Abstract: This paper examines how changing social values in Western societies have affected public discourse, motivating social exclusion and cancel culture. It critiques both contemporary progressive movements and liberal ideologies. What we now call ‘tolerance’ demands complete approval of all views, which paradoxically leads to intolerance towards those who merely disagree respectfully — the very essence of traditional tolerance.
Keywords: tolerance, relativism, liberalism, pluralism, tyranny, the Enlightenment, Japanese culture, Christianity, Islam.
When Voltaire (born François-Marie Arouet, 1694 – 1778) lived in England, he was struck
by how English people of different religious beliefs could coexist without conflict. Returning to France, he
championed ‘tolerance,’ by which he meant the ability to engage in peaceful dialogue despite
fundamental disagreements and diverse religious convictions. Tolerance means respecting other people’s
freedom to hold and express different views, even when one disagrees with them. Edward Langerak says:
Toleration is the enduring of something disagreeable. Thus it is not indifference toward things that do not matter and it is not broadminded celebration of differences. It involves a decision to forgo using powers of coercion, so it is not merely resignation at the inevitability of the disagreeable, although begrudging toleration can be granted when one believes that coercion, while possible, would come at too high a price. Tolerating another’s actions is quite compatible with trying to change another’s mind, as long as one relies on rational persuasion — or, perhaps, emotional appeals — rather than blunt threats or subtle brainwashing. (Taliaferro et al., 2010, p. 606)
Contemporary society has distorted the historical meaning of ‘tolerance’. D. A. Carson says:
To accept that a different or opposing position exists and deserves the right to exist is one thing; to accept the position itself means that one is no longer opposing it. The new tolerance suggests that actually accepting another’s position means believing that position to be true, or at least as true as your own. We move from allowing the free expression of contrary opinions to the acceptance of all opinions; we leap from permitting the articulation of beliefs and claims with which we do not agree to asserting that all beliefs and claims are equally valid. Thus we slide from the old tolerance to the new. (Carson, 2012, ch. 1)
Today’s interpretation equates to pure relativism, i.e., the notion that no viewpoint is exclusively true. Strong convictions are dismissed as mere personal preferences and considered no more valid than any other perspective. The shifting meaning of ‘intolerance’ further complicates this semantic change:
If you begin with this new view of tolerance, and then elevate this view to the supreme position in the hierarchy of moral virtues, the supreme sin is intolerance. The trouble is that such intolerance, like the new tolerance, also takes on a new definition. Intolerance is no longer a refusal to allow contrary opinions to say their piece in public, but must be understood to be any questioning or contradicting the view that all opinions are equal in value, that all worldviews have equal worth, that all stances are equally valid. To question such postmodern axioms is by definition intolerant. For such questioning there is no tolerance whatsoever, for it is classed as intolerance and must therefore be condemned. It has become the supreme vice. (ibid.)
The modern redefinition of tolerance has paradoxically created a new form of intolerance. When groups define the
same term differently, meaningful dialogue becomes difficult. The way certain words gradually shift to their
opposite meaning, especially in public debate, shapes how people think — sometimes
intentionally so. These shifting definitions have led people to unconsciously adopt relativistic positions on moral
and cultural issues, denying the existence of objective truth. The harmful effects are evident in individual
psychology and society as a whole, particularly as young people struggle to find firm grounding in life. This
modern confusion contrasts sharply with tolerance’s historical role. Tolerance has been fundamental to both
Christianity and Western civilization because it enabled different groups to cooperate despite their diverse
origins. This Christian approach to managing differences — tolerating without necessarily
approving — helped overcome tribal divisions and contributed to Western civilization’s
development. If we abandon this practical form of tolerance, we risk falling back into tribal conflicts.
The denial of objective moral values contradicts Platonic-Christian philosophy, which grounds truth and
righteousness in eternal forms. If we reject absolute moral foundations we lose the ability to say that even child
torture is unconditionally wrong — a point Dostoevsky insisted upon. Today’s
misinterpretation of tolerance as passive acceptance or mere indifference undermines its true meaning. Genuine
tolerance involves active engagement and principled opposition to what one considers wrong, while defending
fundamental rights like freedom of speech. For instance, one may reject certain aspects of Islam, such as Sharia
law, while defending religious liberty. Mere indifference weakens democratic discourse.
Genuine tolerance acknowledges persistent tension as necessary, echoing Heraclitus’ vision of eternal
conflict between opposing forces unified by logos (rational order). The latter aligns with Plato’s
concept of a fixed abstract order of absolute truths. Democracy embodies this dynamic process. It stays alive
through constant questioning and efforts at achieving change, not by standing still. The shift in meaning from
active engagement to passive acceptance becomes evident when criticism of Islam is labeled intolerant. But true
tolerance means standing firm on fundamental rights while remaining open to questioning everything else. Carson
says:
The importance of the distinction between the older view of tolerance and this more recent view cannot easily be exaggerated. I do not think that my summary of the new view of tolerance is exaggerated. In a much-quoted line, Leslie Armour, professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Ottawa, writes, “Our idea is that to be a virtuous citizen is to be one who tolerates everything except intolerance.” The United Nations Declaration of Principles on Tolerance (1995) asserts, “Tolerance … involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism.” But why? Might one not hold a certain dogma to be correct, to hold it absolutely, while insisting that others have the right to hold conflicting things to be dogmatically true? Indeed, does not the assertion “Tolerance … involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism” sound a little, well, dogmatic and absolute? Thomas A. Helmbock, executive vice president of the national Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity, writes, “The definition of the new tolerance is that every individual’s beliefs, values, lifestyle, and perception of truth claims are equal … There is no hierarchy of truth. Your beliefs and my beliefs are equal, and all truth is relative.” If, however, the new tolerance evaluates all values and beliefs as positions worthy of respect, one may reasonably ask if this includes Nazism, Stalinism, and child sacrifice — or, for that matter, the respective stances of the Ku Klux Klan and other assorted ethnic supremacist groups. (Carson, 2012, ch. 1)
The new concept of tolerance tends to sidestep complex moral questions by reducing most issues to a simple tolerance-intolerance dichotomy. This form of reductionism breeds indifference to all values except tolerance itself. As a consequence, as values go unexamined, it inadvertently facilitates centralization of power. Conflicts frequently arise between those holding different interpretations of tolerance. Critics can be silenced as ‘intolerant’ when their views allegedly cause offense, allowing moralists to exclude them from debate. As Carson explains:
The confusion of the two rather different meanings of “tolerance” — the older meaning according to which one disagreed with another’s stance but, within the matrix of a broader ethical vision, insisted the other had the right to express his or her views; and the newer meaning according to which one should not disagree with or disparage another’s views, very often with this “tolerance” being assumed to be the highest good — leads to many confusing discussions. We flip back and forth between the two uses of tolerance and fail to perceive that we have done so. What is worse, these two meanings of tolerance are not absolutely disjunctive: there is a nasty area of overlap that magnificently muddies the discussion. (Carson, 2012, ch. 4)
People who maintain belief in objective right and wrong welcome constructive criticism in pursuit of truth; but
those who reject objective truth are bound to perceive it as a power game. They tend to perceive criticism as a
personal attack, as they believe no opinion can be more valid than another. On the other hand, a fundamentalist who
claims to possess objective truth demonstrates a lack of objectivity, since by definition, only God can possess
complete objective truth. When we speak of “objective right and wrong,” we are really talking about
transcendental values that exist beyond human perception. As humans, we can pursue and understand objective truth
progressively, but we cannot claim to have fully grasped it.
We appear to be in a transitional period in which a patriarchal worldview is giving way to a matriarchal one
emphasizing uniformity and denial of differences. As Meic Pearse (2004) explains, tolerance has been devalued.
We have gone from having respect for genuine differences to demanding dogmatic rejection of truth claims and
promotion of moral relativism. The person who departs from either principle will be branded as intolerant (cf.
Pearse, 2011, ‘Introduction’). Pearse says:
Whatever the causes or the justice of this shift, the fact of it is indisputable. With it, the underpinnings of the various subcultures are knocked away. Where the old tolerance allowed hard differences on religion and morality to rub shoulders and compete freely in the public square, the new variety wishes to lock them all indoors as matters of private judgment; the public square must be given over to indistinctness. If the old tolerance was, at least, a real value, the new, intolerant “tolerance” might better be described as an antivalue; it is a disposition of hostility to any suggestion that one thing is “better” than another, or even that any way of life needs protected space from its alternatives. (ibid.)
The ‘new tolerance’ functions as a cultural neurotoxin. It works by undermining distinctive cultural
claims and recasting them as signs of intolerance. Many view the West as culturally destructive because the new
tolerance dismantles anything that doesn’t conform to universal relativism. Pearse notes that Western
relativism, while rejecting absolute truth claims, paradoxically elevates ‘tolerance’ to an absolute,
despite the fact that it really means indifference to cultural diversity. The political rhetoric of
“openness” operates as an ‘anti-value,’ effectively negating any strong cultural
identity.
Rajiv Malhotra (2011) identifies ‘tolerance’ as the watchword of Western universalism, masking an
underlying cultural chauvinism. This new tolerance represents condescension rather than genuine respect, which
would require acknowledging the full legitimacy of other perspectives. As a Hindu nationalist, Malhotra warns
against Western equality thinking and its denial of differences. Western “tolerance” that manifests as
indifference to Hinduism effectively renders Indian culture irrelevant. Paradoxically, passionate criticism would
be more respectful as the other is recognized as a valid interlocutor. The ongoing cultural self-destruction in the
Western world has sparked dangerous counter-movements seeking to establish alternative
orders — whether an Islamic caliphate, fascist regime, or communist system (with the World
Economic Forum apparently favouring the latter, using China as a model).
This degradation of tolerance stems from relegating ‘value’ to the purely subjective and private realm,
while reserving the objective world for scientific ‘facts.’ Cartesian dualism set the stage for modern
society’s excessive acceptance of all things in “the private subjective sphere,” religious
beliefs included. Yet Descartes’ strict subject-object division finds few defenders among modern
philosophers. As subject and object constantly interact we are never truly isolated in a private mental world. Our
values cannot be purely subjective and private, because our shaping by the world isn’t optional.
Modern relativism, born of Enlightenment privatization of values, operates on what Phil Miles (2001a; 2001b)
calls a harmful myth: that pluralism plus relativistic truth produces tolerance, while absolute truths breed
tyranny. Evidence points to the contrary. Relativism engenders tyranny, while tolerance requires absolute values.
Japan illustrates how cultural relativism can reinforce social control while maintaining Western influences. If
individuals cannot invoke absolute values, their independence is bound to shrink. Paradoxically, objective values
can limit oppression as they provide grounds for individual resistance to cultural subjugation. Says Miles:
There are no words in common usage for moral ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, as we understand those concepts in the West. What is ‘right’ all depends on the situation in which you find yourself, and that is purely a matter of social expectation or your position in the power structure. Japanese, therefore, are very adept at assessing what is required in a situation and acting accordingly. This is often misinterpreted by Westerners as duplicity, but it is simply the way life must be lived where all is relative. Truth itself becomes merely a social construct. If everybody believes something to be true, or if the powers that be say that it is, then for the practical purposes of daily life, it is true. As the Japanese say, it’s safe to cross against a red light if everyone does it together. (Miles, 2001a)
Japanese society demonstrates how relativism enables collectivist tyranny by creating conditions where tyranny
can take root and thrive. Without objective moral standards independent of social context, there’s no
foundation for challenging unchecked power. Personal truth claims (“true for me”) become meaningless in
relation to the broader world. Thus, to effect social change, people must unite around absolute truths. Consensus
culture can only be resisted if individuals have access to objective values, as these empower individuals to
resist. A society needs shared criteria for judgment in order to collectively identify wrongs. Without this,
failures are always attributed to individuals, never to society. In such a system, people cannot conceive of
abstract moral conceptions challenging institutional authority (Miles, 2001a).
Miles contends that relativism not only permits but necessitates tyranny as the sole means of maintaining social
order. This manifests through rigid, standardized behavioural patterns that must be followed regardless of
individual beliefs or thoughts. Conversely, in societies where citizens possess their own absolute norms,
relationships remain predictable by nature. This allows society to function with minimal control and coercion.
Miles says:
This dislocation of thought and practice may seem quite foreign to Westerners used to a culture built on biblical absolutes, but it is a natural outworking of relativism. Thus in Japan, issues of behaviour take precedence over questions of belief. In fact, for the average person, the issue of how you act in public is one which takes precedence over almost every other aspect of life. Children are brought up to adjust their behaviour to surrounding expectations — “What would the neighbours think?” being the basic educational dictum. Adults spend their lives trying to both assess what is expected in particular situations, and adjust their behaviour accordingly. (ibid.)
Relativism produces citizens perfectly moulded to societal expectations, creating a psychological split where private thoughts remain divorced from lived experience. Without absolute truth as an anchor, the state and its functions to maintain stability become the de facto absolute. True justice becomes secondary to maintaining order, with the state mechanically punishing any disruption of social harmony. (As Miles notes, in Japan, arrest almost invariably leads to conviction.) Gavan McCormack (1996) shows how Japanese society exemplifies the hollowness of prioritizing economic growth over human dignity, reducing life to three ‘C’s: “Construction, Consumption, and Control.” He says:
Affluence has brought little sense of fulfillment to the people of Tokyo and Osaka. Although they are supposed to be the richest burghers in the world, their lives seem profoundly empty and alienated. (‘Introduction’)
In no country is social life so structured around the imperatives of economic life, or are people subjected to more pressure to consume. Nowhere is the emptiness of affluence more deeply felt. The faith in modernization began to weaken even as its promised land was being occupied. The disparity between human needs and human desires was becoming patent. The salaryman who had created the miracle of postwar Japan was beginning to see himself as a Sisyphean jogger on the treadmill of infinitely expanding and replicating desire. (‘Concl. Remarks’)
People are more easily controlled when relativism inhibits their ability to discuss life’s meaning and purpose. The combination of hegemonic relativism and subtle coercion resembles fascist dictatorships in that it subordinates individual worth to state control. When moral absolutes are abandoned for relativism, the state and its regulations become the new organizing principle, superseding individual liberty. History demonstrates that rejecting biblical absolutes during the Enlightenment transformed European society. The Enlightenment’s relativism, followed by Romantic idealism, created conditions that enabled fascist movements. We are now witnessing a similar progression from relativism to tyranny. As Miles observes, the 1960s youth rebellion, contrary to its intentions, has actually diminished rather than expanded freedom:
The sixties stood for the rejection of traditional notions of truth and morality — not simply their content, but the very idea that there can be absolutes at all. […] Thus the sixties saw the birth of such things as non-conformity, situational ethics and all manner of “if it feels good, do it” ideologies. (Miles, 2001b)
Clearly the tide has shifted. Anyone who now advocates for fundamental principles or absolute moral truths is swiftly branded as ‘intolerant.’ Miles continues:
All of this is, of course, hardly surprising. Relativism represents the breakdown of normal notions of morality, and as a consequence we might expect to see it give rise to all manner of unwanted behaviour — tyranny included. It permits tyranny because in the absence of any objective standards almost any kind of behaviour can be justified, including random bombings and murder, or the use of personal relationships merely as tools for achieving the ends of the revolution. (ibid.)
What began as subtle coercion resembling the Japanese model, such as prioritizing socialization over traditional education in schools, is increasingly shifting toward explicit state suppression of dissenting views. The goal is to forestall social instability that might arise from people giving voice to divergent views. This explains the push in European countries to potentially criminalize criticism of mass immigration. Today’s institutions employ affirmative action, cancel culture, ostracism, and character assassination. Views that were acceptable under traditional tolerance are now condemned as intolerant simply because they might cause offense. The radical non-conformism of the 1960s has paradoxically evolved into rigid conformism — a logical progression that perfectly aligns with relativism’s trajectory. Miles says:
Where morals are relative, the important issue is fitting yourself in with the group. Arguing the rights and wrongs of an issue is simply a waste of time and energy if there is no final answer. The important issue is learning to observe what others around you are thinking and doing, and then being able to conform yourself to that. This begins with the peer group but ends with the totality of society. (ibid.)
Modern liberalism, as an extension of 1960s relativism, gradually stifles intellectual life by reducing
everything to behavioural conformity. Our democratic freedoms erode as relativism expands, with
‘tolerance’ serving as a smokescreen for this process. Jonathan Chaplin (1993) argues that
“the liberal project of devising a universally valid conception of justice which is endorsable by all
irrespective of their particular conceptions of the good is unattainable” (p. 49). The core problem is
that liberalism itself represents a distinct cultural community, making it far less tolerant of genuine pluralism
than it claims. This is a reality that Swedish politicians have ignored while promoting the myth that Swedes lack a
culture of their own.
Liberal politics, consistently applied, undermines true pluralism and displays religious and cultural intolerance.
Chaplin identifies the key issue: it’s because “the dominant community fails to recognize itself
as a community with a distinctive culture” (p. 32). While cultural communities nominally retain their
distinctiveness, they must operate within liberalism’s constraints, gradually losing their identity. The
Church of Sweden exemplifies this process, with its succession of Marxist-liberal archbishops whose worldview
contradicts Christian foundations. Christianity is hollowed out from within, leaving only an empty shell. This was
starkly illustrated when former Archbishop Anders Wejryd, during a 2014 visit to Gaza, met with Hamas leaders
and concealed his cross necklace in his pocket to avoid offending his Muslim hosts — a powerful
symbol of cultural capitulation (cf. Hansson, 2017).
Secular liberalism is an unscientific ideology
The American historian Francis Fukuyama wrote in 1989:
What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. (Fukuyama, 1989)
One might assume that such ideological extremism had reached its peak. Yet many liberal fundamentalists still view modern liberalism as the ultimate, unbeatable ideology that will bring about history’s end. It’s time to recognize liberalism’s inherent flaws and see it as equally irrational as the ideologies it continuously spawns (with Woke being just its latest offspring). Sociologist Sigurd N. Skirbekk offers a critique of modern liberalism:
In contrast to other ideologies, liberalism is characterized not only by a high regard for individual freedom; the liberal notion of freedom is seen as the individual’s liberation from social bonds and from cultural constraints. This implies that culture, and also social processes, will be seen in “external” relations to the individual. Such notions affect our general understanding of cultural as an institution, as well as our understanding of correct political priorities. (Skirbekk, 2005, p. 174)
Modern ideology has become so extreme that even biological sex is viewed as an external imposition by
patriarchal structures, and thus it must be regarded as changeable. This same logic extends to viewing immigrants
as blank slates, shaped only by external structures. Consequently, they can be remoulded like clay in a
potter’s hands into politically correct liberals, once they’ve arrived in a liberal society. Our
society operates under an unscientific ideology which assumes that a liberal personality lies dormant within
everyone. Most citizens fail to recognize that their leaders are ideological zealots. Modern liberalism, despite
constant celebration, is an ideological disorder that creates neurosis in its adherents. Liberalism claims
individual freedom as our birthright, but the freedom in question is external, namely liberation from the
normative guidance of society, culture, and religion. This inverts the Christian concept of freedom. “Sexual
liberation,” celebrated by moderns, would by medieval thinkers be viewed as enslavement to our base desires,
exactly what the Bible warns against.
The pursuit of external freedom paradoxically creates new constraints through ideology. Modern moralism replaces
genuine moral reasoning with simplified ethical rules, contrary to Paul’s teaching on inner transformation.
The ideological focus on external freedom produces rigid frameworks that diminish moral capacity. Reducing ethics
to external rules enables superficial judgment while ignoring complex realities. The prevalence of mechanical
rule-following displaces authentic moral deliberation and neglects emotional and intuitive ethical dimensions. What
presents itself as “freedom” has become a new form of constraint.
Muslim Secularism and Separatism
Modern liberalism operates like a parasitic wasp, paralyzing its host with nerve toxin and then hollowing it out
from within. However, Western liberalism isn’t solely responsible for the erosion of traditional cultures.
Independent forms of secularism have also emerged, such as Islamism. Muslim civilization has undergone its own
secularization process, transforming Islam primarily into a political ideology. The Muslim Reform Movement (MRM), a
liberal reform initiative from North America, failed largely because integration requires accepting modern
liberalism, which most Western Muslims reject. Instead, the secular Western environment has paradoxically driven
many towards greater orthodoxy, with many women adopting hijab or niqab only after they’ve arrived here.
Thus, they align with Muslim secularism while rejecting Western liberalism. This isn’t genuine religiosity,
because Islam has shifted from spiritual orientation to worldly concerns, becoming a secular ideology opposing
Western liberalism.
Sharia originally focused on spiritual goals, but is now interpreted through a secular lens. Iran’s
islamization efforts actually accelerate secularization, resulting in what Iranians themselves describe as extreme
materialism. As Mahmoud Pargoo (2021) notes, Islamic elements in Iran are largely ornamental. The conflict is
therefore between secular liberalism and secular Islam (Islamism). Muslims wearing their own particular attributes
is simply a parallel to 1970s communists wearing Palestinian scarves. They both represent movements seeking
societal control. Politicians must recognize that contemporary Muslims are primarily ideological rather than
religiously motivated, seeking worldly power rather than spiritual fulfillment. While we are often told to
differentiate between Muslims and Islamists, authentic religious Muslims are becoming scarce. Soon the Islamists
will dominate, mostly moderate, but with a violent minority that will continue to cause concern. This worldly
transformation of Islam began with modern Muslim reformers. Pargoo says:
Belief in the Sharia and its moral justifiability and enforceability in its presecular settings was based in the idea of the enchanted world and the ultimately other-worldly goal of life. When those elements began to collapse one by one, or their meanings, and the relationship between them changed, preserving the same belief in the Sharia was not possible anymore. The society, universe, and complex web of Islamic beliefs no longer testified to the Sharia. Thus, there was a need to find other bases for the preservation of belief in the Sharia while committing to this new cosmology and its normative principle of worldly progress. Muslim reformers (iṣlāḥ or nihḍa) tried to provide this new ground for keeping the Sharia by invoking it as an appropriate Islamic way to achieve civilization and progress, and worldly superiority to the Europeans. So, Muslim reformists’ approach was not so much a fundamental return to the Sharia as it was a reconstruction of it. (Pargoo, 2021, p. 17)
Ayatollah Khomeini’s rise to power in 1979 paradoxically illustrates Islam’s transformation into a
secular ideology as thereby a Shiite mystic with otherworldly orientation was put in charge of a nation. Critics
err in assuming that Muslims maintain a religious worldview distinct from Western secularism. In reality, they are
equally secular, although preserving religious elements as an embellishment. The spiritual dimension holds little
significance for the majority of Muslims today. They have become materialistic zealots, much like the Western
atheists, albeit with different ideals.
Therefore, Islam should no longer be viewed as a religion, and state funding for Islamic organizations ought to
cease. After all, we haven’t historically funded communist organizations to study Das Kapital, so why
subsidize Islamism? The situation is further complicated by modern Islam’s emphasis on separatism, which
contrasts sharply with the universalist and holistic vision of humanity found in Christianity and other religions.
Regarding the situation in India, historian Sita Ram Goel says:
There should be no doubt that it is Islam which divides the Muslims from the Hindus. Hindus would have to understand Islam if they want to understand Muslim Separatism, and thus rise to the challenge with an adequate response. […]
In short, Islam divides the human family into two factions — the believers and the infidels — , human history into two periods — the age of ignorance and the age of enlightenment — , and the inhabited earth into two camps — , the lands of the believers (Dar al-Islam) and the lands of the infidels (Dar al-Harb), and postulates a permanent war between these divisions. The believers are called upon to wage an unceasing war (Jihad) on the infidels till the latter are converted or killed off. The age of enlightenment should strive in the same way till everything belonging to the age of ignorance is remoulded or replaced. And the Dar al-Islam should continue to send missions to the Dar al-Harb till the latter is conquered and converted into Dar al-Islam.
One can well imagine the behaviour pattern of those who pass under the spell of Islam. They cannot but look upon their non-Muslim neighbours as enemies to be attacked on the slightest pretext, to be converted by all means, and to be eliminated if they (non-Muslims) prove intractable. (Goel, 1995, ch. 11)
Biblical Christianity is the Anchor of Salvation
Jesus was not a socialist reformer, as evinced by his statement “The poor you will always have with
you” (Mark 14:7). Paul Hessert (1993) argues that Paul’s core message was far more radical in that
faith’s passion should replace the pursuit of power and meaning. Paul embraced this radical message, clashing
with Jerusalem’s legalistic Christians. His declaration that “the righteous shall live by faith”
(Rom. 1:17) initiated a continual conflict between Pauline and legalistic Christians, the latter corresponding to
today’s Marxists and Biblical fundamentalists. Luther revived Paul’s message through his
“theology of the cross” emphasizing “justification by faith alone.” Neither of them were
social reformers; they sought to transform people and liberate them from legalistic moralism.
Legalism dominates contemporary society, extending even into religious institutions. Citizens must conform to
cultural rules: wokeism, UN Human Rights, LGBTQ rights, women’s rights, anti-racism, racial equality, and the
“Law of Jante” (cf. Wiki). It is an unprecedented proliferation of rules, creating a society of fearful
people always ready to attack the rule-breakers.
Faith’s passion represents something entirely different, namely to abandon the pursuit of power, meaning, and
“the good.” Living in faith means stepping off this worldly treadmill. People who are drawn to
ideologies or Islam remain fixated on worldly pursuits and achieving “the good.” The crucified Christ
anchors faith, enabling both self-transcendence and detachment from worldly concerns. As Paul teaches, in Christ we
die to the body of sin. True freedom comes only through transcending the dichotomies of good and evil, right and
wrong, sin and righteousness. Hessert says:
To be free is not to have our choice of possibilities, but to be released from the compulsion to remake everything and everyone (especially ourselves) in the evanescent image of an ideal. To be free is to live in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3). (Hessert, 1993, p. 216)
The crucified Christ represents an anomaly incompatible with systematic cultural and religious frameworks, and
this is precisely its significance. While participating in society, we ought to abandon the pursuit of worldly
meaning and recognize our status as pilgrims, as Augustine taught. Luther explains this paradox: “A Christian
uses earthly means like any unbeliever. Outwardly they look alike.” Yet he adds: “Nevertheless there is
a great difference between them. I may live in the flesh, but I do not live after the flesh. I do my living now
‘by the faith of the Son of God.’ ” (Luther, 1939, p. 43). In 1 Corinthians 9,
Paul explains how Christians engage with society, adapting to cultural contexts to spread the faith. True faith,
unlike legalism, means abandoning the pursuit of the worldly good.
Chesterton’s fence principle warns against dismantling established structures without understanding their
function. The Enlightenment’s departure from biblical frameworks illustrates this concern, as it accelerated
the development of relativism and new ideological perspectives. The claim that Christianity impeded scientific
progress is false. The medieval church established Europe’s universities and published scientific
encyclopedias explaining celestial phenomena. Augustine (De Genesi) criticizes Christians who ignore
science. His concepts are remarkably aligned with modern understanding: species appear over time, matter has a
discrete nature (suggesting a triadic form, now known as the quark triad), space and time were created alongside
matter. This was the fundamental worldview of medieval professors, who were also priests. Astrophysicist
Robert Jastrow says:
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. (Jastrow, 1978, p. 116)
Many books have been written about how Christianity gave rise to scientific thinking and the modern worldview.
It is high time to abandon the myth of hostility between Christianity and modern thinking, including science.
Protestantism in particular has favoured economic growth, entrepreneurship, and scientific thinking. In contrast,
Enlightenment’s rejection of transcendent truth fostered relativism, contributing to events like the
religious persecution during the French Revolution, such as the drowning of Christians in the river Loire (cf.
Wiki: ‘Drownings at Nantes’).
While Nietzsche promoted extreme pluralism and the rejection of absolute truth, he also advocated a society ruled
by an elite. This apparent paradox makes sense when we consider that in his view, the Übermensch (Superman) creates
and enforces his own values upon the masses. It demonstrates how relativism enables tyranny and explains modern
liberal society’s susceptibility to tyrannical movements like wokeism and fascism. Modern liberalism is the
progenitor of such movements, not their antithesis. The West must defend absolute Christian truth or face decline.
Today’s “new tolerance” demands passive acceptance of all ideologies, diverging from
Voltaire’s original concept. Apathy and indifference was not what he meant by tolerance.
The way in which the Western world drifted away from Christianity produced two significant consequences: the rise
of universal relativism and the loss of the cultural influence of the gospel. This vacuum was filled by destructive
ideological narratives, with Marxism and its cultural offshoots emerging as particularly damaging belief systems.
Ideologies are like evil spirits that take possession of people. It seems an exorcist is needed to remove them.
When Jesus casts out evil spirits in the Bible, we should understand it in terms of modern ideological possession.
In the postmodern era, different movements have emerged of which one relativizes gender differences and adds
numerous new genders, another portrays white people as the root of all evil (identity politics), and a third makes
climate the centerpiece of an apocalyptic climate religion. What is the cause of all this? The Baining people of
Papua New Guinea claim that we become human by overcoming or resisting the natural (cf. Gray, 2012). Rising above
the natural human, explains Mircea Eliade, is central to indigenous peoples (cf. Eliade, 1975,
p. xiv).
Resistance against the natural manifests differently across epochs. The Victorian period saw women commonly
diagnosed with ‘hysteria,’ a condition linked to sexual repression, which in turn caused widespread
prostitution in the cities. The condition manifested in physical symptoms including severe muscular spasms that
caused arching of the body. Medical practitioners employed mechanical devices to treat the waist area. The
development of electrical stimulation devices in the 1880s replaced the traditional manual therapy to induce sexual
release — a practice dating back to Hippocrates’ time (cf. Maines, 2001). Freud later
redefined the condition as psychological in nature, leading to the new psychoanalytic approach. The LGBTQ
movement’s emphasis on bloodless gender concepts over biological sex perpetuates this collective neurosis,
with doctors favouring surgical intervention over psychological understanding. It seems psychiatrist
Viktor Frankl was right: “Every age has its own collective neurosis, and every age needs its own
psychotherapy to cope with it” (Frankl, 2006, p. 115)
Christianity’s supernatural framework historically served to contain humanity’s unnatural longings.
Without it, these impulses manifest as pathologies. Similarly, apocalyptic tendencies, once channeled through
Christianity’s end-times doctrine (that never claimed a precise timing), now emerge as collective hysteria
around climate change. Evidently, the decision to remove Christian education from schools has produced serious
negative consequences.
Contemporary climate anxiety parallels the collective guilt neurosis that prevailed during the late Middle Ages
until the early 16th century. As medieval Christians faced pressure to purchase indulgences, modern society
confronts environmental guilt through taxation and behavioural mandates. Luther’s struggle with guilt as a
monk led to his transformative insight from Paul’s teaching: righteousness comes through faith rather than
works. This understanding, which freed people from the burden of works-based salvation, brought profound relief to
many, including artist Albrecht Dürer. Luther’s interpretation of Paul’s message released social
energy by lifting the weight of collective guilt. This theological shift contributed significantly to early modern
developments. Today’s environmental discourse exhibits similar patterns of collective guilt and prescribed
remediation, suggesting parallel psychological and social dynamics across different historical contexts.
The pursuit of biblical truth is not to be equated with fundamentalist literalism. Scripture requires
interpretation with both intellect and spirit, as the Church Fathers understood. While absolute truths exist, our
human limitations (“seeing through a glass darkly,” 1 Cor. 13:12) mean we must approach them with
humility. Paul rejects the merely legalistic following of rules. This relates to ancient philosophical perspectives
on moral truth: Aristotle’s virtue ethics based on rational examination of good outcomes, and Plato’s
theory of transcendent forms accessed through recollection (anamnesis). Christianity offers a distinct path:
divine revelation through Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17) that transcends both Aristotelian rationalism and
Platonic transcendentalism. Through spiritual wrestling with Scripture under the Holy Spirit’s guidance, we
can gain clearer insight into moral truth.
It seems that rational virtue ethics and duty ethics lead to an endless series of rational arguments that include
many exceptions, as it depends on the context whether the rational motive for the action truly holds. Therefore,
Plato instead wanted to reach the very essence of virtue. But then one drifts into abstraction, which in the worst
case leads to Gnosticism. Plato’s dialogues are invaluable, but he ends them without having managed to
establish what is true. Both Plato and Aristotle searched for a fixed point in which they could anchor their
worldview, without arriving at a definitive answer. In the time that followed, Stoics, Epicureans, Skeptics,
Cynics, Sophists, Cyrenaics, and others emerged. This philosophical fragmentation, together with the prevailing
polytheism, testifies to the confusion that ruled at that time. The fixed point in existence finally came in the
form of Jesus Christ.
In accordance with the matriarchal and maternal ideal, the welfare state today represents the very security and
goodness in existence. Previously, only Jesus was perfectly good, all others sinners. The state was not expected to
represent ultimate goodness, as this was fulfilled by Jesus, who represents righteousness before God. Thus, people
were spared from having to emulate perfect goodness and righteousness, because humans cannot be good, especially
because that they cannot see the future consequences of their decisions. We receive forgiveness anyway, thanks to
Jesus’ work of salvation. Augustine says that pride is the root of all sin. Christianity protects us from the
pride of goodness. But as Christianity increasingly disappears from consciousness, the ego swells, and people
believe themselves to be gods, capable of transcending natural existence without divine assistance. Pride sinks us
ever deeper into sin, and destruction follows in its wake. Martin Luther says:
It is a momentous thing to thus rise up and walk in an alien righteousness, one that exists outside yourself, one that you neither can see nor understand but only hear in the Word. But to be separated from this path leads to grief and anguish for the conscience. (Luthers Werke, 25, 359)
Luther’s thought aligns with Plato’s theory of forms in which the universal concept encompasses the multiplicity of individuals. Just as all humanity shares in Adam’s sin through his role as humanity’s archetype, believers receive atonement through their participation in Christ as humanity’s new exemplar. As Paul states: “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22). Therefore Jesus says:
Truly I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not come under judgment but has passed from death to life. (John 5:24)
By thinking in terms of an ‘external righteousness,’ we free ourselves from relativism’s false ideal of goodness, according to which all ideas, ideologies, cultures, and religions are equivalent. This enables the individual to practice tolerance in the true sense, as far as possible. Being genuinely tolerant requires self-improvement and the willingness to develop informed views on various issues. Sloth (acedia), in the form of laziness, indifference, or passivity, was counted among the seven deadly sins in medieval Christianity. While characteristic of modern liberal morality, such apathy contradicts traditional Christian ethics, which emphasizes the challenging virtues of true tolerance and forgiveness.
© Mats Winther (2023 December; English version: 2024 November)
References
Carson, D. A. (2012). The Intolerance of Tolerance. Eerdmans.
Chaplin, J. (1993). ‘How Much Cultural and Religious Pluralism can Liberalism Tolerate?’
in Horton, J. (ed.) (1993). Liberalism, Multiculturalism and Toleration. Palgrave.
‘Drownings at Nantes’. Wikipedia. (here)
Eliade, M. (1975). Rites and Symbols of Initiation: The Mysteries of Birth and Rebirth. Harper Colophon
Books. (1958)
Frankl, V. E. (2006). Man’s Search for Meaning – An Introduction to
Logotherapy. Better Yourself Books.
Fukuyama, F. (1989). ‘The End of History?’. The National Interest, No. 16, pp. 3-18
(1989).
Goel, S. R. (1995). Muslim Separatism: Causes and Consequences. Voice of India.
Gray, P. (2012). ‘All Work and No Play Make the Baining the ‘Dullest
Culture’ ’. Psychology Today. (here)
Hansson, T. (2017). ‘68-kyrkan: Jesus som revolutionär och korset som belastning’. (here)
Hessert, P. (1993). Christ And The End Of Meaning – The Theology Of Passion. Element
Books.
Jastrow, R. (1978). God and the Astronomers. W. W. Norton & Company.
‘Law of Jante’. Wikipedia. (here)
Luther, M. (1939). A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (Graebner, T. , transl.).
Zondervan. (here)
Maines, R. P. (2001). The Technology of Orgasm: ‘Hysteria,’ the Vibrator, and
Women’s Sexual Satisfaction. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Malhotra, R. (2011). Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism. HarperCollins/The India
Today Group.
McCormack, G. (1996). The Emptiness of Japanese Affluence. An East Gate Book.
Miles, P. (2001a). ‘Of truth, tolerance and tyranny’, part I. Kategoria, No. 22,
pp. 7-27 (2001). (here)
------- (2001b). ‘Of truth, tolerance and tyranny’, part II. Kategoria,
No. 23, pp. 5-26 (2001). (here)
Pargoo, M. (2021). Secularization of Islam in Post-Revolutionary Iran. Routledge.
Pearse, M. (2011). Why the Rest Hates the West – Understanding the Roots of Global Rage.
InterVarsity Press.
Skirbekk, S. N. (2005). Dysfunctional Culture: The Inadequacy of Cultural Liberalism as a Guide to
Major Challenges of the 21st Century. University Press of America.
Taliaferro, C. et al. (2010). A Companion to Philosophy of Religion. Wiley-Blackwell.
