The chief virtue of 21st century America seems to be tolerance. In a pluralistic society, where values clash and cultures collide, it is considered to be the new glue that will hold us all together. It is the philosophy underlying “political correctness,” and the plea of almost all groups who feel misunderstood. We’re morally required to be tolerant even of intolerance, if it represents a misunderstood group, though as Mark Steyn aptly pointed out, that gets complicated:
Our tolerance of our own tolerance is making us intolerant of other people’s intolerance, which is intolerable. And, unlikely as it sounds, this has now become the highest, most rarefied form of multiculturalism.
Even for those who think it’s the greatest answer, though, the reality is that tolerance won’t get you very far. It’s way too weak to do the job. It may start off in the right direction, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough. Where it stops is wholly inadequate.
One good definition for tolerance is Webster’s: “the act of allowing something; sympathy or indulgence of practices differing or conflicting with one’s own.” In practice, it usually means letting others do and be as they wish without interfering with them. That’s where its weakness lies. In letting others alone, and not interfering, really means separating ourselves from one another. We sanction differences without engaging meaningfully with them. “Live and let live” is a euphemism for “Don’t criticize, ignore.”
Juan Williams was supposed to be tolerant of Islam in this way. Far better not to think about what Islam represents—far better not to interact with it meaningfully at all–than to say anything that might offend.
But this is wimpy. Its veneer of bringing us together is superficial. Why not choose stronger words: “respect” and “love,” instead of “tolerance”? Respect implies understanding and appreciation. How much better if I respect another culture than if I merely tolerate it! I don’t prefer urban music. I can tolerate urban music without a moment’s thought: just ignore it! Some musician friends have taught me what to listen for in it, though (speaking of the musical style, not the lyrics), and while I don’t love it yet, I have more respect for it than before. That’s harder, but stronger than just tolerating it. Is it better, too? Obviously.
Love can bring us together even in our differences: Jesus taught us to love even our enemies. In the full Christian understanding of the word, love can even allow us to have a good disagreement. I have had a several friends who are gay men; one has died of AIDS. In that whole time of tragedy, he and his partner knew my love and respect for them were genuine, yet they also knew that as a Christian, I disagreed with their sexual behavior. In our friendship we could differ. The surviving partner is still a friend. Tolerance says I should not have worried about our differences, and I should never criticize. Love says I can be who I am in relationship with them, and they can too. I can be honest about myself, and they can too. We can be whole persons in relationship together. It’s not as easy as tolerating each other. But tolerance is weak. Love shows its strength by working through differences, not dancing around them.
There is another current sense in which “tolerance” is promoted as a virtue: not just that we should live with our differences, but that we should value others’ viewpoints as highly as our own. What that tells me, though, is that I cannot have any unique personal convictions, or if I do, I’m to hide them or squash them when I’m interacting with anyone who disagrees. Somewhere in the exchange, the person I really am is bound to disappear. All that’s left is bland conformity. How weak is that?
The Bible teaches that God loves us exactly the way we are—but (as many have observed) He loves us too much to want us to remain as we are. He wants us all to grow into the greatest possible fullness of life and character. Following His example, Christians take a stand for what we believe is right, especially regarding moral character and knowledge of God’s truth. We love others as they are, but we believe we all could be more.
Some have interpreted this as not being tolerant. I say, “who cares?” I’m not about to settle for tolerance as my highest virtue; it’s too easy, too weak, too wimpy. Love and respect are much stronger ways of relating with each other, and the only way to connect as whole people.
October 27th, 2010 | 12:11 pm | #1
Tom Gilson, I tolerate your post.
;-)
Just kidding. I loved it!
October 27th, 2010 | 1:18 pm | #2
I was fine with just the first line: it helped make my point. “I tolerate you” obviously isn’t much of a compliment—which is part of what I was trying to say.
October 27th, 2010 | 2:29 pm | #3
Tom,
I think there is, in fact, a less benign, more dangerous side to all this deification of “tolerance” in the sense(s) it is understood today — it ends up ‘tolerating’ (by minimizing or ignoring) the self evidently dangerous.
It reminds me of Father Smith’s discussion of niceness/tenderness in Walker Percy’s “Thanatos Syndrome”. Do you know it?
October 27th, 2010 | 2:41 pm | #4
David,
I haven’t read the book. It sounds interesting.
I agree there is a much more dangerous side to it than what I spoke of here. My intent was to show that even for those who think tolerance is good, and even for the purposes they say they’re promoting through it, it’s empty and weak, and in fact produces the opposite of what they claim for it. If it’s no good even for what its proponents say it’s good for, then it’s no good right out of the starting gate.
October 27th, 2010 | 4:20 pm | #5
Tom,
I see your point, and agree though I would be willing to make a case (in light of episodes like the Florida pastor who threatened a Koran burning and the Westboro Baptist’s continuing provocations) that the right kind of tolerance (rooted in agape) can be a Christian virtue.
Thanatos is Percy’s dystopic novel set in the near future (now?) — an imagined (and in my view, prophetic) examination of the likely consequences of embracing what John Paul 2 called “the culture of death”. A great read and worth any Christian’s time. More polemic than James’ “Children of Men” but just as worthwhile maybe more so for it’s wry humor.
October 27th, 2010 | 4:28 pm | #6
Where tolerance serves a higher (and true) virtue it is a very good thing indeed.
October 28th, 2010 | 1:51 pm | #7
“I’m not about to settle for tolerance as my highest virtue; it’s too easy, too weak, too wimpy. Love and respect are much stronger ways of relating with each other, and the only way to connect as whole people.”
(Hard question) Circumscribing to the world of virtual online relationships and dynamics, do you tolerate C. Ehrlich and Hrafn or do you love and respect C. Ehrlich and Hrafn?
October 28th, 2010 | 2:54 pm | #8
TUAD,
I won’t speak for Tom, but I think you have hit upon one of the more troubling aspects of the internet and one of the more beautiful aspects of the Incarnation.
Tweeting, texting, facebook, blogs — all the so called “social media” are neutral to actively harmful on the scale of substitutes for genuine human relationships. Their immediacy, and seeming intimacy, (and their incredibly low social cost) however, make them highly addictive and compelling for many.
I would argue that neither tolerance, nor the higher virtues of love and respect, can really occur in any genuine sense without the sometime (or at least one time) physical presence of the other to be loved, respected, or tolerated… Unembodied love, respect, or tolerance are, in my view, abstractions at best, fantasies at worst.
One of the ways we define agape is to say that there is a ~cost~ involved. I can say that I love my internet brothers and sisters in Christ but what does it cost me to say that? (other than the dollar and thirty cents a day it costs me to have an internet connection).
The question as to whether I tolerate, love, or respect those I have had run ins with on the internet is therefore badly framed in my view. I probably demonstrate a kind of respect for them by taking their arguments seriously and answering them in kind… But love, or true tolerance? Not really possible in this case…
I realize that I am probably overstating this somewhat, as I do find in my heart a (supernatural I would insist) love for certain persons I have never met, but the point still stands in my view.
October 28th, 2010 | 9:48 pm | #9
TUAD,
There is real multi-dimensional relationship, and there is the Internet. David covered that (thanks, David).
There is real love rooted in truth, and there is the non-offensive counterfeit that seeks only not to make the other feel good. Love “does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:6); “that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Ephesians 4:14-15). Sometimes love means speaking the truth even if the other doesn’t like it.
There is the attempt (or the goal), and there is the outcome. I don’t claim to have achieved the goal. Sometimes it’s not easy. At least I have something higher and more solid to aim for than mere tolerance.
October 29th, 2010 | 10:22 am | #10
Sometimes love means speaking the truth even if the other doesn’t like it.
That’s so hurtful.
Sometimes people want to consoled and comforted by a loving lie or a loving partial, but misleading truth.
Allowing people to hold to a cherished delusion is sacrificial love. You have to sacrifice….
October 29th, 2010 | 2:17 pm | #11
David C.: “The question as to whether I tolerate, love, or respect those I have had run ins with on the internet is therefore badly framed in my view. I probably demonstrate a kind of respect for them by taking their arguments seriously and answering them in kind… But love, or true tolerance? Not really possible in this case…“
Okay. I tolerate, love, and respect your position.
October 29th, 2010 | 2:43 pm | #12
TUAD,
But will you still, in the morning?
October 29th, 2010 | 3:07 pm | #13
What?
October 29th, 2010 | 5:52 pm | #14
TUAD,
T’was a joke… “Will you still love me….tomorrow” a pop culture reference from the 70′s. Carol King?
Ahh, nevermind. Illustrative of just what i am talking about.
October 29th, 2010 | 6:53 pm | #15
Whatever.
November 12th, 2010 | 11:37 pm | #16
“Sometimes love means speaking the truth even if the other doesn’t like it.
That’s so hurtful.
Sometimes people want to consoled and comforted by a loving lie or a loving partial, but misleading truth.
Allowing people to hold to a cherished delusion is sacrificial love. You have to sacrifice….”
The key word is sometimes.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact