Dueling Definitions

In a recent posting on The Christian Post, a guest contributor, Lisa Cherry, wrote an editorial entitled, "The Definition of Tolerance, which offers two competing definitions of "tolerance".  The first is the traditional definition of tolerance as being "being nice and kind and respectful." This is the definition the author prefers. The second is what she takes to be the contemporary meaning by which tolerance has become a politically correct "buzz word" that means "giving everyone and everything equal space to be right; acceptance of all views and actions as equally true; and lack of any judgment toward one another." Cherry observes, "Tolerance is no longer a sweet little character trait that promotes interpersonal peace. It has become monumental and powerful."

She then goes on to state that the real issue at stake regarding tolerance, however, is not tolerance at all.  It is, rather, the issues of the nature of the Bible and of truth.  She contends that the forces of "tolerance," so-called, are seeking to undermine the absolute truth and trustworthiness of the Bible.  In what appears to be an oblique reference to Satan, she suggests that the truth's "real enemy" has thrown up the values related to open-mindedness as a "smoke screen" to confuse and distract people.  Cherry concludes, "I don't know about you, but I am ready to shake off this dead-end notion of tolerance for a little while. I say we press past its emotional land mines. I'm thinking underneath its prickly facade is the truth that, when embraced, will set our families and our world on the path to spiritual healing."

As a progressive Christian, I can't help but note how powerful the concept of tolerance is becoming in our culture.  The long battles over civil rights are one key impetus for this change, and from the moment that the first proto-abolitionist called for the end of slavery, tolerance has been a divisive political issue and so it remains today.  Undoubtedly, some of those who promote tolerance have themselves behaved and spoken intolerantly, but that does not lessen the importance of tolerance as a core social value.  Each human being has a right to be treated fairly, without prejudice, for who they are.  For progressive Christians, Jesus is the very model of tolerance in teaching and in deed.

What remains troubling, however, is the manner in which she associates the Bible with intolerance and seems to celebrate intolerance as being godly.  An increasing number of Americans make that same association to the detriment of the Christian faith, and as intolerance recedes it drags our faith with it.  The growing majority of Americans who accept the rights of the LGBT community observe the resistance of the Christian Right to those rights and draw what is for them an obvious conclusion: Christianity is an intolerant religion.  Cherry's arguments only serve to confirm that conclusion—for a segment of American Christians, a sadly large and loud segment.

And one of the great puzzles for the rest of us is this: how does one practice tolerance with the intolerant?  Martin Luther King's answer was non-violent resistance—to not fight fire with fire.  Not easy.

Love Thy Theological Enemies

In the third chapter of his book, Victorian Religious Revivals (Oxford, 2012), author David Bebbington describes and analyzes an 1841 evangelical revival that took place in Washington-on-the-Brazos, Texas.  In his analysis of the event, Bebbington describes four groups who posed threats to the revival.  They were the denizens of frontier Texas' rough, almost crude local culture, freethinkers, and two other groups of evangelicals—anti-missionary Baptists and rationalist Campbellites.  The first two groups are hardly surprising.  The last two are.  The revival itself was promoted by moderate, revivalistic Baptists supported by Methodists.  The anti-missionary Baptists did not hold with such things as revivals because there is no record of them in the Bible.  The Campbellites didn't like the revivalistic emphasis on emotion and experience.

From Bebbington's commentary, it is evident that the revival itself found at least part of its identity in this opposition by non-religious and other religious elements.  What it was against was important.  It was against the hard-edges of frontier society, anti-religious thinking, and two other forms of the faith.  One form didn't allow for active revivalism.  The other form didn't value religious experience as being key to one's salvation.

It is not a new thought, but perhaps we don't think often enough about how important our theological "enemies" are to us in the formation of our own identity.  This is certainly true for those of us who embrace the label of "progressive Christianity."  Conservative evangelicals, especially of the literalist persuasion, as well as the so-called new atheists are both important to our own identity.  It is important to us that we are not like them in certain specific ways.  We are not biblical or scientific literalists.  We reject their rigid dualisms.

In this context, Jesus' injunction to "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44) makes a whole lot of sense.  We take our identity from our theological enemies.  In what they are, we butt up against the boundaries of our own self-understanding.  We need them to be "them," and we need them to be "not-us."  It is worth considering that "when the Kingdom comes" they will be in it too.  The difference between then and now is that then we will be able to pray humble, sincere prayers for "them" and actually love them for what they are—understanding that what they are is important to us.  Amen.

We Love Our Walls

The latest Presbyterian numbers are out (here).  In 2012, the Presbyterian Church (USA) recorded a 5.3% decline in membership from 1,952,287 in 2011 to 1,849,496 in 2012. The denomination organized 13 new churches, closed 86 churches, and dismissed 110 congregations to other denominations.  The total loss is on the high end.  In some "good years," it is half or less of 5.3%.  But, then, the loss of so many churches to other denominations was a significant factor last year.

It is a fair question to ask our evangelical sisters and brothers in those departing congregations how they intend to witness to Christ's love in an increasingly secular, religiously skeptical world when they can't even find ways to lovingly witness to people of faith who largely share their core values whatever the differences driven by the hot button issues.  As evangelicals across America continue to separate themselves from the rest of American society, they only serve to build the walls between themselves and the rest of society higher and thicker.  How will they ever meaningfully and effectively share God's love from behind those walls?

On the other hand, as I wrote a couple of posts back (here), it is an equally good question to ask of progressive and moderate Presbyterians, "When will we ever learn to share our faith in ways that bring people to Christ and to church?"  Many of the dying Presbyterian and other mainline congregations have impressive records of public service done in Christ's name.  From all of that service, however, few individuals outside of the church if any discovered faith in Christ.

So, there's the irony for you.  A recent Gallup Poll (here) indicates that most Americans agree that religion is losing its influence in society and, interestingly, many of them think we would be better off if it didn't lose its influence.  But those who have a heart for evangelism cut themselves off from those they would evangelize.  Those who can best share faith effectively in our secular age aren't interested in doing so.  Indeed, they often reject the idea of faith-sharing (witnessing, evangelizing) as being "like them," that is the like "those narrow-minded" evangelicals.  We love our walls.