Book Review: The Intolerance of Tolerance

I have read a few of DA Carson's books and this may be my favorite. In 2012, he published The Intolerance of Tolerance, which is an extended reflection on the modern notion of tolerance. In our postmodern culture where everything goes, it seems that tolerance is the queen mother of all virtues.  Forget love. forget truth. Tolerance represents the pinnacle of our aspirations. Carson sets out to refute these modern notions.

Importantly, Carson sets out early on to differentiate between the old definition of tolerance and the new definition of tolerance. Basically, the older tolerance, which is a still a positive virtue in society, accepts that there are different views held among people. The newer tolerance means accepting that view as at least as valid as your own.  Objective right and wrong are stripped of their meaning.  Ironically, the only thing that those espousing the new tolerance are willing to be intolerant of is intolerance or absolutist thinking.  Carson says it this way, "under the aegis of this new tolerance, no absolutism is permitted, except for the absolute prohibition of absolutism" (p. 13).

After briefly establishing his line of reasoning, Carson provides numerous examples of how this new tolerance plays out in society. Often, the targets are Christians, though not always.  He does demonstrate rather convincingly that Christians are most often the focus of these inquiries by the tolerance police though many groups (e.g., Orthodox Jews, Muslims) may hold to equally "intolerant" views. 

Though many compelling examples were shared, one I found particularly incredulous was found on page 41. He wrote, "In 2004, in the Russian city of Beslan, Islamic terrorists took 1200 people hostage in a public school. They ultimately slaughtered 344 people, 186 of them students. On a smaller scale, but still horrific, two disturbed students massacred 13 people at Columbine High School. [One could certainly add the more recent episodes of violence that have occurred as well]. In the wake of such events, it is not surprising that many schools have run drills so that teachers and students alike will have some idea how to react if such violence breaks out in their schools--locking classroom doors, staying below window level, and so forth while coordinating the work of police and other public safety officials. In New Jersey in April 2007, one such drill was run by the Burlington Police Department. And who were the mock terrorists supposed to be? Homeschooling Christian fundamentalists. Three years earlier, a similar drill in Muskegon County, Michigan, featured homeschooling wackos who detonate a bomb on a school bus. 

"Some local exasperation followed. But can you imaging what would have happened if the mock terrorists had been depicted as turban-wearing Islamic jihadists? Can one think of a single instance of organized Christian homeschoolers threatening, let alone carrying out, terrorist violence?"

As I was pondering this book, I wonder if or when we will return to a society where true and real debate is encouraged.  I wonder if rising generations will be well enough informed of the realities of society, morality, and truth to be able to put forward a cogent argument while still respecting the other with whom you disagree rather than merely insisting the other to be intolerant, hateful, or bigoted when they share an alternative viewpoint.

Highly recommended.

Homeschooling Terrorists?

I am currently reading Don Carson's remarkable book, The Intolerance of Tolerance (2012). He shares many examples of how tolerance has gone awry and how Christianity is uniquely targeted.

Consider this example:

In 2004, in the Russian city of Beslan, Islamic terrorists took 1200 people hostage in a public school. They ultimately slaughtered 344 people, 186 of them students. On a smaller scale, but still horrific, two disturbed students massacred 13 people at Columbine High School. [One could certainly add the more recent episodes of violence that have occurred as well]. In the wake of such events, it is not surprising that many schools have run drills so that teachers and students alike will have some idea how to react if such violence breaks out in their schools--locking classroom doors, staying below window level, and so forth while coordinating the work of police and other public safety officials. In New Jersey in April 2007, one such drill was run by the Burlington Police Department. And who were the mock terrorists supposed to be? Homeschooling Christian fundamentalists. Three years earlier, a similar drill in Muskegon County, Michigan, featured homeschooling wackos who detonate a bomb on a school bus. 

Some local exasperation followed. But can you imaging what would have happened if the mock terrorists had been depicted as turban-wearing Islamic jihadists? Can one think of a single instance of organized Christian homeschoolers threatening, let alone carrying out, terrorist violence? (p. 41)

Unbelievable.

Bye-Bye Tolerance

Recently, in the Huffington Post, Marilyn Sewell has written an opinion piece on why she is “saying goodbye to tolerance.”  She opened her piece by noting her membership in the “the most tolerant of faiths” the Unitarian Universalist church.  Despite her disposition toward tolerance, she is admittedly finding herself “increasingly intolerant of the theology and practice of many evangelical Christians.” 

She visited a conservative seminary where the students, who were “unfailingly polite,” have treated her like “an insect under glass”.  They were not confrontative [sic], but she perceived that they were concerned for her soul.  To my own way of thinking, I am not sure how being unfailingly polite is consistent with the image of Christians as supporting hate crimes, which she argues later in the piece. Indeed, politeness is an admirable trait.  Furthermore, I am not surprised by the students’ curiosity at her faith background.  She should know that as evangelicals, we are also accustomed to the type of scrutiny that she feels.  Curiosity about others’ beliefs is a good thing.  Finally, she surmises that the students were concerned for her eternal soul.  I have no doubt that is true; indeed I hope it is true. One of the hallmarks of evangelicalism is the belief in the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Savior (John 14:6).  If we profess to be evangelical Christians, part of our identity involves concern for the souls of those around us.   We believe the Bible is objectively true and so our concern is objectively real, a facet that rarely enters this discussion--what is Truth? 

Sewell moves on, noting that “much of what [evangelicals] believe is unloving and in fact destructive.” She then provides the example of two nephews—one gay, one evangelical—and how the evangelical will not speak to his younger brother “presumably because his children might be adversely influenced.”  I am left wondering how she has come to this presumption.  Did she form her opinion about why they disagree and then make the data fit that presumption?  Perhaps there is a different reason these brothers do not get along that she knows nothing about.

Then she makes an unfortunate leap in her thinking.  She writes “of even more concern is the preponderance of hate crimes being committed against gays and minorities” and goes on to cite several statistics.  Indeed, there are many hate crimes being committed throughout the world.  Where she is in error, however, is in her apparent presumption that these hate crimes are either committed, or at least tacitly approved of, by evangelicals.  This is flatly false.  Christians were at the forefront of the abolition of slavery in England and in the United States.   Christians have been at the forefront of ethical treatment for prisoners.  Christians were deeply involved in trying to stop Hitler.  Christians continue to be involved in fighting against abortion, sex trafficking, and human exploitation around the globe.  I suspect that if she were to take the time to look at who has committed hate crimes, it would not generally be church-attending evangelicals.  She also fails to include the clear data that the 20^th century has seen great movements of genocide in Germany, Rwanda, Cambodia, and other places at the hand of atheist regimes and atheist leaders. Evangelicals have consistently stood for the oppressed in the face of this tyranny. 

She later returns to the idea that for the evangelical, faith in Jesus is the only way to salvation, which is a stance that turns everyone else into an infidel, unbeliever, or moral pervert.  Her use of the word infidel is interesting and I suspect was chosen to associate evangelicals with Islamic extremists.  “Unbeliever” is also interesting because I would suspect that most people who don’t believe in Jesus would in fact be…well…unbelievers.  I am not sure evangelicals would choose any of those terms to describe others.  Yet, I suspect we would all assent to the idea that unbelievers are sinners.  So are believers.  “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).  Every person, Christian or not, is facing condemnation due to their sinfulness.  The only remedy for that sinfulness is Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross 2000 years ago.   

Later Sewell asks, “if these ‘others’ are offending God by their sins and are on their way to hell, what covert permission is being given to those inclined to act violently on their prejudices?” The Bible offers no covert or overt permission to act upon these prejudices.  Christians are to love others wholeheartedly and to turn the other cheek.  Do those professing Christ fail at that sometimes?  Certainly, but violence and hatred is not exclusive to those proclaiming to be evangelicals (whether they actually are evangelicals is a topic for another day).  Again, I suspect that if she were to dig into the data rather than making baseless assumptions, she would discover that those who hold to orthodox biblical teaching are among the least likely to act out violently. 

The irony that she seems to miss is that secular society has increasingly been intolerant of Christian beliefs.  Christians are regularly dissuaded from speaking about their faith.  Christians are not allowed to run their business practices as they wish.  She also apparently failed to include Christian martyrs in her list of hate crimes.  According to George Weigel, The International Bulletin of Missionary Research annual bulletin in 2011 noted that, “there have 270 Christian martyrs every 24 hours over the past decade.”  That’s one million Christians dead because of their faith.

In the end, she concludes “somewhere in the middle is the silence, the refusal to speak out against prejudice.”  I wonder, would she encourage others to speak out against the prejudice and intolerance toward Christians that she is advocating here?

In a way, I am glad that Marilyn Sewell is saying goodbye to tolerance. At least she is finally bringing to light what we evangelicals have known for years.  Tolerance applies universally...unless you are a Christian. 

Tolerance, Acceptance, and Love

"Jesus was all about acceptance, not hate."

"We are supposed to be tolerant of others' beliefs."

Tolerance and acceptance have been cultural buzzwords for a years.  People often ascribe to Jesus the "virtues" of tolerance and acceptance. Whenever I see that, the first question I want to ask is "what do you mean by that?"  In this case, in many cases, definitions matter. If we fail to understand what someone is trying to communicate, we run the risk of misinterpreting them. 

In my experience, when people describe Jesus as tolerant, they often mean that he would approve of any choice, lifestyle, or behavior. This is often accompanied by the statement "the Bible says don't judge", which also requires clarification of definitions, but that is a discussion for a different time.  The same trends are often seen with the idea of acceptance. 

Because I have heard these terms so often, I decided to look them up in the Bible.  The word tolerance is never mentioned in the Bible. Its root word, "tolerate" is mentioned twice in the ESV. The first one in Esther 3:8 has little to do with the idea of tolerance alluded to above. In Revelation 2:20, the concept seems to be the opposite. In the letter to the church at Thyatira, "the words of the son of God" condemn the church's tolerance for Jezebel who seduced and taught people to engage in idolatry and sexual immorality. The NIV also translates Habakkuk 1:13 using the word tolerate; it reads "your eyes are too pure to look on evil, you cannot tolerate wrong." Acceptance and its variants have more entries. Searching accept, acceptance, and accepting, I came up with 63 entries. None of these are consistent with the concept of God accepting sinfulness. 

Conversely, the word "love" appears 506 times in the Bible. When Jesus was asked what was the greatest command, he told the people that they were to love God with all their heart, soul, and mind and love their neighbors as themselves. (Matthew 22:36-38). But I think we need to be careful to understand what biblical love means. Here are some things I do not think it means:

I do not think it means "tolerance".  In other words, I see no biblical evidence suggesting that God is willing to overlook sin.  Indeed, tolerance for sin was held against the church at Thyatira. If we are to make disciples (Matthew 28), that means we teach them what God's word says. God hates sin.  God loves people. The only way those things are reconciled is through the blood of Christ. 

I do not think it means "judgment". A common criticism of many Christians is that they are judgmental. I think that is a fair, albeit painful critique. Too often, Christians walk the beaches of humanity with a "sin detector".  When we discover little scraps of sin, we say "a-ha! I got you!"  I do not believe that is loving either. 

Ephesians 4:15 tells us to speak truth in love.  Micah 6:8 says to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with God. We are not to neglect truth and justice.  We are all sinners.  We will all one day face God's judgment. We cannot downplay that message.  Yet, we must not neglect love and kindness. We must weep with those who weep and mourn with those who mourn. We must take a long view of sanctification.  David Powlison described progressive sanctification is often like a yo-yo going up a flight up steps.  There will be ups and downs, but there is a general trend toward growth in Christlikeness.  We must love people fully where they are at, but not neglect holding up the mirror of Scripture.  

I have been wrestling with these concepts for a long time. I expect to continue to do so for the rest of my life. If you find yourself equating tolerance with love, or judgment with love, I would encourage you to dig into the scriptures as well, praying that God will reveal to us the true meaning of love.

Responding to the charge of indoctrination

Christians in general, and homeschooling parents in particular, are frequently charged with indoctrination.  I have been regularly taken back by the comments I read or words I hear from self-proclaimed "tolerant" individuals in society.  There seem to be twin presumptions, two sides of the same coin.  The first of these presumptions is that parents who choose to educate their children at home are engaging in a form of child abuse.  By swimming against the current of mainstream society, by electing not to educate their children in the public school system, homeschoolers are often confronted, directly or indirectly.  Those who would argue against the freedom to educate children at home often voice concerns that home educators are poorly prepared to train their children, are too politically conservative, and seek to shelter their children from the truth in the "real world". Furthermore, religious training is viewed as a particularly egregious form of indoctrination that homeschool parents practice. 

The other side of the coin is the presumption that government, media, and the public education system are immune from indoctrinating the students in their charge.  Public schools are presented as bastions of tolerance for any and all viewpoints.Yet, familiarity with public schools often reveals anything but tolerance.  In the state of Wisconsin last year, public school teachers made their values abundantly clear when they staged "sick outs" to march on the state capitol and protest Scott Walker's union policies.  During that time, some teachers also took their children outside to march in protest to Scott Walker.  This is but one example of many ways of indoctrinating children.  Other examples include the prohibition of teaching intelligent design next to evolution, of teaching abstinence next to to safe sex practices, or of forbidding children to pray, even silently.  Tom Gilson's recent article in the Washington Post highlights the subtle, or perhaps not so subtle, ways in which indoctrination occurs in school districts as well.  

Do homeschoolers "indoctrinate" their children?  Certainly, if indoctrination means that children are educated about a set of beliefs.  Doctrine is defined as, "A belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group" so indoctrination would involve education about that set of beliefs.  Homeschoolers also educate their children about a wide range of subjects--mathematics, English, history, music, and logic to name a few.  Homeschool parents typically take their role as educators very seriously. 

However, it is not only homeschoolers who influence their children's beliefs.  All parents, if they are doing their job well can and should influence their children's beliefs.  Most parents believe in teaching their children to know right from wrong. Most parents, whether directly or indirectly, shape what their children believe about themselves, others, and the world.  There is a word for parents who fail to shape their children's beliefs--neglectful.  Children who are left to their own devices, who grow up without any sort of parental influence or education, do not learn to function well in society. 

It is time that schools, and parents who send children to public schools, recognize that they are indoctrinating children as well.  How teachers present material and how they respond to student questions and behaviors reflects a system of belief.  At a more basic level, the philosophies of textbook authors come through as well in the words they write.  Education is not a morally neutral enterprise.  Even systems, such as the popular values clarification from the 1960s assumed a particular "doctrinal" perspective. 


Beyond teaching my children what I value, I also expect them to become critical thinkers.  I expect them to learn about and appreciate truth, beauty, justice, respect, and mercy.  I expect them to be able to analyze systems of thought, including their own, and be able to identify flaws in thinking.  I expect them to be humble and teachable, yet confident and wise.  I expect them to develop critical thinking skills so that they can learn to "spot the lie" as Os Guinness has suggested. Rather than restricting their learning, I hope to open their minds to a wider world than much public education allows. 

Finally, with regard to schools, I am thankful for teachers and public education.  I am grateful that I live in a country where public education is free and accessible for all children.  For parents who choose to send your children to public schools, make sure you are invested in your children's learning as well.  Talk about their schoolwork.  Ask questions.  For the educators (whether at home or in the schools), do not simply assert a point of view.  Ask questions.  Encourage questions as well.  Teach students to think critically.  Allow them to explore viewpoints that you may not hold.