Yes it is. I don't care if you disagree.
It's a catchy idea, isn't it? This is what happens. A scandal. Outrage. Denial by the culprits. Conviction. Confession. Apologies. Then, just to prove that we really are moral and upright, "zero tolerance".
There is a power structure in every organization. The power structure is always responsible, in a real way, for what takes place in the organization. An organization that is shown to be rife with sexual harassment and discrimination against women must repair the public damage. Since the people in charge never fire themselves and never subject themselves to onerous rules and regulations and never find themselves at fault, and are perfectly able to cut a deal with their lawyers present when needed, they have to name a few scapegoats in middle management, fire them, and pronounce themselves purified. The company then passes "zero tolerance" rules.
Churches do it too now. Which is really odd, because "zero tolerance" is an insanely atheistic concept.
They can believe in zero tolerance because the essence of zero tolerance is not really zero tolerance. The essence of zero tolerance is that we will no longer make judgments or rational decisions or peruse evidence or measure credibility. There's no question of not tolerating real sin. What we don't tolerate is the appearance of sin. We think that if we eliminate the appearance of sin, we eliminate the sin itself.
We will not longer consider either the possibility that a person was wrongly accused, or that they might change, repent, or learn from their mistakes, with a reasonable, proportionate response to the infraction.
Waterloo Christian Reformed Church has "zero tolerance". If any allegation of any kind of improper behavior is made, the culprit is immediately suspended from position or function in the church, before any investigation is made.
Sounds godly, doesn't it? We are so holy that we punish people without determining if they have really sinned or not.
It's the product of atheism. Here's why.
The essence of Christianity is Christ's sacrifice on the cross. I can't and won't go into a long, detailed theological discourse here, but I think most Christians feel they understand that this sacrifice was to make possible the forgiveness of sins, and bring about the redemption of sinful humans by a just God.
We are not worthy of redemption on our own. We don't deserve it. We didn't earn it. It is only through the sacrifice of Christ that we are entitled to it.
Zero tolerance makes sense if you don't believe in redemption, or grace, or forgiveness. Zero tolerance leaves no room for redemption, no room for forgiveness, or repentance. You are done, toast, finished.
I guarantee you that most Christians in churches that have adopted zero tolerance will tell you that, oh yes, we do forgive the sinner, of course we do, amen, alleluia. And they will tell you, yes, we are all sinners. And they will tell you that if the allegations are proven false, the sinner will be fully reinstated. And the damage to his reputation will magically disappear.
But they don't mean it. As I have argued before, when Christ demanded that his followers forgive those who wish them evil, he didn't mean "forgive them, and then punish them anyway. If a man steals your cloak, take it back, and then tell him you forgive him. If a man strikes you on the cheek, hit him on the cheek, and say you forgive him".
But of course, zero tolerance doesn't mean that we have zero tolerance for sin at all. We don't have zero tolerance for greed or materialism or arrogance or self-righteousness, or lust, or hatred, or hard-heartedness, or bigotry. We have zeroed in on one particular area of human behavior-- sexuality--and because we're all rather hysterical about sex and ashamed of our own bodily desires and feelings, we make it the scapegoat. Our church or organization is pure, because we punish people who are inappropriate.
Copyright © 2003 Bill Van Dyk All rights reserved.
