Monday, October 5, 2015 7:15 AM

New Tolerance vs Old Tolerance

Monday, October 5, 2015 7:15 AM
Monday, October 5, 2015 7:15 AM

The old tolerance was a tolerance that required you to decide between competing truth claims. The new tolerance has no such requirement; in fact the new tolerance has no requirements other than acceptance. D. A. Carson points out the foundational underpinnings of the new tolerance in this next quote.

In other words, the primary “moral” line drawn through Western culture declares that those who “tolerate” just about anything are good, and those who do not are bad and therefore should not be tolerated.[i]

Adherents of the new tolerance, if they are true to their beliefs, are not in a position to opine on Truth—to them there is no truth—but they do. The one thing the adherents of the new tolerance forget is that without the existence of a truth claim they are not in a position to disagree with anyone—if they are true to their beliefs that is. If all truth claims are equal, there is nothing to stand against—but they do. Regardless of what the adherents to the new tolerance claim, they are always making a truth judgment—in fact they turn to Jesus many times. They like to use the phrase “What would Jesus do”.

Could a more damaging belief system exist? A system grounded in a personal truth choice without personal responsibility is chaos. (Make no mistake this choice is a competing truth choice regardless of what the new tolerance claims about the absence of Truth.) Furthermore, a personal truth choice elevated to a civil right voids all tolerance—how intolerant can you get when one group by an edict of law frames their own personal truth choice as a legal claim above every other competing truth claim? The new tolerance goes even one step beyond a mere civil rights claim; it even has a “mandatory participation claim” and a “mandatory thinking claim”.

First the “mandatory participation claim”: the new tolerance claim requires that if you are asked you must participate, such as bake me a cake regardless that I can get the cake elsewhere, or participate in abortion as is being required presently of medical personnel—regardless that it has been proven that abortion has great present medical risks, and great future risks such as cancer and depression.

Secondly the “mandatory thought claim”: You must allow the believers in this new tolerance to control the speech process as well as the definition of words that must be used in all communication. Furthermore they are requiring indoctrination as evidenced in mandatory sensitivity training. They want to change a person’s thinking to fit the new tolerance definition that is ever evolving as the new tolerance group tries to balance and rebalance claims within their own group.

Given that this new tolerance is defined without a moral or truth anchor; they have intolerance without consistency—the very definition of chaos. The Bible tells you that without order there is chaos, and nature demonstrates that without order there really is literal chaos, and it is literal chaos we have in this new tolerance paradigm. We are a land of gloom with a thick darkness of intolerance growing evermore present. A public that is increasingly trusting in its own mind and emotions—devoid of any test of truth—many Christians included.

Job 10:22 the land of gloom like thick darkness, like deep shadow without any order, where light is as thick darkness.”

Pr 28:26 Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.

1 Co 14:33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints…



[i] Carson, D. A. (2012). The Intolerance of Tolerance (p. 134). Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

« back