The Intolerance of Tolerance

Intolerance is one of those words so widely used, but thought about so little by so many. What makes a person intolerant? What makes a person tolerant? When does disagreement become intolerance? That is why Don Carson’s book The Intolerance of Tolerance is a welcome addition to the bookshelf of any thoughtful observer of culture.

Carson’s book argues that in contemporary Western Culture there are two definitions of tolerance in operation. Previously, tolerance was the acceptance that different views exist (from here on referred to as the “old tolerance”); however, a shift took place so that tolerance came to mean the acceptance of other beliefs. This shift, though subtle, is of great importance. Carson writes:

“To accept that a different or opposing position exists and deserves the right to exist is one thing; to accept the position itself means that one is no longer opposing it. The new tolerance suggests that actually accepting another’s position means believing that position to be true, or at least as true as your own. We move from allowing the free expression of contrary opinions to the acceptance of all opinions; we leap from permitting the articulation of beliefs and claims with which we do not agree to asserting that all beliefs and claims are equally valid. Thus we slide from the old tolerance to the new” (3-4).

The central thesis of Carson’s book is that the new tolerance has become part of the plausibility structure (that is the idea systems that are widely accepted by the culture) of Western culture. The new definition of tolerance has come to dominate social discourse and Carson illustrates many times over how the new tolerance has affected decisions in the realms of politics, education, media, religion, and morality (see chapter two, What is Going On?).   

Chapter three, The History of Tolerance, is Carson’s survey of tolerance in Western intellectual thought. Carson provides historical snapshots that are meant to support his thesis. A change has taken place. It was once the case that the old tolerance was located within the cultural matrix (and dependent upon it); however, the new tolerance became understood independent of culture so that it was raised above culture to be the supreme virtue (75-77). Yet ultimately, when tolerance is detached from the cultural matrix, it becomes a tool for accumulating and exercising control over the populace.

Chapter five examines how the old/new tolerance distinction shapes Christianity. Chapters six and seven explore in greater depth how the new tolerance affects moral and political discourse.

There is a short epilogue (Way Ahead: Ten Words) where Carson attempts to offer counsel for a future where the new tolerance is in full operation. The brevity of this section (one wishes that Carson would have spent more time here) becomes an invitation to readers to think beyond the pages of the book and consider how to navigate the waters ahead.   

Many have applauded Carson’s contribution already. For those interested, you can find more on the book here:

Albert Mohler interviews Carson on his Thinking in Public program. The interview is available in both audio and transcript form.

Tim Challies adds his thoughts here.

Kevin DeYoung listed The Intolerance of Tolerance as one of his top ten books of 2012. 

For those interested you can download Dr. Carson's lectures on the topic online. Go to the linked page and search for 'intolerance of tolerance'.

Forgive and Forget? Differences Between Forgiveness and Credibiltity

I am grateful for Dr. Albert Mohler, Jr. for his regular contributions to Christian thinking on issues of worldview, ethics and morality, politics, social issues, science, and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Dr. Mohler, who serves as the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, produces a daily program called The Briefing. The Briefing provides a daily summary of each key theological and cultural issues from the day's news. As Christians, we enhance our ability to proclaim the gospel by carefully discerning the world in which we are proclaiming it in. Dr. Mohler's brief analyses of current events provides a excellent example of cultural analysis and theological reflection that we would do well to imitate. 

Yesterday on The Briefing, Dr. Mohler spoke of the differences between credibility and forgiveness. His discussion was prompted by Newt Gingrich, who is vying for the Republican Presidential nomination, and his history of marital problems and adultery. Gingrich is a Protestant-turned-Catholic, converting in 2008. His conversion to Catholicism was coupled with a public confession of his adulterous behavior. 

At a closed-door meeting with the nation’s top Christian Right leaders ahead of the 2008 election, Gingrich was asked about reports he’d been having an affair while leading the impeachment drive against Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

The former speaker owned up to the affair and said it marked one the most shameful periods of his life, a time in which he was “alienated from God,” according to a participant at the meeting who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Though he didn’t run for president in 2008, Gingrich went on James Dobson’s Focus on the Family radio show to admit the affair to the evangelical icon and a national audience: “There's certainly times when I've fallen short of God's standards.”

Gingrich told listeners he’d since turned "to God to receive forgiveness and to receive mercy."

For many evangelicals, the admission and penitent tone struck a chord (CNN Belief Blog).

It was this "rebirth" and his public penitence for sins that have caused many American evangelicals to look past Gingrich's moral failings as they consider presidential hopefuls.  

Yet, there is a difference between people forgiving Newt Gingrich and affirming his credibility. Christians are certainly commanded to forgive others, but the fact that God has forgiven Newt Gingrich-- or, that we have forgiven him-- does not automatically restore his credibility (Mohler's Bernie Madoff example is one that I found particularly helpful). Forgiveness is available to all (including Newt Gingrich, you, or me) who repent and put their faith in Jesus. This is a theological issue. Credibility, however, is a moral issue and anyone following the Republican party is being forced to answer, not whether Newt Gingrich is forgiven, but whether he has reestablished his moral credibility.