Skip to main content

Thoughts from Greg Koukl

Dear Friends,

Today's selection is by Greg Koukl, and is entitled, "The Irony of Intolerance." In this excerpt he shares his thoughts regarding "tolerance" and "civility" in a culture where civil dialogue has all but disappeared from the public forum. A culture where simply disagreeing with someone (even if respectfully) can be met with accusations of "bigotry" "hate" and "intolerance." If you've noticed that, and are wondering why, and would hope to help bring change, you may find his insights helpful. Enjoy.



"In today's world, one word is invoked as the No. 1 rule of civil behavior in conversation: "tolerance." And while most people think they understand what it means, a recent discussion I had with high school students exposed some fuzzy thinking on the subject. I began by writing two sentences on the board. The first, "All views are equally valid," expressed a popular understanding of tolerance. All heads nodded in agreement. Nothing controversial here. Then I wrote the second sentence. "Jesus is the Messiah and Jews are wrong for rejecting him." "You can't say that," a student challenged, clearly annoyed. "That's intolerant," she said, noting that the second statement violated the first. What she didn't see was that the first statement violated itself.

I pointed to the first statement and asked, "Is this a view, this idea that all views have equal merit?" The students all agreed. Then I pointed to the second statement - the "intolerant" one - and asked the same question: "Is this a view?" Slowly the point began to dawn on them. If all views are equally valid, then the view that Christians are right about Jesus and Jews are wrong, is just as valid as the idea that Jews are right and Christians are wrong. But this is hopelessly contradictory. They can't both be true.


"Would you like to know how to escape this trap?" I asked. They nodded. "Reject the popular misunderstanding of tolerance and return to the classical view."
I turned to the board and wrote two principles I learned from Peter Kreeft of Boston College: "Be egalitarian regarding persons. Be elitist regarding ideas." "Treat PEOPLE as equally valuable, but treat IDEAS as if some are better than others," I said, "because they are. Some ideas are true, some are false. Some are brilliant, others are dangerous. Some are just plain silly." To say so does not violate any meaningful standard of tolerance. "Real tolerance," I explained, "Is about how we treat people, not ideas." Classic tolerance requires that every person be free to express his ideas without fear of abuse or reprisal, not that all views have equal validity, merit, or truth.


By contrast, the popular definition of tolerance turns the classical formula on its head: "Be egalitarian regarding ideas. Be elitist regarding persons." If you reject another's IDEAS, you're automatically accused of disrespecting the PERSON (as the student did with me). In this view, no idea can be opposed -- even if done graciously -- without inviting the charge of incivility. The offender can then be personally maligned, publicly marginalized, and verbally abused as bigoted, disrespectful, ignorant, and - ironically - intolerant. This view of tolerance has gone topsy-turvy... Contrary opinions are labeled as "imposing your view on others" and are quickly silenced. Tolerance becomes intolerance.


Whenever you are charged with intolerance ask for a definition. If tolerance means neutrality, then no one is ever tolerant, because no one is ever neutral about his or her own opinions. This kind of tolerance is a myth. Jesus had no need for this kind of manipulation and no interest in it. He took the confrontations as they came and engaged them with intelligence, confidence and grace. He answered his critics with truth, not with empty charges of intolerance."

It has long been pointed out that the premise underlying the new vs. the classical view of "tolerance" (the thought which suggests that "Everything is relative and there are no absolutes") contains within it a self-contradiction. One can say MOST things are relative without being self-contradictory, but one cannot say EVERYTHING is relative, and there are NO absolutes, without being self-contradictory, for it is simply to abolish many absolutes in favor of just one. And if intolerance results from people holding to absolutes (as is often suggested), then changing from "absolutes (plural)" to just one overarching "absolute (singular)" will by no means do away with intolerance. It simply reorients the direction of the intolerance and who its target becomes.

In this fallen world I fear intolerance will never completely disappear this side of eternity. But there is another way to seek to curtail intolerance and the growing lack of civility we see in our society -- gospel grace. Not "organized religion" (which has often been the culprit), but the grace of Jesus. A Christlike respect and civility that actually seeks to reach out in love to those it disagrees with, intentionally seeking to love all people (even our enemies) because Jesus has told us to, and because we know that God loved us when we were His enemies (Rom. 5:10). Tolerance begins to happen when those to whom God has been gracious seek to treat others in the way.

 
Partners in what is not an easy task, Pastor Jeff

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Thoughts From Horatius Bonar

Dear Friends, If you are like me, you may have had a bad experience in the past with churches that stressed “holiness.” Not because churches shouldn’t, but because the focus was placed on outward conformity to externalisms, or a prescribed set of moralism’s that sucked the atmosphere of grace out of the church. In fact, the more effort-based versions of “holiness” are stressed, the more grace disappears – and the vacuum left in its wake is filled with even more rigid standards of morality and law-based duties – driving all who truly struggle with sin into hiding or pretending. And of all the books I have ever read on holiness (or godliness) none (in my opinion) hold a candle to “God’s Way of Holiness” by the Scottish minister Horatius Bonar (1808-1889). A book I have given to numerous people to read. If you were one who was turned off, or wounded, by a form of holiness based on what Bonar calls, “constrained externalism” or self-effort, I offer you this selection as a taste of w...
Post a Comment
Read more

Thoughts From Thomas Wilcox

Dear Friends, Every once in a while, you come across an individual who can say a lot in a very little space. I don’t possess that ability, but Thomas Wilcox (1621-1687) did. Below are some of his profound insights on the Gospel found in the only tract he wrote, originally entitled, “A Choice Drop of Honey from the Rock Christ.” And don’t think that because it’s about the Gospel, you can just brush it aside because you already know it. Jerry Bridges (one of my profs at seminary and a prolific author who passed in 2016) once played us a recording in class of the responses given by best-selling Christian authors at a Bookseller’s Conference in response to the question, “What is the Gospel?” The responses were lacking at best and a couple of them made us wonder if could even be Christian at all. So, read these excerpts from his tract and see if you get what he means and if you agree. (I have updated the language where possible.) Enjoy. “When you believe and come to Christ, you...
Post a Comment
Read more

Thoughts On Lent from Jeremy Linneman

Dear Friends, As we have entered the time of the church year traditionally called “Lent” (from the Old English word “lencten” referring to the season of Spring) there is always the common idea floating around that, “I should probably give up something for Lent.” The question is “Why?” Why give something up or practice self-denial? And the only good answer is: God in Scripture calls his people to do so, it actually benefits us, is intended to benefit others, and brings glory to God. We find this idea stated explicitly in Isaiah 58:6-9. There God says to his people who are fasting simply to deprive themselves of something (to prove their earnestness?) or in an attempt to be, “heard on high” (trying to manipulate God into answering our often self-focused prayers?) “This is the real reason he wants His people to fast: “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is i...
Post a Comment
Read more