by Chris Alexion, Copyright February 03, 2006, all rights reserved. 276 views
If someone were to rank the favorite words of contemporary thought, tolerance would be pretty high on the list. We often hear about the importance of respecting others and tolerating those with whom we disagree. And, in one sense, this is all fine–we don't use an Uzi to end an argument. The views of law-abiding people should be tolerated (i.e., they should not be violently suppressed), and their lives and property must be respected.
But the catch phrases and buzzwords we hear go beyond this simple truth. All too frequently the term "tolerance" is used as a synonym for "neutrality" or even "agreement." And since Christians are characteristically unwilling to be neutral toward what they believe to be false doctrine or even (gasp) sin, they are, by means of this nifty equivocation, browbeaten with the broom of the secular schoolmarm.
The point that tolerance is not synonymous with respect, meanwhile, goes quickly under the rug. But there's no inconsistency in saying (for example) that I tolerate Buddhism in one sense and detest it in another; indeed, the very word "tolerate," in common use, implies that I'm putting up with something I don't like. I'd be more than happy if every Buddhist in the world came to see his error and converted to Christianity. But until or unless that happens, I'll tolerate Buddhism and respect the rights of Buddhists. This doesn't mean that I respect the doctrines that Buddhists teach, or that even for a moment I can possibly consider these doctrines to be on equal footing with Christianity–that won't happen until I become either a Buddhist or an atheist.
Christ recognized this distinction between the adherents of a doctrine and the doctrine itself. Thus He could command us to love everyone, even our enemies, without pretending to love or accept the false teaching (or, worse, considering all doctrine equally true). In other words, because of His belief in objective truth, Christ was able to describe His opponents as "blind guides," "hypocrites," and even "vipers." (This brings Christ under the ire of Bertrand Russell, who took issue with His "vindictive fury" and compared Him unfavorably with the "bland and urbane" Socrates.)
His apostles were no less politically-incorrect. Paul asserted that unbelievers' minds are "darkened," their imaginations "vain" (Rom. 1:21; cf. 2 Cor. 4:4), and their doctrines "a lie" (Rom. 1:25)–i.e., knowledge "falsely so called" (1 Tim. 6:20). Peter didn't hesitate to use H.M.S. Pinafore's "big, big, D" (2 Pet. 2:1), and added "great swelling words of vanity" (2 Pet. 2:18) to boot. Even John, who emphasized love so much that he is often called the apostle of love, was not afraid to say, "He that hath not the Son hath not life" (1 Jn. 5:12). He even had the gall to say that some people were liars, and the truth was not in them.
This, of course, does not mean that Christians shouldn't be loving, or that in order to be spiritual we must become hard-nosed sourpusses who delight to tell people they're wrong (cf. Rom. 9:1-3). What it does mean is that when it comes down to a question of truth and falsehood, Christians are bound to confess the truth and denounce the falsehood. Is this bigotry, then? I don't think so. Rather, it's simple logic: A and not-A simply cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense, and no amount of tolerance or multiculturalism can make it so. Sorry. It would seem that modern tolerance fanatics don't have a problem with Christianity so much as with the law of contradiction.
But unfortunately the confusion goes deeper. Not only do non-Christians fail to distinguish logic from bigotry, but their arguments often lead them to reject logic and embrace bigotry. Take one newpaper editorial as an example. In it the author, who has been patiently explaining why we need a law to prevent discrimination against sodomy, comes to deal with certain "religious opposition" to the bill:
Some of the opponents of [Delaware House of Representatives Bill] 99 believe that all sex outside marriage between a man and a woman is wrong and sinful. For many, this belief is based in religious conviction and is therefore unassailable by logic or rational debate. Such beliefs deserve respect. But people who hold such convictions shouldn't insist that everyone embrace them as well. Yet discussions about H.B. 99 often devolve into narrow religious-based pronouncements that single out homosexuality for condemnation.]
This enlightened and erudite journalist says that we should respect "religious conviction" but we shouldn't insist that everyone embrace it. In other words, while biblical beliefs deserve respect, it's also not the case that they deserve respect. All dogs go to heaven. Some dogs do not go to heaven.
It seems that it's this kind of thinking that's "unassailable by logic or rational debate." If the author had said that "such beliefs should be tolerated," he would have made perfect sense. But when he says that "such beliefs deserve respect" and then goes on to trample them underfoot, we should begin to question not only his logic but maybe his seriousness, since it becomes clear that he too makes "narrow religious-based pronouncements that single out" certain beliefs for condemnation. As Douglas Jones put it,
[C]laims of neutrality are always a hidden stab in the back to opposing claims of truth…. Multiculturalism calls Christ a liar. What more anti-multicultural, ideologically tyrannical statement can you find than "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (Jn. 14:6)? Multicultural "tolerance" doesn't…give Christ an equal place at the table of worldviews; it assumes from the start that His claims cannot be true. (Douglas Jones, "Oppressive Tolerance," Credenda/Agenda, vol. 8, no. 1)
And in a strange sort of irony, people like this editor are willing to enlist the coercive arm of the state to enforce their narrow views. Persecution is always worse when it wraps itself in the mantle of tolerance. Christianity, at least, is intellectually honest: truth is objective, and Christ's Word is objective truth. I can see nothing wrong or "bigoted" about that–especially since its opponents must necessarily be just as "bigoted."
Isn't it better to be openly dogmatic than to hide your dogmatism in a "tolerant" smoke screen?
1 • Daniel Lewis • February 05, 2006 • 2:06 PM
Daniel Lewis linked to this article on his blog ClearEye. Here is an excerpt:"'A and not-A simply cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense, and no amount of tolerance or multiculturalism can make it so.'Ah, but that's where ya gotta love Hegel. He was the first to observe that, if we reject the axiom of absolute truth, then A and not-A can both be true–sort of…" Read the rest of this post
——-