The Intolerance of Tolerance

I'm not sure who came upon this idea first, but I heard D.A. Carson mention it once in a lecture. Most notions of tolerance, he said, inevitably lead to intolerance. This is because the only views that are truly tolerant are ones that do not believe anything dogmatically, but also reject as intolerant any views or beliefs that do. True tolerance means that no idea is better or more "right" than any other idea. Said negatively, any idea or belief system whose fundamentals necessarily exclude or oppose another idea or belief system is inherently intolerant. For example, orthodox Christianity holds that Christ is the "only mediator between God and man" (1 Tim. 2:5). Those who propound such orthodoxy, it is said, are practicing a form of intolerance, for the "path to God" proposed is an exclusive one. Tolerance would dictate that Christianity maintain only its most inclusive beliefs (e.g. "God is love", "He who has no sin should cast the first stone", etc.) and supplant its most exclusive ones (e.g. "Jesus is the only way to God", "There is only one God", etc.). Again, being purely tolerant means that you can't accept any belief that claims to be "right" and another "wrong."

But you can see the problem already. What pure tolerance does is regulate tolerance to such a degree that it really is, in truth, intolerance. This is the logical necessity of such notions. By condemning any belief system because of its fundamentals, one practices exactly what they were trying to avoid. Tolerance, in the end, is a dogmatic, exclusive faith unto itself.

But few would say that those who practice tolerance are wicked. In fact, I suspect most who preach such things do so altruistically. So what are disagreeing parties to do? Ultimately, civility, not tolerance, is the only answer. When you give up trying to make every belief inclusive, it allows for all ideas and belief systems to exist with each other and meet on the common ground of courtesy and respect. And this can occur despite major ideological differences.

I was reminded of this when I read the most recent advice column in Salon Magazine. The title of the column says it all: "The atheist and the creationist: Can't they just get along?" The questioner, an atheist, is livid over a close friend (a Christian) who is going to teach a class at his church on the trueness of young-earth creationism. The questioner calls this sort of teaching "child abuse." Though his position is not classically "tolerant," it definitely leans that way. He thinks he friend should abandon this teaching altogether and is asking for advice on ways he can persuade this friend to abandon the belief he thinks is "crazy." What is really interesting, however, is the response he gets from Carey Tenis, the column's writer. Cary, though in agreement about the substance of the complaint, concludes:

"This is the question that intrigues me: How far are we willing to stretch our inclusion, our embrace of difference? Do we allow only certain categories of difference, or are we willing to go all the way, to embrace our ideological opposites? I turn again and again to William Blake and his idea of spiritual warfare waged against giant systems of thought -- spiritual warfare waged in a spirit of engagement and love."

That is civility. And Christians must practice this always and do so unashamedly. Though we obviously hold some beliefs that put us in logical disagreement with other faiths (including atheism), there is no reason we should not engage with grace and peace. Steve just preached this ("To Reshape") on Sunday, from Colossians 4: "Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person," (5-6). That is true biblical civility. And, in truth, no Christian should ever be arrogant about his/her faith. No, none can boast except in the cross of Christ (Gal. 6:14), for we have done nothing to warrant the mercy of God (Eph. 2:8-9).