We don’t all have to agree on everything

Let me tell you about the Law of Noncontradiction

Are we really being TOLERANT of others?

Scalia, Ginsburg and the Virtue of Tolerance

In the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia’s passing we are, of course, hearing lots of nice things about him. This is good and proper. One of the qualities I am reading and hearing about most frequently is his ability to get along well with people with whom he disagreed on matters of politics and jurisprudence. For example, he had a fairly close friendship with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg had very different political points of view and significant disagreements regarding rulings of the court. However, they were friends and their families even spent social time together.

When I read about this willingness to disagree regarding these types of issues and yet remain friends I find myself thinking: It’s too bad this is such a difficult reality. It’s too bad this quality is so rare that it consistently merits a special mention.

Many people and various organizations and sources of influence speak of the great value of tolerance in our culture. It is lauded as an incredibly important virtue. Tolerance is the quality—even if the specific word is not used—which is being spoken of in such admirable ways in Justice Scalia’s life.

So many people seem to recognize this value. It would be even more wonderful if lots of us would incorporate it into our lives.

Right And Wrong And The Unpopularity of Christianity

Part of the reason the Christian faith is unpopular with some people is that one of the fundamental realities of the Christian faith is the idea that there are things which are true and there are things which are false.  This idea of truth and falsehood can be offensive in our culture because we would like to take the position that everyone’s ideas, beliefs and points-of-view are correct.  No one is wrong.  Everyone is right.

I understand the impulse to want to simply agree that everyone is right.  There is a sense in which it feels tolerant.  It feels gracious.  It feels non-judgmental.

The problem, however, is the idea that “everyone is right” is simply not true.  This is not an attempt to be mean-spirited.  It is an attempt to be honest in regard to reality.

In fact, think about the concept I’m trying to communicate here logically.  If you agree with this post, you agree that there is such a thing as true and false.  You agree with the position that everyone’s ideas, beliefs and points-of-view are not correct.  Some things truly are right.  Some things truly are wrong.

On the other hand, ironically enough, if you disagree with this post, you actually confirm the truth of it.  Because if you disagree with this post you are saying, “This post is wrong.”  In doing so you are drawing lines of right and wrong.  You are confirming my statement that some things are right and some things are wrong.

Crazy, huh?  Disagreement with this post confirms the truth of what is being stated in it.

Ideally, the Christian faith would not be rejected simply because its teachings tell us there are things which are right and things which are wrong and this is unpopular in our culture.  Deep down we all realize that right/wrong and true/false exist.

Being Respectful And Gracious Even When We Disagree - Real Tolerance

The modern notion of tolerance has somehow come to mean that we will all agree that everyone is right.  In other words, everyone’s personal “truth” is correct. This is illogical and self-evidently incorrect.  The real challenge of true tolerance is to acknowledge that we disagree and, yet, continue to communicate in respectful and gracious ways with those whom we disagree.

What Does It Mean To Be Tolerant?

The true definition of “tolerance” is not the idea that everyone agrees on all issues or, even, that we understand everyone’s position on a matter to be correct.  The fact is that genuine tolerance can only actually happen when we disagree.  However, being tolerant means that we disagree respectfully and graciously.

We Can Disagree With Someone And Still Love The Person

It seems that people will sometimes have a hard time understanding that there are situations in which we can genuinely love a person and yet strongly disagree with some of the things the person is doing.  In fact, there may even be times in which the most loving thing we can do is gently, kindly, humbly, yet firmly, disagree with what a person is doing.

Tolerance Does Not Mean Agreement

Now more than ever, the call to tolerance is heard. As well it should be. But I think it’s fair to ask: What does it mean to be tolerant? You see, our culture has been very effective at redefining the actual meaning of tolerance. Many people have come to believe that tolerance means everybody will agree with each other and everyone will see each other’s viewpoint as equally correct.

Philosophy professor Paul Chamberlain says, “In contemporary North American culture, tolerance has come to be virtually synonymous with agreement.” He goes on, “The way to be tolerant toward an idea or practice is to agree with it, or better yet to affirm it, possibly even to celebrate it.” We tend to think that is tolerance.

By this definition of tolerance, if you voice disagreement with a view, you are labeled intolerant. And, of course, no one wants to be labeled as intolerant because tolerance is such a highly valued virtue in our culture. Furthermore, to be intolerant is on a par with being a bigot or, worse yet, a Bible-believing-fundamentalist. That’s the charge that really causes some to run from the room sobbing and shaking their heads in vigorous denial.

Of course, the person who calls someone “intolerant” usually fails to notice the inherent contradiction of the action because to call someone intolerant involves a judgment which, by society’s incorrect, but popularly held, definition of tolerance renders the accuser guilty of being intolerant, as well.

But our commonly held definition of tolerance is actually incorrect. We are operating with an improper understanding of the word. Scholar Paul Copan writes, “Contrary to popular definitions, true tolerance means ‘putting up with error’—not ‘being accepting of all views.’”

Tolerance, by definition, requires disagreement. Some of us may require a moment to allow the very idea to sink in. But think about it: if you agree with someone’s position, there is no need for tolerance. Tolerance is only necessary when people disagree on a matter. You are only called to tolerate what I’m writing here if you disagree with me—as shocking as that is for me to imagine.

Often, those who oppose the truth do so by redefining or misusing terms. If terms are redefined, one can throw a smoke screen on the real issues at the heart of a matter. I believe this has happened with the concept of tolerance. We have been taught that it means “everybody is always right”. But of course, that very idea involves a logical contradiction.

We have been taught that tolerance means “I agree with your position no matter what it is.” But to attempt to hold that position will ultimately be dishonest and, at some point or another, very uncomfortable.

Tolerance really means: “I disagree with you, but I will respect you, and I will respect your right to your position.” On many delicate issues that understanding of tolerance will be plenty to keep us challenged.

Since real tolerance requires disagreement, perhaps one of the more vital questions is: Can we disagree and yet do so humbly, extending respect and grace toward each other? Let’s hope so.


Dan Marler
First Church of God
Oak Lawn, IL


www.VisitUsOnline.org