|
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. In one sense
tolerance is a very important virtue—we don’t use
an Uzi to end an argument, for instance. Nor is it acceptable
to burn down mosques or force dissenters to attend classes with
which they disagree. 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 “respect” or even “agreement.”
And since Christians are characteristically unwilling to “respect”
what they believe to be false doctrine or even (gasp) sin, they
are, by means of this nifty equivocation, branded as intolerant
and unenlightened.
What is swept under the rug is that tolerance is not
synonymous with respect. There is no inconsistency, for example,
in saying that I tolerate Buddhism in one sense and detest it
in another; indeed, the very word “tolerate,” in common
usage, implies that I am putting up with something I don’t
like. I would 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 will 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.”
Our enlightened moderns, or, more accurately, postmoderns, would
surely have criticized the Lord on this point. (Bertrand Russell,
in particular, took issue with His “vindictive fury”
and compared Him unfavorably with the “bland and urbane”
Socrates.) “Narrow-minded,” “extreme,”
and “insensitive” are three other pejorative terms
that come to mind.
His apostles were no less politically-incorrect. Paul asserted
that unbelievers’ minds are “darkened,” their
imaginations “vain” (Rom. 1:21; cf. II Cor. 4:4),
and their doctrines “a lie” (Rom. 1:25)—i.e.,
knowledge “falsely so called” (I Tim. 6:20), to which
he would give no ground, “no, not for an hour” (Gal.
2:5). Peter did not hesitate to describe false doctrines as “damnable
heresies” (II Pet. 2:1) and “great swelling words
of vanity” (II Pet. 2:18). 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” (I
Jn. 5:12).1
(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 are not to 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 is 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. It
would seem that modern tolerance fanatics don’t have a problem
with Christianity. They have a problem with the law of contradiction.
But unfortunately the confusion goes deeper still. Not only do
non-Christians fail to distinguish logic from bigotry, their arguments
often lead them to reject logic and embrace bigotry. Take an editorial
from my local paper 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.2
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 is 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 is
“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.3
And in a strange
sort of irony, people like my local 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 Note:
some manuscripts have “He that hath not the Son still hath
a great religion.” This is a plausible reading, but I am
not prepared to comment on the technical issues surrounding it.
2 John
Taylor, “Discrimination Debate Proves Gays are Targets,”
Delaware News Journal, Feb. 17, 2002. Available online
at http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/opinion/taylor/02172002.html.
3 Douglas
Jones, “Oppressive Tolerance,” Credenda/Agenda,
vol. 8, no. 1.
| |
Christopher
Alexion is a homeschooled high school senior with interests
in a Calvinistic view of apologetics, philosophy, and
politics. He pursues these interests through writing,
and several of his articles have appeared on the Internet.
When not immersed in an essay or good book, however,
he can often be found listening to secular music (from
the Baroque era), working on projects around the house,
and—though not often enough—playing baseball.
He lives in New Castle, Delaware. |
|
|
|
