Intolerable Intolerance
When it comes to intolerance, our world today is quite different from the world of fifty years ago, which can be illustrated in the two dramatic examples of abortion and homosexuality. In that day abortion was illegal in most states; today every large city from coast to coast has facilities where abortions are performed on demand. Fifty years ago homosexuals led secret lives; today they parade pridefully in the streets. How have these changes occurred?
It will not do to say simply that our generation is more tolerant than the prior generation. In some ways our generation is much less tolerant. For example, fifty years ago many high schools had marksmanship classes and teams. It was not uncommon for students to bring firearms to school. Even in schools that had no shooting sports, it was common for boys to carry pocket knives. Now, any child caught with a pocket knife is subject to expulsion. It is considered to be a matter of pride and responsibility that every school district today, and most communities, strictly enforce a “zero tolerance” polity against weapons and drugs. So, it is not a question of whether our generation is more or less tolerant than before. It is, instead, a matter of being differently tolerant. The question persists: What makes the difference? The answer lies in the secularization of American society and culture.
It cannot be maintained that our Founding Fathers self-consciously intended to form a Christian theocracy. However, it is indisputable that Christianity was the major influence in creating the cultural and intellectual milieu in which our country was birthed. It equally is certain that in our day this influence has waned considerably. The powerful influence of Christianity in American culture fifty years ago may be seen in the fact that abortionists and homosexuals operated secretly even though no one was staging protests or publishing books and articles opposing them. “The wicked flee when no one is pursuing.” (Pr. 28:1) Conversely, the loss of Christian influence today is shown in the fact that abortion and homosexuality are pursued openly and pridefully despite the highly visible protests of Christians. Through the middle of the 20th Century, the shame and secrecy of abortion and homosexuality were not a response to overt Christian protests, but were the natural defenses of the culturally aberrant. In our day, abortion and homosexuality are mainstream, and the highly visible protests of Christians constitute a push to reassert a lost influence.
The differently tolerant cultural mood of our day has not come about by a simple loosening of Christianity’s grip. The decline of one influence comes about only upon the rise of another. One of the problems of the “tolerance” debate is that discussion tends to concern only individuals. The individual is urged to keep his convictions to himself and not to bother at all with the fact that other individuals hold contrary convictions. The purported ideal of such an approach is a universal and implicit tolerance – the utter forsaking of all intolerance. However, there is much more to the matter than can be explained in terms of individuals alone. In addition to individuals, there also is the reality of a culture that is greater than the sum of the individuals who populate it. That is how we are able to speak of Christianity or even “secularism” – things which cannot be embodied in the words or the works of any individual. While an individual may make a pretense to complete neutrality and implicit tolerance, this never could become a cultural reality. Should a universal tolerance actually come about within a given culture, then soon it would be conquered and supplanted, for in that case it would be utterly powerless against the emergance of a new intolerance.
The point to grasp here is that one sort of intolerance may be combatted only by a rival intolerance. There is no option to try to get everyone to stop drawing lines. Voices today that urge Christians to stop drawing lines cannot appeal to any Pollyanna platitude concerning the erasing of lines altogether. Cultural lines may be erased only by a design to redraw them elsewhere. The push nowadays is finally to wrest all line-drawing influence away from Christianity and to award it to secularism instead. The cultural force of opposition to abortion and homosexuality fifty years ago pushed those who practiced such things into a closet. But the open practice of abortion and homosexuality in our day has not yet achieved such cultural force as likewise to silence the Christian influence. Though no longer in a position of cultural leadership, the Christian influence still speaks plainly of its intolerance of abortion and homosexuality. Cries to silence this intolerance ostensibly champion the ideal of universal and implicit tolerance. However, such cries effectively amount to a competing intolerance. Those today who are angered by the shame and silence forced upon abortionists and homosexuals fifty years ago nevertheless would impose the same shame and silence upon the Christian influence today. Again, one sort of intolerance may be opposed only by a rival intolerance.
What is the future of the Christian influence in American culture? The adaptation of Christian ministry amid cultural upheaval finds expression in the ideal of the Apostle Paul: “I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some.” (I Corinthians 9:22) This ideal does not entail any compromise of the Christian message, otherwise none would be saved. Becoming all things to all men means knowing how to speak to every person in every situation. Fifty years ago it meant knowing how to speak to the shamed and silent homosexual. Today it means knowing how to speak to the activist homosexual, who would wish to shame and silence Christians. It means diligently fulfilling the role of shepherd during times of cultural leadership. It means being wise to discern when cultural leadership is lost, and then to adopt the posture of the prophet. Being all things to all men means, in short, faithfully juxtaposing Christian intolerance against all rival intolerances.
It will not do to say simply that our generation is more tolerant than the prior generation. In some ways our generation is much less tolerant. For example, fifty years ago many high schools had marksmanship classes and teams. It was not uncommon for students to bring firearms to school. Even in schools that had no shooting sports, it was common for boys to carry pocket knives. Now, any child caught with a pocket knife is subject to expulsion. It is considered to be a matter of pride and responsibility that every school district today, and most communities, strictly enforce a “zero tolerance” polity against weapons and drugs. So, it is not a question of whether our generation is more or less tolerant than before. It is, instead, a matter of being differently tolerant. The question persists: What makes the difference? The answer lies in the secularization of American society and culture.
It cannot be maintained that our Founding Fathers self-consciously intended to form a Christian theocracy. However, it is indisputable that Christianity was the major influence in creating the cultural and intellectual milieu in which our country was birthed. It equally is certain that in our day this influence has waned considerably. The powerful influence of Christianity in American culture fifty years ago may be seen in the fact that abortionists and homosexuals operated secretly even though no one was staging protests or publishing books and articles opposing them. “The wicked flee when no one is pursuing.” (Pr. 28:1) Conversely, the loss of Christian influence today is shown in the fact that abortion and homosexuality are pursued openly and pridefully despite the highly visible protests of Christians. Through the middle of the 20th Century, the shame and secrecy of abortion and homosexuality were not a response to overt Christian protests, but were the natural defenses of the culturally aberrant. In our day, abortion and homosexuality are mainstream, and the highly visible protests of Christians constitute a push to reassert a lost influence.
The differently tolerant cultural mood of our day has not come about by a simple loosening of Christianity’s grip. The decline of one influence comes about only upon the rise of another. One of the problems of the “tolerance” debate is that discussion tends to concern only individuals. The individual is urged to keep his convictions to himself and not to bother at all with the fact that other individuals hold contrary convictions. The purported ideal of such an approach is a universal and implicit tolerance – the utter forsaking of all intolerance. However, there is much more to the matter than can be explained in terms of individuals alone. In addition to individuals, there also is the reality of a culture that is greater than the sum of the individuals who populate it. That is how we are able to speak of Christianity or even “secularism” – things which cannot be embodied in the words or the works of any individual. While an individual may make a pretense to complete neutrality and implicit tolerance, this never could become a cultural reality. Should a universal tolerance actually come about within a given culture, then soon it would be conquered and supplanted, for in that case it would be utterly powerless against the emergance of a new intolerance.
The point to grasp here is that one sort of intolerance may be combatted only by a rival intolerance. There is no option to try to get everyone to stop drawing lines. Voices today that urge Christians to stop drawing lines cannot appeal to any Pollyanna platitude concerning the erasing of lines altogether. Cultural lines may be erased only by a design to redraw them elsewhere. The push nowadays is finally to wrest all line-drawing influence away from Christianity and to award it to secularism instead. The cultural force of opposition to abortion and homosexuality fifty years ago pushed those who practiced such things into a closet. But the open practice of abortion and homosexuality in our day has not yet achieved such cultural force as likewise to silence the Christian influence. Though no longer in a position of cultural leadership, the Christian influence still speaks plainly of its intolerance of abortion and homosexuality. Cries to silence this intolerance ostensibly champion the ideal of universal and implicit tolerance. However, such cries effectively amount to a competing intolerance. Those today who are angered by the shame and silence forced upon abortionists and homosexuals fifty years ago nevertheless would impose the same shame and silence upon the Christian influence today. Again, one sort of intolerance may be opposed only by a rival intolerance.
What is the future of the Christian influence in American culture? The adaptation of Christian ministry amid cultural upheaval finds expression in the ideal of the Apostle Paul: “I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some.” (I Corinthians 9:22) This ideal does not entail any compromise of the Christian message, otherwise none would be saved. Becoming all things to all men means knowing how to speak to every person in every situation. Fifty years ago it meant knowing how to speak to the shamed and silent homosexual. Today it means knowing how to speak to the activist homosexual, who would wish to shame and silence Christians. It means diligently fulfilling the role of shepherd during times of cultural leadership. It means being wise to discern when cultural leadership is lost, and then to adopt the posture of the prophet. Being all things to all men means, in short, faithfully juxtaposing Christian intolerance against all rival intolerances.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home