In original form, the idea of Costly Tolerance written by Leo J. Koffeman, a professor in the field of Church Polity and Ecumenism in the Protestant Theological University. In its recent form, the idea promoted by Netherlands- Indonesia Consortium for Muslim-Christian Relations (NICMCR), and was officially published in 2018. This organization being a medium to promote and strengthen the commitment to religious tolerance by scholars in Netherlands and Indonesia, in facing the recent challenges of religious exclusivism in Indonesia and the Netherlands.
Why tolerance must be labeled costly? What does costliness means in this context? Why it has to be costly? Further, what are moral implications of being costly here? The most authoritative explanation of Costly Tolerance in my opinion is that put forward by Leo J. Koffeman. He wrote an article entitled
“Costly Tolerance” and a speech entitled “What makes tolerant costly”. So far, the idea of “Costliness” of tolerance is still being discussed. I will describe,
first, what Costly Tolerance means, and limit my description by referring to Koffeman’s explanation in his article; second, the theoretical discussion of the Costly Tolerance as a conception of toleration; third, the significance or main moral messages that can be underlined from the idea of Costly Tolerance for supporting inter-religious and inter-cultural harmony.
First, costly tolerance is tolerance that is not cheap, which is not merely lip service, but must be based on a willingness to realize it with a process and struggle, full of commitment and sincerity, and even if necessary, with sacrifice.
Sometimes, people who fight for tolerance must pay with slander, insults, scorn, and even some who sacrifice their lives. People who are humanist and defender of tolerance, such as Abdurrahman Wahid and Nurcholish Madjid, have to pay costly with insult, slander, persecution, etc. Even Kofemann mentioned Bonhoeffer who had to be a martyr when he fought against genocide during the Nazi regime, he paid costly for his life.
I will trace the historical meaning of the idea of Costly Tolerance. Here Koffeman ilustrated the idea with the costly grace by Bonhoeffer:
“Bonhoeffer rejected what he called “cheap grace”, i.e. “the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, and grace without Jesus Christ.” Cheap grace’ does not cost. It has no consequences. For Bonhoeffer this was unacceptable. Grace is costly: living from God’s grace changes lives.” (See: Koffeman, “What makes tolerance costly?”).
Koffeman illustrated the high cost of tolerance with a costly grace, so that coslty grace has high moral consequences as well. “Costliness” refers to the implications of what is characterized as great grace. Grace has a price, and unity, commitment, and obedience have a price as well, particularly with regard to their ethical consequences. While cheap grace is just like “the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, communion without confession, and grace without discipleship. Koffeman said, it does not cost, it has no consequences.”
“The emphasis on ‘costliness’ in these titles refers to the implications of what Bonhoeffer characterized as ‘cheap grace’ (cf. Bonhoeffer 1994:44f.):
forgiveness without repentance, baptism without discipleship. Grace has a price, and unity, commitment, and obedience have a price as well, particularly with regard to their ethical implications” (Koffeman, “Coslty Tolerance”, p.6) Here, cheap grace without discipline and commitment cannot be accepted.
Grace requires great responsibility. It is in this context that tolerance is
desired by Koffeman, that tolerance is also expensive and valuable, so it must be achieved with sincerity. Costly and not cheap tolerance that has strong moral implications.
While cheap tolerance means an act of indifference with a minimum-cost of tolerance. Cheap tolerance is tolerance that avoids meeting ‘others’, with ignorance and indifference. Being tolerant of people of other religions, races, sexual preferences, or other types of categorization, is easy if they are almost never encountered. Tolerance in this context is easy, especially if we live in a monoculture area; nevertheless, it becomes challenging and high cost if we live in a multicultural area. In the context of current challenges that demand tolerance among religions or cultures, cheap tolerance understood as act of indifference toward others. Koffeman gave an example of cheap tolerance, as did some church leaders in the Nazi period. While Bonhoeffer, who defended the minority of Jews from the arbitrary treatment of the Nazi regime had to pay costly for his life and to be martyr to fight for his commitment to tolerance.
Second, costly tolerance requires a greater level of self-control and ego-control, and must be paid for with high commitment and solidarity. This tolerance presupposes recognition of equality, and the need to consider equality as an intrinsic value of tolerance, regardless of the power relations that exist among people. According to Koffeman, in the broader context of the plural and diverse society, tolerance must have costliness. He said that multicultural society nowadays can no longer afford cheap or uncommitted tolerance. It has to improve the costliness of tolerance.
Historically, Koffeman basically discussed tolerance in the context of church discipline, which emphasized the importance of obedience on the one hand, and freedom on the other.
“In a corresponding way we have to speak today of the need of a ‘costly’ kind of tolerance in the church. This is what the balance of obedience and freedom is all about. Whereas, a century ago many churches were hardly able to recognize the value of freedom in the church, the opposite might be the case now, at least in quite a few churches in Western Europe. Nowadays, we struggle with the issue of obedience, and therefore discipline” (Koffeman, “Costly Tolerance”, p.6)
In the context of theology, for Koffeman, tolerance always runs in the process between reality and normative doctrine, and is an effort to transform both individuals and society..
He does not plead in favor of the abolition of church discipline, not at all, but he advocates an exercise of discipline that is really transformative of individuals
and society. I am grateful for the occasion given with this volume to welcome his thorough research in this respect. In my view, it includes what I call costly tolerance in the church, as a permanent process of open communication about life and doctrine. It is not a matter of goodwill, it is not patronizing, and it is unconditional. Such tolerance creates the best conditions for a valuable exercise of discipline. (Koffeman, “Costly Tolerance”, p.7)
However, apart from the historical and the specific context of the church discipline, Costly Tolerance has a broader implicative meaning for the routes of tolerance and democratization outside the church. The explanation of Costly Tolerance in general is reflected in an expression conveyed by Kauffman:
“Tolerance is key to multi-religious societies like Indonesia and the Netherlands, although tolerance finds different expressions in different contexts. From a historical perspective, however, the common colonial history has influenced both contexts. E.g., traditional views of Islam in the Netherlands have been shaped by experiences and studies in the context of colonialism and mission, whereas the legal framework of the colonial regime had its impact on Indonesian society. Peace and justice within a democratic society can only flourish, if there is an attitude of tolerance between religions, both in terms of leadership and of the other members of the faith communities. The opposite is true as well:
tolerance as such is insufficient, if peace, justice and democracy are lacking. In other words, tolerance is no absolute value: it has its limitations, due to such other values. Real tolerance is costly; it implies commitment and solidarity.”
(See: Koffeman, “What makes tolerance costly?”)
However, according to Koffeman, the expensive tolerance does not have to mean tolerance that is ‘very expensive’, i.e. tolerance that is built on the strong domination of individual freedom as the modern view of liberalism. The expensive tolerance does not have to mean breaking boundaries of limits of fundamental aspects of religious beliefs.
“But costly tolerance does not mean tolerance at all costs. The issue is certainly not that churches should uncritically adopt modern liberal views of individual freedom. Each faith community has the undeniable right and duty to limit tolerance with regard to views and practices that are not compatible with its most pivotal beliefs. That is where church polity has to play its role. If we confess the apostolicity of the Church, we have to safeguard the authenticity of the preaching and witness of the church we belong to, and therefore regulate its doctrinal discipline, particularly regarding its ordained ministers (cf. Koffeman 2014:189) And if we confess the holiness of the Church, we have to safeguard the integrity of the church we are responsible for, and therefore regulate its discipline regarding lifestyle (cf. Koffeman 2014:227ff.)”.(Koffeman, “Costly
Tolerance”, p.7)
It is rational to say that in the non-theological context, or in the cultural life of contemporary society which is plural and diverse, tolerance must has costliness. Today, tolerance in Indonesia is still paid cheaply. Meanwhile, there are so many challenges from acts of intolerance, such as persecution of minority groups, destruction of worship places, prohibition of building worship places, unjust treatment and discrimination against adherents of
“Penghayat Kebatinan”, and so on. The stronger the tendency of intolerance, the stronger the demand for paying tolerance at a higher cost.
Moreover, if we look at Indonesian context at a macro level, the social and religious conditions of the Indonesian people are still far from ideal expectations.
At least it is shown by the social instability that is often experienced by minority groups. In the theological dimension, a gloomy condition is shown by the rise of persecution of religious minorities, such as Ahmadiyya community, Shiite, Gafatar, followers of Local Beliefs or “Penghayat Kepercayaan”. One of the strongest theses explaining this phenomenon is that the tendency for “intolerant conservatism” is increasing, and conservative religious understanding often lead to intolerance, both by the state and society.
Therefore, what is important here is that, the tolerance needed now is tolerance that has costliness. It is the higher quality of tolerance. In the atmosphere of society where the problem of radicalism and intolerance became a challenge in Indonesia, what Koffeman said above was rational, that: the true tolerance is not cheap. He demanded an expensive cost. The term “costliness” does not mean economic-quantitative, but rather qualitative, that tolerance must be paid at the highest cost by increasing quality, sincerity, seriousness, commitment, solidarity, and fairness. He embedded the term “Costly” on
“Tolerance”, borrowing the term from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, to show that the tolerance cannot be done merely in perfunctory manner, but rather must be with seriousness and sincerity. True tolerance requires sacrifice, up to the highest cost and even requires a martyr. In this case, tolerance must be paid by rejecting any acts of intolerance that harm the harmony of society.
In another sense, what Koffeman put forward is an invitation to transcend
“pseudo tolerance”, and to rise to a higher level of tolerance, higher level of inclusivity but not necessarily acknowledge religious relativism. The tolerance that we needed is a more serious one, which has a higher quality.
IV. Theoritical Discussion: Costly Tolerance’ as a Conception of