate systems of thought, even about God himself, persist. In the new heaven and the new earth, God's desires will not be contested but will be the object of worshiping delight.

For the time being, however, Caesar (read: government) has the responsibility to preserve social order in a chaotic world. Although Caesar remains under God's providential sovereignty, nevertheless there is a difference between God and Caesar---and Jesus himself has told us to render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. It will not be like that in the new heaven and the new earth. Thus even this legal tolerance, which Christians should surely defend, belongs to the present, to the time when the kingdom of God has dawned but has not yet been consummated, or (to say it the way theologians do) to this age of inaugurated but not yet final eschatology.

Nurtured and Cultivated

Of course, in the right context the same sentence, "Christians gladly tolerate other religions," might suggest, not legal tolerance, but social tolerance: that is, in a multicultural society, people of different religions should mix together without slights and condescension, for all people have been made in the image of God and all will give an account to him on the last day. Of all people, Christians ought to know that they are not one whit socially superior to others. They talk about a great Savior, but they are not to think of themselves as a great people. So social tolerance should be encouraged.

Yet another distinction demands brief mention. Someone might assert that the God of the Bible, even under the terms of the new covenant, does not hold up tolerance as a virtue: if men and women do not repent and by conversion come under the lordship of Christ, they perish. Certainly the God of the Bible does not hold up tolerance in the second sense as a virtue. Yet is not God's patience and forbearance in delaying Christ's return a form of tolerance, intended to lead people to repentance (Romans 2:4)?

Hence the distinction: bad ideas and bad actions are tolerated (in the first sense), reluctantly and with bold articulation of what makes them bad, while the people who hold those bad ideas or perform those bad actions are tolerated (again, in the first sense) without any sense of begrudging reluctance, but in the hope that they will come to repentance and faith. Tolerance toward persons, in this sense, is surely a great virtue to be nurtured and cultivated.

----

D. A. Carson.  The Intolerance of Tolerance. © Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.  2012.  Pages 2-6.

Don Carson is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, and co-founder (with Tim Keller) of The Gospel Coalition.

Categories: Reviews
  • Susanne Schuberth (Germany)

    This is so true, Dr. Carson.

    Quoting you,

    „To accept that a different or opposing position exists and deserves the right to exist is one thing; to accept the position itself means that one is no longer opposing it. The new tolerance suggests that actually accepting another's position means believing that position to be true, or at least as true as your own.”

    Imagine you tip your finger into a pot containing boiling water, you may cry out, “Ouch! This is hot!” while another person who has no ability to sense heat will wonder about it and insist on feeling lukewarm or even cold water at the same time.

    Referring to your well-differentiated explications, the old tolerance would say, “I accept your opinion that the water is not warm though I know it really is.” On the other hand, the new tolerance may claim that any statement on the water temperature simultaneously to be right.

    Indeed, this new kind of viewlessness – as I would like to say – “is socially dangerous and is certainly intellectually debilitating,” as you said above. Looking at the possible and most probable consequences, I dare to assert that this will be the best breeding ground for manipulating people in any way. Caesar could lead society in any direction he wishes. People who have ceased to hold a firm conviction are prone to believe anything offered as long as it feels subjectively good for them.

    In my humble opinion, that applies to Christianity, too. On the surface, all Christian denominations and non-denominational organizations as well are said to believe in Jesus Christ being the only way to God. So far, so tolerant. However, where can we actually find the one and only truth considering so many differing theological positions? In Christ alone, I would say, because any theology merely consisting of theología as a composition of God and doctrine/teaching being deprived of its inner fuel, that is experiencing Christ’s life through the Holy Spirit who constantly changes the believer from the inside into Christ’s image, will lead either in left or in right wing directions depending on the particular exegesis. Yet an exegesis without the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit will never lead into the fullness of truth that is hidden in Christ (Col 2:3). Quite the contrary, instead of being unified through the love of the Holy Spirit, each side will persist in upholding (worldly) divisions within the Body of Christ, i.e. His beloved Bride.

    Christ-centered Gospel preaching is indispensable, yet we may never forget that Christ-centered living must be directly related to it. The root of a Christian is Christ, the fuel for his growth is the Holy Spirit, and the fruit of Christian living is unity of faith by knowing the Son of God (Eph 4:13) and loving everyone (Gal 5:6).

  • http://LostCodex.com DRT

    You are rabble rousing and picking a fight that is not there. The definition you are contorting is:

    1. Acceptance of different views, the accepting of the differing views of other people, e.g., in religious or political matters, and fairness toward the people who hold these different views."

    Without your capitalization it is obvious that people are holding views that are DIFFERENT from yours. If they are different then they cannot be held by you. The word "existence" which is missing is quite well implied in the text. If one were to use your definition, and people took on views that were not their own, then they would no longer be different views. That is simply absurd.

    • Sally

      I think you have just proved Dr Carson right!!

  • Chris

    As a college student at a large research university I see the effects of this shift daily. When I first saw that you were writing this book I was so happy someone finally was tackling this issue. In my four years here I have constantly been told how intolerant Christianity is and this point about tolerance implying disagreement is always ignored. Thank you Dr. Carson for writing this article and book.

    • Nathan Nymeyer

      I agree! I have seen and experienced this as well. I have often thought of this unfair use of the word "tolerance." Looking forward to the book!

  • Pingback: A Morning Peacock of Links (2/27) | hobojarpen

  • http://www.corinthtoday.org paul cummings

    Does "Respect without validation" help? It seems that tolerance and intolerance come with (as you have stated) a lot of baggage.

  • http://www.twitter.com/david_shane David Shane

    If I can be a little controversial - another problem with modern tolerance is that it often means nothing at all. It's just a word people like to apply to themselves since they fancy it the highest virtue. Take the recent HHS mandate forcing Catholics to purchase birth control - that was an intolerant move by any definition offered here. Yet I think it would be fair to say that the political left in America especially prides itself on its supposed tolerance. So what gives? Well, they aren't nearly as tolerant as they think, that's all.

    I know I'm speaking generally here, but I think you get my point.

  • Jason

    The difference in definition is very clear to me, But I don't see it as 100% evil. It seems to me that there has never been a time in church history where a single group of people could possibly have been perfect in their theology.

    One definition seems to say "I'm right, feel free to be wrong."

    The other says "This is what I believe, believe what you want to believe".

    It takes humility to realize you are wrong, and humility to learn.

  • Pingback: Bits & Pieces (2/28/12) | Better Things Ahead

  • http://www.corinthtoday.org paul cummings

    wow...
    This is the problem with the whole discussion. I had never been called a "bigot" before either until our church sponsored a forum to have an open dialogue with a Gay Leader in our community about our differences....all of sudden I was called a "bigot" for holding a Biblical view of homosexuality.
    This is a sign of things to come. Calling someone a Bigot is going to be the Trump Card to shut down their difference of worldview. All of a sudden those who propose breast feeding will be called bigots by those who don't. Could it be that to call someone a Bigot and to label them as that then excuses you from having to listen to their differences?

  • Pingback: Contemporary Tolerance Is Intrinsically Intolerant « ANTHEM SONG

  • Pingback: Sparks for Thursday, March 1, 2012 | The Daily Disciple

  • Pingback: Reviews, Interviews, Authors and Books to Note Across the Web « Theology for the Road

  • Pingback: Contemporary Tolerance Is Intrinsically Intolerant | Time For Discernment

  • Pingback: A Morning Peacock of Links (3/8) | hobojarpen

  • Pingback: Christians and the culture of tolerance | Stand Up for the Truth

  • Pingback: Let us not be the spot-finders | hobojarpen

  • Pingback: Speaking up, speaking out | Stand Up for the Truth

  • Pingback: A Morning Peacock of Links (4/20) | hobojarpen

  • Pingback: A Morning Peacock of Links (6/11) | hobojarpen

  • Pingback: A Morning Peacock of Links (7/5) | hobojarpen

  • Pingback: A Response to Dr. Charles Negy | The Galatian

  • Pingback: No Tolerance Allowed « THE MONCTON CHRISTIAN

  • Pingback: Standing with the Treworgys on Marriage and the Intolerance of Today’s “Tolerance” – Counter Culture - BDN Maine Blogs

  • Pingback: 2012 10 23 BDN Standing with the Treworgys on Marriage and the Intolerance of Today’s “Tol erance” – Counter Culture – BDN Maine Blogs « Same-Sex Marriage in Maine

  • http://astraunic.com/ Rinta

    Nicely written, like the article.

  • http://AAPastor.com Daniel K. Eng

    Thanks Dr. Carson, for writing your book! I want to learn more about this issue.

  • Pingback: La Doctrina del Infierno: Exclusividad Religiosa | El Evangelio Segun Jesucristo

  • Pingback: Contemporary Tolerance Is Intrinsically Intolerant | OrthodoxNet.com Blog

  • Pingback: Hello, Crazy World… | A Pilgrim's Friend