Consider the concept of tolerance. Healthy social interaction requires tolerance. Ask any married couple. At least one of them will acknowledge the importance of tolerance towards others. I am married to the most wonderful woman in the world for whom I thank God every day. I am thankful He gave her incredible wisdom and the ability to be tolerant, she needs it! That people should be tolerant of other people is correct and proper. In this regard tolerance and respect go hand in hand and are almost synonyms. But the words tolerance and respect are not always interchangeable. For example, a healthy society is intolerant of murder yet still accords the respect of due process to murderers. One should always respect the abrasive power of contaminants in motor oil but should never tolerate dirty oil in the crankcase of an engine.

When people demand tolerance with regard to principle, they are asking for something that is neither proper nor correct. Tolerance should apply only to people and situations, never to principle. Intolerance is a term that should hardly ever apply to people. Intolerance should be the norm for actions or activities which are destructive or evil. Intolerance is required in a just society when and where intolerance is on the side of principles which are good and true.

I will venture out and hypothesize that our culture recognizes and understands the concept of tolerance to a much higher degree than frequent misuse of the term might indicate. It is clearly and explicitly recognized that Christians are called to be a loving and tolerant people. Tolerance is expected of Christians by others in society to a much higher degree than for society as a whole. Rare is the call for tolerance of others regarding Christian principles. The frequency of biased use of the term is a sure indicator of intent. One-sided appeal to tolerance is an argument based on emotion, it is but one example of fallacious reasoning being used to persuade. At the same time, in today’s market place of ideas discussions between individuals often become mere simulated  discussions. Conversations begin between parties with different viewpoints but then continue “off-line” with correspondents reporting the interchanges to others. The real goals of such discussions are not honest and open debate, but volleys of arguments designed to target and impact others at a later time. In such cases there can be little or no interest or effort in genuinely trying to consider or understand the “opposing” side. The motives in these pseudo discussions shift from persuasion of the other participant to posturing for future purposes and sound bites. Discussion in a real sense does not occur, only oration and positioning for future advocacy and spin. Reason loses out in such situations. Such mock discussions are merely a performer’s stage. Substance readily becomes secondary at best.  Subsequent reporting is often by one of the participants or similarly one-sided third parties. Reason and substance become secondary and can be reduced to no effectual consequence in these “discussions.” Perception trumps truth in such conditions.

Take the right to life issue. Christians and others are asked to be tolerant of abortionists and their actions. In this case the action of one individual prohibits another from the experiences of an entire lifetime. That action denies the right to live for individuals whom otherwise enjoy legal rights and protections recognized and accorded by law. Many in our culture ask, expect, and in many cases require tolerance of the principle of abortion and violating the rights of the unborn. Not only are Christians and others asked to tolerate a horrible policy and activity but also to pay for it.

Over eighty years ago, in 1931, then Monsignor Fulton Sheen wrote the following in an essay:

“America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance — it is not. It is suffering from tolerance. Tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broad-minded.”
“Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil … a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. Tolerance applies only to persons … never to truth. Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to the error … Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratory.
Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability.”

It doesn’t seem that our culture is confused over the definition of tolerance. It is quite evident that tolerance is well understood, at least as a tactic. The frequency of the appeal for tolerance, which may silence some, is a clear indication of understanding. More pointedly, biased misuse of the term can make points with a constituency but belies underlying malevolence rather than simple ignorance or carelessness.

More and more each day the need for another Great Awakening becomes apparent if our country is to have any hope of again living up to its promise and its heritage. Political battles for the hearts and minds of our countrymen just aren’t as important as they once were. Today, the winners of the hearts and minds of so many our countrymen are winning a commodity of less quality and value than previously in our country’s history. Plummeting test scores well document intellectual decline in this country. This is a lagging indicator of greatness. The spiritual health of our country’s citizens is the best leading indicator of the country’s vitality. The first Great Awakening in this country preceded the Revolutionary War by about a generation. The only sure hope of this country recovering its vigor is spiritual renewal among its people. It has been recognized from the beginning, but widely forgotten of late, that at the root of this country’s greatness lies the goodness of its people. Until its people again rise to that condition of goodness, and that will only follow the Spirit of God powerfully working through His people, a national return to greatness in any meaningful way can not be expected. Such fundamental change in people just won’t happen without a move of individuals toward God. Pray that God’s Spirit will once again move and awaken His people, in this time.