What do you think?
Rate this book
The Intolerance of Tolerance
We live in a culture obsessed with the idea of "tolerance." But when tolerance, poorly defined, is made an absolute good, it drifts toward intolerance. It must then, argues D. A. Carson, be thoughtfully challenged, both for the good of the church and for the good of the broader culture. / Carson examines how the definition of tolerance has changed. It not has less to do with putting up with a person or stance while still seeking to disagree, and more to do with not saying others are wrong. It is impossible to deploy this new tolerance consistently, so that actual practice is often whimsical and arbitrary. Worse, the words "tolerance" and "intolerance" have become merely rhetorical terms of approval and disapprobation. / Despite the many negatives about these new, often ethically silly definitions of tolerance, from a Christian perspective there have been gains as well. In this extremely readable volume, Carson uses anecdotes and quotes to illustrate his point and ends with practical advice on exemplifying and promoting the virtue of civil civic discourse.
256 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2009
179 people are currently reading
1239 people want to read
About the author
D.A. Carson
338 books738 followersDonald A. Carson is research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He has been at Trinity since 1978. Carson came to Trinity from the faculty of Northwest Baptist Theological Seminary in Vancouver, British Columbia, where he also served for two years as academic dean. He has served as assistant pastor and pastor and has done itinerant ministry in Canada and the United Kingdom. Carson received the Bachelor of Science in chemistry from McGill University, the Master of Divinity from Central Baptist Seminary in Toronto, and the Doctor of Philosophy in New Testament from the University of Cambridge. Carson is an active guest lecturer in academic and church settings around the world. He has written or edited about sixty books. He is a founding member and currently president of The Gospel Coalition. Carson and his wife, Joy, reside in Libertyville, Illinois. They have two adult children.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 106 reviews
December 11, 2012
The Intolerance of Tolerance by D.A. Carson is a masterful exploration into one of the greatest cultural issues of our day--- tolerance by one of the greatest Christian minds of our day. In post-modernism, tolerance—the affirming and celebrating of virtually any exercise of personal autonomy- is the prime value. The unforgiveable sin is being judgmental, that is, believing that an activity or lifestyle choice that does not hurt another person is wrong, immoral or sinful. A second related unforgiveable sin is claiming that what you believe is objectively true and thus binding on another person. A person who holds these beliefs is considered to be bigoted, narrow-minded, and arrogant, just as was true in Ancient Rome.
In our twenty-first century culture, Christians are be “wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matt. 10:16). The Church has been charged with proclaiming the unchanging unadulterated truth of God’s Word to an adulterous, materialistic culture that lifts up itself in rebellion against the God who created them.
Debates about Christianity have shifted from whether it’s true to was anyone offended. The Gospel is offensive but the gospel messenger must be loving. The new tolerance which Dr. Carson rightly exposes in this book will help Christians to understand what this new tolerance is and why it insists that no one should hold firm convictions.
The Intolerance of Tolerance contains eight chapters where Dr. Carson lays out the changing face of tolerance, explains how we came to be where we are, gives a history of tolerance, exposes its inconsistency, how the Church has responded to the new tolerance, along with tolerance, democracy and majoritanism and concludes by providing ten ways forward towards a biblical view of tolerance. Throughout the book as is typical with Dr. Carson’s other books, he provides penetrating biblical-theological analysis along with keen cultural observation and practical implications for how the issue attacks Christianity.
The heart of the book is about the notion of tolerance which is changing, and with it new definitions that shape tolerance.
Carson argues that, “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. Worse, this new tolerance is socially dangerous and is certainly intellectually debilitating. Even the good that it wishes to achieve is better accomplished in other ways” (2). The shift “from accepting the existing of different views” to “acceptance of different views,” from recognizing other people’s right to have different beliefs or practices to accepting the differing views of other people is subtle in form but massive in substance. The accept that a different or opposing position exists and deserves the right to exist is one thing; to accept the position itself means that one is no longer opposing it. The new tolerance suggests that actual accepting another’s position means believing that position to be true, or at least as true as your own” (3).
Understanding this issue is important because when people think of tolerance they think of the older definition of tolerance and not the new definition of tolerance. Thinking clearly is important as Christians are to be people of the Book and to study to show themselves as workman who do not need to be ashamed (2nd Timothy 2:15).
Carson notes that the older view of tolerance “held either that true is objective and can be known, and that the best way to uncover it is bold tolerance of those who disagree, since sooner or later the truth will win out; or that while truth can be known in some domains, it probably cannot be known in other domains, and that the wisest and least malignant course in such cases is benign tolerance grounded in superior knowledge that recognizes our limitations. By contrast, the new tolerance 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” (11).
Beginning with this new view of tolerance elevates one’s view to the supreme position in the hierarchy of moral virtues, the supreme sin is intolerance. “The trouble is that such intolerance like the new tolerance also takes on a new definition. Intolerance is no longer a refusal to allow contrary opinions to say their piece in public, but must be understood to be any questioning or contradicting the view that all opinions are equal in nature, that all worldviews have equal worth that all stances are equally valid. To question such postmodern axioms is by definition intolerant. For such questioning there is no tolerance whatsoever, for it is classes as intolerance and must therefore be condemned. It has become the supreme vice” (12).
The implications for the old and new tolerance are huge and need to be considered by every Christian whether they are preaching from the pulpit or working in a cubicle. Consider a Christian who offers a well-thought out exposition of who Jesus is and what he has done, including how his cross and resurrection constitute the only way by which human beings can be reconciled to God, the person who holds the defeater belief may listen with some intellectual interest but readily dismiss everything you say without much thought. The scope of this problem then comes into focus. “The new tolerance tends to avoid serious engagement over difficult moral issues, analyzing almost every issue on the one axis tolerant/intolerant, excluding all others from the pantheon of the virtuous who do not align with this axis” (15).
Dr. Carson concludes this book by giving ten words about how to engage the new tolerance. First, "expose, the new tolerance’s moral and epistemological bankruptcy, 2) persevere a place for truth, 3) expose the new tolerance’s condescending arrogance, 4) insist that the new tolerance is not progress, 5) distinguish between empirical diversity and the inherit goodness of all diversity, 6) challenge secularism’s ostensible neutrality and superiority, 7) practice and encourage civility, 8) evangelize, 9) be prepared to suffer, and finally, delight in and trust in God” (161-176).
The problem with tolerance is that it is not tolerant at all. Tolerance promises much, but at end of the day is another false gospel the world proclaims in order to distract men and women from the Gospel. As Paul did with the false teachers at Corinthians, so Christians must today do, which is to not preach their opinions nor accommodate false teaching, but to proclaim that the Gospel is the power of God unto the salvation of mankind. The Gospel shines the light of the “knowledge of the glory of God” (2 Cor. 4:5) upon sinners who need to see their sin for what it is, and come to Jesus in repentance and faith. The Gospel is not an opinion or a fairytale, but the power of God to transfer those from the kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The “gospel” of tolerance is another lie designed to lead the people of God away from God. Tolerance promotes a low view of God and a high view of man. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is supreme over the “gospel” of tolerance, because the Gospel carries with it the power of God to open sinner’s eyes to the Truth about who God is, who Jesus is, and what He has done in His death, burial and resurrection. The “gospel” of tolerance proclaims a false view of God by teaching people to turn to themselves which taken to its conclusion will not result in happiness, but rather in eternal unending, unrelenting separation from God in hell. The byproduct of believing pluralism and tolerance is that people have no fear of God, which means they do not believe that Jesus will come to judge the living and the dead.
The gospel of tolerance and pluralism is destroying generation after generation, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God to open people’s eyes to the Truth about who Jesus is and what He has done in His death, burial and resurrection. The Gospel is superior in every way to the inferior gospel of tolerance and pluralism, because the Gospel alone contains the power of God to accomplish all that it aims to do, which is to effect the salvation of the lost and gather and scatter the people of God to bear witness to Jesus Christ the Chief Shepherd of His People.
In my opinion, The Intolerance of Tolerance will make an extremely useful textbook for any Christian interested in the origins of how tolerance has come into being, and how it continues to affect our lives as Christians. First, Carson frames the issue by giving the background of what old and new tolerance is while introducing the reader to others who have thought seriously about the issue of tolerance. In addition to this fact, the book is footnoted so the reader can explore additional perspectives from others on this issue. Second, as is typical with Carson, the book is very well-written which will helps the reader digest the very heavy content in the book. Finally reading The Intolerance of Tolerance will help Christians to understand that the new tolerance is socially dangerous and intellectually debilitating but also that it leads to genuine intolerance of all who struggle to hold fast to their beliefs. The Intolerance of Tolerance is a must own book on a very serious issue that is threatening not only Western civilization but the whole world, and will help Christians and the Church to remain steadfast in the Word of God and proclaim the Gospel to a lost and dying world.
Title: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Author: D.A. Carson
Publisher: Eerdmans (2012)
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the Eerdman’s book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
In our twenty-first century culture, Christians are be “wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matt. 10:16). The Church has been charged with proclaiming the unchanging unadulterated truth of God’s Word to an adulterous, materialistic culture that lifts up itself in rebellion against the God who created them.
Debates about Christianity have shifted from whether it’s true to was anyone offended. The Gospel is offensive but the gospel messenger must be loving. The new tolerance which Dr. Carson rightly exposes in this book will help Christians to understand what this new tolerance is and why it insists that no one should hold firm convictions.
The Intolerance of Tolerance contains eight chapters where Dr. Carson lays out the changing face of tolerance, explains how we came to be where we are, gives a history of tolerance, exposes its inconsistency, how the Church has responded to the new tolerance, along with tolerance, democracy and majoritanism and concludes by providing ten ways forward towards a biblical view of tolerance. Throughout the book as is typical with Dr. Carson’s other books, he provides penetrating biblical-theological analysis along with keen cultural observation and practical implications for how the issue attacks Christianity.
The heart of the book is about the notion of tolerance which is changing, and with it new definitions that shape tolerance.
Carson argues that, “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. Worse, this new tolerance is socially dangerous and is certainly intellectually debilitating. Even the good that it wishes to achieve is better accomplished in other ways” (2). The shift “from accepting the existing of different views” to “acceptance of different views,” from recognizing other people’s right to have different beliefs or practices to accepting the differing views of other people is subtle in form but massive in substance. The accept that a different or opposing position exists and deserves the right to exist is one thing; to accept the position itself means that one is no longer opposing it. The new tolerance suggests that actual accepting another’s position means believing that position to be true, or at least as true as your own” (3).
Understanding this issue is important because when people think of tolerance they think of the older definition of tolerance and not the new definition of tolerance. Thinking clearly is important as Christians are to be people of the Book and to study to show themselves as workman who do not need to be ashamed (2nd Timothy 2:15).
Carson notes that the older view of tolerance “held either that true is objective and can be known, and that the best way to uncover it is bold tolerance of those who disagree, since sooner or later the truth will win out; or that while truth can be known in some domains, it probably cannot be known in other domains, and that the wisest and least malignant course in such cases is benign tolerance grounded in superior knowledge that recognizes our limitations. By contrast, the new tolerance 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” (11).
Beginning with this new view of tolerance elevates one’s view to the supreme position in the hierarchy of moral virtues, the supreme sin is intolerance. “The trouble is that such intolerance like the new tolerance also takes on a new definition. Intolerance is no longer a refusal to allow contrary opinions to say their piece in public, but must be understood to be any questioning or contradicting the view that all opinions are equal in nature, that all worldviews have equal worth that all stances are equally valid. To question such postmodern axioms is by definition intolerant. For such questioning there is no tolerance whatsoever, for it is classes as intolerance and must therefore be condemned. It has become the supreme vice” (12).
The implications for the old and new tolerance are huge and need to be considered by every Christian whether they are preaching from the pulpit or working in a cubicle. Consider a Christian who offers a well-thought out exposition of who Jesus is and what he has done, including how his cross and resurrection constitute the only way by which human beings can be reconciled to God, the person who holds the defeater belief may listen with some intellectual interest but readily dismiss everything you say without much thought. The scope of this problem then comes into focus. “The new tolerance tends to avoid serious engagement over difficult moral issues, analyzing almost every issue on the one axis tolerant/intolerant, excluding all others from the pantheon of the virtuous who do not align with this axis” (15).
Dr. Carson concludes this book by giving ten words about how to engage the new tolerance. First, "expose, the new tolerance’s moral and epistemological bankruptcy, 2) persevere a place for truth, 3) expose the new tolerance’s condescending arrogance, 4) insist that the new tolerance is not progress, 5) distinguish between empirical diversity and the inherit goodness of all diversity, 6) challenge secularism’s ostensible neutrality and superiority, 7) practice and encourage civility, 8) evangelize, 9) be prepared to suffer, and finally, delight in and trust in God” (161-176).
The problem with tolerance is that it is not tolerant at all. Tolerance promises much, but at end of the day is another false gospel the world proclaims in order to distract men and women from the Gospel. As Paul did with the false teachers at Corinthians, so Christians must today do, which is to not preach their opinions nor accommodate false teaching, but to proclaim that the Gospel is the power of God unto the salvation of mankind. The Gospel shines the light of the “knowledge of the glory of God” (2 Cor. 4:5) upon sinners who need to see their sin for what it is, and come to Jesus in repentance and faith. The Gospel is not an opinion or a fairytale, but the power of God to transfer those from the kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The “gospel” of tolerance is another lie designed to lead the people of God away from God. Tolerance promotes a low view of God and a high view of man. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is supreme over the “gospel” of tolerance, because the Gospel carries with it the power of God to open sinner’s eyes to the Truth about who God is, who Jesus is, and what He has done in His death, burial and resurrection. The “gospel” of tolerance proclaims a false view of God by teaching people to turn to themselves which taken to its conclusion will not result in happiness, but rather in eternal unending, unrelenting separation from God in hell. The byproduct of believing pluralism and tolerance is that people have no fear of God, which means they do not believe that Jesus will come to judge the living and the dead.
The gospel of tolerance and pluralism is destroying generation after generation, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God to open people’s eyes to the Truth about who Jesus is and what He has done in His death, burial and resurrection. The Gospel is superior in every way to the inferior gospel of tolerance and pluralism, because the Gospel alone contains the power of God to accomplish all that it aims to do, which is to effect the salvation of the lost and gather and scatter the people of God to bear witness to Jesus Christ the Chief Shepherd of His People.
In my opinion, The Intolerance of Tolerance will make an extremely useful textbook for any Christian interested in the origins of how tolerance has come into being, and how it continues to affect our lives as Christians. First, Carson frames the issue by giving the background of what old and new tolerance is while introducing the reader to others who have thought seriously about the issue of tolerance. In addition to this fact, the book is footnoted so the reader can explore additional perspectives from others on this issue. Second, as is typical with Carson, the book is very well-written which will helps the reader digest the very heavy content in the book. Finally reading The Intolerance of Tolerance will help Christians to understand that the new tolerance is socially dangerous and intellectually debilitating but also that it leads to genuine intolerance of all who struggle to hold fast to their beliefs. The Intolerance of Tolerance is a must own book on a very serious issue that is threatening not only Western civilization but the whole world, and will help Christians and the Church to remain steadfast in the Word of God and proclaim the Gospel to a lost and dying world.
Title: The Intolerance of Tolerance
Author: D.A. Carson
Publisher: Eerdmans (2012)
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the Eerdman’s book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
October 1, 2012
I enjoy Carson's exegetical work and am a fan of the series he edits, especially NSBT. But there is less to like about his ventures into cultural criticism, which showcase to a less than desirable degree his 'Gospel Coalition' pedigree. Like The Gagging of God, this book comes off a bit paranoid (for instance in his Huntingtonian 'clash of civilizations' rhetoric about Islam), a bit culture war-ish, and a bit reductionist (what is 'postmodernism'? Carson writes confidently like it's a thing). The best part of this book is the critique of Volf's treatment of Islam on p. 118ff, where he takes Volf to task for eliding the incommensurable particularities of Christian and Muslim tradition. But on the whole, this is a pretty half (third?) baked treatment of the difficulties of 'tolerance' in liberal societies.
There is a helpful article describing Carson's theological methodology, including remarks about his epistemology, in Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology, 29.1 (2011), 245-74.
There is a helpful article describing Carson's theological methodology, including remarks about his epistemology, in Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology, 29.1 (2011), 245-74.
June 29, 2021
I almost never write reviews, but this book compelled me to. The grand, sweeping statements at the beginning of the book drew me in, and I agree wholeheartedly that everyone's beliefs have the right to exist, and that strong convictions can be a blessing, as well as a strong personal belief of right and wrong.
Once the book started delving into the minutiae, though, I couldn't disagree more with many of the finer points.
As the author points out, Christians are not supposed to judge others, ESPECIALLY non-Christians (God says that is their job), and yet, one of the continuous arguments throughout the book is that Christianity is being diluted and stifled for not being able to publicly judge others.
As a Christian, I am extremely tired of this argument. My faith isn't about being a nosey busy-body, and isn't at the heart of my love for God. I'm not a Christian to tell other people what they are doing wrong, but to take a continuous look in the mirror, to better myself, to better my family, and to help ALL others, without payment or judgment, as we are called to do.
There are many references to not judging (as this is God's job), and then the author alludes that since Jesus did in the temple then that is our job too. So, we are to take God's place of judgment? That goes counter to our shared beliefs. It also isn't what I have learned to mean being Christ-like.
I was saddened to read that one should not try and see the similarities between different faiths. Finding commonalities with our brothers and sisters AND still holding onto our own personal convictions can be beautiful. Just because I can appreciate how so many faiths all use the Old Testament as a basis doesn't make me any less of a Christian, nor does it dilute or corrupt my beliefs. In fact, it strengthens those tenets I hold dear, because I can see the different ways God does work in everyone's lives (including those we are theologically opposed to).
One last note: why do so many Christians get so hung up on homosexuality, and ignore the plethora of other sins that are occurring in their own lives? Did God ever say "yes adultery is bad, so is chattel slavery, so is idolatry, so is murder, but homosexuality is WAY WORSE! Nope. As a Christian, we recognize that we are all sinners, and none of us are better sinners than others. You don't have to believe in it or accept it, but you are not charged to tell everyone else how to live. That judgment is on God alone.
While I do believe in this author's rights to speak, and their rights to their beliefs, I also believe in my rights to strongly disagree with a lot of the content. I am grateful for it, though. I am not triggered by reading something that I don't completely agree with, but am heartened that someone is sticking to their convictions, especially if they are different than mine. I see the good in that. THAT is Tolerance.
The author's are important, as are mine! ...and my belief is that this book earned 2 stars.
Once the book started delving into the minutiae, though, I couldn't disagree more with many of the finer points.
As the author points out, Christians are not supposed to judge others, ESPECIALLY non-Christians (God says that is their job), and yet, one of the continuous arguments throughout the book is that Christianity is being diluted and stifled for not being able to publicly judge others.
As a Christian, I am extremely tired of this argument. My faith isn't about being a nosey busy-body, and isn't at the heart of my love for God. I'm not a Christian to tell other people what they are doing wrong, but to take a continuous look in the mirror, to better myself, to better my family, and to help ALL others, without payment or judgment, as we are called to do.
There are many references to not judging (as this is God's job), and then the author alludes that since Jesus did in the temple then that is our job too. So, we are to take God's place of judgment? That goes counter to our shared beliefs. It also isn't what I have learned to mean being Christ-like.
I was saddened to read that one should not try and see the similarities between different faiths. Finding commonalities with our brothers and sisters AND still holding onto our own personal convictions can be beautiful. Just because I can appreciate how so many faiths all use the Old Testament as a basis doesn't make me any less of a Christian, nor does it dilute or corrupt my beliefs. In fact, it strengthens those tenets I hold dear, because I can see the different ways God does work in everyone's lives (including those we are theologically opposed to).
One last note: why do so many Christians get so hung up on homosexuality, and ignore the plethora of other sins that are occurring in their own lives? Did God ever say "yes adultery is bad, so is chattel slavery, so is idolatry, so is murder, but homosexuality is WAY WORSE! Nope. As a Christian, we recognize that we are all sinners, and none of us are better sinners than others. You don't have to believe in it or accept it, but you are not charged to tell everyone else how to live. That judgment is on God alone.
While I do believe in this author's rights to speak, and their rights to their beliefs, I also believe in my rights to strongly disagree with a lot of the content. I am grateful for it, though. I am not triggered by reading something that I don't completely agree with, but am heartened that someone is sticking to their convictions, especially if they are different than mine. I see the good in that. THAT is Tolerance.
The author's are important, as are mine! ...and my belief is that this book earned 2 stars.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 18, 2018
Ðere is ſomeþiŋ about Carſon’s writiŋ ſtyle ðat irks me — perhaps he is a little itſy bitſy too didactical, wiþ quite a few references to former or furðer parts of the ſame books, perhaps a lack of confidence in his articulation of ideas ðat makes he explain a bit too much.
But ðere is no complainiŋ about his ideas nor about his competence to defend ðem. His command of French enables him to ſee what oðer anglophone writers do not — for inſtance, he handly deflates KA Smiþ and oðers’ infatuation wiþ Postmoderniſm, even makiŋ criticiſm of it ſuch as ðe Wilſons’ ſeem like kickiŋ dead dogs, as we ſay in Brazil.
But ðere is no complainiŋ about his ideas nor about his competence to defend ðem. His command of French enables him to ſee what oðer anglophone writers do not — for inſtance, he handly deflates KA Smiþ and oðers’ infatuation wiþ Postmoderniſm, even makiŋ criticiſm of it ſuch as ðe Wilſons’ ſeem like kickiŋ dead dogs, as we ſay in Brazil.
June 1, 2012
This was the kind of book I had to mull over every few pages. It isn't a long book, but it is thought-provoking. D.A. Carson writes about the changes in meaning of the word tolerance from the "old" definition to the "new." He confirmed what many of us think, that today's tolerance is a one-way street. People can have different opinions that used to generate discussion in the public arena. Now, people are expected to embrace everyone's opinion, unless of course, the opinion belongs to that of a conservative evangelical Christian. The person who expresses outrage at what he considers to be a moral issue, is ostracized and declared "intolerant" by those who are more "enlightened."
The book bogs down a bit when Carson is explaining the history of the early church and how that formed the "old" tolerance, resulting from the martyrdom of first century Christians, but other than that, his modern day examples were vivid.
The book bogs down a bit when Carson is explaining the history of the early church and how that formed the "old" tolerance, resulting from the martyrdom of first century Christians, but other than that, his modern day examples were vivid.
July 19, 2023
This is a long review, as I have many thoughts after venturing through Carson’s The Intolerance of Tolerance. Before I dive in I want to emphasise the significant impact Carson has had on me. His commentaries and a number of his other books have been crucial for my walk with Jesus!
A strength of Carson’s book is his analysis of the transition from what he labels the “old tolerance” to the “new tolerance.” Carson describes the old tolerance as the form of tolerance that enabled individuals to disagree with another’s stance but encouraged reasoned discussion and affirmed the right of the other to hold his or her view. He describes the new tolerance as that which seeks to protect other views, with every view perceived as being worthy of personal acceptance. In this new tolerance, society seeks to silence and not tolerate any views that are perceived as being intolerant in and of themselves. This, as Carson helpfully articulates, is a self-defeatist paradox, as it pretentiously assumes that the secular viewpoint has an ethical superiority by which it can determine which views ought to be tolerated and which views ought not to be. Carson’s 10 next steps in his final chapter are also thoughtful and helpful.
A key problem I have with Carson’s book, however, is that he makes assertions with little discussion of the situation around his assertion. A number of examples come in his second chapter. Here, Carson details situations which he argues exemplify the intolerance of secularism in the modern west. However, a number of examples (often which are non-academic references from local news outlets) provided by Carson were so significant because of the manner of discussion rather than the topic of discussion. Just two examples of this include Thomas Klocek at DePaul University, and Bob Averill at the Art Institute of Portland. These examples would have better served Carson’s argument if he discussed the accusations at greater length to show that they actually were an example of tolerance-based issues, or if he used other examples that were clearer in their accusations. This is particularly true seeing as though Carson utilises these examples as evidence for his claim that “the grounds for withdrawal are… that the Christian is intolerant, which cannot be tolerated.” Yet his previous two examples did not detail an individual losing their position based on an intolerant perspective, but on the basis of an aggressive demeanour in the presentation of their perspective.
Additionally, Carson’s “us vs. them” mentality is particularly unhelpful when discussing the beliefs held by Christians and Muslims. The constant comparison of the apparent intolerance faced by Christians, which Carson argues is disproportionately high and aggressive, and that faced by Muslims seems both ignorant of the experiences of Muslims in the West over many decades, and unnecessarily divisive. It adds little to his argument, except trying to victimise the Christian religion over and against other religions. In a book largely targeting the secular disposition of tolerance, does this aggressive argument do anything to further Carson’s point? I fear not. One clear example is Carson’s passive-aggressive suggestion of the Islamic ties to terrorism in defence of Christianity on page 41 - is this really a necessary route to take to defend the Christian faith? It seems to me to be both ignorant and offensive as well as totally unhelpful and unproductive in developing a coherent argument to use a few examples of the secular intolerance of Christians and ask whether this would be acceptable if it were Muslims facing the same situation.
Finally, Carson’s argument in the second chapter tends to be a slippery slope argument, which is both unhelpful and disengaging for proponents of an opposing view. The aggressive language used throughout also adds to this disengagement (lines such as “DePaul University destroyed Klocek’s academic career to placate a group of students who could not tolerate an opinion counter to their own without complaining they were insulted and demeaned”) as it shows little sympathy, especially when the context of the situation is discussed so little, and only serves to suggest Carson eisegetes the situation to aid his own argument. Thus, although I found Carson’s book an interesting and engaging read, I found it to be largely off-putting for those who may hold an opposing view, and thus failing to achieve the goal of setting a compelling case for tolerance.
One final critique is of Carson’s presumptuous conclusions, which I found to be, at times, totally missing the mark. Continuing on in his fourth chapter, he asserts that the inclusion of “risqué” and “rude” lines in Christmas cards is a clear sign of “a targeted contempt for and hatred of Christ and Christians, a contempt and hatred reserved for no other religions.” In this argument, he condemns “conspiracy theories” about why these lines may have been included, but concludes with his own supposed conspiracy theory, and somehow manages to avoid any research into the growth of nominal Christianity, the decreasing of overt Christianity, and the significant increase of the “nones,” all of which may offer more reasonable explanations for this than society’s supposed militant agenda against Christians and Christ.
Overall, Carson offers a valid and helpful perspective of the growth of the new tolerance in the modern West. However it feels like you have to venture through much unnecessary muck and mire to get there. This book felt like it had such great potential, with some clear and crucial insights, but it fell short in its presentation in a number of crucial ways.
A strength of Carson’s book is his analysis of the transition from what he labels the “old tolerance” to the “new tolerance.” Carson describes the old tolerance as the form of tolerance that enabled individuals to disagree with another’s stance but encouraged reasoned discussion and affirmed the right of the other to hold his or her view. He describes the new tolerance as that which seeks to protect other views, with every view perceived as being worthy of personal acceptance. In this new tolerance, society seeks to silence and not tolerate any views that are perceived as being intolerant in and of themselves. This, as Carson helpfully articulates, is a self-defeatist paradox, as it pretentiously assumes that the secular viewpoint has an ethical superiority by which it can determine which views ought to be tolerated and which views ought not to be. Carson’s 10 next steps in his final chapter are also thoughtful and helpful.
A key problem I have with Carson’s book, however, is that he makes assertions with little discussion of the situation around his assertion. A number of examples come in his second chapter. Here, Carson details situations which he argues exemplify the intolerance of secularism in the modern west. However, a number of examples (often which are non-academic references from local news outlets) provided by Carson were so significant because of the manner of discussion rather than the topic of discussion. Just two examples of this include Thomas Klocek at DePaul University, and Bob Averill at the Art Institute of Portland. These examples would have better served Carson’s argument if he discussed the accusations at greater length to show that they actually were an example of tolerance-based issues, or if he used other examples that were clearer in their accusations. This is particularly true seeing as though Carson utilises these examples as evidence for his claim that “the grounds for withdrawal are… that the Christian is intolerant, which cannot be tolerated.” Yet his previous two examples did not detail an individual losing their position based on an intolerant perspective, but on the basis of an aggressive demeanour in the presentation of their perspective.
Additionally, Carson’s “us vs. them” mentality is particularly unhelpful when discussing the beliefs held by Christians and Muslims. The constant comparison of the apparent intolerance faced by Christians, which Carson argues is disproportionately high and aggressive, and that faced by Muslims seems both ignorant of the experiences of Muslims in the West over many decades, and unnecessarily divisive. It adds little to his argument, except trying to victimise the Christian religion over and against other religions. In a book largely targeting the secular disposition of tolerance, does this aggressive argument do anything to further Carson’s point? I fear not. One clear example is Carson’s passive-aggressive suggestion of the Islamic ties to terrorism in defence of Christianity on page 41 - is this really a necessary route to take to defend the Christian faith? It seems to me to be both ignorant and offensive as well as totally unhelpful and unproductive in developing a coherent argument to use a few examples of the secular intolerance of Christians and ask whether this would be acceptable if it were Muslims facing the same situation.
Finally, Carson’s argument in the second chapter tends to be a slippery slope argument, which is both unhelpful and disengaging for proponents of an opposing view. The aggressive language used throughout also adds to this disengagement (lines such as “DePaul University destroyed Klocek’s academic career to placate a group of students who could not tolerate an opinion counter to their own without complaining they were insulted and demeaned”) as it shows little sympathy, especially when the context of the situation is discussed so little, and only serves to suggest Carson eisegetes the situation to aid his own argument. Thus, although I found Carson’s book an interesting and engaging read, I found it to be largely off-putting for those who may hold an opposing view, and thus failing to achieve the goal of setting a compelling case for tolerance.
One final critique is of Carson’s presumptuous conclusions, which I found to be, at times, totally missing the mark. Continuing on in his fourth chapter, he asserts that the inclusion of “risqué” and “rude” lines in Christmas cards is a clear sign of “a targeted contempt for and hatred of Christ and Christians, a contempt and hatred reserved for no other religions.” In this argument, he condemns “conspiracy theories” about why these lines may have been included, but concludes with his own supposed conspiracy theory, and somehow manages to avoid any research into the growth of nominal Christianity, the decreasing of overt Christianity, and the significant increase of the “nones,” all of which may offer more reasonable explanations for this than society’s supposed militant agenda against Christians and Christ.
Overall, Carson offers a valid and helpful perspective of the growth of the new tolerance in the modern West. However it feels like you have to venture through much unnecessary muck and mire to get there. This book felt like it had such great potential, with some clear and crucial insights, but it fell short in its presentation in a number of crucial ways.
March 21, 2021
“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.”
“No culture can be tolerant of everything or intolerant of everything: it is simply not possible.”
The idea that tolerance is intolerant is something we need to wrap our minds around. How can this statement be true? If the culture of ‘tolerance’ seemed intolerant in 2012 when D.A. Carson wrote this book, then this book is even more relevant today where any differing viewpoint from the majority is labeled as ignorance and bigotry. People are less and less apt to express an opinion or viewpoint for fear of being ‘canceled’ or publicly and negatively called out. “Tolerance” as defined decades ago, is indeed, it would seem, a thing of the past.
In this book, D.A. Carson talks about semantics, traces historical lines through ideologies or movements that have influenced our understanding of tolerance, and exposes the inconsistencies of this ‘new tolerance’ as it is wielded today. He also discusses how the separation of church and state plays into the equation. Because the new form of tolerance requires acceptance and validation of all views, Carson reveals what that means for truth claims of Christianity (and other religions). He wraps up the book by recounting political implications of intolerant tolerance and how it will make a successful democracy increasingly harder; and then he offers some practical steps/thoughts for us moving forward.
Be warned, the book is a bit scholarly and dense and will take some concentration to follow and understand, but it is not impossible and definitely worth it.
Carson explains the subtle but significant difference in definition. ‘Tolerate’ means the “accepting the existence of other views", but ‘tolerance’ now means the “acceptance of different views.”
“To accept that a different or opposing position exists and deserves the right to exist is one thing; to accept the position itself means that one is no longer opposing it. The new tolerance suggests that actually accepting another’s position means believing that position to be true, or at least as true as your own….we leap from permitting the articulation of beliefs and claims with which we do not agree to asserting that all beliefs and claims are equally valid. Thus we shift from the old tolerance to the new".”
“An older view of tolerance… in line with the famous utterance often (if erroneously) assigned to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”… makes 3 assumptions: 1) there is objective truth out there, and it is our duty to pursue that truth 2) the various parties in a dispute think that they know what the truth of the matter is, even though they disagree sharply, each part thinking the other is wrong; 3) nevertheless they hold that the best chance of uncovering the truth of the matter, or the best chance of persuading most people with reason and not with coercion, is by unhindered exchange of ideas, no matter how wrongheaded some of those ideas seem.”
“The fact that the new tolerance is prone to label all of its opponents intolerant… has come to wield enormous power in much of Western culture… It functions as a ‘defeater belief.’ A defeater belief is a belief that defeats other beliefs… rules certain other beliefs out of court… the person who holds a defeater belief may listen with some intellectual interest but readily dismisses everything you say without much thought. Put together several such defeater beliefs and make them widely popular and you have created an implausibility structure .”
[In terms of ‘free speech’, a look at the book The Coddling of the American Mind is relevant here.]
Society has linked tolerance with inclusion, yet has no issue with excluding those who do not agree with them.
“it is sometimes easier for a Christian to find a place at the table today than it was thirty or forty years ago. But the price is high: if the Christian maintains that there is an exclusive element in Christian confessionalism, which of course implies that others are in some measure wrong, the place at the table is often quickly withdrawn. The grounds for the withdrawal are not, formally speaking, that the Christian is a Christian, but that the Christian is intolerant, which cannot be tolerated. Thus the world of academia exerts not-so-subtle pressures for Christians to develop a form of Christian expression that disowns or at least silences the exclusiveness claims that are grounded in Scripture itself.”
“When New York’s Central Park allows New Yorkers to set up a Christian nativity scene, a Jewish menorah, and a Muslim star and crescent, each paid for by private citizens even though the displays are on public property, that’s inclusion. By contrast, a few years ago when Eugene, Oregon, banned Christmas trees from public property because this would not be inclusive, they were exclusive.”
“The point is that, while claiming the moral high ground, the secularists are unambiguously attempting to push their own agendas. They have every right to do so, of course, but they do not have the right to assume that their stance is ‘neutral’ and therefore intrinsically superior.”
The most significant thing about this whole ordeal is the matter of truth. Tolerance is now seen as a virtue and is attached to moral relativism. The main tenet of moral relativism is that there is no standard for truth, we can’t know what the standard for truth is or means, and/or we don’t care about whatever standard of truth there is. But as Christians we must uphold the truths of the Bible. If we cave in to secular forces, and make ‘being nice’ of supreme importance and moral value, what do we lose?
Carson answers, “…my aim is to unpack some of the ways in which Christians who attempt to be faithful to the Bible are bound to uphold certain truths- truths that remain true whether anyone believes them or not, truths that are bound up in the gospel, truths that cannot be sacrificed on the altar of the great goddess of relativism… none of this makes Christians intolerant in the old sense of that word. If they are judged intolerant in the new sense, the price of escaping the charge is too high to pay: it would mean abandoning Christ.”
“Relativism promises freedom but enslaves people: it refuses to acknowledge sin and evil the way the Bible does, and therefore it never adequately confronts sin and evil, and therefore leaves people enslaved by sin and evil. Even at societal levels, it is an invitation to destruction, for if everyone does that which is right in their own eyes, the end is either anarchic chaos or cultural cries for more laws in order to establish stability…”
I will not go into detail about the political aspect of the tolerance conversation contained in one of his chapters, as he gives several examples of how this has played out for different people/organizations, [Another good resource discussing Christianity in the public square is Jonathan Leeman’s book How the Nations Rage ] but I will drop this quote here as I believe it is a startling and accurate depiction of the waters we, as a country, are dipping our feet into.
“Democracies become progressively more difficult as their citizens become progressively more polarized… Add enough polarization, however, and a democracy will drift toward a) a revolt in the ballot box that brings a reforming group to power; or b) increasing intrusion by the government into every area of its citizens’ lives in order to preserve order where there is no longer a unified vision; or c) in the worst case, civil war.”
The last chapter of the book includes Carson’s ten “words” (FYI it’s definitely more than ten words. Let’s call it points instead.) They range from advocating for intellectual and religious diversity, to preserving truth, evangelizing, and practicing civility, to exposing secularism’s arrogance, wrongly attributed neutrality and superiority, and to preparing to suffer as we trust in the Lord who is our hope in all things.
Finally, here are two very good quotes to sum it all up!
“We need to distinguish between the tolerant mind and the tolerant spirit. Tolerant in spirit a Christian should always be, loving, understanding, forgiving and forbearing others, making allowances for them, and giving them the benefit of the doubt, for true love ‘bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.’ But how can we be tolerant of mind of what God has plainly revealed to be either evil or erroneous.” - John R W Stott
“The purpose of an open mind is the same as that of an open mouth- to close it again on something solid.”- G.K. Chesterton
“No culture can be tolerant of everything or intolerant of everything: it is simply not possible.”
The idea that tolerance is intolerant is something we need to wrap our minds around. How can this statement be true? If the culture of ‘tolerance’ seemed intolerant in 2012 when D.A. Carson wrote this book, then this book is even more relevant today where any differing viewpoint from the majority is labeled as ignorance and bigotry. People are less and less apt to express an opinion or viewpoint for fear of being ‘canceled’ or publicly and negatively called out. “Tolerance” as defined decades ago, is indeed, it would seem, a thing of the past.
In this book, D.A. Carson talks about semantics, traces historical lines through ideologies or movements that have influenced our understanding of tolerance, and exposes the inconsistencies of this ‘new tolerance’ as it is wielded today. He also discusses how the separation of church and state plays into the equation. Because the new form of tolerance requires acceptance and validation of all views, Carson reveals what that means for truth claims of Christianity (and other religions). He wraps up the book by recounting political implications of intolerant tolerance and how it will make a successful democracy increasingly harder; and then he offers some practical steps/thoughts for us moving forward.
Be warned, the book is a bit scholarly and dense and will take some concentration to follow and understand, but it is not impossible and definitely worth it.
Carson explains the subtle but significant difference in definition. ‘Tolerate’ means the “accepting the existence of other views", but ‘tolerance’ now means the “acceptance of different views.”
“To accept that a different or opposing position exists and deserves the right to exist is one thing; to accept the position itself means that one is no longer opposing it. The new tolerance suggests that actually accepting another’s position means believing that position to be true, or at least as true as your own….we leap from permitting the articulation of beliefs and claims with which we do not agree to asserting that all beliefs and claims are equally valid. Thus we shift from the old tolerance to the new".”
“An older view of tolerance… in line with the famous utterance often (if erroneously) assigned to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”… makes 3 assumptions: 1) there is objective truth out there, and it is our duty to pursue that truth 2) the various parties in a dispute think that they know what the truth of the matter is, even though they disagree sharply, each part thinking the other is wrong; 3) nevertheless they hold that the best chance of uncovering the truth of the matter, or the best chance of persuading most people with reason and not with coercion, is by unhindered exchange of ideas, no matter how wrongheaded some of those ideas seem.”
“The fact that the new tolerance is prone to label all of its opponents intolerant… has come to wield enormous power in much of Western culture… It functions as a ‘defeater belief.’ A defeater belief is a belief that defeats other beliefs… rules certain other beliefs out of court… the person who holds a defeater belief may listen with some intellectual interest but readily dismisses everything you say without much thought. Put together several such defeater beliefs and make them widely popular and you have created an implausibility structure .”
[In terms of ‘free speech’, a look at the book The Coddling of the American Mind is relevant here.]
Society has linked tolerance with inclusion, yet has no issue with excluding those who do not agree with them.
“it is sometimes easier for a Christian to find a place at the table today than it was thirty or forty years ago. But the price is high: if the Christian maintains that there is an exclusive element in Christian confessionalism, which of course implies that others are in some measure wrong, the place at the table is often quickly withdrawn. The grounds for the withdrawal are not, formally speaking, that the Christian is a Christian, but that the Christian is intolerant, which cannot be tolerated. Thus the world of academia exerts not-so-subtle pressures for Christians to develop a form of Christian expression that disowns or at least silences the exclusiveness claims that are grounded in Scripture itself.”
“When New York’s Central Park allows New Yorkers to set up a Christian nativity scene, a Jewish menorah, and a Muslim star and crescent, each paid for by private citizens even though the displays are on public property, that’s inclusion. By contrast, a few years ago when Eugene, Oregon, banned Christmas trees from public property because this would not be inclusive, they were exclusive.”
“The point is that, while claiming the moral high ground, the secularists are unambiguously attempting to push their own agendas. They have every right to do so, of course, but they do not have the right to assume that their stance is ‘neutral’ and therefore intrinsically superior.”
The most significant thing about this whole ordeal is the matter of truth. Tolerance is now seen as a virtue and is attached to moral relativism. The main tenet of moral relativism is that there is no standard for truth, we can’t know what the standard for truth is or means, and/or we don’t care about whatever standard of truth there is. But as Christians we must uphold the truths of the Bible. If we cave in to secular forces, and make ‘being nice’ of supreme importance and moral value, what do we lose?
Carson answers, “…my aim is to unpack some of the ways in which Christians who attempt to be faithful to the Bible are bound to uphold certain truths- truths that remain true whether anyone believes them or not, truths that are bound up in the gospel, truths that cannot be sacrificed on the altar of the great goddess of relativism… none of this makes Christians intolerant in the old sense of that word. If they are judged intolerant in the new sense, the price of escaping the charge is too high to pay: it would mean abandoning Christ.”
“Relativism promises freedom but enslaves people: it refuses to acknowledge sin and evil the way the Bible does, and therefore it never adequately confronts sin and evil, and therefore leaves people enslaved by sin and evil. Even at societal levels, it is an invitation to destruction, for if everyone does that which is right in their own eyes, the end is either anarchic chaos or cultural cries for more laws in order to establish stability…”
I will not go into detail about the political aspect of the tolerance conversation contained in one of his chapters, as he gives several examples of how this has played out for different people/organizations, [Another good resource discussing Christianity in the public square is Jonathan Leeman’s book How the Nations Rage ] but I will drop this quote here as I believe it is a startling and accurate depiction of the waters we, as a country, are dipping our feet into.
“Democracies become progressively more difficult as their citizens become progressively more polarized… Add enough polarization, however, and a democracy will drift toward a) a revolt in the ballot box that brings a reforming group to power; or b) increasing intrusion by the government into every area of its citizens’ lives in order to preserve order where there is no longer a unified vision; or c) in the worst case, civil war.”
The last chapter of the book includes Carson’s ten “words” (FYI it’s definitely more than ten words. Let’s call it points instead.) They range from advocating for intellectual and religious diversity, to preserving truth, evangelizing, and practicing civility, to exposing secularism’s arrogance, wrongly attributed neutrality and superiority, and to preparing to suffer as we trust in the Lord who is our hope in all things.
Finally, here are two very good quotes to sum it all up!
“We need to distinguish between the tolerant mind and the tolerant spirit. Tolerant in spirit a Christian should always be, loving, understanding, forgiving and forbearing others, making allowances for them, and giving them the benefit of the doubt, for true love ‘bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.’ But how can we be tolerant of mind of what God has plainly revealed to be either evil or erroneous.” - John R W Stott
“The purpose of an open mind is the same as that of an open mouth- to close it again on something solid.”- G.K. Chesterton
February 22, 2017
This is a thought-provoking book by D.A. Carson. His thesis begins with the definition of two forms of tolerance.
Firstly, the 'old tolerance' is exhibited when 'a person might be judged to be tolerant if while holding strong views, he or she insisted others had the right to dissent from those views and argue their own case.' (p.6). And secondly, the 'new tolerance', as defined by Thomas A. Helmbock, is 'that every individual's beliefs, values and lifestyle, and perception of truth claims are equal... There is no hierarchy of truth [as their is no such notion as 'Truth']. Your beliefs and my beliefs are equal, and all truth is relative.' Carson wittily notes that under the new tolerance, 'no absolutism is permitted, except for the absolute prohibition of absolutism.' (p.13) The new tolerance espouses a truth of its own. And such a belief, for those of the new tolerance, is not for discussion. This is the bottom line of this argument.
Carson draws on strong imagery through Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's poem, 'Nathan the Wise' in the 'Introduction' to draw the reader into the book. The poem is a resounding presentation of the ludicrous wishes when one comes to accept all 'versions of the world' to be true. A father has a magical ring. Endowing this upon of his son's, he did not wish to leave his two son's without such a ring. So he casts two more rings indistinguishable from the original ring but for the feature that these new rings possess no magical powers. The father, satisfied with his ruse, confers these rings upon his son's telling each that they have received a magical ring. The father is content knowing that his sons think they each have received a ring imbued with magical power. It is a plea for religious tolerance.
Bona fide, I post a link to a descriptor of the 'Ring parable' from Wikipedia here.
The notion of truth must bear witness to falsity and there are some issues, when the reductio ad absurdum is applied, as is the case with this poem. You cannot help but see the silliness of one's moral and epistemological stance (of which we all have a stake in, whether or not one is explicit about this is another matter). There is a rule and rhyme why you are even reading this very review...
Carson begins with a litany of offences against Christianity in the modern world, as presented in the media, versus the treatment other faiths under the guise of the 'new tolerance.' Carson, I'll admit, is a little whiney in the section and, I feel, overplays the sympathy card with list of the occasions Christians have been slandered by 'new tolerance' adherents.
The chapter concerning the brief historical developments of tolerance is worthy of great note. His sweeping history of the key events commencing from the Roman empire and making stops with John Milton's Areopagetica, J.S. Mill's seminal book 'On Liberty' and John Locke's 'Letter concerning Toleration' with insights into the prevailing moral and epistemological moors of those times proffers valuable vistas of developments in the last four centuries. [He has wisely not considered the modern idealogical and epistemological development of Truth and Evidence which would have needed a robust tour de force of Kant's transcendental idealism and Hegel's dialectical materialism. These are weighty matters as Hegel's outlook influenced a group with the sobriquet 'The Young Hegelians' of whom a certain Karl Marx, in the 1830's and 1840's, was an acolyte.] Carson has wisely chosen to not tackle these deeper roots but unearth some of the complaints the 'new tolerance' clearly raises. This is most overtly tied with the social, political and legal spheres. The material discussed is both vast and ambitious in its scope, but it is assuredly an insightful discussion, for there is much at stake, as it is, at heart, a prolegomenon of our societal malaise when truth, reason and, ultimately, love for one another are not included in our society's functional 'fabric'. It is important to consider these cultural considerations as these 'invisible structures' shape how many perceive the world today. It may be a little skinny, for his logic is certainly not impregnable, however, I did not expect him to provide a water-tight account in such a short account but his pellucid reasoning and resourcefulness impels one to read more of his materials on this topic for a fuller (and enriching) response.
In chapter 4, Carson explodes the facade of the new tolerance. The new tolerance seems to impose a neutral and value-free framework. However, if anything, it is more wayward and inconsistent than the old tolerance for its 'more narrow' imposition of a cascade of structures of thought and judgements are made upon those who disagree with their way of working. What is particularly underhand from the new tolerance is that they consider their viewpoint to be superior to any other. For those who disagree with their viewpoint are simply considered 'intolerant.' Towards the beginning of chapter 5, Carson tersely summarises the two movements:
'the old tolerance is the willingness to put up with, allow or endure people and ideas with whom we disagree; in its purest form, the new tolerance is the social commitment to treat all ideas and people as equally right, save for those who disagree with this view of tolerance.' (p.98)
And what are the implications for those who disagree with this 'new tolerance'? Carson expands:
'Advocates of the new tolerance sacrifice wisdom and principle in support of just one supreme good: upholding their view of tolerance. So those who uphold and practice the older tolerance, enmeshed as they inevitably are in some value system, are written off as intolerant. Thus banished, they no longer deserve a place at the table.' (p.98)
Carson touches also on two conceptions of democracy which one can hold to. Firstly, there is the one which refers to an external authority which gives and executes power and justice. The other is that democracy is a value neutral process that can take care of itself. I feel Don argues convincingly that there is a need to invoke an external standard as the second option can result in the hijacking of the system by the self-interested agendas of those elected to rule (i.e. through the democratic process, one can gain full control over the press, media, legal system and the like, neglecting one's office to rule the people well, which lead to disastrous consequences and ultimately stymies the 'democratic' process making it a de facto democratic tyranny). The democratic process needs an external standard and referent to guide it process. As expected, no process, if guidance and deliberation are needed, is value-free. Man abhors a value-vacuum for he must come to worship 'something.'
In sum, this is a part philosophical and part-cultural appraisal of the prevailing attitude that 'all worldviews are equally true.' It is refreshing (and a great challenge) to read such a book. All worldviews are not equally valid as we are all called to be aware when Truth is being evacuated. In my mind, this is an important book for it convinces us to be wary of the underhand tactics of the new tolerance in slipping in their ways of working without warrant. It is slippery business but Carson seems to have a vice grip hold over his material and the playful arena of values. I feel comfortable he has exposited his position well. I commend you, Don Carson, on writing this book to help those who desire Truth in the muddled world. We are to stand on the solid ground of the Gospel, in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Guide me in your truth and teach me,
for you are God my Savior,
and my hope is in you all day long.
Psalm 25:5 (NIV)
'Onwards and Upwards' - Some further Reading:
Carson, D.A., 2012. Christ and culture revisited. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Carson, D.A., 2002. The gagging of God: Christianity confronts pluralism. Zondervan.
Bowman, J., 2007. Honor: A history. Encounter Books.
Firstly, the 'old tolerance' is exhibited when 'a person might be judged to be tolerant if while holding strong views, he or she insisted others had the right to dissent from those views and argue their own case.' (p.6). And secondly, the 'new tolerance', as defined by Thomas A. Helmbock, is 'that every individual's beliefs, values and lifestyle, and perception of truth claims are equal... There is no hierarchy of truth [as their is no such notion as 'Truth']. Your beliefs and my beliefs are equal, and all truth is relative.' Carson wittily notes that under the new tolerance, 'no absolutism is permitted, except for the absolute prohibition of absolutism.' (p.13) The new tolerance espouses a truth of its own. And such a belief, for those of the new tolerance, is not for discussion. This is the bottom line of this argument.
Carson draws on strong imagery through Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's poem, 'Nathan the Wise' in the 'Introduction' to draw the reader into the book. The poem is a resounding presentation of the ludicrous wishes when one comes to accept all 'versions of the world' to be true. A father has a magical ring. Endowing this upon of his son's, he did not wish to leave his two son's without such a ring. So he casts two more rings indistinguishable from the original ring but for the feature that these new rings possess no magical powers. The father, satisfied with his ruse, confers these rings upon his son's telling each that they have received a magical ring. The father is content knowing that his sons think they each have received a ring imbued with magical power. It is a plea for religious tolerance.
Bona fide, I post a link to a descriptor of the 'Ring parable' from Wikipedia here.
The notion of truth must bear witness to falsity and there are some issues, when the reductio ad absurdum is applied, as is the case with this poem. You cannot help but see the silliness of one's moral and epistemological stance (of which we all have a stake in, whether or not one is explicit about this is another matter). There is a rule and rhyme why you are even reading this very review...
Carson begins with a litany of offences against Christianity in the modern world, as presented in the media, versus the treatment other faiths under the guise of the 'new tolerance.' Carson, I'll admit, is a little whiney in the section and, I feel, overplays the sympathy card with list of the occasions Christians have been slandered by 'new tolerance' adherents.
The chapter concerning the brief historical developments of tolerance is worthy of great note. His sweeping history of the key events commencing from the Roman empire and making stops with John Milton's Areopagetica, J.S. Mill's seminal book 'On Liberty' and John Locke's 'Letter concerning Toleration' with insights into the prevailing moral and epistemological moors of those times proffers valuable vistas of developments in the last four centuries. [He has wisely not considered the modern idealogical and epistemological development of Truth and Evidence which would have needed a robust tour de force of Kant's transcendental idealism and Hegel's dialectical materialism. These are weighty matters as Hegel's outlook influenced a group with the sobriquet 'The Young Hegelians' of whom a certain Karl Marx, in the 1830's and 1840's, was an acolyte.] Carson has wisely chosen to not tackle these deeper roots but unearth some of the complaints the 'new tolerance' clearly raises. This is most overtly tied with the social, political and legal spheres. The material discussed is both vast and ambitious in its scope, but it is assuredly an insightful discussion, for there is much at stake, as it is, at heart, a prolegomenon of our societal malaise when truth, reason and, ultimately, love for one another are not included in our society's functional 'fabric'. It is important to consider these cultural considerations as these 'invisible structures' shape how many perceive the world today. It may be a little skinny, for his logic is certainly not impregnable, however, I did not expect him to provide a water-tight account in such a short account but his pellucid reasoning and resourcefulness impels one to read more of his materials on this topic for a fuller (and enriching) response.
In chapter 4, Carson explodes the facade of the new tolerance. The new tolerance seems to impose a neutral and value-free framework. However, if anything, it is more wayward and inconsistent than the old tolerance for its 'more narrow' imposition of a cascade of structures of thought and judgements are made upon those who disagree with their way of working. What is particularly underhand from the new tolerance is that they consider their viewpoint to be superior to any other. For those who disagree with their viewpoint are simply considered 'intolerant.' Towards the beginning of chapter 5, Carson tersely summarises the two movements:
'the old tolerance is the willingness to put up with, allow or endure people and ideas with whom we disagree; in its purest form, the new tolerance is the social commitment to treat all ideas and people as equally right, save for those who disagree with this view of tolerance.' (p.98)
And what are the implications for those who disagree with this 'new tolerance'? Carson expands:
'Advocates of the new tolerance sacrifice wisdom and principle in support of just one supreme good: upholding their view of tolerance. So those who uphold and practice the older tolerance, enmeshed as they inevitably are in some value system, are written off as intolerant. Thus banished, they no longer deserve a place at the table.' (p.98)
Carson touches also on two conceptions of democracy which one can hold to. Firstly, there is the one which refers to an external authority which gives and executes power and justice. The other is that democracy is a value neutral process that can take care of itself. I feel Don argues convincingly that there is a need to invoke an external standard as the second option can result in the hijacking of the system by the self-interested agendas of those elected to rule (i.e. through the democratic process, one can gain full control over the press, media, legal system and the like, neglecting one's office to rule the people well, which lead to disastrous consequences and ultimately stymies the 'democratic' process making it a de facto democratic tyranny). The democratic process needs an external standard and referent to guide it process. As expected, no process, if guidance and deliberation are needed, is value-free. Man abhors a value-vacuum for he must come to worship 'something.'
In sum, this is a part philosophical and part-cultural appraisal of the prevailing attitude that 'all worldviews are equally true.' It is refreshing (and a great challenge) to read such a book. All worldviews are not equally valid as we are all called to be aware when Truth is being evacuated. In my mind, this is an important book for it convinces us to be wary of the underhand tactics of the new tolerance in slipping in their ways of working without warrant. It is slippery business but Carson seems to have a vice grip hold over his material and the playful arena of values. I feel comfortable he has exposited his position well. I commend you, Don Carson, on writing this book to help those who desire Truth in the muddled world. We are to stand on the solid ground of the Gospel, in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Guide me in your truth and teach me,
for you are God my Savior,
and my hope is in you all day long.
Psalm 25:5 (NIV)
'Onwards and Upwards' - Some further Reading:
Carson, D.A., 2012. Christ and culture revisited. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Carson, D.A., 2002. The gagging of God: Christianity confronts pluralism. Zondervan.
Bowman, J., 2007. Honor: A history. Encounter Books.
October 10, 2018
Carson argues that "contemporary tolerance is intrinsically intolerant" and that it is blind to this irony because "it erroneously thinks it holds the moral high ground." He laments the shift of tolerance from its older meaning of "accepting the existence of different views" to a newer view of tolerance as meaning "the acceptance of different views". The "older tolerance" assumed that objective truth existed, that it's our duty to pursue it, and that reasonable people can uncover the truth, not through coercion, but through an exchange of ideas. The "new tolerance" argues that all truth claims are equally right and that it is impossible to distinguish the right from the wrong. The "new tolerance" in its rejection of dogmatism and absolutism is, strangely enough, itself dogmatic and absolute! Tolerance cannot be the new dogmatic absolute because there are things that simply cannot be tolerated - genocide, rape, pedophilia, racism, etc. G. K. Chesterton was right, "The purpose of an open mind is the same as that of an open mouth - to close it again on something solid."
October 22, 2020
Carson at his best. He exposes the fallacies and dangers of the new tolerance that is actually not tolerance at all, but intolerance of Christianity and its morals. The book has so much meat that you can’t give the contents in a nutshell. It shows how dangerous it is to be a Christian nowadays if you want to openly state and live what you believe. You can be a Christian, but only in private. Carson ends his book by giving Christians ten guidelines for the way forward.
October 17, 2021
Good, but not brilliant. It feels like there should be more written there?
Good concluding chapter on what are we to do as a church.
Good concluding chapter on what are we to do as a church.
November 19, 2020
Tolerance is good, but not all tolerance is good. It is essential that we see the difference between the good sort and the bad. Carson argues for recovering the “old tolerance” (the good) and scrapping the “new tolerance” (the bad).
The main difference in the two is that the old tolerance was settled within a framework of fixed truth and a common conception of morality. “[T]olerance was not perceived to be an intellectual stance but a social response.” Whereas the new tolerance has no such framework and turns tolerance into acceptance of competing views, which is only possible if one has already bought into the moral relativism of the day. “[F]or the first time in history, tolerance is today rarely perceived to be something that has to be worked out for the good of society within the matrix of a widely adopted system of truth and morals; it is now perceived as an independent virtue, perhaps the highest virtue.”
More on the distinction between the new and old tolerance: “The new tolerance suggests that actually accepting another’s position means believing that position to be true, or at least true as your own...Under the old tolerance, a person might be judged tolerant if, while holding strong views, he or she insisted that others had the right to dissent from those views and argue their own cases...This older view of tolerance makes three assumptions: (1) there is objective truth out there, and it is our duty to pursue that truth; (2) the various parties in a discourse think that they know what the truth of the matter is, even though they disagree sharply, each party thinking the other is wrong; (3) nevertheless they hold that the best chance of uncovering the truth of the matter, or the best chance of persuading most people with reason and not with coercion, is by the unhindered exchange of ideas, no matter how wrongheaded some of those ideas seem.”
Carson gives a brief history to show how the old tolerance has evolved into the new—tolerance as we now know it. He also assembles lots of great writers who have weighed in on this topic:
J. Daryl Charles: “Consider, however, the devolution of a concept. What was a public virtue in its prior state becomes a vice if and when it ceases to care for truth, ignores the common good, and disdains the values that uphold a community. The culture of ‘tolerance’ in which we presently find ourselves is a culture in which people believe nothing, possess no clear concept of right and wrong, and are remarkably indifferent to this precarious state of affairs...The challenge facing people of faith is leaning how to purify tolerance so that it remains a virtue without succumbing to the centripetal forces of relativism and the spirit of the age.” (75-76)
Meic Pearse: “The currency of the term tolerance has recently become badly debased. Where it used to mean the respecting of real, hard differences, it has come to mean instead a dogmatic abdication of truth-claims and a moralistic adherence to moral relativism—departure from either of which is stigmatized as intolerance...Where the old tolerance allows hard differences on religion and morality to rub shoulders and compare freely in the public square, the new variety wishes to kick them all indoors as a matter of private judgment; the public square must be given over to indistinctness. If the old tolerance was, at least, a real value, the new, intolerant ‘tolerance’ might better be described as an antivalue; it is a disposition of hostility to any suggestion that one thing is ‘better’ than another, or even that any way of life needs preordered space from its alternatives.” (76-77)
BB Warfield: “there can be no real tolerance in a world which has no strong convictions and no firm grasp on truth.” (125)
Robert Kraynak: “Thus we must face the disturbing dilemma that modern liberal democracy needs God, but God is not as liberal or as democratic as we would like Him to be.” (160)
John Stott: “We need to distinguish between the tolerant mind and the tolerant spirit. Tolerant in spirit a Christian should always be, living, understanding, forgiving, and forbearing others, making allowances for them, and giving them the benefit of the doubt, for true love ‘bears all things, believe all things, hopes all things, endures all things’ (1 Corinthians 13:7). But how can we be tolerant in mind of what God has plainly revealed to be either evil or erroneous.?”(164-65)
GK Chesterton,: “The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” (165)
The main difference in the two is that the old tolerance was settled within a framework of fixed truth and a common conception of morality. “[T]olerance was not perceived to be an intellectual stance but a social response.” Whereas the new tolerance has no such framework and turns tolerance into acceptance of competing views, which is only possible if one has already bought into the moral relativism of the day. “[F]or the first time in history, tolerance is today rarely perceived to be something that has to be worked out for the good of society within the matrix of a widely adopted system of truth and morals; it is now perceived as an independent virtue, perhaps the highest virtue.”
More on the distinction between the new and old tolerance: “The new tolerance suggests that actually accepting another’s position means believing that position to be true, or at least true as your own...Under the old tolerance, a person might be judged tolerant if, while holding strong views, he or she insisted that others had the right to dissent from those views and argue their own cases...This older view of tolerance makes three assumptions: (1) there is objective truth out there, and it is our duty to pursue that truth; (2) the various parties in a discourse think that they know what the truth of the matter is, even though they disagree sharply, each party thinking the other is wrong; (3) nevertheless they hold that the best chance of uncovering the truth of the matter, or the best chance of persuading most people with reason and not with coercion, is by the unhindered exchange of ideas, no matter how wrongheaded some of those ideas seem.”
Carson gives a brief history to show how the old tolerance has evolved into the new—tolerance as we now know it. He also assembles lots of great writers who have weighed in on this topic:
J. Daryl Charles: “Consider, however, the devolution of a concept. What was a public virtue in its prior state becomes a vice if and when it ceases to care for truth, ignores the common good, and disdains the values that uphold a community. The culture of ‘tolerance’ in which we presently find ourselves is a culture in which people believe nothing, possess no clear concept of right and wrong, and are remarkably indifferent to this precarious state of affairs...The challenge facing people of faith is leaning how to purify tolerance so that it remains a virtue without succumbing to the centripetal forces of relativism and the spirit of the age.” (75-76)
Meic Pearse: “The currency of the term tolerance has recently become badly debased. Where it used to mean the respecting of real, hard differences, it has come to mean instead a dogmatic abdication of truth-claims and a moralistic adherence to moral relativism—departure from either of which is stigmatized as intolerance...Where the old tolerance allows hard differences on religion and morality to rub shoulders and compare freely in the public square, the new variety wishes to kick them all indoors as a matter of private judgment; the public square must be given over to indistinctness. If the old tolerance was, at least, a real value, the new, intolerant ‘tolerance’ might better be described as an antivalue; it is a disposition of hostility to any suggestion that one thing is ‘better’ than another, or even that any way of life needs preordered space from its alternatives.” (76-77)
BB Warfield: “there can be no real tolerance in a world which has no strong convictions and no firm grasp on truth.” (125)
Robert Kraynak: “Thus we must face the disturbing dilemma that modern liberal democracy needs God, but God is not as liberal or as democratic as we would like Him to be.” (160)
John Stott: “We need to distinguish between the tolerant mind and the tolerant spirit. Tolerant in spirit a Christian should always be, living, understanding, forgiving, and forbearing others, making allowances for them, and giving them the benefit of the doubt, for true love ‘bears all things, believe all things, hopes all things, endures all things’ (1 Corinthians 13:7). But how can we be tolerant in mind of what God has plainly revealed to be either evil or erroneous.?”(164-65)
GK Chesterton,: “The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” (165)
July 29, 2015
This book failed to convince of me of, well, basically anything. Carson's definition of tolerance, intolerance, and so-called "new tolerance" changed throughout the book and is dramatically inconsistent. It seemed obvious that he was just not cognizant of recent philosophical literature on postmodernism and relativism. I was unable to identify a valid argument or thesis. Carson's book makes little to no effort to convince people who may disagree with him. It was written towards those who already agreed and did not engage with opposing arguments (in other words, this book preaches to the choir).
This book, like so many others, continues to perpetuate the myth of Christian persecution in the U.S. However, with nothing but anecdotal evidence, strawmen arguments, and misinformed statements, he failed to convince me of that supposed persecution.
There were also many factual errors in this book. Contrary to his statements, there is indeed a Japanese word for sin. Muslims are not one single, indiscernible country or people group. Court cases were misrepresented. Scholarly work (such as by Miroslav Volf) was woefully mischaracterized. With each chapter Carson's credibility as a scholar diminished.
I cannot recommend this book to anyone.
This book, like so many others, continues to perpetuate the myth of Christian persecution in the U.S. However, with nothing but anecdotal evidence, strawmen arguments, and misinformed statements, he failed to convince me of that supposed persecution.
There were also many factual errors in this book. Contrary to his statements, there is indeed a Japanese word for sin. Muslims are not one single, indiscernible country or people group. Court cases were misrepresented. Scholarly work (such as by Miroslav Volf) was woefully mischaracterized. With each chapter Carson's credibility as a scholar diminished.
I cannot recommend this book to anyone.
April 17, 2012
It seems we are at the point in our culture if one disagrees with another on any issue, that person is intolerant, a hater, a bigot, a right wing extremist and I am sure the list will go on. The first thing DA Carson does in this helpful book for Christians who want to pursue truth, is define tolerance. We are now living in a new tolerance. Heaven forbid if we think someone else is wrong. However, WE all need to examine the issues, the implications and the future rights. It seems to me that someone's rights are being neglected. When you take the abortion issue, it is the mother's rights vs the child she is carrying. And the wording of these issues are curcial as well. Or the rights of parents to teach their children what is wrong and what is right, while the schools are indoctrinal mode. However, it all comes to what we base our source on this issues. Truth and morality or what feels right to me. DA Carson has brought cases in this crisis of faith, truth and ultimately the Gospel.
December 31, 2013
This is an important book. Carson shows the two definitions of tolerance. The historical one says something like this: Truth exists regarding subject X. We may disagree about the truth of subject X. I will try to persuade you that you are wrong and you will try to persuade me that I am wrong. But we both agree not to use force or manipulation.
The second and current definition of tolerance says the only thing that is intolerant is an absolute truth claim. Of course, this is self-refuting, since it amounts an absolute truth claim.
There is a lot of wisdom in this book. Besides the changing definition of intolerance, I found this to be an important take-away: today, there is an assumption that a secular worldview is neutral, and religious views are extreme and should remain outside the public square. There is an increasing marginalization of traditional religious views (particularly orthodox Christianity). This trend goes against the first amendment and is, ironically, quite intolerant.
The second and current definition of tolerance says the only thing that is intolerant is an absolute truth claim. Of course, this is self-refuting, since it amounts an absolute truth claim.
There is a lot of wisdom in this book. Besides the changing definition of intolerance, I found this to be an important take-away: today, there is an assumption that a secular worldview is neutral, and religious views are extreme and should remain outside the public square. There is an increasing marginalization of traditional religious views (particularly orthodox Christianity). This trend goes against the first amendment and is, ironically, quite intolerant.
September 6, 2013
As always Carson brings a clarity to a subject in a way few can. Though specialized in places, the main argument is that tolerance used to be bound up with an entire structure of truth. It used to be that you tolerated people, but could challenge the views that they hold. Today we are told that tolerance is refusing to do or speak contrary to other's views, and the relativism of today destroys any hope of discussing the possibility that someone's views are wrong. This is especially true for Christians that are being told that they must not allow their faith must stay a private matter and stay out of the public square.
Carson challenges us to show the incoherence of this new relativism, that in the name of tolerance they refuse to tolerate other's views. The circularity is frightening! He also warns that if things do not change we need to be prepared for persecution.
Carson challenges us to show the incoherence of this new relativism, that in the name of tolerance they refuse to tolerate other's views. The circularity is frightening! He also warns that if things do not change we need to be prepared for persecution.
April 4, 2012
I liked the book but there is nothing new here. If you have read books dealing with post modernism, relativism, the downside of political correctness then this will be a review. However Carson does an excellent job defining old tolerance and contrasting it with the new tolerance, which he defines for us as well. He explains how the new tolerance calls for the acceptance of another's position believing that the position to be true or at least as true as your own position. This is a shift from allowing contrary opinions in the marketplace of ideas to the outright acceptance of all opinions now. Carson then continues the pursuit of unpacking the slide from the "old" to the "new" tolerance from the historical past to how it now presents itself in our present culture.
June 25, 2012
D.A. Carson in usual style provides a clear and enjoyable analysis of the Tolerance of our age showing how it really is intolerance. This book will take you on a eye opening walk through the history of how we lost true tolerance. My only critique is that D.A Carson's Historical Pri-mil and political theology leaves a distinctly defeatist taste in some sections. But that inst as much a criticism as it is a preference. Either way anyone would benefit from this short look at tolerance in the Western world. Readability 9/10 Content 9/10
February 25, 2014
Carson lends a scholarly ethos to a complaint that conservative Christians have been making for a long time. But his is a pretty weak and almost entirely anecdotal argument. It may describe a sort of awkward transition period in which institutions try to make the shift from Christian hegemony to pluralism, but there is simply no sinister "new tolerance" at work here. The suggestion that universities and secular intellectuals assign equal truth value to all claims is simply divorced from reality.
Check this out: Carson is wrong.
Check this out: Carson is wrong.
January 1, 2013
I'm so thankful to D.A. Carson for writing this book! He has confirmed, strengthened, and clarified my own thoughts on this issue. Carson has articulated with clarity and precision the dangers of the shift from the "old" tolerance to the "new." I only wish more and more people would read this book, so that this "new" tolerance would be exposed for the filth that it is.
April 8, 2015
Carson is very good at getting to the crux of the matter in regard to the 'new' tolerance, as he calls it, a tolerance that's in fact far less tolerant of anything it disagrees with than it claims.
Well worth reading for understanding the climate we're in currently, where Christians in particular are being targeted as intolerant by those who won't brook any other viewpoint but their own.
Well worth reading for understanding the climate we're in currently, where Christians in particular are being targeted as intolerant by those who won't brook any other viewpoint but their own.
December 22, 2014
Love the distinction between the "old" tolerance which respected the person but vigorously debated ideas and the "new" tolerance which refuses to debate the substance of things and instead attacks the person for not being tolerant
June 15, 2013
This book would be much better if Dr. Carson didn't quote so much from another book he wrote. Other than that foible, a solid book that explains what true tolerance is and how false tolerance seems to rule the day.
February 5, 2024
Don Carson has written a typically thoughtful and thorough book. It predictably carries a north American flavour but there are many examples and many references to the situation and literature of the UK.
He makes a distinction between the old and new versions of tolerance and, while acknowledging that there is some overlap, carefully explores the significant differences and the paradox that the new tolerance is profoundly intolerant.
Under the old pattern, firm and differing views could be explored in dialogue whereas, under the new pattern, the very expression of different views was no longer acceptable where it deviates from a new and rigid orthodoxy. They are not tolerated in the name of tolerance!
He closed with “Way ahead: Ten words” – a help pulling together of threads explored in the book with reactions necessary, indeed imperative.
• Expose the new tolerance’s moral and epistemological bankruptcy
• Preserve a place for truth
• Expose the new tolerance’s condescending arrogance
• Insist that the new tolerance is not progress
• Distinguish between empirical diversity and the inherent goodness of all diversity
• Challenge secularism’s ostensible neutrality and superiority
• Practice and encourage civility
• Evangelise
• Be prepared to suffer
• Delight in and trust God
This is a book well-worth reading and sadly, being now 12 years old, the ‘disease’ it ‘diagnoses’ and for which it ‘prescribes’ treatment is significantly more advanced!
He makes a distinction between the old and new versions of tolerance and, while acknowledging that there is some overlap, carefully explores the significant differences and the paradox that the new tolerance is profoundly intolerant.
Under the old pattern, firm and differing views could be explored in dialogue whereas, under the new pattern, the very expression of different views was no longer acceptable where it deviates from a new and rigid orthodoxy. They are not tolerated in the name of tolerance!
He closed with “Way ahead: Ten words” – a help pulling together of threads explored in the book with reactions necessary, indeed imperative.
• Expose the new tolerance’s moral and epistemological bankruptcy
• Preserve a place for truth
• Expose the new tolerance’s condescending arrogance
• Insist that the new tolerance is not progress
• Distinguish between empirical diversity and the inherent goodness of all diversity
• Challenge secularism’s ostensible neutrality and superiority
• Practice and encourage civility
• Evangelise
• Be prepared to suffer
• Delight in and trust God
This is a book well-worth reading and sadly, being now 12 years old, the ‘disease’ it ‘diagnoses’ and for which it ‘prescribes’ treatment is significantly more advanced!
November 20, 2018
The issue of tolerance doesn't pop up much outside of theology. Of course we should be tolerant, right? Modern blanket tolerance (see Political Correctness) is particularly silly though. We're tolerant of absolutely everything apart from intolerance. Ah, I see the problem.
Perfect "tolerance" not being possible, Carson argues for the kind of respectful tolerance that informs debate, fuels constructive arguments, and changes minds. A tolerance that does not involve you swallowing your beliefs but promoting them and alwaysalwaysalways running the risk that the other guy makes more sense.
The Intolerance of Tolerance is written from an evangelical Christian perspective and dotted with bible verses, so if that doesn't gel with you - you know what, read it anyway. This is nothing less than an apologetic for personal belief, which I sure hope we all have and are not too precious to defend.
Perfect "tolerance" not being possible, Carson argues for the kind of respectful tolerance that informs debate, fuels constructive arguments, and changes minds. A tolerance that does not involve you swallowing your beliefs but promoting them and alwaysalwaysalways running the risk that the other guy makes more sense.
The Intolerance of Tolerance is written from an evangelical Christian perspective and dotted with bible verses, so if that doesn't gel with you - you know what, read it anyway. This is nothing less than an apologetic for personal belief, which I sure hope we all have and are not too precious to defend.
September 11, 2022
Carson is a bit of a brain, and I tend to be skeptical of culture war-type talking points, even if they're points I agree with.
But Carson peels back the curtain and gets to something important. I admit wondering at the end whether I just read something that was supposed to encourage me in my walk and work in the Lord or something that was supposed to make me more disappointed in the state of my society. But even if his goal was more the latter, it made my heart yearn more for this world, and the people swept along by it's zeitgeist.
Anyway,
The Introduction and chapter 1 do an excellent job setting the tone and starting point. If the Old and New Tolerances are new concepts to you (and not another parlance for concepts you've already deeply considered), then read this book. It's good.
But Carson peels back the curtain and gets to something important. I admit wondering at the end whether I just read something that was supposed to encourage me in my walk and work in the Lord or something that was supposed to make me more disappointed in the state of my society. But even if his goal was more the latter, it made my heart yearn more for this world, and the people swept along by it's zeitgeist.
Anyway,
The Introduction and chapter 1 do an excellent job setting the tone and starting point. If the Old and New Tolerances are new concepts to you (and not another parlance for concepts you've already deeply considered), then read this book. It's good.
March 13, 2023
This book is a study in logic and reasoning. Properly defining how different people use the word "Tolerance" and who is closer to the proper definition. Part of what is going on in the world is the redefining of words in common culture. Are you tolerant or accepting? Tolerance implies you do not accept another view or "worldview" but you can co-exist. Others may use the mis-definition that you actually have to accept and approve the other view/worldview in order to be tolerant. I recommend this book not only for a good view as a logical defense of your view and help pointing out the holes in how your interlocutor may have reached a poor conclusion.
August 9, 2017
My rating's not a reflection of the book itself (if so I'd give it a 4), but just of it's usefulness to me. I came in to the book with some ideas about the topic and I guess I wanted it to continue from there. Instead the first chapter with the two definitions was useful, two through seven added detail to what I've seen and know but not anything wildly new, and chapter eight boiled down to me as keep on keeping on. Nothing wrong (and a lot right) with that, just a difference between audience and expectations.
December 7, 2018
This was a great book for this day and time. Carson has ten ideas for this time: 1) explore the new tolerance moral and epistemological bankruptcy 2)preserve a place for truth 3)expose the new tolerance's condescending arrogance 4)insist that the new tolerance is not 'progress' 5)distinguish between empirical diversity and inherent goodness of all diversity 6)challenge secularism's ostensible neutrality and superiority 7)Practice and encourage civility 8)evangelize 9)be prepared to suffer 10)delight in and trust God.
April 13, 2018
This is a hard book to read. If you believe there is a standard of truth and that truth sets a standard for morality, then the idiocy of having no grounding so as to remain neutral, and thus intellectually superior is appalling. But as a Christian (conservative, confessional and covenantal) it’s a great wake-up call that Western society is bent on marginalizing Christ and His disciples in the twenty-first century.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 106 reviews