There is a basic/fundamental need to belong to social groups. People have discovered that to do more in life than merely scrape by, they need to work together with others in order to succeed in living. There are hurdles on the way to this preferred social setting. People need to have common ground upon which to agree before they can come together for the greater good of all involved. They need agreement on beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors to reduce the chance of the group becoming chaotic and erratic. The commonality needed also lends to the good of all. This may be more important than the avoidance of disunity.
People will learn to bend to rules of others as they move toward unity. This bending becomes contagious because as more people bend, others who see this conformity will likely feel obligated to bend and follow the crowd. People will often conform even when they are in a group of complete strangers. Going along with the flow is the, perceived, easiest way to avoid negatively standing out in the crowd. That being said, the strongest urge to conform and fulfill the need to belong comes when a person loves and cares about the others in the group. Within families and groups of close friends this is called normative social influence. People with self-esteem issues are more easily influenced in this way.
Non-conformity within the group is often considered deviant behavior even if the behavior is well within the social norms of society at large. Behaving outside of the group’s norms may well get a person ejected from a group. Churches provide too many examples to even begin to discuss in this forum, but suffice it to say that one of the major failures of the local church is the way they treat people who are different, and do not yet have the proper understanding of why they need to conform.
Our country is an individualist culture, but there is an irony in the fact that normative social influence is so pervasive.
What is the social impact of the normative social influence? Fads and fashion are the first two areas that come to mind. The most powerful areas are racial and political. Look at the rhetoric in the news, within congress, and within groups of differing ethnicities where the differences in norms are most acute.
Changing a person’s behavior on this level is easy or tough based on the context and personal preferences of the individual and the group. This is the plight of the local church today. Churches need to create environments with guard-rails wide enough to include as many as possible without compromising the standards. It is my goal in life to help churches do this very thing. It should be the goal of every church to help people with their need to belong.
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.
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!
Two hundred ninety-nine appears to be the best number for patents to be credited to R. G. LeTourneau. His life was spent learning and applying that knowledge to build things to help others move things. The catalyst for his success can be seen all the way back at the beginning of his life in the way his own father showed him unconditional love. When the young “Bob” LeTourneau decided to run away his father, much like the story of the prodigal son, welcomed him back.
I his book (1972) he goes on to say about his father’s response, “What a lesson that has been for me all my life. Discovering my father’s love changed my whole attitude…It’s like that, only more so, when you discover the Lord.” (p.37)
R. G. LeTourneau believed his success in life hinged on changing his attitude. That change in attitude led to his curiosity about how things worked. Down time would find him trying to repair things around the house, or you might even say he was building his foundation for the future. His next step was leaving school having not finished and move into the working world. From his humble beginnings R. G. LeTourneau might never have imagined what was to come, but life was to present challenges that only faith and a strong work ethic could overcome.
Life Happens
The death of a child, moving back closer to God, opening a business, and the stock market crashing would put an end to the road to success for most but not R. G. LeTourneau.Glimpses of Christian History (2007) tells us that life was so tough that, “Often they (R. G. and his wife Evelyn) did without necessities. For years they did not even have running water.” These roadblocks would stop most people in their tracks, but R. G. LeTourneau would go on to invent equipment big enough, and be faithful to the Lord enough that he would be able to move any obstacle. The future was wide open to possibilities, and demand would create a void that R. G. LeTourneau would be glad to fill.
Success Happens
Ironically, his first invention was used only to make a lot of noise but little else. Unemployment, on the other hand, had become the stepping-stone to success. In his book (1972), he says his next step after selling his share in a business and being $5000 in debt and unemployed was to “take the first job I can find that’s good enough to pay my debts,” and that job was his entry point into the “earth-moving business.” (p.94) Eventually his aptitude for inventing would insert itself in a big way. Karwathka (2006) says, “He coupled one (a large farm tractor) to a land scraper and opened a business as a land-leveling contractor.” (p.8) He continued to modify his original design and made it better with each change. He eventually built a plant to manufacture them in 1920. R. G. LeTourneau continued a process of improving on each improvement, which led to more inventions and bigger breakthroughs. His inventions made working time much more effective by inventing machines that could perform multiple task opposed to just being able to do one thing. His second invention, a result of customer complaining, was to replace the steel wheels with rubber tires on his large scraping machine.
The Nation Calls
With the growth of the automobile industry came the growth of the road building industry. Who better to turn to than R. G. LeTourneau? He made equipment large enough to get the roads built more efficiently. Shortly thereafter he was to, as Karwatka (2006) put it, “manufacture nearly 75% of the earth-moving equipment used by American armed forces during World War II.” His equipment was used to build many massive structures such as the Hoover Dam. As he continued down the road of success, he eventually sold the business that brought him that success. Most people would have walked away, but R. G. LeTourneau had more to build.
Moving on
An old government hospital, a desire for a more Godly education, and one dollar were the elements that R. G. LeTourneau needed to move into his next building project that would become LeTourneau University. He believed and practiced the earn while you learn program, and he wanted to integrate the Christian way of life with higher education. His original intent for the school was to help men learn technical trades under the GI Bill. His dream has continued to move forward with LeTourneau University becoming a co-ed, 4 year accredited university, the capstone on a life of building.
Final Thoughts
Though resources are scarce, everything that one can find about R. G. LeTourneau reflects a man who understood the true meaning of life. He knew who God was and who he was. He understood faith, a good work ethic, and generosity would bring success. He had times of pain and times of joy. He saw what could be, and made it happen.
R.G. LeTourneau gives the best definition of how to build a life when he quotes Matthew 6:33, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His Righteousness; and all these things will be added unto you.”
References
Karwatka, D. (2006, May). technology's past. Tech Directions, 65(10), 8-8. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.
Letourneau, R. G. (1972). Mover of Men and Mountains. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers.
Kooiman, Helen (2007). No Obstacle Too Big for LeTourneau's God. Retrieved June 9, 2009, from Glimpses of Christian History Web site: http://www.christianhistorytimeline.com/DAILYF/2001/08/daily-08-27-2001.shtml
