Culture

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?

ADVERSARY CULTURE

Ask yourself, “Why do people continue to come to America if America is so bad?” The question begs an answer. Katherine Kersten addresses it, and more. A five-minute reading.

Sociologist Paul Hollander came to the United States after escaping from communist ­Hungary in 1956. Having first-hand ­experience with a totalitarian regime, he was baffled to encounter American intellectuals who were sympathetic to communism and endorsed its revolutionary aims. Some even championed ­Stalin, Castro, and Mao. Hollander saw that they were captive to an oppositional habit of mind, which led them toward a hypercritical repudiation of our nation’s institutions. Worse, this habit of mind led them to misperceive and idealize systems like the one he had fled, while overlooking or denying the virtues of their own society.

In Political Pilgrims: Travels of Western Intellectuals to the Soviet Union, China and Cuba 1928–1978 (1981) and other writings, Hollander explains why so many of the best-off people in the wealthiest, freest nation in the world have contempt for their own society. Though he died in 2019, before woke crusaders’ latest forays, his analysis sheds light on our cultural moment.

Hollander recognized the importance of the adversary culture in postwar America. It is characterized, he wrote, by the “socially critical temper” produced by alienation and estrangement from the larger ­society. Though a vibrant democracy requires vigorous debate, the fierce criticism nurtured by the adversary culture encourages “an intense, radical and indignant” disposition, which generates social-­critical passions powerful enough to overwhelm reason. Thus arises the impairment—willed or ­genuine—of one’s capacity to make important distinctions among degrees of social evil. The tens of millions killed during Mao’s Cultural Revolution disappear from view. The result is “an outlook or state of mind which leads to (or entails) viewing one’s own society with deep misgivings and suspicion,” condemning it as “deeply flawed, unjust,” and “calculated to constrain or reduce human satisfactions.”

In Political Pilgrims and elsewhere, Hollander recounts how this mindset prompted a parade of prominent intellectuals—among them George Bernard Shaw, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Noam Chomsky—to embrace beliefs at odds with reality, shaped by wishful thinking, and distorted by a suspension of logic. Though hyper-sensitive to their own societies’ flaws, these commentators gave the benefit of every doubt to systems and ideologies that advanced a utopian egalitarian and humanitarian vision.

Reality was of no consequence; they thrilled to ideals.

[…] Hollander recognized that political commitments often spring from deeper, unarticulated, non-political sources. In his words, “predisposition influences perception.” The moralistic crusades undertaken by people whose positions in life put them at a great distance from the issues they claim to care about are often not so much about a search for justice as a working out of their personal needs and dissatisfactions.

[…] Marxist-influenced thought has an important appeal in this context. As Hollander observes, Marxism’s ideological framework offers a “seemingly scientific foundation” for organizing moral passion and guides intellectuals in identifying “just” causes. Marxist ideology’s depiction of life as a power struggle between oppressors and victims—a core tenet of today’s “woke” movement—can serve to justify an unrelenting, self-righteous denunciation of the inevitable gap between aspirational American principles and real-world outcomes.

The upshot is a paradox very much evident today. The adversary culture alternates between moral absolutism and moral relativism—swinging from virulent criticism of “oppressor” groups to passionate enthusiasm for putative victims and their self-described champions, at home or abroad. “Systemic racism” is an ever-present and all-powerful threat that must be “eradicated,” while the destruction of stores, public buildings, and monuments presents no real moral problem . . .

– Katherine Kersten, “Adversary Culture in 2020,” First Things, February 2021, 41-46. https://www.firstthings.com/…/02/adversary-culture-in-2020

Some of the Why and the What of Robin’s & my Binge-Watching Habits

Recently, a friend from church asked me if I would “make a list” of some of the series that Robin and I “binge-watch” on Prime, Netflix, Hulu, or other delivery options. For those who may not know, I wrote a book in 2014 entitled When the Lights Go Down: Movie Review as Christian Practice. My overview of the “how-to” of watching film is given there. Find here more ideas that I sent to my friend about how and what we watch in 2021.

Every family has their own set of convictions. I tell everyone to read the “Parents Guide” for every show at IMDB.com before you watch anything. Sex, nudity, profanity, and violence are what I call “The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” when it comes to viewing habits. Everyone needs to address these convictions (see below) as they consider the series and shows on my list.

Watching shows is also a matter of mood and sleep (!). There have been series that I have actually rested up for because I wanted to make sure I was not going to fall asleep, they were that good and that important to me. One of the series that once we started we couldn’t stop (7 hours!) is Mare of Easttown. I can’t say enough good about this series. Midway through our watching I said to Robin,

“When you pound a nail into a tree, a knot forms over the years; a grotesque, bulbous growth develops around the intruder, by so doing, the tree protects itself. The metaphor pictures what happens to people when their lives changed by trauma.”

Moods are tricky. If you want a tearjerker or romance or comedy or mystery or action shows, each has their own draw. Today, for instance, after a long day of work, I wanted to watch something that was action packed, so I rewatched Train to Busan one of the best zombie movies ever made.

Also be wary of “expert” “critics” at places like IMDB or RottenTomatoes.com RT can be politically driven so what an audience loves the critics may hate. I go with the audience every time (along with my famous line “What do critics know, anyway?!”). The movie Act of Valor is one example of anti-American leanings from critics (28%) and a thankful-to-live-in-the-U.S.A. nod from audiences (72% positive rating).

When it comes to what we eat or what we watch, much is a matter of taste (within the biblical convictions we have established, Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8). A few reflections on convictions before I begin the list. [I wrote a series of essays on Christian convictions based on these chapters which now appear at my subscription website, MarkEckel.com.] For instance, I have a hard time finding comedy series that are truly funny! I will always tell people to watch Seinfeld or Frazier for shows that make you LOL.

I care deeply for how women are treated (a history of my childhood would be in order here) so watching a revenge flick about women who overcome or outlast reprehensible treatment will always be a draw (Wind River, A Vigilante, Winter’s Bone, Please Stand By, Sophie Scholl or Fried Green Tomatoes).

Warnings about ethical issues matter to me whether it be a futuristic movie like Gattaca or a true story like Gosnell (that was suppressed in the press because it addressed the atrocities in an abortion clinic).

I am a sucker for the triumphant, torturous, twistedness of life that I see in a film like the latest A Star is Born (I rewind the part over and over where Lady Gaga comes on the stage for the first time and hits that high note in the refrain of “Shallow”, tears filling my eyes.) Here is the YouTube clip of the song seen *over one billion times*  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo_efYhYU2A

I just love good stories, well told. Here are a few: The Natural, Three Days of the Condor (1975), Brooklyn, Good Will Hunting, Crossing Delancey, The Devil Wears Prada, As Good as It Gets.

I’m a guy which means I like explosions, action, and seeing the bad guys “get it.” Pick any movie with those ingredients and I’ve probably seen it. Think Jason Statham or Liam Neeson.

I’m a patriot so I love movies where American soldiers are the good guys like We Were Soldiers, Midway, 13 Hours, Fury, Act of Valor.

I hate injustice so I love movies like Loving, Blood Diamond, 99 Homes, The Help, Amistad, or Glory.

I will watch movies based on actors. I will see any movie with Denzel Washington. Willem Dafoe has an amazing versatility (The Florida Project or The Hunter are can’t miss in my estimation).

I love movies where bad people get their comeuppance like Hell or High Water and Thin Ice.

“Slow burn” movies like Bone Tomahawk will stay with you long after the lights come up.

I often look for production company labels (A24 or Bonfire Legend) which turn out some fine films. I look forward to watching Run, Hide, Fight soon based on a true story.

The Words and Words and Pictures have a unique approach, great storyline, exceptional writing / acting, and good morals to their stories.

I abide by the adage that the old movies are most often the best movies. The Treasure of Sierra Madre is a study in human depravity. High Noon studies an individual who must stand up to evil when everyone else hides. Night of the Hunter tells us predators have always been with us and some of the worst can be those dressed in “the cloth.”

I’m a teacher, so I love a good professor movie like Mr. Holland’s Opus or The Emperor’s Club (I do *not* like Dead Poets Society because of its point of view, while, at the same time, being a well-made film).

I love learning about other cultures, so I’m impressed by The Hundred Foot Journey or A Better Life.

I am concerned about the devolution of the nuclear family which is best represented in series such as Ozark or Bloodline.

So, all of that to say, I watch different shows for different reasons. I hope this bit of a reflective overview helps. I’ve made a list of “binge worthy TV” and movies, sometimes with comment. Again, I would say, just to be honest and careful, what I and Robin watch may or may not be for everyone. [I haven’t come close to sharing everything we see. This is a list to get started on what you asked me for. 😊 ]

I have written a book about movies When the Lights Go Down: Movie Review as Christian Practice that you might want to check out.

Binge Worthy TV Shows

Animal Kingdom (5 seasons)

Band of Brothers (10 episodes, still considered to be the best production of a TV series)

Better Call Saul

Bloodline (3 seasons)

Bosch (7 seasons, one of the best detective series we’ve ever seen)

Breaking Bad (I remember the summer Robin and I were catching up on this series. At one or two in the morning we were like coke addicts, “Can you do another?! I can do one more!” The devolution of a man; here is my review.)

Call the Midwife

The Crown (4 seasons)

Downton Abbey (6 seasons)

Line of Duty (3 seasons)

Longmire (6 seasons)

The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel (fantastic writing and over-the-top acting)

Mindhunter (2 seasons, the beginning of “serial killers” unit in the F.B.I.)

NYPD Blue (12 seasons, I still say that this older detective show is the most humane series ever produced for TV)

The Night Manager (6 episodes)

The Outsider (a cop has a hard time admitting the supernatural is real)

SouthLAnd (5 seasons, a gritty cop show set in LA)

Stranger Things (3 seasons)

The Queen’s Gambit (7 episodes, wow, was this good)

Yellowstone (3 seasons)

Your Honor (10 episodes, a condensed examination of a good person making a wrong choice and its consequence)

Movies (in no particular order or rating, just a few that come to mind)

The Dry (exceptional, the best movie I’ve seen in the summer of 2021)

Mr. Church (my review)

The Lookout (one of the few movies that addresses brain injury)

Despicable Me (a movie about transformation, a change of heart)

The Courier (based on a true Cold War story)

The Sting (my daughter’s favorite and one of the few places you can see Robert Redford and Paul Newman acting in tandem)

Let Him Go (because I’m a grandfather, with Kevin Costner)

The Count of Monte Cristo This movie has something for everyone with an exceptional cast (Jim Caviezel!), great writing, a wonderful story, and a powerful moral.

Limitless (Bradley Cooper, for some reason this movie mesmerizes me)

Take Shelter (because our family is sensitive toward those who are neurodiverse; my review)

A Simple Plan (a bad choice and its consequences)

No Country for Old Men (from one of our greatest living novelists; my review)

Jessie Stone movies (Tom Selleck, all are good, based on one of my favorite page-turner novelists Robert B Parker; my review)

News of the World (Tom Hanks – need I say more?! – in a well told tale)

House of Games (1987 from one of my favorite screenwriters, David Mamet)

Flame and Citron (subtitles, a fantastic story based on real spies during WWII. Mads Mickelson is one of my favorite European actors; I would add the movie Salvation to this list for that reason).

Mr. Jones (based on factual events exposing the Communist state of Russia and the English journalists that protected their crimes against humanity)

Gone Baby Gone (my review)

Intern (Robert DeNiro)

Changing Lanes (I love Sydney Pollack films. He gets after ethics in a subtle, substantive manner; I mention this movie in one of my Truth in Two episodes)

Joy (Jennifer Lawrence)

If you’re into horror, Alfred Hitchcock is the master. But The Thing and Fallen (Denzel) are examples of well told tales of supernatural entities

Shawshank Redemption (I could watch this movie once a week and not get tired of it), The Green Mile, The Mist (three collaborations between Stephen King and Frank Darabont as director; my review of The Mist here)