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 areas of discipline, traditions, forgiveness, and truth are, in my opinion, some of the most important Christian concepts, and so many people struggle with them throughout their entire lives. In the following paragraphs we will look at each of these areas. We will look at why they were chosen, what is the significance, and how they can be applied.
Matthew 18:15-17 contains teaching on how we should apply discipline and settle disputes within the body of believers.
15"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
16"But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
17"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matthew 18:15-17 NASB)
In a relativistic society, like the one in which we live, holding people accountable for their actions is not very popular. As a minister, I deal with this problem daily. Gossip and rumors, malicious or not, are congregational killers. Misunderstandings can destroy unity within the church. This teaching is a very unpopular idea most believers tend to avoid.
This teaching is significant because not having a proper understanding of discipline is so often a point of distress among Christians. For me, trying to communicate to the entire congregation without their embellishing what they have heard, good or bad, is a very arduous task. Confusion often exists between what was said and what was heard. Part of my role is to help clarify misunderstandings between believers, and help teach them the correct way to resolve conflict.
For me to help others my walk must match my talk. I cannot expect others to do what I will not. Therefore, I need to make a concerted effort each day to deal with others in a Biblical manner by taking my concerns about others directly to them, and not let them fester and become sources of infection that grow into non-Christ-like attitudes and practices. Matthew 18 gives me a Biblical basis, or outline, for handling problems, and forces me to meet the issue head on.
Speaking of problems, in Mark 7 we see a battle that continues to rage on today. For many churches tradition has come between people and the message of the Bible. Traditions are often built on legalistic thinking. Some try to take what the Bible says about doing things in the church decently and orderly to extremes never mentioned in scripture. Basically we can see in this passage how people tend to superimpose extra biblical ideas in order to get what they want in spite of what the Word of God actually says.
1 The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem, 2and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. 3(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders;
4and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)
5The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?"
6And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. 7'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8"Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."
9He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10"For Moses said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that." (Mark 7:1-13 NASB)
Does the New Testament command that a church have an organ and stained glass? Some people do. Does the New Testament say that only King James will be the preserver of the Word of God? Some people do. Today there are so many man dictated rules that have become so overreaching, I am afraid we are bringing about our own demise as a church by holding onto outdated customs. Until the Christian can separate form and function we will continue down this path.
The biggest challenge for me is to not let my preferences keep me from jettisoning outdated methods, rituals, and material items not required by scripture that are culturally biased, and that are causing others to turn away from God and the church. I prefer to worship and minister within the framework of my particular denomination, but I need to remember that it is also man-made. I need to keep in mind the words Paul spoke to the Philippian jailer, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.”(Acts 16:31 NASB) This is the criteria for citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven, and not where you went to church, or if they used hymns or contemporary music. This passage leads right into my next favorite teaching.
I call Luke 17:1-4 the two for one, or the Lord stepping on both feet at once passage. When dealing with one another, second only to love is forgiveness, and then living out our beliefs.
1He said to His disciples, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! 2"It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble. 3"Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. 4"And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him." (Luke 17:1-4 NASB)
This passage reminds me how my behavior can adversely affect others. The Bible makes it very clear that we are to forgive others. As a matter of fact Jesus makes forgiveness a pivotal issue for the Christian when he says, “For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.” (Matthew 6:14-15 NASB) What a dangerous thing it is for me, as a Christian to not forgive others!
To not be a stumbling block I must live out the teachings of Jesus. If I profess to be a follower of Jesus Christ I should, as one author said, show some evidence I believe his teaching. To cause someone to walk away from Jesus because of my actions not being Christ-like although I claim to be a Christian, in my opinion, is worse than if I never believed at all. Never believing ends up being an eternally wrong decision, but professing belief and not living it is a definite way to ensure others might choose the wrong decision without all the facts.
Facts are facts. Truth is an endangered species. In John 18:33-38 Pilate stares truth in the face and does not see it.
33Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, "Are You the King of the Jews?" 34Jesus answered, "Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?" 35Pilate answered, "I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You to me; what have You done?"
36Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." 37Therefore Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say correctly that I am a king For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice." 38Pilate said to Him, "What is truth?" (John 18:33-38a NASB)
Most people say they want the truth, but often when they are face to face with it, they will not acknowledge it. Such was Pilate. My passion is apologetics, and truth is its greatest weapon. Relativism is the most prevalent form of thought most people use today. That includes large numbers of people within the church. The truth of the resurrection is the catalyst that moved me to faith. Understanding truth is why I do what I do.
When in doubt we can seek answers in God’s Word. To combat the false ideas that are all around us we need truth. Only by knowing the truth are we then able to discern falsity.
