Does “Tolerance” Mean That Everyone’s Right?
Many of you have been following or participating in the ongoing discussion regarding the relationship between Mormonism and Christianity (here in the comments section). I’d sincerely like to thank everyone who has taken the time and effort to participate. I may be naïve, but I believer that open, honest dialogue between differing viewpoints can be a very good thing.
But there is also a trend among many of the comments that I’ve been thinking quite a bit about over the past couple of days. I don’t want to single anyone out, but there are several comments stating that because I don’t believe a certain tradition aligns doctrinally with Orthodox Christianity (to be understood in the sense of Orthodoxy rather than Eastern), then I am “anti-” another tradition. There have been several comments implying that because anyone is willing to say another person is wrong then the first person is inflammatory, divisive, picking a fight, you get the picture. Though the word has not been used that I can see, the charge seems to be that if you say someone else is wrong, you’re intolerant.
I’m troubled by this line of thinking, in part because I don’t believe that “tolerance” means that we have to say that everyone is right. Dictionary.com defines tolerance as:
- a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.
- a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.
Yet the working definition of tolerance for many people has become saying that we accept everyone except those who say that someone else is wrong. It seems to me that the heart of true tolerance is dialogue and mutual respect between those who do truly, genuinely disagree. I respect everyone who has commented. I hold their convictions in high regard, I consider many of them friends. I would share a meal with them, I would invite them into my home, I would stop and help if I saw them with a flat tire on the side of the road, you get the picture.
What’s troubling is that our current common approach is slowly trying to remove true conviction and certainty. Everyone is right except those who say you’re wrong. But, particularly when it comes to matters of faith, if everyone is right, then everyone is wrong because conflicting, contradictory definitions of God cannot both be right. Is it really intolerant or unloving or inflammatory to tell someone where you think they’re wrong? It seems to me that acknowledging where the disagreements lie and yet still actively funtioning in a society together is a better model of “tolerance” than saying that everyone is right.
Granted, we can certainly go about pointing out our disagreements in an inflammatory manner. I certainly pray that this has not happened here and if it has, I sincerely apologize and ask you to forgive me. Yet disagreement in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. It does not even have to be a divisive thing. After all, isn’t our entire political system based on a healthy definition of tolerance, openly acknowledging disagreements while choosing to work together (yes, I know, it may not actually function that way, but at least in theory this is what’s proposed, right?)?
It seems to me that the more divisive element is how we receive it when someone says that we’re wrong. This is the true test of our tolerance. It is one thing to say that someone is wrong, but it’s another to be told that you’re wrong. This is when our “bristles” stand up and our true understanding of tolerance comes to light. Are we willing to change a tire for those who have said we are wrong? Are we willing to continue discussing with them?
I’m interested in your feedback on this issue. Does tolerance mean that we say everyone is right? Is it intolerant and/or inflammatory to point out where someone is wrong? Is it inherently arrogant to believe that you can point out error (or, conversely, is the truly arrogant thing to say that everyone is right?)? What do you think?
- Read Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know — And Doesn’t by Stephen Prothero
- Read Love in Hard Places by D.A. Carson
Thank you for clarifying the meaning of tolerance in light of the many misconceptions our culture has of this word.
Nonetheless, speaking the truth in love to the unsaved always has the potential to arouse slandering statements and verbal persecution. This is exactly what happened to Jesus 2000 years ago. How many times do the apostles speak of false teachers? Paul even says they should be eternally condemned.
If we aren’t speaking out and warning others of their condemned state before a holy and just God, then we are effectively denying what we believe and have reason to question whether we walk by the fear of man or the fear of the Lord. May God grant the church a healthy fear of Him!
I think not. I think tolerance is only legitimate when we think the other person is wrong.
I don’t tolerate that which I think is right, for I like it.
Christians need to remember that offense is inherent in the gospel and the proclamation of God’s sovereign rule. Attempting to remove this offense so that the message would be acceptable to unbelievers is fruitless and even damaging. I’m reminded of the incident of the interfaith prayer service after 9-11 that found a Lutheran pastor in hot water for his participation.
For Christians, Christ is the ultimate and only High Priest. When we say that all religious people are accessing the same God, we are making the priesthood of Christ out to be dispensable. This is an unacceptable cost just to gain favor with men.
At the same time we should work hard to avoid adding unnecessary offense by exhibiting pride or uncaring behavior.
How’s this for intolerant?
That includes those who don’t have knees to bow.
I don’t feel like your approach to Mormonism is necessarily fair, objective, or with a permissive attitude, that’s all.
When did you first become familiar with the doctrines of Mormonism?
Thanks for the offer to help with a flat tire, by the way. I’m sad to say that should I ever have a flat tire on the side of the road, I would become quite dependent on any kindhearted souls who would stop to help, because my mechanical ability is nil and my cell phone is more often than not sitting at home, uncharged.
I’m glad we’re still friends.
Emily,
Please send Abby our congratulations!
I’m very interested in what ways you feel I’ve been unfair or lacked objectivity. Have I misunderstood or misrepresented your beliefs at any point?
I’m also not sure what you mean by “permissive attitude,” could you please clarify? I might be reading into things, but it seems to me that you and several others are upset because I have vocalized my belief that Mormonism is not Christian, is this what you mean?
I believe Emily is citing the language of the dictionary.com definition of tolerance.
Emily, how can you charge the host of this blog with a lack of permissiveness when he has welcomed all dissenters and thanked them for participating?
Also, it might help on proceeding with a discussion of fairness and objectivity if you would be willing to answer my question from the previous thread. I’m not trying to play “gotcha”. I just think that your answer will inform us in understanding what a lack of fairness/objectivity means to you.
Did I miss something?
We’re referring to comment #5.
What did “Abby” do?
She had a baby (comment #108 here).
Oh, that’s GREAT! Sorry, I haven’t checked the past blog for awhile…. I’ve been busy with your offspring. :) Your boys are being BOYS today….. maybe a girl wouldn’t be SO bad. Don’t they just sit in a chair all day in their pink dresses smiling…. :) Gotta go, Miles is on top of Owen and Carson thinks he can be the ref. Oh by the way…. come home, dinner’s almost ready. For those of you who are wondering why this comment is so personal, my cel phone has been broken since Sunday night and I have no texting abilities. It’s killing me! :)
All right, maybe it’s time for me to bow out for a while.
Brent — you just cited what it means to be tolerant, so that’s what I responded to. I think you know that I don’t think you are objective in this matter. I get the feeling that you probably first learned about Mormonism from someone or something who definitely had an opinion about Mormonism. Why the Mormons? I don’t get it! As Ryan was trying to suggest, there are all kinds of other religions whose teachings contradict your own. Yet you are accepting of them and seem to not be compelled to tell them that they do not really follow Christ or believe in God. It’s not exactly objective. I am not objective in this matter, either! However, when the discussion –any discussion — turns to promoting subjective untruths intended to tear down another religion, why are we even pretending to be about tolerance? However, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, you have been very tolerant about giving me and my eclectic posse a voice on your blog when you certainly don’t have to.
Jim — I’ve never considered my religion in these terms before. I don’t have a good answer for you. I wouldn’t want to answer and misrepresent 12 million people. I think Neil tried to explain that we exercise faith. But we do believe that there are laws of the universe to which even God is obedient. Probably when it’s all said and done, there will be verifiable explanations that follow the laws of the universe for all of the seemingly inexplicable things that we just don’t completely understand. Is that even what you’re talking about?
Kristi — I hear you on the joys of raising three wrestling-sorts-of-boys. I hear you completely.
Emily,
There’s an important distinction between you and “all kinds of other religions whose teachings contradict (my) own,” they’re not discussing here on my blog but you are.
I think there are substantial biblical difficulties with Roman Catholic theology, with Islam, with Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc., and I post links to discussions regarding those issues when I come across them. That’s simply all I did here and you initiated the extended conversation.
I’ve never set out to tear down any other religion. I have pointed out several aspects where your tradition differs substantially from mine, but you are still free to believe as you feel led and I certainly “accept” you, that has never been the issue.
I’m also not sure why you would assume that I learned about Mormonism from someone with an ax to grind, because I disagree? Actualy my first real exposures to Mormon doctrine came from you and Amy in High School. Even that many years ago I could tell that we were using many of the same concepts yet defining them in drastically different ways. That’s really when I started looking into the subject, since you asked.
Thanks for the reply, Emily. Please know that I don’t want to place a burden on you of expecting that you must totally comprehend and verify everything about every doctrine of your church.
I took comments of others in the prior thread as going to the extreme of saying that since we can’t verify or comprehend everything in the realm of faith, it means that nothing in that realm can be rationally discussed at all; a false inference.
What I’m driving at is that I’d at least like to arrive at the common ground of acknowledging the existence of a body of evidence and Scripture for which one can draw some (but not all) objective conclusions even if we don’t line up on the span or the conclusions.
If we can get there, then we have a discussion. It means that we can peacefully reason together with gentleness and respect even if we disagree. Unfortunately what I’ve encountered many times with Mormons is that the very act of disagreeing is construed as bigoted “Anti-Mormonism.” Examination of the Bible stalls immediately because they tell me it’s not “translated correctly”. There’s not even an effort to show what exactly is incorrect about it. This says to me that the person has a very low view of the Bible in a practical sense and is not interested in reasoning together. Emily, can you see how this is a cop-out?
I understand when folks from Group A reply, “How can you say anyone’s going to hell? That’s just so mean and unfair.” When people from Group B who claim to believe the Bible say this, I would expect that they are willing to examine the Scriptures together to persuade me, otherwise it’s clear that this is an emotional ploy without substance in the Bible.
The Lord’s call is that we love him with our minds, not just our hearts. If we ignore His Word in favor of just what we feel to be true, we’re not loving Him.
Wow. The fun I’ve missed. As much as I want to finish Harry Potter, I can’t help spend a serious amount of time on this thread (and on that crazy Mormonism thread).
Let me say, first and foremost, that I think (and you can take this for what it’s worth, heheh), that tolerance in practice isn’t so much about WHAT you think about something being right or wrong, but about the way you communicate about it. For example, in comment #1, Rob refers to ‘the unsaved’. Assuming he knows the situation, he implies (whether he means to or not) that Emily is not saved. This may or may not be true (just as Brent’s salvation is in question), but his language is rather intolerant, because it puts Emily on the defensive.
Another example, from the original Mormonism thread, is from Jim:
Whether or not you believe something is or isn’t heresy, when you call it that in a blogging thread, you’d better get out your Inquistor robes. Because that’s how you’re making people feel.
You can disagree with someone’s religion all day long. And at the same time be tolerant of them and their relgion. But how you communicate your disagreement will determine a lot in how tolerant you are.
The problem, I think, is that most of us who run in Christian/Protestant circles don’t realize how exclusionary our language is and how inflammatory it can be.
We use that language because it’s part of our subculture, not knowingn or realizing the affect it can have on people.
Example: I was talking with some declared athiest friends of mine once. I said I believed that everyone had sinned. They said I was crazy. Later, I asserted that everyone does stupid and selfish things. They whole-heartedly agreed. We were talking about the same thing, but when I used the word “sin,” they felt put on the defensive. Whether or not that’s right or wong certainly isn’t the issue. The issue is that my Christian jargon (and yes, the jargon of the Bible), has 2000 years of baggage coming with it (ok, maybe not quite that long…how long has English been around?), and we would be wise to consider how we talk to people who don’t run in our same circles.
Jake, I do appreciate the interaction and citation. If you haven’t already, I would urge that you read my comment from above which is summed up with my statement:
Taking your example with your atheistic friends, you’re really not doing them any favors by reducing sin to “stupid and selfish things”, if that’s all you said.
I understand the point that words like “sin” and “saved” are often misunderstood because our culture has lost the context. Sin is cosmic treason against a holy God, whereas our culture wants to see it as a therapeutic problem. It’s incumbent on us to define our terms.
May I suggest that it’s best to clarify the meaning of those words rather than kicking them to the curb? You’re right that it’s offensive to say, “I believe you’re a sinner who needs to be saved.” What we need to do is make sure they understand that we’re not self-righteously pointing the finger and saying that this does not apply to every human being. We always need to remember though that the gospel is 180 degrees opposite of what we naturally believe. We shouldn’t present it as if it’s just another thing that will make sense to the natural man if only presented tactfully enough.
Also, I think it’s a bit melodramatic to start talking about inquisitor’s robes. Where has anyone called for government persecution based on creed? I was sounding the warning that if you walk away from the Bible as your sole rule of faith, you are putting yourself in the crosshairs of the devil and his deceptions. That’s a serious matter. Do you not agree?