On Tolerance

May 15, 2002

Hello everyone,

Well, finals are almost finished for another semester. (Sigh.) It has actually been less hectic this semester than usual, though I still feel a bit stressed. Somehow, I have miraculously gotten everything accomplished that has been required with time to spare. How I accomplished this, I will never know: unless, of course, I had some heavenly aid.

Overall, the past few weeks have found me more centered and confident, a debt of gratitude I owe in large part to the discovery of Christian radio. I can’t stress enough how much difference listening to Christian talk radio has made in helping me regain a renewed balance, stability, and clarity of focus. Hearing well-informed, intelligent Christians abreast of the times and making a very positive difference in the world around them has been one of God’s greatest gifts to me in recent months—indeed, one of His greatest gifts period. It is so reaffirming—so grounding—to hear sensible persons advocating the truth in pragmatic and relevant ways.

I also discovered another tremendous resource. In a bit of unexpected serendipity, I “happened upon” virtualsalt.com while scrolling through the browser history on one of the computers at school. Someone had accessed “The Purpose and Method of Satire.” Curious, I checked it out, soon looking further around the site. What I found was an excellent Christian website put together by Dr. Robert Harris, Professor of English at Vanguard University of Southern California. In particular, I have been reading Dr. Harris’ online course series Critical Thinking Materials, which offer the best of his twenty-five plus years of teaching at the university level in a very penetrating look at Western culture, enumerating ways that we can most effectively understand and impact the world around us. I would seriously recommend checking out this excellent resource; I can’t say enough good things about it, nor can anyone I’ve shared it with thus far. It would be a real shame to keep such an incredible find all to myself; it would be a real shame if you didn’t take a moment to trundle on over—at least for a quick peek at so much valuable information all compiled together in one place. (Incidentally, if you have been impressed with Richard J. Foster, you will definitely like Dr. Harris’ sensible profferings.)

I did hear one thing on Christian radio the other day, however, that I found somewhat disturbing. I was listening to Janet Parshall’s America, a program that is normally very informative and good. There have been a few occasions where she had some small detail a little off: among others, she attributed a quotation to the wrong man (a quotation from St. Francis of Assisi—featured elsewhere in this newsletter—she fallaciously attributed to St. Augustine). An all but irrelevant oversight, but this is a pet peeve of mine. I always want every last detail to fall perfectly in place and be totally accurate. Be this as it may, Janet started off one of her programs a little over two weeks ago with a report on an incident involving witches and Christians who were at odds with one another.

The incident took place in Lancaster, California on March 16, in commemoration of the spring equinox, corresponding to one of the eight main pagan holidays. The pagans (presumably Wiccans) had gathered in the parking lot of the Witches Grove gift shop, owned by High Priestess Cyndia Riker, who hosted the event. In an act of good will, they invited the public to their festivities, which, among other things, was to include melting chocolate rabbits, stirring the then molten mixture with pretzels in a symbolic portrayal of the union of the (Earth) Goddess and the (Horned) God, in accordance with Wiccan theology.

A group of Christians showed up, and surrounding the pagans, began to pray quietly. As the festivities escalated, so did the Christians. They began to pray louder and louder, and when the pagans began to chant, the Christians drowned the pagans out with praise music, finally forcing the ceremony to a grinding halt. The eventual outcome of the tumult was that no bunnies got “roasted,” the pagans were crying “hate crime,” and the Christians were shouting “free speech.” Janet concluded by commending the Christians for their stance, before going on to a very informative and quality broadcast on the hot topic of fetal stem research and human cloning. (She did not have the Christian/Wiccan report on her site that I saw, so I did my own independent research and found Reuter’s coverage of the conflict: see Witches say Christians Violated Their Rights for complete details.)

I found Janet’s approval very disconcerting because I believe that the way the Christians handled themselves was wrong. The two most important commandments that Jesus gave were to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:28-31). This “golden rule” is a very foundational element of the Christian creed, and one in which these Christians were sadly lacking. What do you think would likely have happened if these Christians had been gathered together in an open air praise and worship service and a group of pagans had come in and disbanded the proceedings, drowning them out with their pagan chants? That’s right. You would probably have had some very irate Christians priding themselves in their modern-day “martyrdom” for Christ, screaming “persecution, persecution!”

Contrary to this commemoration from Janet, the Bible advocates quite a different method—one grounded in love. Perhaps I could go so far as to grant the Christians gathering and praying quietly around the pagans (though I find even this a stretch—we, as Christians, are quite capable of praying quietly at home). But they were most certainly out of line when they disrupted the peaceful pagan demonstration. I was very disappointed with Janet for cheering this very nonChristian display, which leads me into today’s topic: how to be tolerant and still stay a Christian.

“Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong,
they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day He visits us.” (1 Peter 2:12)

The world “tolerance” is a very charged word within the Christian community and there is a good reason for this. Let’s begin with the dictionary’s definition of the word as it applies to this context. According to the Microsoft® Encarta® World English Dictionary 2001:

tolerance [tólleranss] (plural tol·er·ances) noun

---

acceptance of different views: the acceptance of the differing views of other people, for example, in religious or political matters, and fairness toward the people who hold these different views

According to this definition, we can already see where things get a little fuzzy. The part about “the acceptance of the differing views of other people”can easily be understood to mean that we must consider all other viewpoints to be equally valid, on a level footing with our own. There are many educated persons who promote such a view, not realizing the obvious problem: if all world-views are equally valid, then those who are very intolerant are no less wrong in holding their view of intolerance than those who practice extreme tolerance. The fact of the matter is, we all—including those who promote such a radical view of tolerance—believe that we are right (which naturally presupposes that others are wrong). It is very idealistic to think that all people are going to embrace all ideas as being equally valid and true—human nature clearly demonstrates otherwise. It is also highly illogical. Suggesting that we embrace every view we hear contradicts a very fundamental fact of nature: reason dictates that something cannot be simultaneously true and false in the same way at the same time. Some views are obviously going to be more true, right, and proper than others. So why is tolerance still a good thing?

The word tolerance did not, until recent years, take on the connotation (and since, denotation) of an unconditional acceptance of everyone’s differing beliefs. It did, however, imply that we were to respect the right of others to hold beliefs which were different from our own, as the second half of the Encarta® definition suggests. It also suggests that if we listen honestly to other people who hold to differing views, seeking the truth ourselves, we may have much to learn from them; we both stand to benefit, for we are two truth seekers on equal footing, not me with the answers and you hopelessly deluded. According to such a definition, if you believe that the earth is flat, I don’t have to agree with you, though I don’t have to harass you or mistreat you, even though you subscribe to a belief that I think is obviously untrue. I am also entitled to disagree with you—even to your face—but ethically, I have a responsibility to treat you with dignity as a human being and to respect your right to make up your own mind about such matters. And, perhaps I would do well to hear your reasoning first before I jump to conclusions. (Want the antithesis to the “earth is round” argument? Visit The Flat Earth Society.)

Intelligent people are, in fact, quite capable of disagreeing with one another in civilized ways, which explains why I count a selection of pagans as my personal friends and value their contributions, while disagreeing with many of their religious views. Do you realize that our conversations are very often centered on spiritual matters? In fact, (specifically to my Christian readers now): do you realize that some of the subscribers to this obviously Christian newsletter are pagans or of a different belief system than our own? Why is this? For one thing, we seek common ground and we admire intelligence and sound reasoning in others, something this newsletter endeavors to supply. I think an excellent explanation is found in the newsletter I sent out two weeks ago entitled Centered in a Postmodern World (the author, Bob Hostetler, is quoting Ferguson): “‘Postmoderns are not won by emotion,’ says Ferguson. ‘They are attracted to reason and rational thinking.’”

Another point, found under the “Spiritual vs. Christian” subheading, is so very true—indeed Hostetler’s entire article fairly well reeks of truth!:

Elissa, a young woman in her early 20s, described to me an experience she had one day after settling into a diner booth with a book and a cup of coffee. Before long, a young man approached her and asked what she was reading. He explained that he had an interest in the occult and was curious about the title of her book. She showed him the book and explained that it was written from a Christian perspective.

Though surprised, he was undeterred, and they began a three-hour discussion of their respective beliefs. “The key,” Elissa says, “is that we both shared a belief in spiritual experience. He would listen and engage in the discussion as long as I spoke from the perspective of my experience and not what I claimed he needed to do or believe.”

It has been my observation that “he would listen and engage in the discussion as long as I spoke from the perspective of my experience and not what I claimed he needed to do or believe” is a very effective strategy, because I am exemplifying the teachings of Christ to this individual by treating them as I would want to be treated. And I don’t know about you, but I don’t want someone trying to force me to believe something, condemning me, or telling me I am going to go to hell if I don’t adhere to his viewpoints. There may indeed be a time to speak such a truth as the veracity of hell (though a person obviously first has to become convinced of this reality before any such sentiments will have any merit), but it needs to be done with grace, “seasoned with salt” because we care about the other, not because we are being good little Christians and doing our good little Christian duty for the day: blasting another “godless” pagan.

Tearing into others is decisively unChristian; this is never our duty. In fact, the only people Jesus ever got “wrathy” with were the Jewish religious leaders who were misleading others. As Jesus well knew, these men knew better, for they had not only been instructed in the Scriptures in the prestigious religious schools of their day, but these same rabbinical scholars were also capable of, and responsible for, teaching the word of God to others. As such, they stood “without a leg to stand on” before the very Son of God, who was angered by their stubborn insubordination: their hard hearts that refused to break and their stiff necks that refused to bow.

As a side note, it is an irony that many pagans I converse with regularly have gotten impatient with me when I “hem and haw around,” fishing for the right words, seeking to speak with courtesy and respect from my Christian perspective. Many are not only eager to hear my thoughts as a Christian person whom they respect, but will even sometimes finish my delayed sentences with the Christian standpoint I was trying to politely phrase as if to say “Look. I know you are a Christian and you are not going to offend me if you talk straight about your views. You have already shown me that you respect me as a person and we don’t have to agree perfectly on every point to be friends and equals in our mutual quest for truth. I have a great deal of respect for you, and I feel that you make a lot of sense when you speak. You have earned your right. Now speak! Get on with it. Stop being so annoyingly cautious and apologetic. Be a Christian, for heaven’s sake!” :)

No, true tolerance is not agreeing with everything everyone says. That is utter stupidity. This will never bring about peace and harmony in our pluralistic society, if for no other reason, because it based on a logical fallacy. This is not to say that we cannot strive to find common ground as much as is possible, nor is it to say that we shouldn’t thoughtfully listen to opposing viewpoints, carefully considering their merits, for we have much to learn from the different ideas of another. However, it is utterly foolish to regard all beliefs as being equally valid. What then, becomes the purpose of thoughtfulness, rationality, morality, or any other basis of ordering one’s life? In a world where all views are equally valid, there is no longer any validity to anything: an interesting paradox to ponder.

True tolerance values other people’s rights—even when one disagrees with another’s beliefs—treating the individual with respect, courtesy, or—more to the point—“love,” as the Scriptures say. What would happen if I tried pulling a stunt like the group of Christians in California did with my pagan friends and associates? I would not be treating them as I myself would want to be treated, not to mention I would be driving wedges rather than building bridges. These people are not my enemies. Granted, I don’t believe their religious views are entirely right, and they know it. But other people are never our enemy; yes, the powers and forces of darkness that drive people and keep them in bondage are, but the people themselves are not.

When I was doing the research for the article A Study of Buddhism in Contrast to Christianity, I noticed that a lot of liberal Christian scholars had joined the tolerance bandwagon to the degree that they were trying to promote the equal validity of all beliefs—not just an acceptance of the fact that other people have as much right to believe as they wish and make up their own minds as we do—not just that we might actually have something to learn from other religious faiths if we would but listen with an open mind. Under the guise of unity, these theologians had set about, among other things, to radically reinterpret the exclusive claims of Christ as being the way, the truth, and the life into simply a way that worked for Christians, not a universally true tenet of the Christian creed. It seems strange to me that they even bothered calling themselves Christians, for this particular aspect is the most central doctrine of the Christian faith: the very foundation on which Christianity operates. Throw out this teaching and you have thrown Christianity completely out the window.

I conclude the Buddhism/Christian article with the following paragraph:

In the end, though there are certain teachings that both can agree on, I believe that Christianity and Buddhism are mutually exclusive. In order for the Buddhist to accept Christianity and still remain a Buddhist, he or she has to reinterpret Christ’s claims to unique and ultimate divinity: His claim as the way and not merely a marker along the roadside. In a similar manner, for the Christian to accept Buddhism and still remain a Christian, he or she must also reinterpret Christ’s claims as merely a way, instead of the way, the truth, and the life. In the end, in order to maintain the integrity of either religion, I think one must simply and finally agree to disagree, and strive to live in harmony despite this. Siddhartha Gautama [Buddha] called for a peaceable and self-controlled life, just as our Lord admonished us to love everyone, even our enemies, “For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?” (I’m not implying that Buddhists are a Christian’s enemies, lest anyone should misconstrue my point. What I am suggesting is that Christ held out a radical message of love and benevolence toward all while being uncompromising in His claims of divinity.)

Midway through or so, I also include this paragraph, which ties in nicely with today’s send:

According to the Microsoft® Encarta® World English Dictionary 2001, “pluralism” is a “society with different internal groups: the existence of groups with different ethnic, religious, or political backgrounds within one society.” The idea of pluralism implies the diversity of belief; nowhere in its definition do I see the prospect that one must agree with all others’ beliefs or see all other beliefs as equally valid. Getting along with one another is obviously a higher ethical standard and a worthy one. Yet there is a fundamental difference between seeing each person as an equal and valid human being having the freedom to follow his or her own beliefs, and agreeing that all beliefs must harmonize. I can respect you and value you without agreeing with you. In short, I can separate your worth as a fellow human being from your beliefs, which I may or may not agree with. . . .

So if a group of pagans—or anyone else—gathers in your neighborhood for a peaceful demonstration, don’t play righteous avenger. Simply pray for them quietly in your own home or gathered together with other believers apart from the proceedings. Even better, befriend them, love them, show them Jesus through your kindness. Stand up for what you believe to be certain, but remember that you must earn the right to be heard. Pick your battles; don’t storm off to war at the slightest provocation: sometimes it is far better to be wronged. Let your actions speak louder than your words. Or, as the oft quoted mystic St. Francis of Assisi (1182-1226) is reputed to have uttered: “Preach the Gospel always. If necessary use words.” Closely on its heels follows another quotation that popped up in my “Quote of the Day” recently: “One of the lessons of history is that nothing is often a good thing to do and always a clever thing to say.” (Attributed to: Will Durant (1885–1981), U.S. historian.)

Even as you let your actions do your talking, however, remember to “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander” (1 Peter 3:15–16). The bottom line is that if your life truly exemplifies Christ, and He is alive and real within your heart, people will ask the reason for the hope you have: if not directly, within themselves. In the meantime, your duty is to quietly speak the truth in love as it is called for, recognizing that there is a time and a place for everything—realizing that the vast majority of the time, less said says more.

In parting, I can vividly recall a Wiccan who showed me great kindness when I was feeling very despondent one day. Do you know what he did? He didn’t try to convert me. He simply showed me thoughtfulness and consideration when he really had no good reason for doing so: he acted with no thought of himself, asking nothing in return. You know, it’s funny. I can’t think of that man without a sense of gratitude and respect welling up within my heart. His compassion spoke volumes; his compassion told me of his character, the substance of which he was made radiating out from within him. It was such a small thing he did really, and yet I would gladly listen to his beliefs, carefully considering his words, for his actions have shown me he very likely has something to say worthy of my consideration. As Christians, we are called to no less.

God bless,
Eric

“If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee” (Proverbs 25:21–22).

Table of Contents | Home | About | Newsletter | Forum | Misc. | Contact | Search | Links | Random Page

.:| get up to date: newsletter :. 1&1 .: discussion forum: participate |:.

http://www.mrrena.com/2002/toler.shtml