Tolerance and Intolerance

I recently read a blog by the incorrigible, yet inconveniently popular, Mark Driscoll about tolerance and intolerance. I loathe to give him more publicity but the ideas he writes about are not novel; they are ideas that have made the rounds among conservative church-folk for years. So his iteration is a pretty good springboard.

Let’s just skip right over his semi-male chauvinist introduction. He begins the discussion of tolerance and intolerance with this narrative between himself and Piers Morgan which he uses to identify the problem: Piers Morgan (and the rest of the world) finds Driscoll intolerant because they hold a newer and inferior definition of tolerance than him with his more traditional, prestigious version.

The main difference between the old (good) version of tolerance and the new (bad) version is the foundation of absolute truth. The old version, as he puts it, has an underlying foundation of the belief in an absolute truth that many people dialogue in meaningful ways in order to hopefully arrive together at this truth. The new version, in comparison, denies the existence of some universal truth and therefore finds discussion and dialogue unnecessary and the precursor to prejudices.

He then goes on to posit the extremely tired assertion that the “new” tolerance is actually very intolerant. His example:

“The new tolerance is dreadfully intolerant. Ask average people arguing that every moral view is equally valid and respectable whether they think it’s right for big corporations to destroy the planet, that women at one time could not vote or that people once smoked on airplanes, and see if they are willing to truly welcome, embrace, celebrate and tolerate everyone and everything.
I’m pretty sure if an old guy smoking a cigarette while buying stocks in oil companies and gun makers and bemoaning it was a big mistake to let women learn to read was sitting on a plane next to a feminist on staff with Greenpeace, she would not defend his equally wise and welcomed alternative lifestyle to the flight attendant who was being intolerant for asking him to put out his cigarette.”

So here is how I understand his argument: 1. The new (bad) tolerance doesn’t believe in moral absolutes and finds discussion and dialogue counterproductive; 2. The new tolerance is intolerant by stopping discussion and dialogue; 3. The new version actually DOES believe in moral absolutes, but holds a prejudice against those with whom they disagree.

Well, Mr. Driscoll, which one is it? Is the problem that people don’t believe in moral absolutes anymore or that they believe in universal moral truths but simply won’t tolerate the other side’s viewpoint?

Premise #1 above belies premise #3 but the point he is making isn’t terrible. And my experience has shown similar results. Most people who claim there are no moral absolutes or no universal truths would very quickly backtrack on that assertion when asked about slavery or genocide or rape. Most modern Westerners, liberal or conservative – atheist or Christian – whatever, would assert that it is absolutely (universally) morally wrong to commit genocide or enslave another human being. (However, it is not absolutely wrong to disagree with those assertions.)

The problem, often misconceived by my conservative religious friends is that the modern world has given up on moral absolutes and universal truths. This isn’t true. But something has changed, that is for sure. If you were to ask Martin Luther, or St. Thomas Moore, or Jonathan Edwards to create a list of universal moral truths, that list would be much larger than any modern rendering of the same thing. Perhaps we would find archaic ideas like dancing, drinking alcohol, donating organs, reading non-church approved literature, disagreeing with the Church’s official doctrine, democracy, educating women, etc.

So let’s be honest here. The problem is not that the modern world has given up on moral absolutes. Not at all. In fact, many modern problems are focused on the security of human rights, a cause most modern Americans hold dear (at least in theory). The idea of universal, inherent human rights is, by definition, a moral absolute! No. The problem, here, is that when Mark Driscoll and his ilk roll out their list of moral absolutes and compare it to the list of modern society, their list is much longer. And we reject many things on that list, not only culturally, but in law.

Let’s be more honest. This is really about the fact that conservative Christianity doesn’t like homosexuals. And Muslims. And feminists. And that dislike is veneered with the notion that their god mandates it. Their god not only requires that they, as individuals, not become one of those things, but that they make sure society isn’t a welcoming place for those ideas and those people. They can’t “condone” that behavior. They can’t accept it. They can’t tolerate it because it ought not exist.

And liberals who find virtue in tolerance should be honest. We feel the same way about bigotry. Racism ought not exist. Nor misogyny. Homophobia too. And a myriad other things.

But another main problem with Driscoll’s characterization of tolerance/intolerance is his naivety and complete lack of insight into his own imperfection and frailty. I agree, one of the benefits of lively discussion and dialogue with people who believe differently than we do is a mutual respect for the journey to find moral truth. But that isn’t the only benefit. The other, and perhaps, most important goal is to find ourselves in that other person. To hear the reasons, and understand that different people do exactly what we are doing, trying to find meaning and truth and good even as they arrive at a different answer.

But, we will never know in this life whether what we believe is absolutely true and universally good. The problem today is not that the modern person doesn’t believe in absolute truths, it’s that we don’t believe we can absolutely know if our beliefs are absolutely true. As Paul puts it, it’s like looking in a dim mirror; we only know in part even if one day we will know fully. We want to give as much room for everyone to wrestle with the ideas of morality and goodness as possible without giving them license to injure or hinder another. This requires humility and some modicum of restraint.

So the problem with the conservative Christian moral agenda is not that modern sensibilities disagree with it. By all means, continue believing those things. Let’s talk about them. Let’s talk through them. Help me understand why you believe them and I will do my best to explain why I believe what I believe. But when that speech becomes hurtful, and more importantly, attempts to quarter out a group of our free population to be treated differently – less free, well that just won’t work.

How many times, as kids did we try and use this line: “Hey Dave! You’re ugly and you smell.” “Shut up, Thomas.” “No. It’s a free country.”

That line never worked. Yes. It is free. We are free to say and think what we want. But that doesn’t mean we are free to be jerks. And it doesn’t mean we get to ruin other people’s life with our freedom. That just won’t do.