To Be, or Not To Be
To be a Christian means to be counter-cultural, to stand out from the crowd, to not conform to the world around us. To be outside the “norm” is often frowned upon. As a matter of fact, most people will do almost anything to fit in. Remember Milgram’s experiment? Sometimes it is easy to see when someone is trying to conform, and sometimes it is not.
There is a felt need to conform. It manifests itself in many forms, and is usually a result of a person’s desire to get along with others. People want to be accepted, and conformity is usually the quickest route. The Bible teaches that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve. It does not matter in the context of this paper whether we believe they were real people or representations in Hebrew poetry. Although I do believe in the more literal version, for this discussion they are an image that helps us to understand the origins of why people conform. If we are all inter-related as the Bible teaches, then the desire to go along in order to be accepted is an action based in our need to belong. Belonging also fulfills our need for consistency of behavior by saying, in essence, we are following the same rules as everyone else, and we are not a threat to the group. When we conform we help others by being more predictable in our behavior. Usually the overall outcome of conformity is an increase in our self-esteem because by conforming we have been accepted, and therefore we feel better about ourselves. In church this can become a mind numbing experience. I have seen members who take conformity to a dangerous level.
When members of the group (those who have conformed) obtain their identity from the group it becomes easy to overlook their own shortcomings. They find their self-worth from within the group, and with so much good going on with the group they will often relax their own standards and obtain a faulty self-image by live vicariously though others. The social impact theory tells us that people obtaining a faulty self-image, and making decisions they would not normally make is increased greatly with church size. The more people the more sheep-like they become. How important the group is to them only makes decision making worse, and a sense of belonging in a religious community is a strong motivator of behavior. However, there is a more insidious element to conforming to the extreme.
Group-think is probably the most dangerous trend we face as Christians, the church, and a nation. When conformity leads to a style of thinking where the maintenance of the group’s cohesion becomes the highest priority, dangerous thinking will usually result. Conformity that leads to unanimity as an overriding principle and motivation that acts as a filter through which everything the group does is passed thru can lead to disastrous outcomes. This is why we often see people from the church, and the political world, acting as if they are invincible, rationalizing what they do, believe they are correct in the face of facts to contrary, get upset when others point out their errors, and pressure others to conform to their beliefs. Over-conformists tend to be dogmatic (past convictions to insanity); they justify irrational behaviors, see themselves as morally superior to others, and will stereotype or vilify outsiders. Most of the time over conformity stems from pluralistic ignorance. That is when people adopt the norms of others even when they run in opposition to their own beliefs. For the sake of remaining within the allotted space, remember that to be a Christian does not mean we have to check our brains at the door. We are to love God with our heart, soul, and mind.
It is not death that a man should fear, he should fear never beginning to live.
Having and using a right standard of why we do what we do is important to sound judgment and understanding who we are and why we do what we do. Without a right standard we will be susceptible to the fundamental attribution error.Measuring ourselves, our values, and our behaviors using our situation, and excluding our personality traits is equally as dangerous as others judging us by using our personality traits to the exclusion of situational factors in our lives.
The root of just about all of the principles in social psychology usually comes in the form of cognitive bias called the fundamental attribution error. It reveals how people tend to consider their own behavior in a different, biased, way from the way they perceive the behavior of others.
Real Life
Within the world of congregational Christianity, or, one might say, the church world this error has proved to be very invasive. As a minister, there never seems to be a dull moment. Each week brings many and varied challenges that seemingly pop up to derail us from our already overloaded schedule.
One of the major points of conflict between staff members (ministers) and laity (church members) is understanding the differences between who we are, what we do, and what we deal with everyday. Ask a church member to comment on how effective they believe a particular minister is in their role, and many of the comments will revolve around likes and dislikes pertaining to the minister’s personality. In contrast, ask a minister about his effectiveness and you will likely hear about the daily grind, and all of the areas of responsibilities and unforeseen circumstances that make up their ministry. As much as the minister’s tend to lean into the situation, the membership leans much hard into the personality.
It is normal to want to understand why people behave the way they do. It is just natural curiosity for most of us. Using cognitive biases is a standard way for the brain to process human behavior. The problem we need to recognize is that cognitive biases can be wrong. Observing someone’s personality can allow us to make quick decisions about that person, but we need to be careful and remain cognizant of our biases so we can consider the alternate explanations for someone’s behavior.
To remedy the fundamental attribution error I try to put myself in the shoes of the other person. I think about what I might do in the same situation. By doing these things, I can come up with some situational factors that may lend themselves to the behavior exhibited. I also look for hidden factors to help me better read the other person’s behavior. The inverse is also just as important. When I look at my own behavior, I need to avoid the actor-observer effect, and be sure to include my own personality when I am assigning credit for my own actions.
What role do you think tolerance should play in the Christian faith?
Dana,
I wish I had the time and space to discuss this fully with you, but this forum does not lend itself to long writings. So here is a VERY brief smattering of information.
The word “Tolerance” has at least two meanings today. It has a traditional meaning as described in the dictionary,
“sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own”
"tolerance." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2010
The Bible tells us to “live in harmony with one another. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Rom 12:16,18). We are told to “accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God” (Rom 15:7). The Bible makes it clear how Christians should act toward each other, and those outside the faith:
Ephesians 4:2 (New International Version)
2Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.
Ephesians 4:32 (New International Version)
32Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
Colossians 3:13 (New International Version)
13Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.
Galatians 6:10 (New International Version)
10Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.
Traditional tolerance is quite compatible with scriptural commands because the traditional understanding of tolerance has meant respecting and protecting the legitimate rights of others, even with those you do not agree with and those who are different from you. In a passive sense, traditional tolerance means “everyone has the right to their opinion.” It also means living peacefully with others, and accepting other people regardless of their race, creed, nationality, or sex. Basically it values, accepts, and respects the individual without necessarily approving of or participating in his or her beliefs or behavior. It differentiates between who the person is and what the person thinks or does
But today there is a NEW definition of the word “Tolerance.” Probably 80% of the time someone uses the word “Tolerance” they are referring to the new definition. It may sound like tolerance, but it is far from it. The NEW tolerance is based on the belief that truth is relative to the community in which a person lives, and since there are so many communities in which people live there are many versions of the truth. Having said all of this, there is still the sad fact that one of the most damaging charges aimed at Christians today is that we and our religion are intolerant. This is an effective insult, not because some Christians are indeed intolerant, but because Christianity itself is judged to be an intolerant (meaning lacking in virtue) faith system.
Now I will get back to the question, and I am going to switch gears a little bit, so stay with me. In his book True Tolerance, J. Budziszewski writes, “The specific virtue of true tolerance has to do with the fact that sometimes we put up with things we rightly consider mistaken, wrong, harmful, offensive, or in some other way not worth approval.” Our current confusion has occurred because tolerance has been elevated to a place above all other virtues. Again, Budziszewski writes,
Our most gifted thinkers no longer treat tolerance as a queenly virtue to be guarded among many others equally precious, but as a shrewish virtue that excludes all the rest. For now we are told that the meaning of tolerance is ethical neutrality, neutrality about which things are worth the love of human beings and which traits of character are worth praising.
“Because many in our culture have become skeptical about knowing the difference between what is good and what is evil, they argue that we are left with only two options when it comes to tolerance. We can either be ethically neutral, choosing to value equally all ideas and actions, or be a religious fanatic who claims to have perfect moral knowledge and who tries to impose absolute moral virtues on everyone else.”
Actually, ethical neutrality is an impossible and irrational position to defend. Holding the position assumes that one has answered the question, why should I be ethically neutral? Yet the construction of any answer violates the very neutrality being defended.
Another problem with moral skepticism is that the act of tolerance is dependent on some concept of what is morally good. One tolerates behavior or beliefs he or she disagrees with because of a higher or more important good. For instance, even though we believe that Christianity is true and that Christ is the only answer to mankind’s problems, we encourage freedom of religion because it is only by freely choosing to believe, and not by force or coercion, that someone comes to true faith. Religious intolerance and coercion can actually cause someone to claim faith in Christ when none exists.
True tolerance, how does this traditional view of tolerance work?
Budziszewski argues that ethical neutrality based on moral skepticism is not a reasonable option. He writes, “If a skeptic finds reasons for tolerance, he finds it not by reason of the things he is skeptical about, but by reasons of the things he is not skeptical about.” In other words, one is tolerant because one is not ethically neutral. Someone cannot be neutral about everything and still have a reason to be tolerant because they would be neutral about tolerance as well.
Is there another alternative? There is what might be called the traditional view of tolerance, or what we will call true tolerance. Rather than ethical neutrality or a blind appeal to religious authority, true tolerance has to do with making judgments based on a concept of what is good.
Again Budziszewski writes,
“True tolerance is not the art of tolerating; it is the art of knowing when and how to tolerate. It is not the forbearance from judgment, but the fruit of judgment. We may disapprove something for the love of some moral good yet we may be moved to put up with it from still deeper intuitions about the same moral good or other moral goods, and on such deeper intuitions the discipline of tolerance is based.”
His point is that real tolerance always depends on judgment regarding what one values. It is never the result of moral skepticism. The act of tolerating something is not the heart of the issue. The key to understanding tolerance is to appreciate the process of weighing the different goals or moral ends that might be involved. These moral ends are often separated into three groups. The lowest order of ends includes health, happiness in the generic sense, good repute, peace, beauty and companionship. Next comes what can be called intrinsic goods like virtue and truth. Finally, the highest order good is the unconditional commitment to ones ultimate concerns or worldview. The confusion surrounding this topic today might be so acute because we have turned this list of moral goods on its head; our society seems to value personal happiness and peace over virtue, truth, and commitment to a faith or worldview.
True tolerance is built into the very fabric of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Although it is popular to believe that tolerance is a modern secular concept, perhaps original to the Enlightenment thinker John Locke, political philosopher J. Budziszewski argues that it is a Christian innovation. “Even though Christians are not always obedient or even aware of their heritage, the Christian tradition represents the source of the very standard by which their intolerant acts could be judged wrong.”
True tolerance depends on positive beliefs, not moral skepticism in order to function and make sense. Does Christianity provide a foundation for true tolerance? Actually, it provides the necessary beliefs on a number of levels.
First, Christians are called to imitate the model that Christ Himself gave us. God incarnate came to earth as a humble child giving us the perfect picture of love and tolerance on Gods behalf. The perfect and holy God who created the universe stepped into time and space among sinful and rebellious humans to show His love and to win theirs. Both believers and unbelievers have been moved by the humility and mercy Jesus displayed towards others. His instruction to love your neighbor as yourself and the fact that He offered Gods love to those considered sinful and not worthy of forgiveness sets Him apart from other religious teachers. Jesus didn’t demand moral perfection to gain Gods approval; He offered reconciliation based on His perfect sacrifice. Biblical Christianity recognizes the persistent human aptitude for self-centered behavior, and calls mature believers to battle against it. Paul writes, “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Phil 2:3-4).
Secondly, Christianity offers a universal message to every tribe and nation. No distinction is made based on gender, race, or ethnicity. God is calling all people to accept His gift of salvation, and the church should reflect that multicultural reality. The Judeo-Christian tradition teaches that all people are made in the image of God and are not only important to Him but are redeemable through Christ’s blood.
Finally, Christians can be tolerant of both the actions and beliefs of their neighbors because of their worldview or ultimate concerns. The task given to us by God is not to enforce a set of laws or style of worship, but to offer the message of reconciliation in Christ. Instead of separating from the sinful and dangerous culture that God has placed us into, we are sent into the world by Christ to be salt and light so that many might hear the good news and respond to the offer of grace and forgiveness by trusting in Christ’s payment for sin.
The chief priests began to accuse Him harshly. Then Pilate questioned Him again, saying, "Do You not answer? See how many charges they bring against You!" But Jesus made no further answer; so Pilate was amazed. Mark 15:3-5
What was so remarkable about Christ’s silence? What would amaze Pilate about Jesus not feeling compelled to give answers to the accusations made against Him? It is not hard to discover the reason Pilate was amazed. We only have to look at our own experience with accusation. It is human nature to defend. If we are guilty, we defend by rationalizing our behavior and trying to explain why we acted in an inappropriate way. If we are innocent, we refuse to give footing to the finger-pointing. We will declare our blamelessness to the bitter end. The silence of Christ defied the very nature of humanity. This amazed, or we might say, puzzled Pilate.
At the heart of all humans is the nagging need to be right, even if they are wrong. That insatiable desire is connected and linked to our longing to be loved. If we are guilty of wrongdoing, then we are in jeopardy of being rejected. This launches into action self-defense mechanisms that will try at all costs to keep up in a positive light so that others will readily accept us. The fact that Christ seemed to be totally disconnected from this haunting quality of humanity caught Pilate’s attention. It was magnified by the fact that Pilate was acutely aware of Christ’s innocence.
What was the secret of Christ’s amazing ability to not defend Himself? It was the confidence and security He felt in His Father’s righteousness and love. Jesus’ silence in the face of false accusations spoke loudly to Pilate’s heart concerning that security. Jesus did not have to defend Himself because His trust was connected to the Defender of His Soul, His Almighty Father, in whom He had complete trust.
…and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously… 1 Peter 2:23
Pilate may not have connected all of the dots when he observed Christ’s disconnect from the overbearing propensity of our human nature to defend ourselves, but the calm assurance of Jesus’ demeanor in the face of death captured the attention of Pilate to the point of astonishment.
Our ability to rest in quiet assurance in the face of accusation is the true test of our confidence in Christ. Can we withstand the temptation of our souls to defend ourselves, not only when we are wrong, but also when we are right? Only when we are totally anchored in the assurance of our Father’s love and justice can we rest in the silent security of our acceptance, whether we are right or wrong. As we do so, a world bound by self-defensive override will marvel at the loud and clear message made by this silent act of surrender.
Question from Dana. (not sure who she is, but here it is)
If Jesus were born in this day and age, what do you think about our society or laws would make it appropriate timing now, too?
Dana,
Of all the questions I have seen posted this should have been the most obvious, but even though it should have been the obvious question it is, in my opinion, a great question to ponder. Here is a little something from my archives. I did not list the source when I saved it. I used while teaching and I know I cited it, but none the less I have no idea of the origin. It is great.
HEADLINE:
INFANT DISCOVERED IN BARN, CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES LAUNCH PROBE
Nazareth Carpenter Being Held On Charges Involving Underage Mother
Bethlehem, Judea - Authorities were today alerted by a concerned citizen who
noticed a family living in a barn. Upon arrival, Family Protective Service
personnel, accompanied by police, took into protective care an infant child
named Jesus, who had been wrapped in strips of cloth and placed in a feeding
trough by his 14-year old mother, Mary of Nazareth.
During the confrontation, a man identified as Joseph, also of Nazareth,
attempted to stop the social workers. Joseph, aided by several local
shepherds and some unidentified foreigners, tried to forestall efforts to
take the child, but were restrained by the police.
Also being held for questioning are three foreigners who allege to be wise
men from an eastern country. The INS and Homeland Security
officials are seeking information about these who may be in the country
illegally. A source with the INS states that they had no passports, but were
in possession of gold and other possibly illegal substances. They resisted
arrest saying that they had been warned by God to avoid officials in
Jerusalem and to return quickly to their own country. The chemical
substances in their possession will be tested.
The owner of the barn is also being held for questioning. The manager
Bethlehem Inn faces possible revocation of his license for violating
health and safety regulations by allowing people to stay in the stable.
Civil authorities are also investigating the zoning violations involved
in maintaining livestock in a commercially-zoned district.
The location of the minor child will not be released, and the prospect for a
quick resolution to this case is doubtful. Asked about when Jesus would be
returned to his mother, a Child Protective Service spokesperson said, "The
father is middle-aged and the mother definitely underage. We are checking
with officials in Nazareth to determine what their legal relationship is.
Joseph has admitted taking Mary from her home in Nazareth because of a
census requirement. However, because she was obviously pregnant when
they left, investigators are looking into other reasons for their departure.
Joseph is being held without bond on charges of molestation,
kidnapping, child endangerment, and statutory rape.
Mary was taken to the Bethlehem General Hospital where she is being examined
by doctors Charges may also be filed against her for endangerment. She will
also undergo psychiatric evaluation because of her claim that she is a
virgin and that the child is from God.
The director of the psychiatric wing said, "I don't profess to have the
right to tell people what to believe, but when their beliefs adversely
affect the safety and well-being of others - in this case her child - we
must consider her a danger to others. The unidentified drugs at the
scene didn't help her case, but I'm confident that with the proper therapy
regiment we can get her back on her feet."
A spokesperson for the governor's office said, "Who knows what was going
through their heads? But regardless, their treatment of the child was
inexcusable, and the involvement of these others frightening. There is much
we don't know about this case, but for the sake of the child and the public,
you can be assured that we will pursue this matter to the end."
This scenario makes it clear to me that God’s time is the best time!
