Apologetics7

These preliminary pages have all been about 'thinking'. It is possible that for some of us we may have found them difficult and we may have wondered what the value has been in going through these things.

Hopefully on this page a number of these things will come together and you will see why we have spent time on them.

For the contents of this page we would refer you to The New Tolerance (TNT) by Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler published by Tyndale House Publishers which we thoroughly recommend you buy and read if you find your appetite whetted by what you find on this page.

1. What is Science?

How is the 'New Tolerance' seen and heard?

Answer:

In order to explain what we mean by the 'New Tolerance' it is perhaps best to see it in action. Here are two examples of it:

Example 1 from TNT P.5

“You have your value system, and I have mine. The fact that they're different doesn't mean one is right and the other wrong, and it doesn't mean we can't respect each other's opinions. In fact, that's the whole point. We need to respect and honour differing value systems—yours, mine, and everyone else's—just as we honour and respect our own. Anything else would be intolerant. We can't force our values or beliefs on other people. It's just not right.”

Note from here, the 'New Tolerance':

• says we need to respect everyone's opinions,

• failure to do so is intolerance,

• this stops Christians saying, “This is wrong” to a particular form of behaviour.

Example 2 from TNT P.14

A father has just been expressing his concern over homosexual lifestyles. His son is upset:

“All you said was that people shouldn't have the right to live and believe whatever they please. But isn't that what Christianity is really all about? Loving and accepting people the way they are? Isn't that what the Golden Rule says – to treat others the way you want to be treated? Don't you want to be treated with respect? Because if you do, then you need to treat other people the same way.”

2. What is Traditional Tolerance?

Answer:

TNT cites (P.15,16) Webster's Dictionary Definition of ‘tolerance':

“ to recognise and respect [others' beliefs, practices, etc.] without sharing them ”

and

“to bear or put up with [someone or something not especially liked]”

This is NOT what the New Tolerance does!

Traditional Tolerance

• respects rights of others who are different from us (& allows us to be different from them)

• allows everyone to have the right to his own opinion (& allows ours to be different)

• listens and learns from others (and them from us)

• lives peaceably alongside others despite our differences

• accepts other people regardless of race, creed, sex etc.

• but without necessarily approving or participating in their differences.

3. What are the Characteristics of the New Tolerance?

Answer:

The New Tolerance believes:

• all truth is relative to communities (now you see why the pages about Relativism are so important),

• no one truth can be true in the ultimate sense,

• truth is created by humans,

• if all humans are created equal, then all ‘truth' is equal,

• all values and beliefs are elevated to a position worthy of (your) respect.

Is this just an American thing?

Are the things reported in TNT purely an American experience? To answer that we include extracts from a Times article on November 18th 2006 by David Lister & Ruth Gledhill:

Students sue over Christian rights at colleges

CHRISTIANS on campuses across Britain are preparing to take legal action against university authorities, accusing them of driving their religious beliefs underground, The Times has learnt.

Christian unions claim that they are being singled out as a “soft target” by student associations because they refuse to allow non-Christians to address their meetings or sit on ruling committees.

The dispute follows the associations' decisions at four universities to ban the unions from official lists of societies or deny them access to facilities or privileges. Christian unions at Edinburgh, Heriot-Watt and Birmingham universities are all taking legal advice after being accused of excluding non-Christians, promoting homophobia and even discriminating against those of transgender sexuality.

At Exeter University the Christian union issued a statement on Thursday stating that it has given the students' guild 14 days to reinstate it in full or face legal action. It was suspended from the list of official societies last month for allegedly breaching rules on equal opportunities.

The Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship, the umbrella group for Britain's 350 Christian unions with a membership of up to 20,000 students, accused student authorities of extreme political correctness. It said that Christian unions faced a struggle “unprecedented” in their 83-year history. Pod Bhogal, the fellowship's head of communications, said: “The politically correct agenda is being used to shut people up under the guise of tolerance when, in fact, you tolerate anything other than the thing you disagree with.”

In Exeter , the Christian union had privileges suspended, including free access to university rooms and funding, after the guild deemed its core statement of beliefs too exclusive. At Edinburgh University , where copies of the Bible were banned from halls of residence last year after protests from the students' union, the Christian union has been banned from teaching a course about sex and relationships after complaints that it promoted homophobia. At Heriot-Watt, Edinburgh , the union has been told it cannot join the students' union because its core beliefs discriminate against non-Christians and those of other faiths.

Just in case you haven't seen the point, remember that Christian Union meetings are open to anyone who wants to go to them – but no one is forced to go. The objective of a Christian Union is to promote Christianity in the same way that a political party group would exist to promote that particular political party.

Thus, say the Labour party, would not have a prominent Conservative on their steering committee or addressing the party faithful – but no one says that is intolerant.

These cases in the U.K. are clear examples of intolerance by those in power in Student Unions, on the pretence that it is the Christians who are being intolerant.

4. Are we to Value all Beliefs Equally?

Answer:

Quoting Edwin J. Delattre (TNT P.20)

“[All values, beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims] do not deserve to be respected for [their] own sake without regard to ... content.... The values of the Ku Klux Klan do not deserve respect; nor of any other racial, gender, or ethnic supremacist group. Neither do we owe respect to the values and beliefs of the organized crime cartels operating in the United States . We do not owe respect to the values of countless other individuals and groups you can think of as well as I, that are ambitious for power and use it without regard to considerations of morality."

They comment (TNT P.20):

“The Bible makes it clear that all values, beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims are not equal. It teaches that the God of the Bible is the true God (Jeremiah 10:10 ), that all his words are true (Psalm 119:160), and that if something is not right in God's sight, it is wrong (Deuteronomy 6:18 ). This is not just the view of Hebrew culture or Christian culture or Western culture; it is the truth, according to the God who rules over all cultures, revealed in God's Word.)

This brings us back to why we believe the Bible is God's word, which is what we cover in detail in later pages .

Similarly, quoting American Federation of Teachers president, Albert Shanker, (TNT P.24) in response to a New York educational policy requiring all students to “respect and accept the values, beliefs and attitudes of all different people," the point is well made:

“ Do we really want [students] to ‘respect and accept the values, beliefs, and attitudes' of other people, no matter what they are? Do we want them to respect and accept the beliefs that led Chinese leaders to massacre dissenting students in Tiananmen Square ? And what about the values and beliefs that allowed the Ayatollah Khomeini to pronounce a death sentence on Salman Rushdie? Is exposing unwanted children to the elements and certain death, a custom still widely practiced in some countries in Asia and Africa , to be respected and accepted because it is part of somebody else's culture? Is female circumcision? Must we respect the custom of forcing young children in the Philippines or Thailand to work in conditions of virtual slavery? And must we look respectfully on Hitler's beliefs and actions?"

Many who espouse the New Tolerance would counter some of the things in the quote above by suggesting that what other communities, societies, and countries do, should be left up to them - we shouldn't judge their behaviour.

The obvious response to this is, would you be happy to accept that oppression etc. if you were a poor person living in one of those countries?

As we pointed out on a previous page, we need to confront such chaotic thinking with "How about it your life? Would you like it to happen to you?"

5. How can we Distinguish between the Person and their Behaviour/Attitudes?

Answer:

One of the key issues in the New Tolerance is the inability to distinguish between these two. Elsewhere on this site you can find links to the book, Creating a Secure Church , and in the ninth chapter of that book you will find the following:

You can love and hate at the same time

Imagine you have a young son. He is a wonderful young son, and he grows up to be the apple of your eye. He is intelligent and good to have around. Your heart is strong for him. Then supposing he falls into bad company, supposing he starts taking drugs and becomes addicted.

What will you feel? I suspect we would avidly HATE what he's doing, HATE the lifestyle he's living, and everything about it would be an anathema to us. Yet underlying that there would be a deep anguish within for him, for we love him, he's MY son, my flesh. I've got years of history with him; I remember the childhood years with such joy that it hurts now in the face of what is happening at the moment. I had such hopes for him for I saw the potential that is there. Indeed now if there was anything I could do to get him out of this slavery I would do it, for my heart is a heart of love for him, my heart is full of anguish and compassion for him. Do you see it? Hate and love can exist side by side.

………………………………………………………..

In this limited-view New Tolerance thinking, “What I believe cannot be separated from who I am. To criticise what's important to someone is to criticise that person,” and similarly, “If you don't approve a person's lifestyle, you don't love the person.” (TNT P.41)

TNT P.42 quotes British philosopher R. M. Haire,

“who defines tolerance as ‘a readiness to respect other people's ideals as if they were [your] own.' Haire's idea of respect does not mean an attitude that says, ‘I love you, I respect you, but I disagree with your ideals'; it means an attitude that says, ‘Your ideals are just as valid as my own' because in the lexicon of the new tolerance, respecting me means accepting and approving my ideals ... because ‘what I believe represents who I am.' In other words, if you do not respect my values, my beliefs, my claim to truth, my lifestyle, as much as you do your own, then you are intolerant because you're making a value judgment on my beliefs ... and that, according to the new tolerance, is a judgment of me as a person.”

It is therefore very important that we learn to distinguish the person from the philosophy of life - and explain it to them!

6. What is the Irony of the New Tolerance?

Answer:

TNT P.43 cites Dr. Frederick W. Hill, a school administrator, who said: ‘ It is the mission of public schools not to tolerate intolerances .'

They then ask:

“But what does it mean to be ‘intolerant,' according to such people?”

And answer:

“According to the United Nations Declaration of Principles on Tolerance , ‘Tolerance ... involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism.'”

And comment aptly,

“Ironic, isn't it, that the proponents of the new tolerance are so dogmatic about dogmatism and so absolute in their opposition to absolutism?”

7. How does the New Tolerance Clash with Biblical Truth?

Answer:

TNT P.44 suggests that the result of all this is that, “ any system or individual that believes dogmatically in anything – and especially in absolute truth- is by definition guilty of intolerance! ”

Thus because Christians declare the Bible to be truth, that is an example of intolerance.

Similarly this applies to Jesus and the Cross, Sin, and the mission of the church ( TNT P.44-46).

The New Tolerance sees anyone sharing the Gospel is implying that the other person's beliefs are inferior to your own, and “ Such an implication is unacceptable because it is self-righteous, biased and intolerant. ” ( TNT P.47)

The following is an extract from our ‘Difficult Questions' pages, ‘Aren't All Viewpoints Equally Valid?', under the heading, ‘The Lie about Equality':

… 'pluralism' purports to give equal respect to all views. However, in reality that is far from the truth! For anyone wishing to question this, you probably couldn't do better than read Franky Schaeffer's book, "A Time for Anger - the Myth of Neutrality", published by Crossway Books. … IF pluralism was genuine, then indeed ALL viewpoints would be respected and NO particular viewpoint would be declared 'PC'. ….Those who deny there is no 'truth' push their alternative views as if they alone are the truth! ….There is a blatant lack of intellectual integrity in our society.

That page referred to a Times article which has, in the following years, gained great significance, and so for that reason we include extracts of it here:

Since when was it a sin to be the best school in town? by Stephen Pollard April 28, 2003

Imagine a school where 98 per cent of pupils, not one of whom has been selected by academic ability, gained five or more A* to C passes at GCSE. With the average school managing to achieve these grades with only 52 per cent of pupils, you'd think the school must be doing something right and it would be worth replicating. There is such a school, in Gateshead .

Wonderful news. The people behind it … should be lauded as heroes. Except that to many in the liberal education establishment, they are not heroes but villains. The man who funds the school is blind, as are some of the teachers. To some in the local education authority, in neighbouring schools and in the media it's simply beyond the pale having blind people involved in the education of children. They might, you see, somehow pass on their blindness.

It's foul, isn't it — and quite astonishingly stupid — that there should be such prejudice? Like most prejudice, it's not only baseless, it's self-defeating. The way the blind people run the school brings only positive benefits to the pupils, but that counts for nothing in the face of bigotry.

Oh, sorry. Did I say they were blind? Scrub that. I meant they are Christian. The school with a 98 per cent pass rate is Emmanuel College in Gateshead, and the man who has given millions to it, and wants to repeat his munificence elsewhere, is Sir Peter Vardy, who is — ugh, how revolting — an evangelical Christian, as are — excuse me while I hold my nose — some of the teachers.

Because they are Christians who believe in creationism, and the literal truth of the Bible, they are, it seems, unfit to teach children, lest they infect them with their foul ideas.

Ignore for a moment Emmanuel's exam results. Ignore the fact that, as a state school (it's a city academy, so Sir Peter, as the school's sponsor, works in tandem with the Government) it teaches the national curriculum — unlike plenty of what we might call “normal” schools. Ignore that it passed its Ofsted inspection with flying colours. Ignore that it is always heavily over-subscribed. And ignore (as many of its critics do, since this is rather inconvenient) that many of its pupils are Muslim.

Just think about this: is there any group more intolerant, more narrow-minded and more, yes, racist, than the liberal secularists and the old Labour Left who demand the abolition of schools such as Emmanuel College?

….By the way, I'm not a Christian, and I think creationism is nonsense. But what, in Heaven's name, has that got to do with it?

Not only does this article speak about the intolerance of the New Tolerance, it also shows the potential for good of Christians working into society, which the enemy does not like!

8. How does this Usher In the Death of Civilised Society?

Answer:

Where a society espouses a philosophy that says there are no absolutes and everyone's ideas and values are equal, logically it becomes impossible to take any moral stand.

A writer in the Washington Times commented, “In 30 years of college teaching, Prof. Robert Simon has never met a student who denied that the Holocaust happened. What he sees increasingly, though, is worse: students who acknowledge the fact of the Holocaust but can't bring themselves to say that the killing millions of people is wrong .” (TNT P.25)

In what follows we will consider examples of the outcomes that may be expected with the New Tolerance.

9. What are the Consequences of the New Tolerance?

Answer:

Virtue (moral excellence, uprightness, goodness) may be doomed:

“ If all beliefs, lifestyles and truth claims are equal, how can one exalt humility as a virtue? Who can say that civility is any more right than insolence or that bravery is more commendable than cowardice or that truth itself is better than a lie? ” (TNT P.57)

Similarly Justice is doomed by this way of thinking:

“In order for someone to say the actions or words [are unjust], they are assuming that a moral order [apart from one's self]really does exist .” (TNT P.57)

Likewise Conviction (the state of being convinced) is doomed by this thinking:

“If I sincerely consider everyone's beliefs lifestyles, and truth claims as equal to my own (even when they contradict my beliefs, lifestyles, and truth claims), I can no longer feel any genuine conviction regarding my own beliefs. The new tolerance requires me to admit that I may be as easily mistaken or deluded as my neighbour. ” (TNT P.58,59)

The Privatisation of Faith is also an outcome of this new thinking:

Of those of us who are part of faith communities, you “ will be expected to keep ‘your morality' private. You… will be barred from juries and banned from public forums because your opinions, coloured as they are by religion, will be considered ‘prejudiced'.” (TNT P.60)

The new thinking gives power to create the tyranny of the individual :

Consider the example of a school choir practising for a graduation ceremony and singing two songs involving the words “God” and “Lord”. One of the choir member objects to these words and instead of dropping out of the choir (which would have been reasonable), sues the choir claiming that these words were ‘offensive' and they ‘violated her civil rights' so the Court of Appeal prohibited the choir from singing those songs at the graduation.

A classic case of intolerance by one who espouses tolerance as she made sure the rest of the choir did not sing songs she did not agree with!

It is likely that those of us living in Britain will consider the activities with the USA extreme but the logic is the same here and it is likely that it is merely a matter of time before these things happen here – as the University Christian Union cases indicate.

TNT goes on to also cover

• genuine Christian love as an answer to the confused lives of the New Tolerance

• the New Tolerance and

• Education,

• Government,

• Society

• the Church

It's well worth the read!

10. So how do we Counter the New Tolerance?

Answer:

Be clear in your mind what it is and how it works, as you've seen above.

An Approach:

As a Christian, graciously accept the person, even though not their confused thinking.

Be ready to point out the specific failures of the New Tolerance as you've seen above.

Receive God's grace and wisdom to refute what is simply another form of deception, a means the enemy uses to attack the Christian faith, and undermine morality in society.

An Awareness:

To conclude, let's be aware of something: Unbelieving atheists use other world religions to beat Christianity because deep down it knows that Christianity is unique and truth.

In a Times article of 21st December 2007, the Bishop of Gibraltar, in an article he wrote, spoke about travelling to Cairo and finding himself sitting next to a Muslim. He noted, " Questioning me about my own Christian faith, he reminded me of the Muslim veneration of Jesus as a prophet. He assured me that he had no problem with school Nativity plays, even though a nervous secular society all too often believed he might, and ought, to have ."

Real tolerance means that we Christians accept the practices of other religions (while not agreeing with their fundamental beliefs) and they (mostly) don't have a problem with us celebrating Christmas or Easter (even though their beliefs are very different from ours).

The people who DO object are unbelievers, those with no faith at all - probably because we stir their consciences, that thing that the Bible says God has put inside every person to point them towards Him.

11. Questions

The purpose of these questions is to help you go back over the material and take it in. We suggest you highlight, copy and paste these questions and put them into your own word processing package and then alternate between them and the text and put your answers in your word processed page under each question.

QUESTIONS:

1. How Seen & Heard

1.1 In example 1, how does the NT ‘level' value systems?

1.2 Failing to do what is said to be intolerant?

1.3 How do you think the word ‘force' in the penultimate sentence is

emotional?

1.4 In example 2, what is the deceptive ply being used to distort truth?

2. What is Traditional Tolerance

2.1 What do you think is the crucial wording in the first definition?

2.2 What is the crucial point made under the section on Traditional

Tolerance?

3. Characteristics

3.1 Choose two of the beliefs of the New Tolerance that particularly stand

out to you and say why you believe they are so deceptive or

destructive.

3.2 How in what follows, are we seeing one rule for religion ad another for

everything else?

4. Valuing Beliefs Equally?

4.1 Summarise in your own words the point of the first quote.

4.2 Ditto the second quote about the Bible.

4.3 How does the Teachers' president show the fallacy of this thinking?

5. Distinguishing between a Person and their Behaviour

5.1 Summarise the points being made in the illustration account given there.

5.2 How does NT thinking conflict with this?

5.3 In the quote about R.M.Haire, distinguish again between the two ways

of thinking.

6. The Irony of NT

What is the irony of this new way of thinking?

7. NT versus the Bible

7.1 Who, according to the first quote, is guilty of intolerance?

7.2 From the extract, what is the logical outcome IF all views of pluralism

were ACTUALLY considered equal?

7.3 From the Times article, a) on what grounds is opposition brought against

the school being referred to, and b) what was being ignored. and c) how

does this article support your answer to 6.1 above?

8. Death of Civilised Society?

8.1 What is being suggested in this short section?

8.2 What specific example is given?

9. Consequences of NT

9.1 How does the NT destroy a) Virtue, b) Justice, and c) Conviction?

9.2 How does it push faith into the ‘private area'?

10. Countering the NT

10.1 Explain again the second of the points given here.

10.2 How would you negatively show that the ideas of someone espousing

NT beliefs are error, which they themselves don't even hold to fully?

10.3 How would you positively show that Christianity stands out from all

other beliefs which are clearly not the same?

Return to Top