Is Tolerance Possible?
27 October 2005 by Gil
Indulge me one discussion on a potentially inflammatory topic. The unique ‘moment’ that we exist in is one characterized by varying opinions concerning the best approach to the ‘religious question’. Divisive arguments on any number of ‘hot button’ topics (often issues of morality) are increasingly framed around ideals of inclusion and, particularly, tolerance. At first glance this is a very healthy development. Dialogue, particularly religious dialogue has too often been characterized by attitudes of condescension and superiority. It is a needed correction to call for tolerance. Jesus, after all, loves the entire world, no matter how poorly his followers pick up his lead.
But increasingly it seems that we are placed in an either/or relationship with respect to tolerance or intolerance; exclusion or inclusion. Either we prioritize tolerance and inclusion or we prioritize intolerance and exclusion. I am convinced that this is as false a dichotomy as I have seen in recent memory. Part of the problem, from my perspective, is that the vocabulary for the debate is proving quite slippery.
Take the word ‘tolerance’ for example. What does it mean to ‘tolerate’ someone or something? Traditionally the word has meant something like, ‘putting up with or making room for something that I personally find objectionable.’ Tolerance becomes necessary as we inhabit the same space as those we disagree with. Living, as we do, in a religiously and culturally diverse country makes ‘tolerance’ an even more necessary virtue.
But the word has changed in meaning in recent years (along with ‘inclusion’ and others). Tolerance now means something like, ‘agreeing with, affirming or celebrating the validity of a viewpoint or practice other than my own.’ In the previous sense of the word I could ‘tolerate’ an idea that I personally found ridiculous. I could tolerate and make space for someone who I had deep disagreements with. I worry that this option is being taken off the table.
Increasingly, to disagree with someone or to hold ‘exclusive views’ is by definition intolerant, no matter how passionately I believe in and affirm another person’s ‘right’ (to use another devalued word) to believe or practice otherwise without fear of persecution. The only options, so it seems, are inclusion or bigotry. There is no middle ground for compassionate, yet fervent disagreement. In a new twist on the old saying, ‘If you are not for me you are against me,’ we now have, ‘If you do not agree with me, you hate me’. I may be overstating the case. It wouldn’t be the first time.
I recently read a good little book by Daniel Taylor called, Is God Intolerant? He makes some very interesting points concerning this ‘vocabulary shift’. He rightly points out that, from God’s perspective tolerance is not too strong a demand for Christian living but too weak.
By God’s standards we are worse than intolerant – we often fail to love.
This is a statement worth pondering for me. How do the demands of love stack up to the demands of ‘tolerance’ (whichever definition you happen to subscribe to)? What are the implications of this for real life issues? I like one of Taylor’s concluding statements. I’ll leave it to you to decide whether or not there’s any merit to it.
Ultimately, tolerance is too weak a concept to be attributed to God. God is so much more than tolerant that Christians can rightly ignore it as a fundamental goal for their own lives – but only if they are willing to live by a much higher standard.
This slippery kind of shift in meanings–and, the debate is ABOUT meanings, not words–this slippery shift is made possible because our society has done away with all absolutes. That means that words can be used to symbolize any meaning that the popular culture chooses to infuse into them.
But wait! That is exactly what the apostle Paul did when he picked up the nutral word agape and infused it with his own meaning and captured that word for the Christian message.
We can do the same in our own context of post-Christian, postmodern western civilization.
“How do the demands of love stack up to the demands of ‘tolerance’ (which ever definition you happen to subscribe to)?”
Maybe we need to talk about what we think the demands of love are first. Or are they common sense? If love in one person’s perspective is hate in another’s perspective, can a universal understanding of the demands of love be clarified without vague generalizations being used?
For example, virtues. Those words (ie. freedom) are often used to give others the pretense that something good is about to happen. What are specific ACTS of love EVERYBODY appreciates? How do they stack up to the demands of ‘tolerance’?
Gil I too think that much fretting is well deserved over the changes in meaning that English is going through. I have this silly picture of a preacher standing up in front of his congregation (fresh from his latest seminary language course) 200 years from now say something like, “You know in the original English the wicked really meant evil.” Then he’ll go stand at the back of the room and numbed out throngs will shake his hand and marvel at his knowledge of the original languages.
I know that you probably realize this already – and it should be obvious – that the shift in mean for the word tolerance from ‘putting up with’ to ‘agreeing with’ is because in a relativistic society one needs an axis to force other people to change their thinking. In other words when everything is relative the only way to convince anyone else to change their position is to question their acceptance of your own.
But it is not hard to find intolerant Christians who have decided that they have reached the pinnacle of truth and that the things they believe are immutable. So when those kind of people say you either believe this or you are out then it’s no wonder that others can call Christians intolerant. But we have taken the truth about God and formed it in our own image for our own control because we are afraid it can’t really stand by itself. What a weak and pathetic God some people seem to have to defend all the time.
So let’s go with homosexuality. It just makes no sense at all when Christian leaders say that the actions of a national government actually change the definition of marriage in the context of faith. Sure the legislation changes the way we must behave under the law of our country but it doesn’t change the constitution of the institution of marriage. Is it convenient to have marriage defined by our government in the same way that the Bible defines it? YES.
So of course when people see us making ludicrous statements that are not true and then they see us trying to impose those ideas on others it’s no wonder they call us intolerant – by any definition. It is bigotry when we think that truth must be superimposed on people in order to preserve it.
For me that is why our common understanding of ‘evangelism’ is so troubling for me. It’s not really about redemption but mainly about convincing people about our way of thinking.
I guess what is interesting to me, Gil, is to compare this with pluralism. As Stanley pointed out, pluralism ended as the church lost its voice in society (because the word ‘pluralism’ was a sharpening of attention on something that had always been there, by the church). Perhaps the voice strong in our society will always be able to heighten our attention on the ordinary observation to make it extraordinary and controversial.
Tolerance, either definition, has always existed. Before our time, no one cared. The strong voice has brought it to our attention and it has caused all sorts of battles. This too will pass and we will realize that we have to be a society that agrees to disagree. And a new voice will determine the new tension, the new sin.
The fascinating twist of this particular battle is that intolernace has come to mean that convictions (or even my relationship with God) are hateful or shallow. To be a radical disciple of Jesus today is to be labeled intolerant. Perhaps (and I hate to use the word but I will) persecution will be as equally subversive as the kingdom, equally as secret!
Thanks for your comment Greg. I agree that a certain amount of change in meaning is inherent in all language, particularly in our context. The question then becomes, ‘Who controls the meaning of the words?’ In this case it seems to me that the change in the meaning of the word ‘tolerance’ is a small piece of a much larger cultural puzzle. When a word changes meaning it is normal to wonder why? Why was the old definition of ‘tolerance’ seen to be inadequate? From my perspective, it seems that it become unfashionable because it still presumed the possibility of genuine disagreement and the existence of moral norms.
Jerry,
You raise a very interesting question, one that makes this debate a lot more concrete. What are the actual demands of love? Are those different than the demands of tolerance? I found myself wishing you would have revealed a bit more of your opinion on this topic.
As a Christian my focal point for deciding what the demands of love are has to be Christ. If this is the kind of love that we are to emulate then what does his example teach? Jesus’ love was all-embracing, his love took in the entire scope of humanity. His love was such that he took the initiative even when we demonstrated no inclination to return it.
Jesus’ love is ultimately self-giving. Jesus gave himself up for the benefit of others. That is why I find Taylor’s comparison between love and tolerance compelling. If all we do is ‘tolerate’ people who we disagree with then we have not gone far enough. Our call is to love them.
But Jesus’ love was not a love that papered over the basic human problem of sin. “Neither do I condemn you,’ are Jesus’ famous words to the woman caught in adultery. But they are followed immediately with ‘go and sin no more.’ Jesus’ love is ultimately transformative, it meets us at a place of need and pushes us beyond it toward something better.
This is where the debate over whether our call is to ‘love’ people for who they are OR merely ‘judge’ their behaviour is another false dichotomy. Our options are not to either love a person OR judge them. Jesus loves me as I am AND Jesus offers a constant and unsettling critique of my behaviour. Both are part of his love.
Well put Gil. Tolerance in the first sense is absolutely necessary - a basic prerequisite to avoiding anarchy in a world world characterized by a diversity of strong ideological positions. In the second sense of the word, it becomes nothing more than one more ideology which must be tolerated. Claiming that every religious view is equally valid and worthy of celebration is nothing more than an absolute dogmatic assertion - the very thing, ironically, that people who claim to adhere to this view hold in such contempt.
but let’s admit that the reason for the evolution of the word has happened at all is because the original definition of the word was not happening. And I am going to suggest that Christianity was the worst offender. Let’s admit that if the original meaning of the word was being followed the word likely would not have changed meaning. So our responsibility comes in find out why the shift in meaning is so important to people.
the other thing that is important is that unless we work within the context of the current meaning of our language we cease to be accurate in communicating truth. we must start from the current meaning.
and after all is the new definition of the word tolerance really so threatening to our faith? Can we not see that as we push toward being ‘willing to live by a much higher standard’this semantical problem becomes irrelevant.
Any debate about tolerance and truth is never complete without some understanding of the concept of humility (of which I have very little - that is neither understanding nor humility). However, any approach to others under the umbrella of love or tolerance (or any other limited English word we choose to use) must be accompanied by a realization that our own understanding of the truth is, at best, incomplete - at worst, misguided. If we approach anybody else saying that we have captured truth absolutely for all time is the height of arrogance. Yes, there are absolutes, yet any interaction with anyone else must be done in the spirit of us being on a journey towards truth as well. We must continue to remain open to ask questions, to really and sincerely listen, to be open to change when confronted with our own weaknesses and lack of understanding. “O people, the LORD has already told you what is good, and this is what he requires: to stand up for those treated unjustly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.” - Micah 6:8
Let me add one more word - well it’s not my word, but a quote from Henri Nouwen. I believe it is very pertinent to the discussion of tolerance even though it was initially written on the subject of hospitality.
Hospitality, as we view it …
“… is not to change people, but to offer them space where change can take place. It is not to bring men and women over to our side, but to offer freedom not disturbed by dividing lines. It is not to lead our neighbor into a corner where there are no alternatives left, but to open wide a spectrum of options for choice and commitment. It is not an educated intimidation with good books, good stories and good works, but liberation of fearful hearts so that words can find roots and bear ample fruit …
The paradox of hospitality is that it wants to create emptiness where strangers can enter and discover themselves created free; free to sing their own songs, speak their own languages, dance their own dances; free also to leave and follow their own vocations. Hospitality is not a subtle invitation to adopt the lifestyle of the host, but the gift of a chance for the guest to find his own …
To convert hostility to hospitality requires the creation of the friendly empty space where we can reach out to our fellow human beings and invite them to a new relationship. This conversion is an inner event that cannot be manipulated but must develop from within. Just as we cannot force a plant to grow but can take away the weeds and stones which prevent its development, so we cannot force anyone to such a personal and intimate change of heart, but can offer a space where such a change can take place.”
- Henri Nouwen
Tolerance, acceptance, openness, non-jugdemental attitudes, inclusivity… All words I hear over and over again in the college of education. Each one can be faked or forced. And increasingly people can seen through these buzz words and understand that there is nothing of substance behind them - because faking it is good enough. I am in total agreement of what you’ve said so far about love. This is something that goes so far beyond our meanings of acceptance (a more trendy word than tolerance). Accepting someone means next to nothing.
Well said Andrew. I agree that there are serious limitations in what we can say we know that are simply the result of having a limited perspective. It is a healthy corrective to look at the plank in our own eyes prior to observing the speck in our neighbours.
I wonder though our particular temptation might be to not only remove the plank but inspect it, lament over it, write books about it, describe it, denounce it and generally call ourselves all kinds of nasty names because we are ‘plank-eyes’. Jesus called for humility but he also seemed to hold out hope that we would be able to help others with their specks as well.
But gil if i understand nouwen and andrew correctly really what they are both trying to say is something like: “Be careful where the road of absolutism leads you lest you find your self claiming you have stolen it all as your own possession. And to claim that is a dangerous territory indeed. Rather walk the humble road of obedience in what you know acknowledging there may still be one more true thing around the corner…”
-Padseo
Well put. I should have said that in the first place!
no man that nouwen quote was killer which of his books is that from?
Not sure where that quote is from. I found it on a website for King’s Fold Retreat & Renewal Center in Alberta. It is one of their mission statements to be all about hospitality and they quote Nouwen there. They do not provide a reference other than to say it is from Doubleday Publishers.
Oh yeah, here’s the website link:
http://www.kingsfoldretreat.com/content/AboutItem.phtml?art=24&c=0&id=15&style=