toldailytopic: Tolerance and diversity, where and how should we draw the line? (what

[Nathon Detroit]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for November 6th, 2009 09:32 AM

toldailytopic: Tolerance and diversity, where and how should we draw the line? (what types of things shouldn't be tolerated, etc.)

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

 

[DocJohnson]

Tolerance is evil becase it means you have to be permissive of everything, including evil.

Diversity doesn't work in a country like America because this is a "melting pot" of race, religion, creed, culture, etc. Everyone who lives here should learn the language and practice the culture. If they're not willing to do that, they can go back to where they came from.

 

[screamin4u2hear]

This is a HUGE conversation and question, especially for those of us concerned with Missio Dei (The Mission of God). Most people who comment will probably come from the perspective of ethics and moral conflicts. For me this question really hits home in the spiritual realm.

We could talk/debate/argue for hours about inclusivism, exclusivism, universalism, etc. My spin on this topic has to do with different cultural views WITHIN the realm of Christianity. The old missional paradigm is the idea that we (Americans and those who are "blessed" by God) are to go and spread the Gospel to those who are not as "blessed." After all we are God's chosen people. Ultimately we end up taking our culture with us and spreading American consumer ideas into other cultures. We validated this method by saying that we are "civilizing" these other cultures. Now there are Christian churches in Africa that worship in different ways because of their own cultural methods of understanding God and Jesus. Some Christians argue that we cannot tolerate these kind of cultural diversities. They try to argue that there is one true Christian "culture." The problem is that they usually say that America holds the key to that culture when the ironic thing is that there are more Christians in Africa now then there are in America. So God is obviously in and at work through their culture!

My question or thought to further consider is this: Within Christianity where is the line between tolerance and diversity AND who determines that line?

Our newer missional paradigm argues for "incarnational" mission. This is where the missionary becomes as much like the people group they are trying to reach. They dress like them, speak their language, and attempt to think like them. The truth is that as outsiders to that culture, we will NEVER become true insiders. We can never come to understand everything that goes in that culture, just as another person cannot understand the insider perspective of American culture.

Eventually you will get to the question of how much faith you have in God... because if you believe that God created all humanity with his image AND you believe that God is able to communicate to all humans AND you believe that God desires all to be saved, then who are we to say that Christians from different cultures should act the same way we act? If we try to determine their doctrine, ethics, or spiritual behavior we have not given them the Gospel that transforms lives. All we have given them is our perspective. The Gospel is much bigger than any one of us or any one culture. This means that there will be heresy, but we went through our own heresies as well. God still speaks! And God speaks through insiders. As missionaries we can bring the Gospel, but we really cannot define the Gospel for them. We have to depend on God to do that.

So my answer within Christian society is that diversity and tolerance should go as far as God allows it to go. And we have to be careful when judging people within different cultures about what is or is not tolerable. I am not advocating relativism, but it is a question of authority. Ultimately I believe God has all authority and speaks to all people, I have to trust in that. I will still fight against injustice I see, but I will not arbitrarily claim that I am right and others are wrong just because I think that is the case.

 

[MaryContrary]

Difficult to discern. And that's the issue, I think.

First you have to recognize that we human beings have a natural instinct to suspect anything differing from what we perceive as the norm. If you think about this for half a moment with any objectivity you have to agree it's a fairly wise thing. How and on what basis we determine to accept things perceived as "abnormal" into our concept of "normal" becomes the question.

Today I think the issue is that people have been taught and have learned that this instinct is bad. That it's somehow wrong or destructive, and that it always works to our ill. And so folks rush to embrace anything it tells us to be wary of without first practicing discernment. That instinct has become the enemy and the idea seems to be "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Many times this instinctive aversion to what we perceive to be abnormal is indeed wrong. Just as it often alerts us to threats that are real. Which is why discernment is important here. Tossing our discernment out the window is, I think, what's causing most of the difficulty these days.

In our society I'm pretty sure this whole screwy thing got started in the sixties, when we first began to combat racial bigotry. Rather that address the issue with reason we attempted to correct it with emotional appeal instead. People generally weren't taught why racial bigotry was unacceptable, just that it was. People naturally see other people of other races as abnormal. "Out of the norm", from their perspective. And so they learned not to trust the instinct that racial bigotry is founded upon entirely, rather than learning to discern that it's simply misleading in it's perception of race.

IMHO

 

[zoo22]

As far as tolerance, I used to wait until after the film titles were finished before asking someone to stop talking at the movie theater. But now if someone is speaking during the titles I'll directly ask them whether they are going to talk through the entire film...

 

[Nathon Detroit]

As a society what does it mean to "tolerate" a certain type of behavior?

I think tolerance means that the society treats the behavior as if it were completely normal. Same rights, as everyone else.

Is that a fair description of what is commonly referred to as "tolerance"?

 

[MaryContrary]

As a society what does it mean to "tolerate" a certain type of behavior?

I think tolerance means that the society treats the behavior as if it were completely normal. Same rights, as everyone else.

Is that a fair description of what is commonly referred to as "tolerance"?

I would yes.

And this is why discernment, which requires wisdom, is as important for a society as it is for an individual. We seem to be seriously lacking in one, which has necessarily eroded the other.

It's difficult for me to judge as I really haven't been around all that long but isn't this a rather drastic change from over the last hundred years or so? Folks two or three generations back seem to have just been much better at it, with some obvious exceptions of course.

 

[screamin4u2hear]

As a society what does it mean to "tolerate" a certain type of behavior?

I think tolerance means that the society treats the behavior as if it were completely normal. Same rights, as everyone else.

Is that a fair description of what is commonly referred to as "tolerance"?

I think it is fair. The problem is what is normal is determined by our own particular culture. This is why this is such a huge issue for missionaries. When I see a behavior that I would deem unacceptable in another culture, I have to realize that I'm looking through my own personal cultural lens when I judge that behavior. At the same time there is a standard of ethics advocated for in the Bible. I think that we can and SHOULD stand up for Biblical ethics, especially within our own cultures. I do not think that we should stand by and let genocide occur while people of other cultures figure out what God is trying to tell them. At the same time when it comes down to cultural practices that are not unethical (such as what they eat, how they dress, etc) this is a much softer issue. These are things that God can work out with the people OF THAT PARTICULAR culture.

In our culture I think that we have every right and responsibility to speak out against unethical behavior. Within our Christian communities I also think that we should be able to opening discuss our views of doctrine, but at the same time when people claim that Christ is not the only way or things that seem glaringly unbiblical we should address these issues. It still raises the question of authority.

I see diversity as a benefit to worship and Christian practice. I believe that God created all people with his image. And I think that the different cultural perspectives of worship, life, and love can all be a beautiful expression of who God is. But diversity is so close to tolerance and relativism... it's simply a hard road to navigate.

There is no set formula we can use, and I believe this is why God gave us the Spirit. The problem comes in - what happens when two people claim the opposing views because of the Spirit? Diversity? Or something else?

 

[Lighthouse]

As a society what does it mean to "tolerate" a certain type of behavior?

I think tolerance means that the society treats the behavior as if it were completely normal. Same rights, as everyone else.

Is that a fair description of what is commonly referred to as "tolerance"?

I believe it is a fair description. Of course, if you think about the original meaning of the word it indicates that you dislike the object to begin with and are just putting up with it for the sake of someone, or something, apart from yourself.

So I can say that I tolerate child molesters to the extent that I do not search them out and kill them, because that is immoral and illegal. But I would not act as though they have done nothing wrong.

 

[DocJohnson]

Of course, if you think about the original meaning of the word it indicates that you dislike the object to begin with and are just putting up with it for the sake of someone, or something, apart from yourself.

Actually, the original definition is equal to apathy... total permissiveness.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

So I can say that I tolerate child molesters to the extent that I do not search them out and kill them, because that is immoral and illegal. But I would not act as though they have done nothing wrong.

Do you mean potential child molesters? Because it's a good thing for the government to seek out and kill child molesters.

Or, are you saying it would be immoral for you to seek them out vigilante style?

 

[Lighthouse]

Do you mean potential child molesters? Because it's a good thing of the government to seek out and kill child molesters.

Or, are you saying it would be immoral for you to seek them out vigilante style?

Me seeking them out vigilante style.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Me seeking them out vigilante style.

Ahh... ok. :up: (yes I agree with you there, that would be wrong)

 

[Prolifeguyswife]

Tolerance is the value of cowards and lazy people. Really, if you think about it, being "tolerant" means you don't have to be brave enough to stand up for anything, nor do you have to think through positions and their consequences to determine if you believe they are right or wrong. For example, I'm intolerant (gee, could you tell?) of homosexuality and abortion - they are both wrong. There is only one God, and I am not tolerant of other false Gods.

The line should be drawn way back at the Biblical standard. As far as tolerance for homosexuality goes, Christians shouldn't just be fighting homosexual marriage, we should be fighting homosexuality and seeking to have it re-criminalized. Other religions can co-exist, although they are wrong, because Christ didn't convert by the sword - however, those beliefs should not be "tolerated" by saying that they are just as valid, or just as true, as the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Tolerance is for sissies.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Tolerate or not....?

- Adultery
- Incest
- Polygamy
- Homosexuality
- Thievery
- Pedophilia
- Rape
- Murder
- Transgenders/transexuals

Where is the line and how do you draw it?

 

[zoo22]

As a society what does it mean to "tolerate" a certain type of behavior?

I think tolerance means that the society treats the behavior as if it were completely normal. Same rights, as everyone else.

Is that a fair description of what is commonly referred to as "tolerance"?

I think that's fair description, yes... With the exception that a behavior is not necessarily treated "as if it were completely normal," even if it's tolerated. Say, white supremacists in the US... They're afforded the same rights by law as the rest of our society, and are tolerated within the restraints of those laws, but are not necessarily treated as or regarded as "completely normal" by society.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Does anybody disagree with this statement....?

Murderers should NOT be tolerated.

 

[Chalmer Wren]

Tolerance is evil becase it means you have to be permissive of everything, including evil.

Diversity doesn't work in a country like America because this is a "melting pot" of race, religion, creed, culture, etc. Everyone who lives here should learn the language and practice the culture. If they're not willing to do that, they can go back to where they came from.

Tolerance doesn't have to be absolute, you know?

Also, I don't have a problem with having a common language, but you think our country should enforce culture, as well? Culture has a variety of meanings. Which one are you using in this context?

 

[DocJohnson]

Tolerance doesn't have to be absolute, you know?

Tolerance, in the true sense of the word, is not something to regard as positive.

Culture has a variety of meanings. Which one are you using in this context?

American culture, of course.

 

[Rusha]

Tolerate or not....?

- Adultery
- Incest
- Polygamy
- Homosexuality
- Thievery
- Pedophilia
- Rape
- Murder
- Transgenders/transexuals

Where is the line and how do you draw it?

I draw the line on the action and whether or not it is always damaging, how much damage it does and whether or not it takes away the consent from another human being.

Adultery ... IMO, always wrong, however, not in the category that it should be legally prohibited.

Incest ... IMO, always wrong, however, I am on the line as to whether or not I want the law to legally prohibit a relationship between two consenting adults based on my personal aversion to it. I need to think on this one more because I come down on the side of *prohibited*, however, I realize this has to do with the ick factor.

Polygamy ... legally, only opposed when it involves anyone under 18 years of age.

Homosexuality ... not opposed legally or personally. This is another matter of consenting adults.

Thievery ... opposed, ALWAYS. Thieves reek, and while I see it is a lesser offense (than rape, murder, abuse, etc.) I would be open to using more drastic methods of punishing habitual thieves.

Pedophilia ... ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS wrong! My preference is that all child molesters be executed for the first offense.

Rape ... same as pedophilia.

Murder ... execute em.

Transgender/transexuals ... grey area. What I mean is that having your sex changed is not like making a decision to color your hair. This is a permanent change that may very well impact your mental health and should be met with a healthy amount of concern and skepticism.