Is Tolerance Possible?

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.

Long Live the King

Shelley and I had the opportunity to take in the BB King concert on Monday night. I'm not much of a blues guy but after Monday night I think I could (should) be. It was easy to tell that we were in the presence of a true master and it was fun to watch. A most enjoyable experience, one that I will not soon forget.

It was also nice to pretend to be a 'couple' again (as opposed to parents). It was our first time out of the house alone since Lana's birth so it was really enjoyable to have that time together. All in all, a wonderful evening. Although I must admit I missed the girls a little...

The Fear of the Lord

Thanks all for the very interesting conversation with the last post. I'll throw something else out there which may be related. The topic of the 'fear of the Lord' being the beginning of wisdom came up last week and I've been wondering what this means. This question takes on added significance since so many of us struggle with (in my opinion) an unhealthy fear of God that makes a genuine relationship difficult, if not impossible. Here are some initial thoughts...

In class last week we spent some time looking at the wisdom literature of the Old Testament. Anyone who spends any time in these books will realize that the Hebrews had a much different understanding of knowledge than we do. They called it ‘wisdom’. In general it was a much less abstract pursuit than we are accustomed to today. Evidence of knowledge had little to do with degrees earned or books published. Character and behaviour were the benchmarks of true knowledge. "The fear of the Lord is wisdom," according to Job, "and to depart from evil is understanding."

I'm wondering if we have something to learn from this understanding of wisdom. I'm not sure where I'm going with this but it seems to me that personal risk and commitment to the person of God precede true understanding and knowledge. There is an existential 'leap' (not irrational) that has to take place in order for us to begin to know God. I recognize that reason has a role to play in coming to fear God but it seems to be that God has not allowed himself to be known outside of the realm of personal commitment.

The following is a quote from Lesslie Newbigin's Proper Confidence. It has been very formative in my own thinking on this subject...

“We believe in order to understand. We do not argue from the experience of the gospel. On the contrary, it is the gospel accepted in faith which enables us to experience all reality in a new way and to find that all reality does indeed reflect the glory of God.”

Any wisdom here?

Learning and Loving

It could be my brief foray into the blogosphere; it could be the fact that I work in Christian education. Or it could simply be the fact that I live as a Christian in a jaded and cynical culture that places little priority on the possibility of knowing God (or anything else important). Whatever the cause, it seems that my path is increasingly crossing with those of disillusioned Christians, those who have been let down by the church, by God, by their own unrealistic expectations or any combination of the above. I’m not saying disillusionment is a bad thing; it can be a very good thing to lose our 'illusions' (if we take the etymology seriously). Indeed at various points in my own life I have struggled with cynicism and disillusionment. But it seems to me that this particular moment in history - at least in my corner of the church, in my corner of the world - is often characterized by attitudes and opinions that could fall under the heading of disillusionment. I wonder if this is a healthy thing. I wonder if it's even avoidable in a time like ours.

This is a discussion that could go in a lot of different directions so I think I’ll limit it to one question for now. Does it seem to you that there is a relationship between ‘Christian disillusionment’ and the acquisition of learning? Let me hasten to add that I do not see ‘learning’ as something that must take place in a formal academic setting. Qualifications aside, it seems to me that there is some kind of a relationship (I don't know what kind yet) between a person’s ‘education’ and their mental and spiritual well being as a Christian. Many of the ‘disillusioned’ in my circle are people who are generally quite intelligent and have struggled mightily to reconcile their faith in God (or the church) with the questions life has presented them. For some, increased knowledge has led to a crisis of faith, for others a slow drift into agnosticism and for others an outright rejection of God and religion. Thankfully there have been others who have demonstrated a deepening love for God in the midst of learning but there is enough of a trend in the other direction to make me ask the question.

As a person who makes his living in Christian higher education this trend is both worrying and hopeful. My goal, my hope for students is that faith is more possible as a result of having spent some time studying and learning. Is this a naïve hope? On the other hand I think disillusionment can be helpful. We have many ideas about ourselves, about God and about others that are nothing more than illusions. Surely it is better to be rid of them than to have never known better. Maybe what I am observing are simply 'phases' in a person's development. Maybe disillusionment is one stop (hopefully a short one) on the road to something better.

In short the question I am asking is this: Is knowledge a barrier to knowing God or is it a doorway? Does it make faith more difficult or more inviting? Or is there a way to balance the thirst for understanding with a love for God? I'd be interested in your thoughts.

The Eagle Has Landed

A good friend of mine from seminary has started blogging. David Eagle is a pastor in Victoria BC and I'm confident that you'll find his thoughts interesting, challenging and sometimes provocative.

You of Little Faith

Most people who read the gospels come to conclusion that a person's faith matters to Jesus. He seems to respond to people's faith and he seems to require it in order to perform miracles. This has presented me (and others who I've chatted with) with a fairly significant problem. Where does faith come from and how can I get more? With this in mind, I came across an interesting chapter in a book called 'Loving Jesus' by Mark Alan Powell. He says:

“Although Jesus calls attention to the fact that his disciples are people of little faith, he never indicates that there is anything they can do about this. He doesn’t offer to increase their faith, nor does he give them any guidance as to what they might do to increase it themselves…the Bible teaches that faith is a gift of God, and so I am not sure that there is anything we can do to acquire more of it. If God has given you only a little bit of faith, then you will be a person of little faith for the rest of your life. Thank God for the faith that you have – and learn how to use it in ways that will draw you closer to God.”

Somehow this was a comfort to me. I'm convinced that many of our struggles in relating to God have to do with our expectations of what this relationship is supposed to look like. For a long time I thought that God's 'end of the deal' was to forgive me sins and get me out of nasty and unpleasant situations. My end of the deal was to accumulate enough faith to prove to him that I was worth the effort.

This is obviously bad theology yet my expectations were deeply ingrained and I don't exactly know where they came from. None of us are responsible to 'conjure up' enough faith to convince God to act in the world. I'm starting to hear Jesus words 'you of little faith' as if they were spoken with a sympathetic sigh. Maybe Jesus sees our pathetic situation and wishes it could be otherwise.

Disasters

I wonder if we North Americans will be spilling as much theological ink on God's role in natural disasters in these weeks as we did after Katrina. Remember Pakistan...

Hauerwas - The End of Religious Pluralism

For those who are not tired of hearing Stanley's name, a certain John Rasmussen from New York has pointed out that the lecture we heard Friday morning is available at the website below. I haven't had time to read the whole thing but it seems like the exact paper he presented at the U of R.

http://irpp.georgetown.edu/hauerwas.pdf