I want to continue the tolerance tangent begun in “Pejorative Pagan Piss Off” a little further. I think it is a deeply important
conversation. For pejorative usages of words become unimaginable slander
without a worldview drenched in tolerance.
Responding to Greg’s comment: “I agree that over time people
grow and mature but that doesn't necessarily mean that inherent in that growth
is coming to the realization that your view is flawed (it might be), and I
think you can still believe you believe something better and be tolerant.”
I think I disagree. I am not a fan of absolute statements,
but I am about to make one here. I think that growing and maturing REQUIRES one
to come to an understanding that one’s view is flawed. For it is when one
critiques oneself, often with the help of others, that one is challenged to
come to the end of dogma, and forced to realize one’s own epistemological
fallibility.
I am not saying this will be a pleasant experience; often it
is ripe with emotional turmoil. But when one comes to the end of self, it is
there he/she is forced to meet the divine. Through complete deconstruction, one
enters the void where he/she can no longer be the deity of his or her own
universe.
Only once an individual has come to the realization that
one’s own views are completely flawed, relative, and completely
private/subjective; then one can re-enter the public sphere, speak convincingly,
and interact with humility. It is then that one can tell persuasive stories, enact
compassion and believe with force.
It is with a firm grasp of one’s flawed view that one can
enter into tolerance and disagreement. One may still disagree with others, but
rooted in the disagreement will be an understanding of one’s own lack of
understanding of the “other” and the “other’s” views. As one cannot fully
“posses” the other, one will never truly understand the other. It is this same
inability to know another that draws people to love one another. For there is a
longing to know and be know, but often the closer one gets to the “other” the
more clearly he/she sees that he/she cannot ever fully know the other.
Tolerance then stops being “you can’t tell me your right and
I’m wrong” and instead becomes “we are both wrong! Lets talk, maybe we can come
to a place that suits both of us”. It is in this change that we stop attempting
to force others to become mini replicas of ourselves; rather two
people/ideologies/beliefs have the opportunity of becoming something new. To
use a metaphor: A coupling occurs; in essence, tolerance becomes “belief sex”.
This coupling is a move away from ideological and belief replication
(ideological masturbation).
If one is engaged in ideological sex with another (rather
then attempting to create “mini mes”), the use of terms in a pejorative manner
becomes unimaginable. What husband slanders his wife in a marriage bed? What
wife character assassinates her husband, calling him “a lowly janitor” while
coupling? Such actions surely would “break the mood”, if not destroy the
relationship all together.
In this view of tolerance, one goes beyond the acceptance
that other people are different from one; and moves toward a welcoming posture,
an action that makes a move towards the other. A move not rooted in the hope of
coercing the other to become like oneself, but a move made with the possibility
of persuasion. The possibly, to be persuaded both ways: that one might be
persuaded, as well as the other might be persuaded.
I think this form/understanding of tolerance emulates a God
who is constantly pursuing humanity. A God who yields and asserts in
relationship. A God who is both other and known.
Silas, this is great. Thanks for what you've done in this post.
ReplyDeleteDevil's Advocate: "Belief sex" yielding a belief that looks similar to the one you had prior to engaging the other but is different in that it has now taken on elements from the other's set of beliefs. This sounds a lot like syncretism. What say you?
Silas
ReplyDeletePerhaps there is a better word than tolerance for what you are describing? It seems to me that the notion of tolerance carries implicit undertones of disagreement and would be better used further down the road than what you are explaining.
To use the sex metaphor: "Wow, I really didn't like that position at all, but I'm glad it floats your boat. Next time we have sex, lets try ______ because that just didn't work for me."
I feel as if you are trying to communicate the emotional side of the tolerance issue, and a new term for what you are describing might help the conversation along.
I've found this term to be cumbersome in other discussions as well...especially when people say things like "I'm going to promote tolerance by showing/teaching/passing legislature that will reform intolerant people." Phrases like that seem to me to be almost completely contradictory and starkly unemotional.
Maybe we need to come with a new love language? I think what you've said in this blog is a great beginning to such an end.
In order to be tolerant one must accept that their view may be fallible. Would that be a correct one sentence summary of this post. I want to be sure I have understood correctly because if I am reading it right, (and I hope that I am reading this right) I would push back on it a little because I feel like this train of thought is not fully incomplete.
ReplyDeleteI would say that you have forgotten about the factor of grace. I feel like if you you factored that into tolerance it would change this thought completely rework this though process to say something like, "once the person realizes they are fallible they can be tolerant" instead of "once a person realizes that their ideas are fallible then they can be truly tolerant"
I would suggest a person can tolerant and totally sure of themselves. I was thinking that this idea of walking to to a conversation from the posture of " I am wrong" or not being sure only fosters tolerance in academia, or the dark corners of a starbucks. I think in every other aspect of life this approach to becoming tolerant fails on almost every turn.
When people usually talk of tolerance I think most people first image is the tolerance of the gay rights movement or inter faith relations but i believe that tolerance needs to be broad than that.
ReplyDeleteI would define tolerance as toleration is the practice of permitting a thing of which one disapproves, such as social, ethnic, sexual, or religious practices.
Here's the thing I would auggest you can feel you are right about this and that everyone else is wrong and still be tolerant, because of grace and mercy. Practically I would say that tolerance is the ability to live, work and laugh with those that hold a contrasting view without conflict.
The best example I can give of this was my own Dad. My Dad was a trades man when I was teen. He did high end renovations in Kits and we worked with and an Athiest and a friend from the middle east. I would remember my Dad coming home from work, laughing and telling me stories about what he has his friends did and work. And sometimes he would break down crying, because he knew that Jesus loved them so much and that he died for them. He would say things like, " I love those guys so much I don't want to see them without Jesus and in Hell" and then he would break down and cry more, praying for them and hanging out with them and just loving them.
I share that story because my Dad's ability to be tolerant had nothing to do with second guessing his own belief structre. In fact it was his certianity that he was right that compelled him to work hard and working well with his co workers. So I guess thats why I push back on this is because my own Dad never went into situations where he had to work with others that weren't like him and question whether or not his own ideas were flawed before he talked about religious things with his workers. In his case it was the opposite that lead him to laugh about jokes, complain about the Canucks and have them over for a BBQ. It was his certianity that all needed Jesus, that there was one way to God and that everyone had a knee jerk receation to sin that led my Dad to be tolerante of others. It was his certianity in grace, certianity in Jesus and certianity of hell that encouraged my Dad to be tolerant.
I think tolerance as you have stated only stays at surface level. If we define tolerance as the practice of permitting a thing of which one disapproves, such as social, ethnic, sexual, or religious practices.
ReplyDeletethen with your outlook you could never really be tolerant of the people that needed the most. Would you ever walk into a prison and say to yourself, " In order to show tolerance / acceptance / love I need to come to the place in my life where I am okay with idea that raping children is morally acceptable. If I don't I can't really be tolerante of the criminals in here" You wouldnt because your pathway to tolerance would cause you to question if its morally acceptably. would would then in turn say that tolerance is conditional. You could never believe that person is capable of being restored from brokenness. or if you did you.
But grace, lets you go into a situation and say, " This was totally wrong, immoral and evil and yet I'm going to fight for you, and love you. and if that kind of tolerance is available for the worst of humanity then when it comes to something like a philosophical debate which is not a moral ethical issue, one can go into it with a similar attitude, they could be totally sure of themselves and work and play well with others. You can't with the way you've suggested. My dad was more tolerate than the occasional person I've seen in the tolerance movement and he was sure of what he believed Whether they are actually right or wrong is a different issue but my love and ability to fight for and play well with others doesn't depend on questioning what I believe. I think there is a fine line between being sure of yourself and being arrogant.
ReplyDelete
Garret: Good to hear from you. Thanks for your volley. We syncretise all the time, constantly, and most of the time unknowingly. We are called out of our unknowing syncretism, but as I have articulated before we can never fully rid ourselves of it. Given we are not first century Jews, Davidic Jews, or Exodus Jews. Rather then syncretise without thought, here I propose we knowingly walk into it. Acknowledging a common humanity, and a welcoming of the “other”. Is it syncretism, probably. Is it more honest, I hope so. Is it more compassionate, I think the posturing I propose is. For more on my views of syncretism check out this blog: http://smokemirrorsandcigarettes.blogspot.ca/2012/02/stories-collide-pt-1.html
ReplyDeleteJosh: Always the one for clearing up semantics . I agree, what I propose is going beyond what is typically conceived of when the word tolerance is used. I guess it is more imaginative, an articulation of what I dream that tolerance could become. I would be happy to use a new word, but alas I have not come up with one. So until you find one, I think I will continue to Brueggemann tolerance with this new definition.
Dan: Where to begin…
First, if you must reduce my thought into one sentence, you are close. But I would change “may be fallible” to “is certainly fallible”! To deny that one’s thought is fallible, especially in regard to faith and God, is incomprehensible to me. It would be the utmost idolatry of certainty. (see http://smokemirrorsandcigarettes.blogspot.ca/2012/05/disconcerting-trend.html ) The most prideful claim imaginable. Especially given that the two-thirds world’s thought and faith looks nothing like one’s own.
Second, I am sure my thought is incomplete; it is in a blog not a PHD thesis.
Third, why would you relegate grace to only an action level (if I am reading your binary options of statements correctly). Why would grace not also fully cover ideas, thought, and intellectually fallibility as well?
Fourth, I have never encountered a person who has a tolerant spirit who is also totally sure of themselves. Like I say, you can believe with conviction, but I think that is largely different then an attitude of certainty.
Fifth, the tolerance as I described works for me on a daily basis, far from the ivory towers of Academia and estranged from the dark corners of Empire-bucks. So I think you unfairly relegate this mode of thought to such places because it calls into question your own ideological certainty. “I am wrong” works for me in daily interactions with Sikhs, Hindus, and Christians as we barter over furniture. Only in the West is the price, the price, the price; elsewhere humanity knows that the price is only the price when you and I agree it is the price. One must be willing to enter the conversation open to persuasion. (Although I say this, I wish I was better at doing it more often in my daily life). So far it is not failing me “at every turn”, and without challenging things by interacting differently with them we perpetuate “the status quo”, which in this case is certainty.
ReplyDeleteSixth, I think your definition of tolerance is a common one. I, however, do not think it goes far enough. Simple co-existing is a far cry from what I dream the Kingdom to be. So in a proleptic (http://garretmenges.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/the-last-things-a-proleptic-eschatology/) way, I want to encourage a greater engagement of what a realized Kingdom might look like if engendered today.
Seventh, about raping children. I think you may have misunderstood the dialectic inherent in my articulation of tolerance. I don’t think I ever say to bend like a reed to the whims of another. But to understand another as fully as possible is a the heart of positive change. So maybe we will be less quick to judge a child rapist when we understand his or her sexual abuse history, addictions, mental development, family structure, job history, and disabilities. With all the factors we now know, maybe we will be slower to judge and call out “sinner”. In contrast, I think this is the exact opposite of surface level interaction and relationship; this is a deep knowing in relationship. A way of tolerance and understanding. I think this would also be backed up by the subjective and relationship based understanding of mitzpah (justice) and tsadek (righteousness) in the OT. They are not stagnant guidelines; rather they are only definable based on the stipulations of the relationship.
Silas,
ReplyDeleteThanks for clafiying, it helps me so much when to understand someone when I can boil down to a clear thought or two.
"Third, why would you relegate grace to only an action level (if I am reading your binary options of statements correctly). Why would grace not also fully cover ideas, thought, and intellectually fallibility as well? "
I don't think grace is binary and agree that grace should cover ideas and intellectualism fallibility. But the world of action is where those ideas play out. Plato\s forms and the physical world dance, and weave together in and out through reality. Thought and action are separate worlds that intertwine.
In the world of action these ideas of tolerance are very limiting which is what I was trying to get across with the child rapist example. If we agreed that in order to tolerate people you need to believe you're wrong we could only give tolerance to those people who we were willing to entertain the idea that their contrasting view may be the healthier one.And I happen to think that everyone deserves tolerance even the worst of us. So what happens when we are not willing to cross that line - like in the case of a sexual predator? People show empathy and grace and forgiveness all the time. so I totally affirm that understanding is the heart of positive change. But like we argee in the case of the rapist, you and I don't need to becoming willing to be wrong about your stance on child rape in order to do it. This is an extreme example.
But I do believe that if we are willing to be uncompromising and yet tolerate / graceful / loving towards a person in such extreme circumstances I see no reason why it can't be applied to a more mundane / normal rhythm of life exercise such as a debate or "conversation" about faith
Do I go into every conversation I have thinking I am "right"? No. I do believe that most times a person should go into a conversation with the attitude that me be in the "wrong" . But I think that's a different issue than being tolerate. There are certain hills I will die on and will not bend even an inch on - like God's goodness and faithfulness and Jesus and Heaven and Hell. I think it is possible to walk into a conversation being sure of these things AND be tolerate. My Dad is living proof of that. SO when you say, " I have never encountered a person who has a tolerant spirit who is also totally sure of themselves. Like I say, you can believe with conviction, but I think that is largely different then an attitude of certainty"
I would say they are out there. Those co workers would say two things about Dad, " He is sure of what he believes and we respect him" If three blue collar guys can be so uncompromising and certain about their faiths or "non faiths" and yet love working together it tells me that is something more be willing to admit we are wrong that is more freeing and more life giving, that staying in a constant place of doubt.
So I guess for me, if there was a hill I was willing to die on - a topic of I was sure as sure I was right about - that I was well passionate about - tolerance and grace would look very calm.
ReplyDeleteThe more passionate I was about a certain subject, the harder I would try to speak slower and quieter "A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger" Proverbs 15:1
I guess being tolerate and being certain would also look like going into a conversation with the understanding that its not my responsibility to get people to agree with me or follow me. I think this best exampe of this is Jesus in John 6. After his discourse on eating his flesh and drinking his blood - a lot of his followers left him. Jesus' receation to that is telling because he never really ran after them or convinced them to stay. You see the same thing when some Samaritan towns rejected Jesus and his followers asked Jesus to reign fire down from heaven. Jesus just rebuked them. To me that's an awesome example of certianity in ones ideas and beliefs and tolerance working together.
I came across this on facebook, thought it was interesting
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGD8U70QFtk&feature=player_embedded
Hey Dan,
ReplyDeleteI am glad you are still thinking about this topic, this post, and were motivated enough to return to it to post.
I watched the video, to be honest I was disappointed. I think what Driscoll comunicates it a bare minimum. I think if you were to outlaw, or attemp to ban other religions you would tred on the legal restraints of hate crimes. So I am less sure if his opinion is rooted in a solid scriptural analysis or purely a pragmatic one where he attempts to keep his congragents out of prision.
Also i was disappointed that he really did not back up his stance, I know it is just a short clip so it is hard to do so, or maybe it was fully exposited somewhere else. I was disappointed by the video most of all because it came across as brovado rather then conveying intelligent thought. I have a hard time with the ra-ra listen to me, but I am actually not going to show you how I came to my ideas, rants/preaching. (I am sure I am guilty of this sometimes as well).
So thanks for posting, and pondering, but I am left wanting, as Mark's Ideas failed to inspire me, provoke me, or offer a true alternative of how to tink about tolerance.
lastly, I was also disturbed by Driscoll's NO to tollerance of Heretics in the church stance, that I read off of his blackboard. I think Duncan's post on heritics shows how oxymoronic a NO to tollerance of Heritics in the church is when it is the stated position of anyone within protestantism. - or maybe the Blackboard is to blame, it just rings of conservative republican sentiment, forever ruined by Glen Beck on Fox news and I do not think i will ever be able to take another blackboard seriously
Silas,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry you're still left wanting. I would agree with you that would be more to be said. To be fair it is a clip, 3 min taken out of an hour long sermon. I think the clip was taken from a sermon about another topicso i don't know if he continues, or goes on and back up. Sermons aren't always the best venue for prolonged discussions like that.
I guess why I like it is b/c I think he demotrates how I feel that people can thrive in tolerance and be confidant about what they personally hold to. To me, you're not going to convince anyone if they are so entrenched in what they believe. When that happens I feel like I can respond one of three ways, I can get angry at them for not coming over to my side, I can stay in a continual place of doubt and questioning (which I don't like because if crisis hits and you're torn between opposing view points a person in doubt does nothing which i feel can cost you your job, your friends and your marriage) or I can take the time to consider their side, concede that my perspective is wrong, right or both are true or entrench and affirm what i believe.
I think the third option is very tolerant even if you emerge out of it more absolute then in the first place. I think can work.
As for the Heretic thing
ReplyDeleteI am very aware that people who are questioning have been scapegoated as heretics and very often are misunderstood and I am very sorry about that. I would agree that there needs to be a safe venue and place question and doubt beliefs even the core ones without fear of punishment. I also believe they need to come to a conclusion on what they believe on their own time. So I don't think we should say to them, "We'll give 6 months to figure that out after that you're out."
At the same time I think we need to help people feel safe that they can question, and at the same encourage people that not to stay in an indeffiant place of doubt. The reason I say that is doubt happens when you have two, three, or four contrasting view points. And when life crisis hits a person just tanks because the problem with doubt is that they don't do anything b/c afraid of the consequences of making a decision - What if the decision harms them? And so they stay in doubt and indecision.
often we talk about questioning and doubt when it comes to abstract ideas, such an inrreancy, Jesus' Deity. Heaven, Hell and so on and we say it is a positive thing.
The thing though is if we took doubt of the world of philosophy, theology and the abstract and put it into the world of the pragmatic it destroy lives. I couldn't staying in an indeffiant place of doubt about my wife's love for me and have it be a something that makes my marriage stronger. If I questioned if my wife really loved me like some people questioned God my wife would feel so beat down and tired. She'd feel like I don't trust her. She'd feel like I perecieve her to be lying to me and eventually to protect herself from endless nights crying she would develop a numb heart - walls would go up. ( I guess I would welcome the doubt if it exposed my own insecurity and helped me see something in my own life that was keeping me from embracing my wife love - but I think that would different than staying in indecision about whether or not my wife actually loves me.
The same would be true anything else pragmatic like doubting whether or not downloading movies you didn't pay for is wrong. Chances are while you're in that place of doubt you're still going to download the videos until you have to a conclusion - all the while if you're caught you have to pay the fine
Or the morality of porn. If I came up to you and said porn is wrong and you doubted that even while you were working through it you'd be downloading porn, feeding the idea that woman say yes to any fantasy you want, and making your wife feel insecure because she doesn't have that body.
I know things about faith are more abstract but to be honest I don't think one can separate abstract and pragmatism like a waffle, each a separate box with no relation to the other. I think the relation between the two is more like a spaghetti noodle, they are intertwined. and while I want to encourage people to express their doubts I am also aware STAYING in a place of indecision can be harmful in faith aspect, just as it can be on something more concrete like my relationship with my wife.
My point is, I don't want to be afraid of people who doubt, or even my doubts. I think we need to ask questions, to have the conversations and to give a person the room to stay in a place of doubt for however long they need. But I think that's different than encouraging people to stay in indecision.
I wasn't sure where to post this, but I thought it was a very good reflection on faith and confidence, this is taken from a book review my NT prof keeps up to date
ReplyDeletequotables: newbigin's proper confidence
quotables: Some favorite quotes from some favorite books.
Lesslie Newbigin, Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).
"There is a radical break between these two kinds of knowing: the knowing often associated with the natural sciences and the knowing involved in personal relations. We experience this radical break, for example, when someone about whom we have been talking unexpectedly comes into the room. We can discuss an absent person in a manner that leaves us in full control of the discussion. But if the person comes into the room, we must either break off the discussion or change into a different mode of talking." (10-11)
"Both faith and doubt are necessary elements in this adventure [of knowing]. One does not learn anything except by believing something, and—conversely—if one doubts everything one learns nothing. On the other hand, believing everything uncritically is the road to disaster. The faculty of doubt is essential." (24-25)
"There is a growing perception that science and technology are no substitute for wisdom—for the power to discern what ends are in accordance with the truth and the power to judge rightly between alternative ends." (28)
"Because the ultimate reality in the Bible is personal, we are brought into conformity with this reality not by the two-step process of theory and practice, vision and action, but by a single action comprised of hearing, believing, and obeying...The human person is not a mind attached to a body but a single psychosomatic being. The implication of this, of course, is that the gospel does not become public truth for a society by being propagated as a theory or as a worldview and certainly not as a religion. It can become public truth only insofar as it is embodied in a society (the church) which is both 'abiding in' Christ and engaged in the life of the world." (38-39)
"We cannot have a total understanding of things without the cultivation of a particular kind of understanding which is concerned with knowing the nature and purpose of the One whose purpose is being realized in the entire history of the cosmos." (59)
Follow me.'" (105)
"Christian discipleship is not a two-stage affair in which a concept of truth is first formulated and is then translated into a program for action. It is a single act of faith and obedience to a living person, the response to a personal calling. If we are to use the word 'certainty' here, then it is not the certainty of Descartes. It is the kind of certainty expressed in such words as those of the Scripture: 'I know whom I have believed, and I am sure that he is able to guard until that day what has been entrusted to me' (2 Tim 1:12)." (66)
ReplyDelete"Fundamentalists do a disservice to the gospel when, as sometimes happens, they adopt a style of certainty more in the tradition of Descartes than in the truly evangelical spirit. This can show itself in several familiar ways. Sometimes it is an anxiety about the threat that new discoveries in science may pose to Christian faith—an anxiety that betrays a lack of total confidence in the central truth of the gospel that Jesus is the Word made flesh. Sometimes it leads to a refusal to reconsider long-held beliefs in the light of fresh reflection on the witness of Scripture. One may contrast this with the truly liberal spirit shown by the Jews of Berea, for when confronted by the revolutionary message of the apostle, they did not simply reject it but 'examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true' (Acts 17:11). And it can manifest itself in a claim for the objective truth of the Christian message that seems to depend on the acceptance of the false dualism of Enlightenment thought...[The use of the word 'objective'] can lead to the false impression that the Christian faith is a matter of demonstrable fact rather than a matter of grace received in faith." (70-71)
"There is much wisdom in the simple words with which Herbert Butterfield concluded his study of Christianity and history: 'Hold to Christ, and for the rest be totally uncommitted.'" (71)
"The business of the church is to tell and to embody a story, the story of God's mighty acts in creation and redemption and of God's promises concerning what will be in the end. The church affirms the truth of this story by celebrating it, interpreting it, and enacting it in the life of the contemporary world. It has no other way of affirming its truth. If it supposes that its truth can be authenticated by reference to some allegedly more reliable truth claim...then it has implicitly denied the truth by which it lives." (76)
"The proper form of apologetics is the preaching of the gospel itself and the demonstration—which is not merely or primarily a matter of words—that it does provide the best foundation for a way of grasping and dealing with the mystery of our existence in the universe." (94)
And Newbigin's final words:
"The confidence proper to a Christian is not the confidence of one who claims possession of demonstrable and indubitable knowledge. It is the confidence of one who had heard and answered the call that comes from the God through who and for whom all things were made: '