Carson, 2012. Chapter 8, “Ways Ahead: Ten Words”

Chapter 8, “Ways Ahead: Ten Words” (Loc. 1772)

In this chapter Carson makes ten suggestions. While some are pointed most directly at Christians there is hopefully broad applicability.

“1 Expose the New Tolerance’s Moral and Epistemological Bankruptcy” (Loc. 1775). The new tolerance allows for “mutually exclusive claims to truth.” This simply cannot work.

“2 Preserve a Place for Truth” (Loc. 1799). Truth claims are to be discussed and debated in a thoughtful and caring manner.

“3 Expose the New Tolerance’s Condescending Arrogance” (Loc. 1824).

“4 Insist That the New Tolerance Is Not ‘Progress’” (Loc. 1832). Carson observes that advances in the 20th century have been accompanied by many troubling situations.

“5 Distinguish between Empirical Diversity and the Inherent Goodness of All Diversity” (Loc. 1847).

“6 Challenge Secularism’s Ostensible Neutrality and Superiority” (Loc. 1865).

“7 Practice and Encourage Civility” (Loc. 1895).

“8 Evangelize” (Loc. 1899). This is a reminder that we stand up for truth claims. Christians who believe the Gospel show it to be important.

“9 Be Prepared to Suffer” (Loc. 1924).

“10 Delight in and Trust God” (Loc. 1940).

Here we reach the end of Carson’s book. It is a book of ideas and observations, not necessarily full of specific fixes for problems. Some may not see that there is any problem with altering the language and meaning of “tolerance.” Some may think Carson is barking up a tree that doesn’t exist. Regardless, he has made some very apt observations. Tolerance which is not tolerant is something other than tolerance. This is certainly an idea which is worthy of further study.

Carson, 2012. Chapter 7, “Tolerance, Democracy, and Majoritarianism”

Chapter 7, “Tolerance, Democracy, and Majoritarianism” (Loc. 1556)

Carson investigates the idea of individual rights. Where do they derive from? How are they limited? Carson cites Robert George, who has observed organizations’ removal of religious statements from reports of historical documents. Carson then discusses the decision to remove Prison Fellowship from prisons in Iowa because of their theological stance combined with state funding. The list of situations in which individuals and groups are coerced to accept or endorse behaviors which are approved by the New Tolerance is impressive. Meanwhile, the New Tolerance looks more like “state-sponsored coercion” (Loc. 1611).

Carson then begins (Loc. 1623) a discussion of the demands to keep religious faith private, something which is impossible in the case of Christianity, as well as some other faiths. While secularism has claimed to protect religious freedom it is actually used more often to prohibit religious freedom. A very important societal protection is found in religion’s ability to speak from outside the confines of state power as, for instance, the civil rights movement.

Carson concludes with a smattering of observations adding up to a strong impression that the New Tolerance leads to tyranny, while the Old Tolerance allowed freedom and mutual responsibility.

Carson, 2012. Chapter 6, “And Still There Is Evil”

Chapter 6, “And Still There Is Evil” (Loc. 1426)

In this chapter Carson’s “aim is to show how reflecting on a variety of moral issues shines a little more light on the issues of tolerance and intolerance” (Loc. 1426). The new tolerance has some sort of truth vision and must decide in what ways that truth may be violated. There are certain conducts which are acceptable and some which are not.

Carson goes on to discuss the idea of evil. Within the new tolerance there are some things which are considered bad. But it is not acceptable to call something evil. That is a religious term which is apparently out of bounds.

Carson then discusses the fact that making a value judgment against homosexuality leads to a negative label, as does making a judgment against abortion.

He goes on to discuss points made by John Piper at a 2007 Ligonier conference when discussing relativism. The highly relativistic view of the New Tolerance judges all opposing views to be wrong. Without broadly agreed upon categories of right and wrong there is a lack of clarity in moral discussion.

Finally the New Tolerance leads to a fragmentation of society and responds with totalitarian vigor. This, Carson suggests, is not sustainable.

Carson, 2102. Chapter 5, “The Church and Christian Truth Claims”

Chapter 5, “The Church and Christian Truth Claims” (Loc. 1077)

The Challenges

The Charge of Intolerance

There is a problem related to the new tolerance. Because it refuses to say some positions are wrong it can make a claim for neutrality. Yet this position is not neutral, as it condemns those who accept a position as correct. It is inconsistent because it would need to condemn itself or accept all views. Intelligent people can see this internal contradiction. This chapter deals with the truth claims which are not tolerated.

“Advocates of the new tolerance sacrifice wisdom and principle in support of just one supreme good: upholding their view of tolerance” (Loc. 1090). This comes in conflict with those who uphold a different value system. Carson says this conflict is most pronounced in dealing with religion, particularly Christianity. With its exclusive truth claims, Christianity does not require tolerance, it requires belief. At the same time, it refuses acceptance of contrary claims. Much of Carson’s analysis here is dependent on the work of Phil Miles, who analyzes Western culture through a lens of Japanese non-Enlightenment culture. He observes that in the West there are distinctions between reason and spirituality. These do not exist outside of Enlightenment thinking. In a non-Enlightenment culture, such as that of the Bible, it is moral law, appealed to by individuals, which protects the society from tyranny (Loc. 1132). Beginning at Loc. 1138 Carson deals with the myth of God’s tolerance. He observes that God has forbearance but that it is not infinite. He has rather acted to remove offense.

Inside the Church

The broader culture is currently pushing its agenda not only outside the church but inside it as well. Carson gives several examples of situations in which the Christian community is pressured to avoid judgment. Eventually religious claims are removed from discussion and all is cast in terms of a secular world. Christianity does make truth claims. Yet these claims lead believers to societal good. This is not to be viewed as intolerance.

Carson, 2012. Chapter 4, “Worse than Inconsistency”

Chapter 4, “Worse than Inconsistency” (Loc. 880)

Carson observes that having multiple definitions of “tolerance” can be a problem. “We flip back and forth between the two uses of tolerance and fail to perceive that we have done so. What is worse, these two meanings are not absolutely disjunctive: there is a nasty area of overlap that magnificently muddies the discussion” (Loc. 883). He goes on to describe the progressive accusation of intolerance against the religious right. The accusations are almost invariably applicable to both the old and new definitions of intolerance.

In this chapter, Carson’s goal is “to document that the new tolerance, while making its claims to be free from any ethical, moral, or religious system of thought, is in fact hugely inconsistent” (Loc. 905). The truth, Carson would say, is that the new tolerance insists others who disagree should embrace certain ideas. When that fails, the others are branded as intolerant. Carson illustrates this principle with examples from Stanley Fialis’ 1999 book, The Trouble with Principle. There is, again and again, a selectivity in tolerance and inclusion which deliberately excludes some, refusing toleration.

What is the root of this activity? Carson views it as a secularism which is assumed to be neutral. Yet Carson adduces many examples of the supposedly neutral secularism being intolerant of persons with religious convictions. There is, then, an underlying agenda which is not neutral, but has a distinct slant. This is not tolerance.

Carson, 2012. Chapter 3, “Jottings on the History of Tolerance”

Chapter 3, “Jottings on the History of Tolerance” (Loc. 538ff)

Carson begins by making some observations about the history of tolerance and intolerance. “Across the ages the best thinking on the subject, however diverse, displays a remarkable connection between one’s understanding of tolerance and one’s understanding of ‘natural law’ or ‘public moral law’” (Loc. 552). Carson considers that where this is lacking, “tolerance itself is distorted” (Loc. 552). In effect, tolerance which works for the common good is historically seen as positive while that which pursues individual freedom is negative.

Having observed that society mixes tolerance and intolerance, Carson goes on to discuss early Christian thought. The harshest criticisms lodged against Christians prior to AD 300 was their assertion of the exclusivity of this correct belief. Because they would not confess that other religions gained divine favor, cycles of persecution against Christians were accepted practice. The Christian community typically did not fight back. After the time of Constantine there was more of a temptation to use power and coercion, though use of torture and physical coercion was relatively rare.

As history continues, Carson observes that execution on religious grounds was unknown in Christendom until the 11th century. Yet Europe did move to physical force with greater frequency. This force was generally used only in cases of Christians of suspect doctrine, but did move to a broader cultural intolerance at times. As Carson moves to contemporary situations he observes that this older view of tolerance has been displaced by a relativism which allows or even encourages the kind of cultural intolerance seen in the massive genocidal efforts of the 20th century.

Carson, 2012. Chapter 2, "What Is Going On?"

Chapter 2, “What Is Going On?” (Loc. 217)

Often the very “conservative” Christians in the public square engage in commentary which is inflammatory. This tends to shut down discourse, provoking the non-Christian community to dismiss opposing views as narrow and intolerant. This kind of behavior does not further honest and useful discourse. Carson alleges that the most forceful “intolerant tolerance” is opposed to Christianity. He provides case study examples, first miscellaneous, then from education, media, and sexual identity.

Carson’s conclusion is that although the new tolerance can reject all sorts of people for any reason or no reason, it works against “conservative” and Christian viewpoints in a preponderance of cases.

Carson, 2012. Chapter 1, “Introduction: The Changing Face of Tolerance.”

Chapter 1, “Introduction: The Changing Face of Tolerance.”

Carson observes that tolerance, today, is as important to people as any cultural value. He realizes that suggesting it is intolerant seems like an oxymoron. Tolerance, though, is one of the values held so firmly in Western cultures that it cannot be questioned. What can be questioned, however, is the practical definition of tolerance. Carson states (Loc. 41), “Although a few things can be said in favor of the newer definition, the sad reality is that this new, contemporary tolerance is intrinsically 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.”

A dictionary definition of tolerance affirms being able to accept or allow a different view to exist. However, recent treatment, including Encarta, drops the idea of acceptance of existence and simply requires acceptance of different views. This makes a leap to demanding that differing views are equally acceptable. The differentiation of the various views of tolerance can create trouble, as it may become unclear whether one says positions may exist or that they are acceptable.

Carson illustrates this problem using statements of Christians “tolerating” other views. He continues (from Loc. 86) by defining the terms of the old tolerance more clearly. He identifies three assumptions.

1) There is objective truth which we are to find.

2) Each party in a discussion believes he has identified truth.

3) The best way to uncover truth is through open discussion.

The new tolerance, however, “argues that there is no one view that is exclusively true. Strong opinions are nothing more than strong preferences for a particular version of reality, each version equally true” (Loc. 148). If this is the case, if all versions of reality are right, the greatest wrong which can be perpetrated is intolerance. Yet intolerance finds itself also redefined. It becomes “any questioning or contradicting the view that all opinions are equal in value, that all worldviews have equal worth, that all stances are equally valid” (Loc. 155).

Carson cites S.D. Goede, defining old and new tolerance. This definition leads Carson to observe, “the old tolerance draws its limits on the basis of substantive arguments about truth, goodness, doing harm, and protecting society and its victims, while the new tolerance draws its limits on the basis of what it judges to be intolerant” (Loc. 187).

Carson, 2012.

Carson, D.A. The Intolerance of Tolerance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Kindle Edition.