This post is a response to a comment made by a dear friend of mine on my last post “Intolerant Love.” I am very appreciative of the comment. If you have not read that post or the comments, I would encourage you to do so before reading this one.
It seems to me that the greater part of our disagreement is due to differing understandings of “tolerance.” I wish to clear this up and, it is hoped, alleviate the disagreement as well.
I believe I understand where the notion of tolerance as “hesitation between judgment of someone or something and acting on that judgment.” It is similar conceptually, i believe, to the idea of having a “high tolerance for pain.” That is, generally speaking, there is a certain amount of negative words or actions that one can “take” and maintain civility so to speak. This buffer of time allows for intentional action, or perhaps inaction, to be taken rather than a reaction from emotion that might be equally as angering or hurtful to the other person. However, I would call this grace and mercy rather than tolerance. When someone says or does something to me, or toward me, that invokes anger, hopefully I am gracious toward that person and extend mercy to them by not reacting with what, I may feel, he or she deserves. This is what allows me the opportunity to be intentional in my action and chose a loving response. But grace and mercy, along with my application of them, say nothing about the fact that what this person said or did was wrong or at least out of place or misguided. In such cases I may endure such words or deeds and be gracious and merciful, but I am not “tolerant” of what was said or done.
It must be pointed out also that the scenario, which I had in mind in “Intolerant Love,” is different from one in which I, personally or generally, have been slighted by someone’s word or deed. What I had in mind is a situation where one individual holds certain opinions, world view, ideas etc. with which another individual disagrees. And in particular I was considering a situation in which scriptural truth are involved. In such cases one view right and the opposing view is wrong. Although, I do believe that the principle of “grace” and “mercy” is similarly applicable in both scenarios.
Tolerance, as the prevailing voice of society—at least down here—defines and seems to require of “civilized” folk, is quite different in its essential nature than grace and mercy. Although the two may outwardly seem similar, which may be the cause for the confusion, they are not. Tolerance has, I think, two roots from which it grows. One root is that the line between what is right and wrong, correct and incorrect, moral and immoral and so on have been blurred or altogether lost as it seems that “in the current world of accepted knowledge one can’t even know the truth of a moral theory or principle, much less a specific rule.”[1] This notion, that there is a general inability to define right and wrong and so on along with the suspicion that such distinctions don’t exist outside of personal preference, allows one to be indifferent.
There are also two areas of application here. One, which is of greater importance to me personally, is how this idea of “intolerant love” plays out within the fellowship of the saints, which is to say among fellow Christians. The other is how this is played out between the “Church” and the “world.” These two areas and how they relate may be the topic of some later discourse, but it is sufficient here to note them only.
Ephesians 4:15 exhorts the church to “[speak] the truth in love. And loving your neighbor as yourself is the second greatest commandment according to Christ Jesus (Matthew 22:29). As fellow carriers of the Good News of Christ Jesus we are told, within the confines of the church at least, to “correct” those who have wrong ideas about God, Christ Jesus and The Gospel, “rebuke” those who are engaged in sinful and unrighteous behavior and “encourage” all to be strong in the faith and continue to grow in fellowship with God and each other (II Timothy 4:2) Truth, which, by itself, is definitely a topic for a later discussion, especially in a world saturated with lies and untruths, is by its very nature intolerant and confrontational, and so must love be at times. The church is not called to tolerate and allow false doctrine to persist or sinful behavior to go unchecked. We are called to, with grace, mercy and an attitude of love to confront these issues. The end of II Timothy 4:2 says to do this with “great patience and careful instruction.”
This, I hope, clears up what I mean by tolerance and perhaps better explains the notion of intolerant love. There is more that might be said and perhaps what has been said could be better devised. Again I appreciate and encourage comments, especially those of disagreement.
[1] The Divine Conspiracy: Dallas Willard from HarperOne publishing, 1997. Page 5
It seems to me that the greater part of our disagreement is due to differing understandings of “tolerance.” I wish to clear this up and, it is hoped, alleviate the disagreement as well.
I believe I understand where the notion of tolerance as “hesitation between judgment of someone or something and acting on that judgment.” It is similar conceptually, i believe, to the idea of having a “high tolerance for pain.” That is, generally speaking, there is a certain amount of negative words or actions that one can “take” and maintain civility so to speak. This buffer of time allows for intentional action, or perhaps inaction, to be taken rather than a reaction from emotion that might be equally as angering or hurtful to the other person. However, I would call this grace and mercy rather than tolerance. When someone says or does something to me, or toward me, that invokes anger, hopefully I am gracious toward that person and extend mercy to them by not reacting with what, I may feel, he or she deserves. This is what allows me the opportunity to be intentional in my action and chose a loving response. But grace and mercy, along with my application of them, say nothing about the fact that what this person said or did was wrong or at least out of place or misguided. In such cases I may endure such words or deeds and be gracious and merciful, but I am not “tolerant” of what was said or done.
It must be pointed out also that the scenario, which I had in mind in “Intolerant Love,” is different from one in which I, personally or generally, have been slighted by someone’s word or deed. What I had in mind is a situation where one individual holds certain opinions, world view, ideas etc. with which another individual disagrees. And in particular I was considering a situation in which scriptural truth are involved. In such cases one view right and the opposing view is wrong. Although, I do believe that the principle of “grace” and “mercy” is similarly applicable in both scenarios.
Tolerance, as the prevailing voice of society—at least down here—defines and seems to require of “civilized” folk, is quite different in its essential nature than grace and mercy. Although the two may outwardly seem similar, which may be the cause for the confusion, they are not. Tolerance has, I think, two roots from which it grows. One root is that the line between what is right and wrong, correct and incorrect, moral and immoral and so on have been blurred or altogether lost as it seems that “in the current world of accepted knowledge one can’t even know the truth of a moral theory or principle, much less a specific rule.”[1] This notion, that there is a general inability to define right and wrong and so on along with the suspicion that such distinctions don’t exist outside of personal preference, allows one to be indifferent.
There are also two areas of application here. One, which is of greater importance to me personally, is how this idea of “intolerant love” plays out within the fellowship of the saints, which is to say among fellow Christians. The other is how this is played out between the “Church” and the “world.” These two areas and how they relate may be the topic of some later discourse, but it is sufficient here to note them only.
Ephesians 4:15 exhorts the church to “[speak] the truth in love. And loving your neighbor as yourself is the second greatest commandment according to Christ Jesus (Matthew 22:29). As fellow carriers of the Good News of Christ Jesus we are told, within the confines of the church at least, to “correct” those who have wrong ideas about God, Christ Jesus and The Gospel, “rebuke” those who are engaged in sinful and unrighteous behavior and “encourage” all to be strong in the faith and continue to grow in fellowship with God and each other (II Timothy 4:2) Truth, which, by itself, is definitely a topic for a later discussion, especially in a world saturated with lies and untruths, is by its very nature intolerant and confrontational, and so must love be at times. The church is not called to tolerate and allow false doctrine to persist or sinful behavior to go unchecked. We are called to, with grace, mercy and an attitude of love to confront these issues. The end of II Timothy 4:2 says to do this with “great patience and careful instruction.”
This, I hope, clears up what I mean by tolerance and perhaps better explains the notion of intolerant love. There is more that might be said and perhaps what has been said could be better devised. Again I appreciate and encourage comments, especially those of disagreement.
[1] The Divine Conspiracy: Dallas Willard from HarperOne publishing, 1997. Page 5
I appreciate the point of clarity.
ReplyDeleteI do believe in universal Human Rights and that it is our moral duty to fight against evil and cruelty wherever we find it. However, I find in this world it is sometimes too easy to tolerate the abstract evil and only battle the ones we can understand.
Tolerance in the way you describe it goes hand in hand with ignorance, to me. I think it is less to do with the ignorance of doing the right thing, and more to do with deliberately not wanting to know why.
I'm still chewing on this idea, so feel free to help me ruminate with a reply!