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.
I hope this helps a little bit.
Thanks for your question!
Travis
No comments:
Post a Comment