| 
by James
R. Birrell, Ed.D.
Associate Professor of Teacher Education, BYU
Introduction
A society
that celebrates virtually anything would have to make tolerance
a virtue.
Tolerance for the
right things and in the right amounts is a virtue. No decent or
democratic society can exist without it. To respect individuals
you disagree with is Christian; however, to tolerate evil as a Christian
drains society of virtue. C. S. Lewis made clear the nature of
evil- it is predatory; it will devour virtue. And when there is
nothing of virtue remaining, it will devour itself. To allow evil
where it could otherwise be eliminated is to consent to the death
of virtue. Given the insatiable appetite of evil, and its propensity
to feed on the young and old alike, you and I simply cannot tolerate
the intolerable in society. We cannot hope to remain a decent society
if we adopt a relativist, truth-is-what-you-want-it-to-be- attitude
toward sin and evil in society. To stand as witnesses of God at
all times and in all things, and in all places requires more from
us (Mosiah 18: 9). Our voices and sensibilities must inform public
policy. In this segment, I will discuss how relativist meanings
of tolerance are being used to attack our faith, destroy the virtue
in our nation, and silence our dissent.
The
New Tolerance
Relativism is the
belief that man is the author of truth; one man cannot tell another
man what is true for him. Truth is individually defined not externally
imposed- as if truth could ever be imposed on anyone possessing
agency. To the relativist, one man’s truth is just that- one man’s
truth; it can be nothing more, unless agreed upon by society or
enforced by law. These relativistic values have advanced in society
because the majority of Christian America has silently assented
to the death of ethical theism. In the book The New Tolerance
by Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler (1998), ethical theism is defined
as the belief that right and wrong are absolute, unchanging, and
that they are decided (and communicated to men and women) by God
(p. 33). This view of truth and morality formed the basis for much
of Western civilization; it stems from the belief that certain truths
are self-evident, among them, is the uniquely American tradition
that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable rights, that among them are Life, Liberty,
and the pursuit of Happiness.
These
beliefs are grounded in biblical understandings that shaped Western
civilization and the formation of our nation. The Founders knew
what Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles knew about
truth. They had, according to David F. Wells (1993):
A certainty about the existence, character and
purposes of God- a certainty about his truth- that seems to have
faded in the bright light of the modern world. They were convinced
that God’s revelation, of which they were the vehicles and custodians,
was true. True in an absolute sense. It was not merely true to them;
it was not merely true in their time; it was not true approximately.
What God has given was true universally, absolutely and enduringly
(pp. 259-260).
These
notions were essential to the Founders in 1776, and still are- or
at least should be to us in 2003.
Ethical theism
died a quiet death in America. It died, according to Pat Buchanan
(2002), author of The Death of the West, because Christians
fell asleep and the nation changed; President Benson also said
this. Relativism replaced ethical theism as the explanation
of morality and reality. Along with new explanations came new definitions
of relativist truth in America. Those who resisted these definitions
were thought to be intolerant, judgmental or hateful. Those who
embraced the new ideals of the shift towards relativism were called
tolerant. The new definition of tolerance, then, is agreement.
The more tolerant among us express that agreement through participation;
this shows support for the beliefs of others. For example, attendance
at Gay Pride parades by non-homosexuals is evidence of the new meaning
of tolerance; it is an affirmation that some straights recognize
the rights of gays to coexist in relativistic and legalistic (marriage)
equality. In fighting for the rights of diverse others to be as
they self-determine, so-called tolerant Americans also defend their
own right to autonomous self-definition. It is as if they are saying:
Tolerance is the
crowning virtue among those who honor difference as the desired
norm. To tolerate is to affirm. I don’t judge you, you don’t judge
me; neither of us has to feel bad. Neither of us has to change.
We’re both just fine. In relativist America, diversity is the freest
expression and tolerance is the finest attribute.
This postmodern
or relativist view of truth gradually eclipsed ethical
theism in America. Today, postmodernism or relativism
is seen in such comments as: what I do or believe cannot be separated
from who I am- thus, if you reject what I do or think, you reject
me. How absurd and cowardly are such claims, for they excuse improvement
and absolve us of the need for important introspection and useful
change. The new tolerance is also reflected in the following statements
that I often hear even among some LDS faithful (see McDowell and
Hostetler, 1998):
·
No one can tell you what is right or wrong.
·
I can’t tell you what is right or wrong; you must decide for yourself.
·
It’s wrong to try and impose (as thought one really could) my morals
on someone.
·
I have the right to do whatever I want so long as I am not hurting
anyone.
·
You have to do what you think is right.
·
Those may be the values your parents taught you, but my parents
taught me differently.
·
Look…that’s your opinion.
These
kinds of so-called tolerant comments argue against truth
as an absolute, and- given their source, intentionally deny our
Christian obligation to warn and be witnesses. Christians who use
these arguments affirm relativist truth- that there really is no
truth; and they avoid offending the devil in the process
of showing relativists that they are equally tolerant in response
to endless and fierce accusations of Christian intolerance. I am
not saying that we should be obnoxious about our beliefs, but neither
should we be ashamed of them- or of being different, even peculiar.
For the sake of our faith, families, and freedom, we simply cannot
afford to be too tolerant of sin or error- or of relativist attempts
to make us irrelevant. Besides, we are commanded to open our mouths,
with a promise that God will fill them (D&C 100: 5-8). We may
not think that we have much to say about what is going on in the
world today, but God may have much to say through us.
The
Limitations of Tolerance
Since
tolerance now means agreement, prepare to be called intolerant if
you disagree with someone’s “sinful” of “errant” choices or relativist
arguments- or if you seek to intervene in the choices they make
or changes they advocate. Today, name-calling, as a tool for silencing
criticism, is as common as it is silly. It stifles the beneficial
dialogue that stems from disagreement, and silences those with better
argument and truth on their side. Simply put, it empowers stupidity;
besides, calling someone intolerant because they disagree
with you is intellectually dishonest illogic. Imagine someone is
watching you walk near a cliff. You are getting dangerously close-
you may not appreciate how at risk you are. They do, but may be
reluctant to say so because they do not wish to appear judgmental
or overly aware of your business. They may reason that you know
what you are doing. They may conclude that you want to fall from
the cliff. Then they remember what their teachers taught them in
school, that no one has the right to tell another person what to
do or think. So they watch with ambivalence as you fall from the
cliff.
This
is the danger of demanding agreement or consent in tolerance, especially
when the consequences of our personal choices can be so personally
and socially damaging. Without a value system, I can watch the
lives of others collapse around me with no more concern than the
outcome of a golf tournament; personally, I am indifferent to golf.
Tolerance, then, robbed of the virtue and benefit of absolute truth,
becomes indifference. Why should I care what someone does? What
is that to me? I absolve myself of your stupidity, but I support
your right to be stupid. I might even jump with you to show my agreement
as tolerance- and my equal stupidity.
I
am being absurd to illustrate the absurdity of the new tolerance.
Love
and Tolerance
Somewhere in the
chaos of the 1960’s and 1970’s we lost the concept of the golden
rule- do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This
concept demands more of us than mere tolerance. It has at its core
the commission to love one another; love requires effort and involvement
on our part. It requires us to invest in one another. It requires
of us to change and grow, for love may be unconditional, but relationships
are not. To relate to others, we have to be willing to be changed
by one another in right ways. Love, then, is the greatest of all
virtues- including tolerance.
True love will not
allow you to watch someone step off from a cliff. It will motivate
you to at least try and intervene in their behalf. If that intervention
is done in love, it sometimes saves us from ourselves. In my life,
I am more indebted to those who have reached out to me in love than
tolerated me in agreement or disinterest. I am a better person
today because love won out over tolerance at critical times in my
life when those motivated by higher virtues spoke the truth to me.
These individuals demonstrated the truth of unconditional love.
Unconditional love is not to love someone the way they are, but
to love them despite the way they are. It is to see something better
in them, and to encourage it when moved upon by love and spirit.
Those who merely tolerate absolve themselves of the thorns, but
they never help to grow the rose.
I will conclude
with this comment on the power of true love. In the book of St.
John (21: 15-18), Jesus thrice asked Peter, “Do you love me?”
Each time Peter would respond in the affirmative, and Christ would
say, “Feed my sheep/lambs.” Not once did he ask Peter if he loved
the sheep or lambs. Christ never said, “If you love them, feed
them.” We do for one another because we love Christ. And as we
do, our love for one another increases. Whom we love, we serve;
whom we serve, we love. Love, then, is service. Service and love
are greater than tolerance.
Our investment in
reaching out to those who would otherwise be our political or ideological
opposites is the fulfillment of a commandment to love all others-
even our (ideological) enemies- in a manner of speaking. It is
to do good to those that would spitefully use or ridicule
us. And it would silence our critics. How, for example, could
homosexuals accuse us of being hateful if we provided weekly comfort
to sorrowing souls at an AIDS clinic? How could we be viewed as
superior if we worked along side other faiths in promoting good
causes in the world, as our Prophet has asked of us? The love that
would develop between the giver and the receiver would change us
both, recapture the vision of the Founders, and honor the principles
of Christ.
We
could melt much of the wax that encrusts love in these days by turning
up the warmth of our love. We have no choice if we are serious
about our covenants. We have no choice if we are serious about
saving America. Tolerance will not save this nation. Love can-
and if necessary, tough love; loving more also includes loving God
more. Besides, we can ill afford to be the most tolerant of people
in a nation ripening in iniquity- don’t confuse my argument of love
with tolerance. We must become more loving of people, but less
tolerant of sin. Sin depletes the nation of virtue. A nation that
lacks virtue will not have much tolerance for Christians.
In my next article,
I will discuss how relativism has turned to government and law for
validation and protection. This has changed legislation and litigation
in the past 40 years. Accordingly, we must be more vigilant about
the direction our government and courts are taking, which is, toward
the relativist’s utopia often referred to today as democratic
socialism. I will argue that our leaders must do more to ensure
virtue in American culture; this will not be easy. Too many of
them are behaving in ways that Alexis de Tocqueville warned us against
in his profound and careful writings entitled Democracy in America.
By extending the Entitlements of Liberty to some in the name
of equality, our leaders are further dividing the nation and increasingly
driving us down the socialist path. This is intolerable.
References
Buchanan, Pat (2002).
The Death of the West. New York: St. Martins Press.
Lewis, C. S. (1970).
God in the Dock. Grand Rapids, MI: Erdmans Publishing.
McDowell, Josh,
& Hostetler, (1998). The New Tolerance. Wheaton, ILL: Tyndale
House Publishing.
Wells, David F.
(1993). No place for truth. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing.
Click
here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.
© 2003 Meridian
Magazine. All Rights Reserved.
|
