The most desirable value?

Tolerance. It’s one of the bywords of our modern society. But what does it really mean... and why is it used so frequently nowadays?

The dictionary defines it as: willingness to accept or endure
(someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.

Well I ask you... is the world really so full of disagreeable people that “this” should be seen as the great value in today’s society?

How did people live together ‘before’ this word became “the most desirable value”? An in-depth historical analysis could be conducted but I think that the more pressing questiong for us should be: “just why exactly is this word taking over today?”

The attitude today is that the only thing that will not be tolerated is an intolerant person.

All other things and people must be endured. This has created a somewhat schizophrenic attitude in most people. They know that they are supposed to be tolerant, but this means that, more and more, they are putting up with people and practices that their conscience and values would normally find wrong or even repulsive. This situation cannot continue indefinitely - eventually either your tolerance will run out and you will be forced to comment on the repulsiveness of the behaviour, or your views on the behaviour itself will simply change to conform to your public facade. So, for instance, if I am a person who believes, for whatever reason, that ‘cohabitation’ (as it is now called) is wrong, yet I continually find myself defending such people - for the sake of tolerance - against others who find it morally unacceptable, then eventually I will find myself first sympathising with them, then agreeing with them and, eventually, perhaps even identifying with them. I will begin not only to argue that they be left alone but also that what they are doing is ‘right’. Perhaps I may even try it out myself.

This kind of toleration more often than not brings conformity, in opinion if not practice.

Of course, there are certain practices that are still regarded by the majority of people as ‘morally reprehensible’ - and therefore not to be tolerated under any circumstance. The only problem with this is that the boundaries regarding which practices fall into this category are continually being moved. This is particularly obvious when it comes to both sexual and medical ethics. Not so long ago sodomy was illegal in most countries around the world - now it is both legalised and encouraged (if you ‘feel’ it is right for you).

At what point did it stop being ‘tolerated’ (as deviant) and start being accepted (as normal) and then promoted (as good)??

Not so long ago, euthanasia of any form would have been treated as something out of a movie script; a horror scenario that hopefully would never come true. Now it is debated and being put forward as a potential standard practice. Even last month, there were strong calls to progress straight on to ‘involuntary euthanasia’... At what point did these views stop being ‘tolerated’ and start becoming mainstream?

At present, there is generally a huge furore over paedophiles - these are the people who are regarded as having committed the worst and most depraved acts... but how long will it be before this too is seen as ok, as long as the child is consenting or something like that? It would be very easy to scoff at this prediction but whoever would have thought just a few years ago that sodomy would be regarded as normal and natural. The ancient Greeks certainly didn’t seem to have a problem with engaging in sexual practices with young boys...

...when the boundaries are constantly being moved then, in the end, anything can be ‘tolerated.

Which brings us onto the greatest paradox about today’s society. Apparently, the only thing that is actually morally reprehensible is to comment on someone else’s behaviour and voice an absolute opinion. The action of the person should not be called into question at all - they are to be tolerated at all costs. Only bigots and fundamentalists have the audacity to be so ‘intolerant’. But is this fair?

By saying that a person must be tolerated ‘along with’ their actions rather than ‘in spite of them’, one is effectively separating this person from their actions, but this is impossible. You cannot separate a person from their deeds; we do not act within a moral vacuum. Our actions affect ourselves and others and we are therefore accountable to one another for those actions. If someone does something that I regard as immoral then that means that I must also call the person immoral (recognising, of course, that I am also immoral, lest I be accused of hypocrisy). You cannot separate a person from their actions.

So actually then, society today, by asking us to endure all these unpleasant things and unpleasant people is creating exactly the right circumstances for these undesirable practices to be perpetuated. If my misdeeds are no longer being sanctioned I will only be encouraged to carry on doing them. We see this most plainly with little children. There is no such thing as ‘telling off a deed’; you always tell off a person. If you do not tell of the person then they understand that they are getting away with it. By encouraging us to tolerate people ‘together with’ their unpleasant behaviour rather than ‘in spite of’ it, we are effectively being told to condone what they are doing. We affirm them in their ‘evil’ practices. But surely true toleration must be about accepting the person ‘despite’ their deviant behaviour? And this brings us to the heart of tolerance.

Tolerance was never supposed to be the solution...

It is merely a stepping stone to the real aim: reconciliation. What does genuine tolerance look like? Well, surely it involves accepting and enduring someone despite the fact that many things about them and many things they do are intrinsically wrong. And this is the major problem for the atheist; he is unable to label anything as ‘intrinsically’ wrong. Due to his or her worldview that excludes God from the moral plane, morality itself must be dealt with in terms of expediency and utility. Tolerance then becomes not a matter of sanctioning evil or deviant practices but simply about maintaining some semblance of order amidst a plurality of conflicting and contrasting values. Tolerance itself is seen as the ultimate solution but this begs the question... solution to what? The real problem that toleration addresses is not some vague idea of it being inconvenient that people have different views and practices, it is the concrete and horrific problem of evil; the fact that people lie, cheat and kill. But if there is no God then there is no truth, just different perspectives; if there is no God then there is no cheating or killing, just practices that favour my survival over another person’s (survival of the fittest). Suddenly the modern approach to tolerance becomes understandable; it is simply the logical outworking of the atheist’s worldview. Circular and hopeless though it may be (toleration is both the means and the end), it is consistent with the rest of the atheistic worldview.

This cannot be right, though. The real problem is one of broken relationships. Human beings are out of fellowship with each other; even our romantic relationships are full of cheating, lies and murder - this is a fact that is painfully obvious through just a cursory glance at our world; even the atheist can see this. We don’t need just a peaceful life.

What we need is reconciliation!

Toleration is simply the stepping stone to reconciliation. It not about ‘putting up with each other’, it is about restoring relationships that have been broken. When someone who knows that I regard their behaviour and views as being evil and wrong, according to God’s perfect standard sees that I nevertheless accept them completely (tolerate) and in doing so also offer them love (reconciliation) when what they deserve is condemnation and judgement for what they are doing... then they have been introduced to true toleration.

And of course the greatest argument for doing it this way is that, even if I know the correct standard, I have no right to condemn and judge anyway because I am no better. Jesus shows us very clearly that we have ALL broken ALL of the ten commandments so that none of us have a leg to stand on. This puts things in a very different light... when the only person who has the right to condemn and judge us finds us all guilty then the question stops being one of whether we will tolerate each other or not and turns into one of wonderment at just...

..how on earth has God tolerated us lawbreakers for so long?

The answer is again found in the true nature of toleration; it was never supposed to be an end in itself - it points to reconciliation. The Bible tells us clearly that God was tolerating our sin because it was always his plan to reconcile people to himself. When the apostle Paul was preaching to the multicultural people of Athens, he said these words: “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” Jesus’ resurrection means two things - it shows us that God’s tolerance was being exercised for a reason (so that all people everywhere could have the chance to turn and repent and be reconciled to God) and it also shows us that his toleration of us will not continue indefinitely. Jesus demonstrated through his resurrection who he was: the living God who has the right and the power to judge our wrongdoing and rebellion against him and one day he will judge all people.

This means that if I haven’t yet repented (turned away from sin in my heart and turned to Jesus) then God is being tolerant towards me at the moment. But his offer doesn’t last forever. God’s tolerance is being exercised for the purpose of me having the opportunity to accept his offer of reconciliation. When that offer ends then so will God’s tolerance and I will receive the fair wages for my rebellion: judgement. Notice, however, the repetition of the word, “all”. God is an ‘all’ kind of God. All are facing judgement but God is showing tolerance to all. All have rejected God but God is offering reconciliation to all. All who repent will receive this offer and all who don’t will be judged eventually.

What are the implications of this to our idea of tolerance? Well, surely it means that our toleration must also be exercised in exactly the same all-encompassing manner? This means that I don’t just tolerate vegetarians and villains, but also gays and gangsters, not just blacks and bolsheviks but also perps and paederasts. There is no ‘choosing’ of what I tolerate or not. All evil deeds are ‘morally reprehensible’ to God; there are no different categories. The argument is simple: God has shown tolerance to even the worst offender amongst us so we have no right not to show tolerance to all people, whoever they may be, whatever they may have done. But that tolerance must be of the kind that points towards an offer of reconciliation. We must offer reconciliation ourselves and, above all, point to the source of all reconciliation; to Jesus Christ in whom we can be reconciled to God, the key to God’s toleration of us. There can be no lasting reconciliation outside of a relationship with Jesus Christ.

Once again, you are left with a choice

Do you choose the toleration of this world; one in which the boundaries are constantly changing, where you could one day find yourself on the wrong side of the lines of toleration, where toleration is seen as an end in itself leading to a cycle of hopeless stalemate, where resentment festers and where the evil practices are accepted along with the person? Or do you choose the genuine toleration of God, who exercised complete toleration over all people in order that his Son, Jesus Christ, might appear to reveal the true purpose of his toleration: reconciliation.