Koukl speaks on ‘The
intolerance of tolerance’
By Carmen Fowler, The Layman, November 17, 2009
CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Greg Koukl once thought he was too smart to become a Christian. Now he advocates the Christian worldview without apology in books and on the radio.
Greg Koukl
Koukl received his masters in philosophy of religion and ethics at Talbot School of Theology, graduating with high honors, and his masters in Christian apologetics from Simon Greenleaf University. He is an adjunct professor in Christian apologetics at Biola University. He hosts his own radio talk show advocating clear-thinking Christianity and defending the Christian worldview. Stand to Reason equips Christian ambassadors with knowledge, wisdom and character. An effective ambassador has three essential skills: knowledge – an accurate grasp of the foundational precepts of the Kingdom, wisdom – skillful, tactical, fair, and diplomatic use of knowledge; and character – a mature expression of virtue, warmth, and personal depth
Koukl is founder and president of Stand to Reason. His presentation was part of the 2009 National Conference on Christian Apologetics held at Hickory Grove Baptist Church in Charlotte, N.C. The two-day conference, “Apologetics and the Local Church,” was held Nov. 13-14 and sponsored by Southern Evangelical Seminary.
Using a photograph he took with his phone of a poster from the window of a bar in Olympia, Wash., Koulk introduced the audience to a reality he sought to unmask: The intolerance of tolerance.
The poster reads: “Jakes is a hate-free queer bar – we welcome everybody – unless you are homophobic, trans-phobic, …if none of these apply to you, Welcome!” In smaller type, the veiled warning, “the staff at Jake’s cares about you. If you feel that someone is compromising your hate-free experience, please do not hesitate to let one of us know.”
The message is clear, we welcome everyone who welcomes everyone, and no one else.
Koukl said that reflects a significant cultural shift in the American culture since 9/11. Referring to the popular culture’s view of Christians, Koukl said, “Prior to 9/11 people thought we were wrong. Since 9/11, people think we’re dangerous. In November of 2001, Thomas Friedman wrote The Real War wherein he identified the problem as ‘religious totalitarianism,’ by which he means any group who believes that their religious view is ‘correct’ or ‘true.’”
Koukl then unpacked two myths: the myth of neutrality and the myth of tolerance.
Debunking the myth of neutrality
Using a quote from pro-choice lobbyist and former head of Planned Parenthood, Faye Wadelton, Koukl made the point that although Wadelton advocates “neutrality,” wherein everyone does what is right in their own eyes, Wadelton herself is not neutral. She is seeking to force her worldview on others by the creation of laws. Koukl argued that the creation of law in and of itself is a non-neutral exercise. Laws are the means by which the conscience of the individual is bound, which inherently debunks the myth of neutrality.
Debunking the myth of tolerance
Beginning with an exploration of the definition of tolerance as “not passing judgment,” Koukl then stated, “Rejecting pluralism is now considered a weird religious idea.”
Koukl then introduced a method of making the argument against pluralism on its own merits. “Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. He either was the Messiah or he wasn’t the Messiah. If he was not the Messiah, the Jews are right and the Christians are wrong. And if he was the Messiah, the Christians are right and the Jews are wrong. But under no circumstances can they both be right.”
Koukl continued, “If God exists, He is either personal or non-personal. If God is impersonal, then the Hindus are right and the Jews, Christians and Muslims are all wrong. If God is personal, then the Jews, Christians and Muslims are right and the Hindus are wrong. But under no circumstances can they all be right. When you die, you either go to heaven or hell, or lie in the grave. But you cannot do all of them at the same time.”
Koukl made his point, “The world’s religions are not reconcilable. They cannot all be right.”
He acknowledged that when people don’t like the argument made against pluralism on its own merits, they just call you a name, usually, “intolerant.”
How to get out of the tolerance trick
Koukl explained, “Classical tolerance is a virtue – be egalitarian about people (treat people with equal kindness and respect regardless of what they believe as human beings who are made in the image of God) and be elitist in regard to ideas. (Some ideas are better than others.) Postmodern tolerance: all views are equally valid; be egalitarian about ideas and, if someone thinks their ideas are better than others, it is fair game to be mistreated as a human being.”
Related Stories
Click here to read additional stories from the Christian Apologetics Conference
Koukl then sought to equip his audience for the time when they would be charged with being intolerant.
“Ask them what they mean by that,” Koukl recommended. “Your conversation will likely go something like this:
“Your accuser will say, ‘You think you’re right and everyone else is wrong.’”
“You will say, ‘Yes, I do. But that’s what belief is. I believe that what I believe is true – just like everybody else – just like you! All people who believe things, believe their beliefs are right. You think you’re right too. Right?”’
Here, you will likely encounter silence while your conversant considers that the roof of his system has just been blown off.
You will then re-direct, ‘Acknowledging that you think you’re right about what you believe, I would ask you to consider why it is, then, when I think I’m right, I’m ‘intolerant,’ and when you think you’re right, you’re ‘inclusive.’”
Koukl concluded by calling and challenging his audience, “The goal is to generate a genuine conversation about the intolerance of tolerance.”
Continuing the hypothetical conversation, Koukl continued, “As the person to agree on a working definition of tolerance like, ‘all views are equally valid?’ Then state a view that is considered intolerant, ‘Jesus is the Messiah and Jews are wrong for rejecting him.’”
Koukl said that the retort is predictable, “You can’t say that. That’s intolerant. How would you like it if someone said that you were wrong?” Koukl concluded with a smile directed at his invisible verbal sparing partner, “Like you’re doing right now?”
Koukl concluded, “Be clear. See the shell game. Remember that people think you’re dangerous. They think they are neutral and they are not. Neutrality is a myth. Unmask the passive-aggressive intolerance trick and help people see that they’ve got the definition backwards.”
You can read the entire article at the Stand To Reason Web site. The Intolerance of Tolerance was written originally for Breakpoint.