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