Note: We have apparently had some
academic bullying at our local college by some science teachers against
Christians that has been personal and vitriolic in nature. Quite a bit of
discussion has occurred in the newspaper's editorial section on this. The
person who brought this to light (Pastor DuSoliel) has been both vilified and
applauded by his stance. Below is my letter to the Editor to try to weigh in on
this issue on a less emotional level and more of a philosophical level:
Mr. DuSoleil's recent letter concerning 'Atheistic Bullies in Academia',
specifically noting certain issues at GBC, highlights a greater issue that is
reflected in society. The word tolerance
has subtly shifted meaning from "accepting the existence of different
views" to "acceptance of different views." In other words, our
society has found it more and more acceptable to move from a place of
recognizing other people's rights to have different beliefs or practices to a
place that the only acceptable practice is accepting the differing views of
other people and no longer opposing them.
To put it another way, we have moved from allowing the free expression
of contrary opinions to the position that all opinions are of equal value and
worth (as well as truth). Thus, any opinion that makes any sort of exclusive
claim is then widely viewed as intolerant.
This especially becomes evident in a subject such as the origin of the
universe/life discussion. One position that states there is intelligent design
(thus, an intelligent Creator) and another position that attempts to explain
away through natural mechanisms and causes any need for such a Creator are at
odds because they are mutually exclusive positions.
Under the older view of tolerance, a person is likely to still be
considered tolerant even if that person believed strongly in their views and
they insisted others had the right to hold a dissenting view. The newer view of
tolerance has now become the belief that you must accept my view on something
(or at least accept that it has the same validity)--failure to do so
automatically labels you as intolerant.
The problem with the new tolerance is that it becomes intolerant of
views that don't match their own. The denigrating and devaluing of those that
hold views inconsistent with the new tolerance (which is really the old
intolerance) have thus become guilty of hypocrisy at the most base level--truth
is defined as to what they state
truth is.
But not all truth is found in a Petri dish. Is it possible that there
may be other sources of truth out there? As a Pastor, I certainly think
so. To automatically dismiss an opposing
view (as apparently is happening with some in academia at GBC) because one
disagrees, is unable to 'prove scientifically', etc. is academically dishonest
because one is now behaving as if they believe that they are the holders of all
truth. To deny the right of a person to believe something different and
devaluing that person is the ultimate in intolerance.
John Schmidt
Pastor, Cornerstone Baptist Church
(If you want to be
notified of future blog postings, friend me on Facebook 'John Schmidt'. Also, my recent sermons in both an audio and
video format can be found at www.NVbridgechurch.com.)
