The Intolerance of some Tolerance

This week has seen a spectacular example of intolerance, in the name of tolerance. I've blogged before about the myth of what our culture tends to see as tolerance, and its unfortunate that I'm being proved right. The issue that presents itself in this weeks example - and also in an unequal but opposite case - is one of the cultural flashpoints of our day - gay 'marriage'. This incredibly contentious issue is a clashing point in the UK, but apparently even more so in the US, where American Pastor Louie Giglio will no longer be taking part in President Obama's inauguration service because, and I essentially quote, he is 'anti-gay'.

Hmm.

Louie Giglio - apart from his preaching and writing - is probably best known for his involvement with the leadership of the Passion Conferences, a huge American student Christian gathering which each year takes up a social justice concern in addition to their passion for the Gospel. Giglio's involvement has resulted in the engagement in recent years with the issues of modern-day slavery and human trafficking. Indeed, that is why he was originally invited to Obama's inauguration service. You can read a bit more about the Passion conference and the recent 'White Flag' album on my blog here. Giglio, basically, whilst being flawed as we all are, is a good guy. He is faithful to the Gospel, concerned for its implications for the poorest and most destitute in our world, and passionate. 

But, 15 years ago, he preached an orthodox sermon on the issue of sin, and used Homosexuality as an example of this. Fast forward today, and as this Washington Post article shows, its being used to justify his non-presence. Somehow, a man chosen for his leadership on one of the biggest justice issues of our day is sidelined by the voice of a minority, and that for holding a historical, orthodox Christian view on sin. Giglio's comments are normative for nearly all Christians - its worth noting, obviously, that some who profess faith do advocate for 'gay marriage' - and it would be entirely normal to receive a version similar to Giglio's response if you asked most pastors and priests!

This is an American example. Its an American story. But, as a blogger, Denny Burk, who I read regularly has observed, it touches a deeper issue growing at the core of our public consciousness;

"Homosexuality and gay marriage are fast becoming the litmus test for whether one should be allowed to participate in public life. I'm glad that the President doesn't seem to agree with that sentiment yet. But make no mistake. There are a growing number of people who do"

This is not hyperbole. Read Burk's post, and you will see what I'm talking about. Giglio was essentially asked not to participate for being a Christian, and specifically for holding to an Orthodox Christian view on a controversial subject that is currently in the mainstream eye. Tolerating one view - that of a vision of a so-called 'inclusive and diverse society' - above another view, is not tolerance. In my previously-linked-to post on Tolerance, I observed that;

"Tolerance is NEITHER approval or indifference - it should be an atmosphere in which we can have a constructive debate. When some figures in the media talk about tolerance, they need to check their dictionaries. It is not intolerant to disagree with someone. It is not intolerant to challenge deeply held, deeply felt, or fought for beliefs. It is not intolerant - provided (and this is key) it is done with sincere respect (or, from a Christian perspective, love with the truth) - to disagree with a minority, majority, group, race, nation, or whatever.

It is, however, intolerant to blanket debate, to stifle discussion, or to allow violence. True tolerance is going to look rather different from what passes for so-called 'tolerance' in today's culture."

Giglio's participation at the inauguration would not have meant that Obama approved of every aspect of his ministry. It was made clear that it was specifically Giglio's leadership in Human Trafficking that made him eligible. I doubt Giglio approves of everything that Obama does or is doing as President. These two men disagree over an important issue - that should not result in squashing, but instead should result in a reasoned debate over the issue - rather than the mudslinging that has characterised this discussion both in the US and in the UK.

And with that in mind, I move to a different but similar story from my own shores, ironically involving a former classmate. In sharing his story, I do not in any way condone his views or actions (in some cases far from it!) but I do wish to highlight the fact that tolerance is fairly dead. Olly Neville was the former leader of the Youth wing of UKIP. He now isn't. He isn't, it seems, because he differed from the party line on an issue. Can you guess the issue? Gay Marriage. In the UK, this issue is slightly different than the US, because our MP's will vote on it for the whole country. Of the larger/largish political parties, UKIP is the only one who has made voting no a priority. Unfortunately  according to Olly's story, this has resulted in a rather totalitarian attitude - making the issue of Gay Marriage a litmus test of UKIP party orthodoxy. Interesting stuff. Olly's latest statement can be found here.

Is tolerance dead? Sort of. It still exists, but its warped from all recognition. It's not tolerance so much as imposed agreement with a pre-defined agenda. There are, to be sure, Orwellian elements, though some on the internet claiming this are guilty of hyperbole. It is concerning that people cannot reasonably dissent. Surely Giglio's good in raising the profile of Human Trafficking and Modern-Day Slavery is worth something, or is the specific gay agenda currently at hand a bigger issue? Surely Olly had a right to dissent from the view of his party - even if he was perhaps wrong - if he makes it clear it is his own view (Which he did!)? Apparently, both of these supposedly reasonable things are wrong. Tolerance, it seems, is somewhat lacking in the Obama administration and in the UKIP headquarters. Depending on your political or social perspectives, at least one of those should not be a surprise.

I will leave you with a pertinent quote from Vineyard Pastor Rich Nathan, from his book "Who Is My Enemy: Welcoming the People the Church Rejects"

"Apparently, however, as long as one marches in step with a perspective considered progressive at this moment in history, it is perfectly OK to be intolerant to those who are out of step"

___________________

Thanks for reading, as ever I'd value your comments, shares, Likes, retweets and +1's!