Brett: Firstly, let me set the scene a little bit. Nathaniel and i do not know each other – we recently connected on Twitter via some conversations that have been happening and when we started a little back and forth on this article titled ‘Intolerant Tolerance’ by Mark Driscoll I suggested to him that this might be an interesting conversation to blog.
So via email we are looking to have some back and forth on it and this will be whatever comes out of it.
While I agreed with the majority of what was being expressed in the article, Nathaniel had some reservations, so maybe that is a good place to start. Nathaniel, thanks for agreeing to have this conversation with me and hope it will be helpful for those who read what we write. What was it about the article that caused a reaction in you?
Nathaniel: I reacted to the title of this article before I read it, because I have heard the “your tolerance isn’t tolerance at all because you aren’t tolerating my intolerance” nonsense many times. People view the word “tolerance” in many different ways, but in my experience the most common interpretation and the one used by many Christian writers and speakers have some key differences. My dictionary (Google) defines tolerance as “the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.”
Mark seems to believe that the “new tolerance” is accepting all other beliefs as equally valid- he explicitly ties it to a lack of moral absolutes. Where is he getting this from? Of course there will be people who define it that way, but is that really the prevailing “new” way to look at it?
Brett: Well firstly, Nathaniel, you are using a definition of a word that contains the word itself, so looking up ‘Tolerate’ on your same dictionary I got this: ‘allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.’ Which in essence is what you are saying, but helps to remove the word from its definition.
I would tend to agree with Mark that generally [and it is a generalisation, but one that is true for the majority i would suggest] does seem to be the way things are going/have gone. The call is to show tolerance to all forms of behaviour/lifestyle that have previously not been tolerated [within a religious framework] but also with an increasing mindset that “anything goes” [hence the lack of moral absolutes]. Part of that comes from the post-Christian context we now find ourselves in [where before morality was largely defined by the bible but now society as a whole does not deem that to be a suitable point of definition] but if we do not have a set standard from where morality is defined then are we not saying that each person defines morality for themselves?
Nathaniel: I am not sure the “anything goes” attitude is as pervasive as Mark and others might insist. I would also draw a distinction between each person independently creating a set of moral values, versus interpreting a given set of moral values. For instance, a random sample of Christians may agree on the Bible as a moral guide, but vary widely in their interpretations of how its instructions should be applied. Is that moral relativism? For better or for worse, each person has a different set of experiences, motives, and attitudes that will affect the way they act out a common code.
To illustrate this, take a common evangelical perspective regarding our nation’s history – the idea that the Bible and Christian principles were essential to its founding, and that we have gradually fallen away from that standard. It’s pretty clear that realities like chattel slavery and the genocide of indigenous populations don’t mesh well with this narrative. It’s easy to look back now and show how these atrocities conflicted with the morals outlined in Scripture, but what they really show is how each person (and each generation) has a certain degree of choice in how consistently and accurately they apply the teachings of Scripture
Maybe what Mark would refer to as moral relativism in the church is just the humility to realize that our experiences as individuals are not universal, that we “see in a mirror dimly,” and that we are dependent on the Holy Spirit to guide and teach us.
Brett: Nathaniel, while I would personally disagree with you on your ‘anything goes’ stance, I think I can say I agree with pretty much the rest of what you have written here. Healthy interpretation of Scripture [and how some have read it absolutely to say ‘it is our duty to kill people’ and others read it absolutely to say ‘we don’t have the right to kill people’ in the whole capital punishment question… so even the ‘absolute’ of the Bible ends up being very non-absolute once interpretation is applied and we have seen through apartheid and the crusades to name just two, how horribly that can end up looking] and the importance of being led by the Spirit to have any idea of how God is really leading us is of paramount importance. Which is where it gets infinitely tricky as both sides of an argument always claim loudly that they are led by the Spirit [except maybe the cessationists? Hm, where do they stand on this one?
While there is merit in the idea of humility and possibility of error expressed in your description of the ‘mirror dimly’ idea, surely there still need to be boundaries. People having sex with animals? Is that still a safe one to assume that most people will see as completely across the line. And yet already there are government debates and in some countries it is legalised. Surely we will corporately agree that that is a good example of something to be intolerant towards? That is one thing which I enjoyed from the article and which the pastor of my church preached on recently – the fact that we all embrace intolerance in certain ways [intolerance towards litter, intolerance towards drunk driving etc] and so as opposed to blanket tolerance, perhaps what we are needing is a combination of tolerance where it is needed as well as a healthy intolerance. What are your thoughts about that idea?
Nathaniel: Who are the masses of people applying the idea of tolerance to drunk driving or littering? Does the fact that we are a country with laws mean that we have collectively rejected this mythical form of tolerance?
Of course not, because tolerance as a community value boils down to mutual respect and understanding. Look back at that transcript from their discussion. Does Piers even hint at this “new tolerance” against which the whole rest of Mark’s attack is focused? I don’t see anything from that excerpt that would imply a “postmodern” definition of tolerance.
So why does Mark use that as a starting point for this discussion, and why are we having this discussion at all? My assessment would be that conflating moral relativism and tolerance creates an bogeyman against which fundamentalists and dogmatists can defend their positions. Mark took the appearance of a buzzword in one conversation as an excuse to attack arguments that (just about) no one is making.
Brett: Nathaniel, I’m not sure you are seeing my point on the intolerance thing – the suggestion that I am making is that a certain level of intolerance is necessary for society to function well [I am not suggesting people ARE tolerant towards those things but speaking to the postmodern definition of tolerance which I would certainly hold to being more closely what Mark is suggesting than what you are saying “just about no one is making”] I don’t know that Mark took the definition of “the new tolerance” from anything Piers suggested but is using it as an assumed place of where the world seems to be at the moment, so maybe that is a good place to backtrack a little to getting a better understanding of how we both see that.
It might be helpful to go back to the article and look at the two definitions given for tolerance and give us an idea of which one feels more descriptive of how things are today [in general, in the world] or would you hold that neither of these are accurate?
The old view of tolerance assumed that (1) there is objective truth that can be known; (2) various people, groups, and perspectives each think they know what that objective truth is; and (3) as people/groups disagree, dialogue, and debate their conflicting views of the truth, everyone involved will have an opportunity to learn, grow, change, and possibly arrive together at the truth.
The new tolerance is different from the old tolerance. The new view of tolerance assumes that (1) there is no objective truth that can be known; (2) various people, groups, and perspectives do not have the truth but only what they believe to be the truth; and (3) various people, groups, and perspectives should not argue and debate their disagreements because there is no truth to be discovered and to assume otherwise only leads to needless conflicts and prejudices.
Piers was pressing Mark to answer the question ‘Are you tolerant?’ and Mark was responding with a message of ‘Loving your neighbor.’ So a helpful question to look at is, do you think it is possible to love your neighbor without being tolerant of some of their beliefs or ways of living?
Nathaniel: I think tolerance is a posture of the heart and mind towards people, regardless of their beliefs or actions. Put another way, you don’t have to tolerate every action or belief, but you should treat each everyone with tolerance. Whether you believe in objective truth or moral absolutes, you can still treat your brothers and sisters with respect. Is that too simple? I think this definition of tolerance has remained the same regardless of the cultural trends that he sees.
Brett: Okay I think we might be nearing more common ground here in terms of understanding. The idea of respect and treating a person who believes something completely different to you with love. But I think within that idea [which I imagine we would both hold to] is the more recent idea that suggests that I cannot love you and treat you with respect while also holding on to the idea that I think you are wrong in some behavior you have or action that you are doing? Because then that is not seen as tolerance and even the love and respect will in many cases be questioned [because you believe me to be wrong] Does that make sense?
Nathaniel: How pervasive is that “newer idea” (that I cannot love you and treat you with respect while also holding on to the idea that I think you are wrong). It is probably hard to quantify, since few people would self describe as exhibiting this form.
Irresistibly Fish 
“But what i think Mark is alluding to in that area is now it has swung full circle where now the people who call homosexuality a sin are viewed as being sinful in their call”
I think the idea that a pendulum has swung too far in another direction is way off the mark Brett. Young people still kill themselves because they have the “wrong” sexuality. I know of a family where a child is homosexual, and the christian parents love the child “despite” knowing that. That child is suicidal though at times. And she doesnt talk about her sexuality. I don’t know the whole story there. But children might not be able to make this distinction between loving the “sinner” and hating the “sin”. It ain’t good if a young person feels something as strong and important as a sexual preference in an enviroment where that feeling is described as a sin.
So even in this supposedly liberal age we aren’t getting it right. To my knowledge no one has committed suicide because, horror of horrors, people are challenging their views about homosexuality being against God’s will. Views which they could previously hold without challenge. But i’m pretty sure it is still rare for a young homosexual to get anything less than a bumpy ride into adulthood.
Personally, in the area of homosexuality, I don’t think it is possible to love the “sinner” and hate the “sin”. Because the “sin” is quite clearly a normal thing for a minority of people which affects no one but the person themselves. Take away the “sin” and you carry out a kind of psychological castration.
Have just read the Mark Driscoll article. i found it depressing to be honest. Full of soundbites and lacking in any substance. His central and concluding stance is so untrue as to be laughable. He suggests “Today there are not sins. There is only one sin, and that is calling anything a sin.”
Clearly every section of human culture has “sins” even if it doesn’t use the word “sin”. Every country has jails for people who “sin”. I would suggest, though I haven’t got any statistics to back this up, that very few if any humans are in jail simply for calling something a sin. I’m not a fan of Piers Morgan one bit, but his questions about tolerance seem to have hit the Mark just a little too well.
From my point of view there definitely is such a thing as Absolute Truth. Morality is an absolutely reasonable thing. It is possible to explain and logically defend absolute moral principles from which we develop laws that are flexible and culturally adaptable and which can and do change as time goes on. I believe that Christian absolute truth is perfectly valid, but has to be supportable by reason, not simply by unverifiable claims like “God said it”.
For centuries the Christian church in the west has had a free run at propagating unquestioned world views and values. It happens that we are living in a time when SOME of those values are being questioned. I believe this should be seen as opportunity by open hearted, thinking, evolving christians. An opportunity to critically evaluate some of those values and their current day applications for themselves. Mark Driscoll looks to be fighting justifiable critique with a shallow, unreasonable defensiveness that could only ever convince the congregation. Or, in the UK, Daily Mail readers.
Sorry if this seems harsh, but it angers me that this kind of drivel will gain a lot of traction and fandom in a community that actually needs to show an ongoing fearless ability to grapple for actual absolute truth instead of settling, too often, for prehistoric and indefensible hand me downs.
Sorry, one final thing. I’m kind of aware that I come down hard on the stuff I disagree with, more than I affirm the stuff I do agree with. I should be a bit more affirming, but I actually think that any conversation exists by virtue of the stuff we disagree about, not the stuff we agree on. At least the interesting ones. So I hope you take my inherent opinionatedness as an ongoing desire to talk, rather than an attempt to have a go. I’m pretty sure you do that anyway, but I just wanted to reaffirm it. Sending lots of smileys your way. 😉