The Intolerance of Tolerance (D.A. Carson)

"Tolerance" is certainly a buzzword in today's culture. In his important book on the subject, Professor D.A. Carson argues that "the notion of tolerance is changing, and with the new definitions the shape of tolerance itself has changed. Although a few things can be said in favor of the newer definition, the sad reality is that this new, contemporary tolerance is intrinscially intolerant. It is blind to its own shortcomings because it erroneously thinks it holds the moral high ground; it cannot be questioned because it has become part of the West's plausibility structure. Worse, this new tolerance is socially dangerous and is certainly intellectually debilitating. Even the good that it wishes to achieve is better accomplished in other ways."

Carson starts by comparing the old vs. new definitions of tolerance. Through dictionary definitions, we trace a subtle yet important difference:

One definition of tolerance: "accepting the existence of different views"

Another: "acceptance of different views"

Carson calls the first the old definition and the second the new. See the difference? "To accept that a different or oppositing position exists and deserves the right to exist is one thing; to accept the position itself means that one is no longer opposing it . . . [and so] "we move from allowing the free expression of contrary opinions to the acceptance of all opinions." But yet, not all opinions, for "any sort of exclusive truth claim is widely viewed as a sign of gross intolerance." "No absolutism is permitted, except for the absolute prohibition of absolutism. Tolerance rules, except that there must be no tolerance for those who disagree with this peculiar definition of tolerance." A sad state of affairs indeed.

Carson spends the rest of the book looking more at this problem, its history, inconsistencies, implications, and how Christians should proceed. While I can't cover every point here (my highlighter got a lot of work on this book), I will present a few cogent points:

• Everyone is religious, meaning (in part) that we ground ourselves in an overall framework or system of values and operate out of them, viewing ourselves (and the world) through that lens. This new definition of tolerance is no different- claiming to be neutral or independent, it is in fact grounded within a larger framework of thought- a framework that decrees what is is good and bad, what is acceptable and unacceptable, etc. In a view of what is true, in other words. In today's America, it is often secular humanism- hardly a neutral or unbiased position.
• All forms of tolerance (old and new) have limits. And that's a good thing. (Murder is wrong. Pedophilia is wrong. And so on.) What matters is getting those limits correct- not pretending they don't exist- and being aware of the underlying influences and worldviews that are informing our conclusions of what should and shouldn't be permitted (in word or deed). 
• The new form of tolerance is confusing and conflicted. Far from championing true diversity (with real and profound differences between cultures, religions, and so on), it "tends to stifle and subdue the distinctive claims of other cultures . . . [and] destroys everything that disagrees with it." And, in fact, the word itself is often inappropriately used: you must in fact disagree with something to be capable of tolerating it. And it is conflicted: like postmodernism, it "can be quite as exclusive and censorious as the orthodoxies it opposes" (Terry Eagleton).

In summary, champions of the new tolerance "are not principled defenders of tolerance, inclusion, and free speech. Rather, they appeal to tolerance selectively in order to promote their own selective values."

------------------------------

This is a great book, well worthy of reflection. Carson argues that the old tolerance, while not perfect, was admirable in that it allowed competing truth claims to be held and voiced. Today, there is one truth- the 'new' tolerance- with limits set by a very specific agenda that seeks to destroy or discredit all who disagree. This agenda claims (among other things) that you can have and practice a religion- so long as you keep it private, don't make truth claims, and don't let it influence your speech or conduct. Such a religion, of course, isn't a religion at all. And this new agenda is, in fact, a religion: it is grounded in its own belief system that adherents claim is superior and seek to impose on others. It mimics what it seeks to depose.

We cannot escape the reality of truth, of limits, and of bias. We need true tolerance to care for each other; part of that is allowing people to hold truly different- deeply different- views, with competing truth claims, without kicking them out of the public square. An important book on a critical issue.

Rating: A