Should we tolerate gay bashing, racism and mass murder?

Yes, it's a crazy title for a post. Of course we should never tolerate such things. And that is why I object wholeheartedly to the suggestion that our society should be tolerant. It should not be tolerant, but respectful; not tolerant, but loving; not tolerant, but giving.

Politicians of all shades, moralists, and church leaders seem to spend half their lives praising the virtues of a tolerant society or reminding us of the need for tolerance in the face of some dreadful human act. However, it does not apply to all acts. After an arrest of suspected terrorists, politicians call for tolerance towards Muslims, most of whom, we are told, are decent and law-abiding. Yet, after rioting in various English cities last year, the same politicians promise a zero-tolerance approach to law and order. In other words, the very idea of tolerance is relative; it depends on what each person chooses as deserving of tolerance.

It is the relative nature of the concept that is the most serious, but there is a further issue. The word itself is begrudging. If I say that I tolerate something it is as if I am putting up with it despite other intrinsic faults. I love and like my wife overall, but she does (surprisingly) have faults – her habit of stealing the duvet is irritating, for example – but I tolerate it. When someone says that we should be tolerant of homosexuality, they are, in effect, saying that we should allow it even though it is somehow wrong. There is a negative undertone.

I would love to see the word ‘tolerance’ replaced with a word that is less relative and more positive. Although I am not a big fan of using Tudor translations of the bible in the 21^st century, the Coverdale translation of 1535 includes a word that would fit the bill; a word of immense power; a word that I wish were still in use today – lovingkindness. This word combines the inner motivation of love with outward actions of kindness. I love, therefore I give good things.

Is not this what we see in Jesus? Let’s be clear, Jesus was never tolerant! If something was wrong he said so, and in no uncertain terms, but he was never begrudging in his acceptance of people. Such was his love that he stopped a crowd from stoning a woman to death – a pretty risky interference, I would say! His love motivated his kindness, yet he by no means tolerated the woman’s crime and made sure that she knew it. Later, Jesus gave himself in the ultimate act of sacrifice, but only once he had overcome any begrudging of what was expected of him. He did not tolerate his death, but offered his life out of lovingkindness.

Well done, Myles Coverdale! I think it’s time for a campaign in favour of his word, except that it might be better to split it in two for modern understanding. ‘Loving kindness’ – I like it – in fact, I love it. Let’s end the era of tolerance and welcome in a new age of loving kindness.