What do you tolerate?
Reflections during the reading of the book
"The New Tolerance." I will come back with some additional posts
about the book.
The authors of the book "The New
Tolerance" highlight many examples of how the new tolerance is spreading. In
the "new tolerance" there are no absolute truths or values. Well,
actually there is one single truth and value that is absolutely true and is
superior to all other values: tolerance. But the new tolerance is selective. It
is only tolerant of what is politically correct. Everything else the new
tolerance is totally intolerant to.
In that the examples in the book are primarily
collected from the North American scene, one can easily be misled into thinking
that this is solely an American problem. But no. The new tolerance is equally
widespread in Sweden.
One recent expression of the new tolerance
in Sweden is the debate on school end-of-term ceremonies conducted in the
Church. It is enough that a single student or parent feels offended by hearing
the priest utter "God bless you", that all the other hundreds of
students will be denied hearing the blessing pronounced upon their life. Why?
Well, the new tolerance will not tolerate that there is someone who believes
that there is a God and expresses it to other persons.
Another expression of the new tolerance can
be found in public opinion on the web. I happened to end up on a website that
has tolerance as the only guiding norm; EXPO Foundation. There they write about
themselves and their values:
"Intolerance is a social problem
because it creates distrust between people and prevents coexistence. Together,
we can instead take responsibility for creating a society of tolerance and
respect for human rights.
The Expo Foundation is politically
independent. There is no political ideology that can claim to be the only right
in the fight against intolerance. However, we believe that the democratic
parties and organizations together can, and should, draw a boundary against
intolerant ideas. "
The fundamental valuation is to be
tolerant. But they say also that it is intolerant of any ideas that they
themselves perceive as intolerant. Here are some questions to the
Expo-foundation:
- Can you be tolerant of the view that it
is wrong to perform abortions?
- Can you be tolerant of the view that cohabiting
without being married is wrong?
- Can you be tolerant of the view that
homosexual activity is sin?
- Can you be tolerant of Jesus' view that
there is only one right way?
Without being entirely sure I believe the
answer to the above questions is no.
The new tolerance is spreading in Sweden.
Translated: Sven Ljungholm
PETER BARONOWSKY
Riga, Latvia
Translated: Sven Ljungholm
3 comments:
Peter and others,
With all due respect, I think you've missed the point. People are not intolerant because they disagree with another point of view. They are intolerant because they are ignorant of both their own point of view and others, yet maintain a dogmatic approach to their view without reason or discussion. Let me explain...
The Bible is full of evolving ideas. The church as well. The progression of ideas within the Bible proves to us that all the teachings in the Bible are indeed culturally specific. The way the Church throughout history has continued to progress ideas further proves the cultural relativity of Biblical teaching - and yes - TRUTH. Here, we understand that truth is so large that it cannot be defined to one doctrine. Our human minds are not capable of understanding the full breadth of what is truth - and indeed truth itself.
For eg. We see the progression of ideas throughout the Bible on the subject of 'clean' and 'unclean'. Compare OT teaching with the church post Peter's vision in Acts. You could argue that it is simply the fulfilment of the Law through Christ. But that could only happen if there was a progression in understanding, a cultural relativism - even back then. The church (and society) condemns marriages between adults and children. Yet the Bible is full of examples older men marrying young girls - and that is OK. Just look at Mary (the mother of Christ) and Joseph. Mary was no more than 14 at the oldest when she bore Christ. Joseph was most likely in his late 30's when he married her. Our understanding of right and wrong has progressed. The Bible (even the NT) affirms the legitimacy of slavery. Theologians in the Southern States of America used the Bible to support their case for continued slavery and justification for the Civil War against those that were considered extreme liberals who had lost the faith.
Our ideas have progressed, along with Theology. Even the most conservative Theologian today would be considered apostate a few hundread years ago. All of this just proves that everything in the Bible and Christian doctrine is and always has been relative, and progresses and changes over time.
(continued next post)
(Continued)
As a result of the above, those who believe there is an absolute moral code that doesn't change, and use that belief as validation of their views, are not intolerant because their views disagree with the more liberal views, but because they are ignorant of the evolving history of their own views etc. They are also largely ignorant of the views of the liberals to whom they disagree.
Those who maintain the conservative view maintain to traditional teaching which they consider sacrosanct. They dare not challenge it. No matter how much evidence emerges, they do not challenge the interpretation of scripture they have or the Theology derived from it. When evidence emerges that the understanding of Ancient Greek was floored, and a better translation is presented, they refuse to accept it because to accept the more accurate translation of ancient texts would radically alter their Theology. This has now reached the point that there are two distinct ancient Greek languages - NT Greek, and Ancient Greek. The NT and every other ancient Greek text were written in the same or similar language so that anyone either hearing or reading them would understand both. However, today, historians and linguists realise that the way we used to translate ancient language was rubbish, and are constantly re-translating ancient texts, coming up with considerably different translations. The Bible however, has remained constant (just using more modern words to say exactly the same thing that was said in previous translations). We now have the case where the Bible is a result of translating a document in a language that never existed - like J R R Tolkein's Elvish. The Bible has become nothing more than a mythological text that never existed, rather than the Word of God for the ages. Those who maintain the conservative view have reduced Christianity, the Bible, Christ, God, down to nothing more than a fairytale, a myth, a thing with no power or reality, that has no power for salvation.
(continued part 3)
(continued part 3)
Take for example - homosexuality - a very hot button topic which people are regularly accused of being intolerant about. More recent understanding of ancient language tells us that the Bible never at any point mentioned anything about homosexuality. It mentions certain practices that have nothing to do with homosexuality. To equate them with homosexuality is like saying marriage and prostitution are interchangeable words. Yet the conservatives refuse to accept that there might be a more accurate understanding of ancient languages than there own. So they cleave to their own translation, turning the Bible into a text written in a mythical language that never existed. They are ignorant of their own views and where they come from.
Further, they have very distinct views of what homosexuality is. Generally, these views are completely wrong. They refuse to enter into dialogue with 'liberals' in order to find out what homosexuality is etc. They may go as far as being loving towards homosexuals, but still maintain its' practice to be wrong. They still do not know what homosexuality is. Therefore, they are also intolerant because they are opposing something without even bothering to know what they are opposing. They refuse to look at psychological data that might prove otherwise. They only look at data through the lens of their own distorted mythological theology.
In maintaining their conservative views, they fail to reconcile their biblical perspective with the reality of today. They are forced to deny the validity of modern archaeology, psychology, science etc. If they do accept it, they distort the reality of today into something that can be reconciled to their mythological theology and bible which was translated from a mythological text which never existed.
This is why people are branded intolerant. Not because they will not accept an opposing view, but because they are ignorant of both their own view and the views of those they are opposing.
Just my thoughts,
Yours in Christ
Graeme Randall
Former Australian East living in London
Post a Comment