Tony Dungy, of Super Bowl and “born-again Christianity” fame, is intolerant.

I would not have known this were it not for an emotional rebuke of the NFL coach in an article appearing in the Philadelphia Inquirer, “Tony Dungy’s off-field fumbles” (HT: The Pearcey Report). I will allow that Dungy is, in a very restricted sense of the word, intolerant - but it is not the sense of intolerance implied in the article. In fact, I find Dr Jonathan Zimmerman, the writer of the article, to be more broadly intolerant in a fashion much different and more dangerous than the intolerance of Dungy.

Coach Dungy is intolerant in this way: he is intolerant of ideas that he believes to be detrimental to those that hold them. More than that, he believes that maintaining such beliefs will result in a disasterous, eternal outcome. Because of that, he desires to have people understand and agree with his beliefs but does not coerce others to do so or demean them if they do not. In contrast, Dr Zimmerman is intolerant of people with whom he disagrees on such matters. He does not consider Dungy’s belief in itself to be problematic but views the people who hold such ideas to be undesirable. Thus, he does not attack Dungy’s position but Dungy himself.

Dungy is intolerant of ideas while tolerating and respecting the right of others to hold them; Zimmerman is tolerant of erroneous beliefs while intolerant of people who hold them. This is a significant difference.

The Inquirer article, appearing in yesterday’s edition of the newpaper, was prompted by comments Dungy made Sunday evening in Miami following his Colts’ 29-17 victory over the Chicago Bears in the Super Bowl. The coach is reported as saying,

I’ll tell you what. I’m proud to be representing African-American coaches, to be the first African-American to win this. That means an awful lot to our country. But again, more than anything - I said it before - Lovie Smith and I are not only the first two African-Americans, but Christian coaches showing that you can win, and doing it the Lord’s way. We’re more proud of that.”

Perhaps because I, too, am one of those “born-again” types, the supposed intolerance of this otherwise gentle, humble, loving man had eluded me and I had instead appreciated his temporal priorities and eternal perspective. But Dr Zimmerman explains his issue - and maybe his issues, as well - in the piece. He writes:

I’m troubled by the implication that Dungy’s version of Christianity is the only ‘real’ or legitimate one. Christians are every bit as diverse as America itself. And lots of them see the world very, very differently than Tony Dungy does.”

Were Dr Zimmerman interpreting biblical passages rather than impromptu, spontaneous remarks following an emotional sporting event, I might build a case and accuse him of eisogesis, i.e., of having read into Dungy’s words what he desired and needed to find. I prefer, however, to reserve terms such as “eisogesis” and “exegesis” for more noble purposes and thus will not employ them here.1

Zimmerman continues:

What distinguishes Dungy and Smith is their born-again Christianity, not their ‘Christianity’ per se. And the problem starts when we lose sight of this distinction.”

It should be noted that it is Dr Zimmerman who has lost sight of the distinction, not Dungy. The noted historian and educator fails to observe that this “born-again Christianity” which he vilifies has produced certain results (winning a Super Bowl) in a certain way (without disrespect, intimidation, or manipulation). It is this approach to life and football, not a claim to be Christian, that distinguishes Dungy (and Bears Coach Lovie Smith) from most coaches who have risen to similar levels of success.

Dr Zimmerman is upset and irritated that Coach Dungy, in speaking for his “version of Christianity,” i.e., Christians of the “born-again” variety, is intolerant of other professing Christians who either are not “born-again” or do not employ such phraseology. Whether or not Dungy actually said this or not is irrelevant for the purposes of this post: this post is about two types of intolerance, one that is respectful of others’ freedom of choice and one that is not.

In closing, Dr Zimmerman declares,

Tony Dungy says he follows the ‘Lord’s way,’ and more power to him. But there are many different ways to follow the Lord, and Dungy’s isn’t any better than yours. Or than mine.”

His last sentence is critical. If it is true, then there are far-reaching ramifications for “born-again” Christians and their desire to tell others of a saving relationship with Jesus Christ that requires, in their view, a spiritual regeneration. But, as Aaron Wildavsky has reminded us in a different context, we must ask, “Is it true?” In his book, Wildavsky says that although it is a bad thing to be misled or harmed, it is worse to be lied to or hurt in the name of health. “Born-again” Christians might argue that while it is bad to be misinformed or wrong, it is eternally worse to be deceived and misguided in the name of tolerance.

But to return to the matter of intolerance, the choice we have is between a worldview that is intolerant of some beliefs but tolerant of people (Dungy) or a view that is tolerant of all beliefs but intolerant of people who subscribe to certain beliefs (Dr Zimmerman). How one can tolerate the belief but not the person is difficult to explain, but Dr Zimmerman’s reasoning implies that it is possible.

At the end of the day, perhaps we are indebted to Dr Zimmerman for providing us a clear example of intolerance in his article. What comes into focus, however, is not the intolerance of a Tony Dungy, who respects people, but rather the intolerance of a Dr Jonathan Zimmerman, who clearly does not.

1 I do not mean to disparage Dr Zimmerman in any way. According to the NYU site, he is “Professor of Education and History and Director of the History of Education Program, Steinhardt School of Education. He also holds an appointment in the Department of History of NYU’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.” Furthermore, he spent two years as a teacher with the Peace Corps in Nepal, a sacrifice that reflects a commitment far beyond what most of us are willing to do for our professions.

Further, Dr Zimmerman is also the author of Innocents Abroad: American Teachers in the American Century, which (although I have not read it) appears to be a revealing treatment of the profession of teaching. Amazon’s description of the book reports,

Zimmerman’s narrative explores the teachers’ shifting attitudes about their country and themselves, in a world that was more unexpected and unsettling than they could have imagined . . .

Drawing on extensive archives of the teachers’ letters and diaries, as well as more recent accounts, Jonathan Zimmerman argues that until the early twentieth century, the teachers assumed their own superiority; they sought to bring civilization, Protestantism, and soap to their host countries. But by the mid-twentieth century, as teachers borrowed the concept of “culture” from influential anthropologists, they became far more self-questioning about their ethical and social assumptions, their educational theories, and the complexity of their role in a foreign society.”

It may be that Dr Zimmerman’s book reveals more than he intended: it may, in fact, give us some background on and insight into how the American educational system lost its way and began teaching a confusing, relative, postmodern curriculum. There is little doubt (at least in my mind) that our educational system is failing in some critical and vital areas, perhaps more through the implicit philosophies of teachers than the explicit musings of books.


2 Cor 1.13