Tolerance

Toleration Must Lead to Acceptance

She didn’t stand a chance. The exchange was one-sided. The student was no match for the teacher. Class discussion concerned sexual independence, identity, and ethics. The professor defined each word, descriptions inscribed on the board. One student expressed an alternative point of view; the origin of the student’s authority happened to begin in biblical authority. The questions posed to the student were built on the professor’s source of authority: human reason. The student’s position was disallowed as something “unproveable,” something akin to “fairy tales.” The student did not know how to respond. The professor’s tone turned amicable. “Isn’t that exactly what education is for,” the professor began, “to become accepting of other viewpoints, to grow and allow for change?”

So I asked a question, “Why does ‘growth’ or ‘change’ only move in one direction?” The professor asked for an explanation. Referencing the teacher, I said, “You have defined words based on the assumption of human reason. What if the ultimate authority is a transcendent source of revelation? What if ‘growth’ or ‘change’ moved from human reason to divine revelation? Wouldn’t we want to hold out the possibility of ‘growth’ or ‘change’ moving in both directions?” The room became quiet. The professor moved on to her next point. [Based on actual events in a public university classroom.][1]

“Tolerance” is a doctrine. In theology or education or everyday life, “doctrine” is ever present. Everyone has doctrine since everyone has beliefs. We ascribe to a teaching, dogma, or creed to explain what we believe. Our commitment to that set of teachings limits our acceptance of contrary or adversarial claims. It does not matter if you are a feminist, transgender person, Baptist preacher, or conservative talk show host; you have doctrine. Everyone everywhere has doctrine. [See my post on “Orthodoxy.’]

“Tolerance” teaching comes in various forms. We choose to use the word “understanding” when we want to show our empathy. Citing examples of tolerant behavior, we demonstrate our complicity with the cultural belief of the day. Pictorial displays, posing with or posting for a person or group that complies with the social order, are rigorously observed. Most of all, prescribed verbiage that is mandated by social overlords is sacrosanct. There must be adherence to the doctrine-of-the-day. Otherwise, excommunication (in some cases, execution – physical or reputational) is inevitable, the communication guillotine is unleashed by nameless, faceless, digital first-responders. [See my post here, “Who watches the watchmen?”]

“Tolerance” is expected though “submission” is preferred. Bowing to whatever autocratic message, the answers are given; the obedient need only fill in the blanks. If the “wrong answer” is given, any “correction” necessitates repentance, atonement, but never forgiveness. There can be no clemency. Tolerance is based on a works-oriented, performance-based view of life. Scores are kept, sins remembered, performances ranked, and perfection expected. Tolerance is measured. Criteria for acceptance is established by a cadre of priests whose religious duty it is to weigh the contributions of the congregation. [I was teaching “intolerant tolerance” to students in 1994; nothing has changed. See my post here.]

This week a friend wrote to tell me about the class he is teaching. The PhD students took a worldview assessment test. The results revealed their worldview is a smattering of many different worldviews. The students saw their responses as positive. They interpret their marks as “understanding,” reinforcing their notion of tolerance. My 10-point response is listed below, chuck-full of hyperlinks to my other writings over the years.

(1) Belief precedes critique. My doctrinal lens analyzes ideas. My analysis begins with an absolute authority (see my video here on “Who says?”) “Tolerance,” in and of itself, is a doctrine, an evaluative grid. In some circles, “tolerance” comes before “truth.” The verifiability, the reliability, the credulity of any claim must first pass the test of tolerance. Biology, history, or data are evaluated by the tolerance of a belief. Say, for instance, one claims we should “listen to the science” when it comes to disease but removes the phrase from discussions of biological identity, the doctrine of tolerance is the first and last step in evaluating truth claims. What I called in 2011 “the culture of niceness.”

(2) But there can be no tolerance until there is assent. We must understand what we believe before we can adjudicate what others believe. So it is imperative to know the grid through which we evaluate anything. I teach a course at IUPUI entitled “Argumentative Writing.” There I introduce my public university students to a model I devised about 20 years ago. Here is the six minute video. Students are prompted to evaluate the source of any knowledge. Now their sources may differ from mine (they often do!) but they are made to consider the problem of knowledge origins (six minute video here).

(3) So, if students begin by saying that evaluation of knowledge (other worldviews) begins with “tolerance” they establish their authority not on an absolute, but on the relativity of what is accepted in society. Pick any cultural belief: condoms provide safe sex, climate change, a person can pick their own gender / sexual identity. If anyone questions these cultural claims, there are immediate calls of “intolerance.” Why? Because the doctrinal lens of “tolerance” has established the acceptance of any belief. Student must address the question of “Who says?” (2 min vid)

(4) If there is an Absolute Authority, then the Christian should argue for exclusive claims. My 2019 Truth in Two Video on Toleration argues that exclusivity creates inclusivity. Notice my reasoning why one cannot begin with inclusivity as a basis for truth claims. [See Part 3 of Dreher’s book on this point.]

(5) I do a whole presentation on “syncretism” (pick and choose religion, the origins of which we find in First Testament teaching). Ultimately, though your students would take offense, their pursuit of the “doctrine of tolerance” as a first hermeneutical principle is based in syncretism. There is much to explore here; suffice it to say, the Christian view of life and things cannot abide such a belief. I mention this phenomena in my essay on American literature.

(6) There is a great deal of difference between how we treat and act toward “outsiders” than how we counter and critique the worldview options all around us. [My essay on this topic was published in a book this year.] We are constantly reading other perspectives: that is our job as intellectually minded folks. However, everyone interprets based on his, her, or their point of view. Everyone begins with a bias (see my two-minute video on bias here).

(7) I believe in “social etiquette” being generous, gracious, careful, & respectful toward others (see my 20 questions from 2016). But be wary that in the academe “intolerance” comes from those who are labeled “liberal” or “progressive (see my article on academic free speech from 2017). Examples abound. Here is what happened to Naomi Schaefer Riley in 2012. I document the origins of Jonathan Haidt and his transformation against bias in academic sociology departments in 2011 (here). There is a difference between a “hospitality of ideas” and “accepting other’s ideas” The difference is between the person and the belief. I am fore square committed to acceptance of people while I cannot accept their ideas.

(8) Justice Antonin Scalia said it best, “We attack ideas, not people.” Scripture agrees that we combat enemy ideas (2 Corinthians 10:3-5), necessitating an apologetic bent in our thinking: how do I address or answer cultural concerns while caring for the people who express them? [See this Truth in Two video on “judging.”] Jesus’ encounter with the rich young ruler gives direction. The man suggested that he kept the ten commandments. Upon questioning from Jesus, however, it was clear he did not even keep the first command. And notice The Text says, “Jesus loved him” in spite of the fact that the ruler was diametrically opposed to Jesus’ teaching. Acts 17 is the classic example of responding to unbelievers with diverse worldview perspectives. Looking for commonality opens the door. Quoting folks with whom the listeners would agree crosses the threshold. But at the end of the interaction, there is a clear antithesis between the Mars Hill crowd and Paul.

(9) I wrote early in 2020 What will you stand for? In my “afterword” I write, “A brief, incomplete reflection as I read Jesus’ words this morning, “Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division” (Luke 12:51, ESV). Some of the groups who are most upset by your presence are people who propose peace. The cost of peace, however, is believing what that group believes. “Tolerance” and “acceptance” are watchwords at the heart of this group. But those words are set aside when you stand in disagreement.” [See my post on How I Respond on social media, here.]

(10) Does the concern for understanding go both ways? See my “How to Use MarkEckel.com” to note that only capitulation is accepted in the cultural narrative. Christian understanding of others does not mean standing with others. My care does not mandate my capitulation, my acceptance of people does not mean my acceptance of their beliefs, my understanding of another perspective does not necessitate that the other perspective become my own.

[1] Acceptance of other viewpoints had a singular direction. It always resulted in questioning conservative points of view while staking a claim for progressive ideas. In the same three-hour class, I would take copious notes but remained silent. Silent, until about two hours into every class. The same professor, obviously agitated, seeing me writing the entire time, would stop, look at me, and with exasperation in her voice she spat the words, “O.K. Mark. What are you writing?” I would pick some point of disagreement ending my short delivery with a question. Need I say, I did not do very well in that class?