Can there be too much tolerance?
I was very discouraged when I read a report a few years back concerning response to an effort to improve the moral teachings of our children here in Georgia. A group of educators (was it the State Board of Education? it was certainly an official school or government group) listed moral qualities which they felt should be taught in schools. These included honesty, respect for the law, and many others for a total of about 50 values which sounded to me about as difficult to disagree with as Mom and apple pie. However, many parents called to complain about one listed value or another as something they didn't want taught to their precious darlings. The value that topped the list of complaints was tolerance.
All my life I have been taught that we should be tolerant. Growing up in the south, people were being denied access to public services because of the color of their skin and those in power refused to tolerate unacceptable behavior such as refusing to comply with those rules and laws. We lived in the shadow of the intolerance of Jews during the second world war and the horror inflicted for that reason. Tolerance of differences was extoled as the proper behavior for people who wanted to be allowed their own beliefs. If we refuse to tolerate others, what will happen when something we do is not tolerated?
This never meant that anything goes. We have rules for living together in society. Sometimes those rules need to be changed (as in Jim Crow) and this can be upsetting for some folks. If we can define appropriate rules of behavior ("your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose") then areas not covered by general rules should generally be tolerated. The rule that states that you have freedom to exercise your religious beliefs means that as long as that exercise doesn't impinge unfairly upon others, then you can do as you wish. People should be tolerant of any differences they have with their neighbors who believe differently, as long as they are being good citizens and neighbors.
On at least one of the pages of Josh McDowell's web site
He states that the definition of tolerance has changed from "recognize and respect (others' beliefs, practices, etc.) without necessarily agreeing or sympathizing" to "every individual's beliefs, values, lifestyles, and truth claims are equal." "In other words," he goes on to say, "all beliefs are equal. All values are equal. All lifestyles are equal. All truth is equal."
From this point he goes on to argue that we cannot be tolerant of other beliefs. We must define, acknowledge, and teach the Truth, which is of course the truth as he sees it. He believes we must teach children an "objective standard of truth" which they will be able to use as a foundation for living their lives and that we must not be tolerant of other beliefs and other truths.
To a certain extent, I applaud his position. I certainly agree that teaching children a sense of right and wrong is important. I certainly believe in teaching children about Jesus/God and what that means for our lives.
However, I cannot go along with his assertion that we should not exercise tolerance. The great reformers who led the Protestant Reformation were not tolerated by those who knew "The Truth" in their day, and I am grateful to them for standing up for their beliefs which has provided me with the opportunity to study, think, and believe as I see fit.
How would one be intolerant of a child's beliefs if they differed from one's own? Beat it out of them? Disown them? Force them to listen to lectures on proper belief and insist that they parrot correct answers to questions asked?
McDowell insists that "We must act justly and exercise loving kindness -- not tolerance." I guess I just have a different understanding of Micah than McDowell does. Doing justice does not mean insisting that others must agree with me. Loving others and showing kindness does not mean insisting that others must agree with me.
Perhaps in a church setting there are people who feel strongly that it is important that fellow church members agree with particular doctrines and truths which will allow all members to support and encourage each other to remember those truths and to put those beliefs into action in their lives. However, I find that my beliefs have changed over the course of my life. I have seen others grow and mature in their faith over time. If these changes result in deeper understandings that lead them to different conclusions than official church dogma, are they straying into heresy or are they blazing a trail into a new reformation?
A member of my congregation was sharing the story of his faith journey when he was moved to tears as he told of trying to find a congregation to join and was told in church after church that his questions were unwelcome, he must accept the answers that they had for him or he might as well leave. When he found that our congregation was willing to accept him as he worked to find answers to his questions he knew that he'd finally come home.
In a discussion about tolerance, absolute truth, and Josh McDowell, Gary Miller wrote "As for the reality of 'Absolutes' I would think that is a given - no one can think without a sure (absolute) referent." If that is so then I don't see what that absolute could be except our own experiences. Those experiences would include developing trusting relationships with parents, teachers, and others; learning about Jesus/God through studying the bible and books written about the bible and what it means; and personal experiences of relationship with Jesus through the Holy Spirit. However, such experiences are obviously intensly personal and individual to each one of us. If those experiences lead us to agree that the bible can be considered a trustworthy source of Truth then that gives us a common foundation upon which to build our relationship with God and each other.
Of course, as has been seen throughout the world and all of history, people tend to find something to disagree about eventually. Even if we agree about the bible being a trustworthy source of Truth, we can wind up disagreeing about which books should be included, which language or translation is better, and how the ambiguities of the text (unavoidable within the confines of human language) should be interpreted. It is being willing to agree to disagree about such things which is at the heart of toleration, in my opinion.
McDowell makes it clear that he does not want to tolerate ambiguities. He says that we must be firm in our convictions, escalating feelings beyond simple beliefs and on into convictions. He insists that we pursue Truth and accept nothing less (I'm sure he is ready to share that Truth with us in some of his 50+ books, on his broadcast shows, or in some of his other multimedia products). I wish him well in that pursuit. I continue to struggle with my own pursuit. I'm not at all convinced that he and I will come to the same conclusions about that Truth, but I am willing to tolerate his disagreement with me. I am not confident that he will be willing to tolerate my disagreement with him, and that scares and saddens me.
Posted by JoKeR at October 21, 2002 08:21 PM | TrackBack