Ship of Fools: What are the limits to tolerance?

Thread: What are the limits to tolerance? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024171

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

These are ideas coming out of the thread about any alternatives to the CofE and the questions spinning out of that.

When is it OK to leave a church? When do disagreements reach such a point that you cannot remain? What about theological differences? Are they a good enough reason for leaving a church?

quote:
Alisdair: If you/I decide this is not actually an issue we would be willing to die in a ditch for, defending the 'way of Christ', then we're free to get on with loving our neighbour, forgiving those who trespass against us, seeking holiness, and hopefully being a source of joy and hope to others.

There are several arguments to say remaining in is the better way:

quote:
Rosa Winkel: now isn't the time to run away. Our church doesn't always do the things that we want, but that doesn't negate its worth.

quote:
Hawk: I considered a few years ago whether I should leave this church that had been so welcoming to me, that was full of my friends, and brothers and sisters in Christ. I decided it would be petty, and destructive to do so, cutting off my nose to spite my face.

For me, I decided the community is more important than the politics. When there is an opportunity to do so, I will argue the case for women's ministry within my church and attempt to change it's decision on this issue. When there is no opportunity, I will still support the church as best as I can, with my time, money, prayers, and fellowship.

This is probably enough to be getting started with - what are the limits of tolerance?

Posted by OhSimone (# 16414) on :

I'll be watching this thread with interest - it's close to the knuckle, currently.

I was interested by Mudfrog's post here which made it seem a very easy thing to just up and leave a church to go somewhere different. I struggle with that: coming from a very congregational background, I worry myself that if I left I'd be becoming a "consumerist" Christian, picking and choosing what I want, rather than just serving where I've been put. I'm currently reviewing this opinion...

I think each church is it's own case, and the decision to leave should be far more dependent on the people in that church and the love that they have (or don't have) for God and neighbour, than on relatively minor theological differences. That depends on where you draw the line between minor and major I suppose.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

To my mind, bad faith from the leadership is the obvious thing. People can disagree on all sorts of matters, but when the people who run the entire show start dissembling about basic facts, that's the time to run for the hills.

In this case, there's a huge 20-year-old mess still to be sorted out, but the current leadership appear to be doing their best to find an honourable way out of it. It's the laity who are the problem, and not even a majority of them. The result's a huge embarrassment for the church, but it only amounts to the church down the road having some funny ideas. It's the consequences of those funny ideas that's causing the problem. That doesn't make the problem go away, but it's worth bearing in mind.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

It's several years ago now, but I recall getting involved in a thread about 'tolerance'. And I recall the conclusion that the one thing it was logically impossible for tolerance to tolerate was intolerance.

I'm not going to attempt to dredge the details of the argument up out of the depths of memory just now, not least because it's midnight. I just remember the conclusion. It's fundamentally impossible for a position based on accepting diversity of views to allow the view that diversity is unacceptable.

I think one of the biggest problems that any organisation or indeed any society faces is when people are forced to act on views that they themselves believe to be wrong. We probably all have to do that to some extent, but with the things that are 'small' to us we just get on and do it, perhaps with some grumbling. The tricky part is working out the point on the scale where the individual will break out of that and say "no, I'm not doing it".

And then you have the tension. Does the large bloc continue to press the individual? Does the large bloc allow the individual to avoid the action for the sake of the individual's conscience? Does the individual have a viable option of walking away?

It's not easy to know in advance which resolution is the right one, because it's going to depend on precisely what is at stake. What does everyone gain or lose.

I'm a public servant. It's a very common interview question to be asked in the public service, what would you do if you had to implement a government policy that you thought was wrong. The point being that your job is to implement it. You're not the government. You're not elected.

I've encountered a few policies that I thought had some bad elements. I've encountered an even smaller number which I thought were downright stupid. I've yet to encounter one that I was so passionately against that I would have jeopardised my employment on the grounds that I simply could not do the job I was hired to do, help the government achieve its objectives.

It's fairly unlikely these days that such a situation could arise, because I'm not at the pointy end of implementing policy. I write laws, and it's some other public servant's job to actually administer them and justify/defend them in the future. I have, however, seen one legal change that I thought was pretty appalling and was quietly glad that it had crossed someone else's desk rather than mine.

But an important thing is that I love my job. I would be really upset to lose it. And so I would have a lot at stake if a situation arose where I was being asked to act against a strongly held personal conscience.

In the church context, it ended up being my sexuality that led to my most memorable departure from a church, but it was also probably because at the time the tension arrived I didn't have so much at stake. For various reasons I wasn't nearly as connected to the church community as I had been a few years earlier (I went to this church for 18 years in total). For me, the atmosphere of that church was already deteriorating before the conflict over my sexuality arose. And so it was relatively easy to decide to leave, rather than stay and fight for my beliefs and my music ministry. I didn't feel that the other things I was losing were especially worth fighting for.

It still hurt a lot, and I was still unhappy about feeling forced out rather than leaving with a sense of blessing, but I didn't especially feel that I was the one losing out. It did in fact transpire I was losing some things, but at the time I felt just as much that THEY were losing out, not me (a little while later I heard reports about how the church was having to resort to pre-recorded music in some services, as the number of musicians available dropped).

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

I think it's important to separate abandoning a local congregation from abandoning a denomination. In reality the CofE is such a broad animal, that there's really little that you can believe and not be a member. On that basis I find it hard to accept that this vote is really a reason to leave. An excuse maybe, precipitating your unhappiness with the local congregation, but a good reason? Given that everyone is ultimately committed to getting women bishops in the end, it seems perverse to punish, by depriving them of your gifts, the vast majority now, because they can't get it through now.

As far as the local congregation is concerned; yes, I think the test here is whether you have confidence in the leader. Do they offer a vision you can buy into? Do they lead you closer to God? Do they share enough theological beliefs that you can learn from their sermons without having to discard large chunks of them? Beyond that it's mainly about whether you are finding sources of fellowship and encouragement within the congregation. If everyone except the leader is on a completely different wavelength to you, then it will be hard for you to find that - though it may be that you are a Godsend to the leader who is equally alienated, but is seeking to reach 'people like you'.

I write as someone who has been at his present shack for over 25 years now, and I've stuck with it because most of the time I've had just about adequate confidence in the leadership to stand it. The fact that on a number of issues they've come round to the point of view that I was espousing almost as soon as I joined all those years ago does wonders for one's confidence in them [Big Grin]

However before that I made the mistake of going to the local parish church where I was living. I was, in retrospect, fooled by the charisma of the priest there; I thought there was something worthwhile going on, but in reality there wasn't. I lasted there about 3 years - and made the mistake of leaving quietly; as by then I'd risen to the heights of the PCC, I should really have written to explain my departure. Subsequently almost all of those whom I had sympathy with also departed, a fact which to me endorses my departure...

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Oh, that's an easy question. I take the standard view. When my view is in the minority, tolerance should be the order of the day. When my view becomes the majority, the time for tolerance is over.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I've only once left a church I was a member of - it was a plant from the church I currently attend, and which we'd attended before being involved in the church plant. It was very sad, very painful. Took us the best part of two years to recover from the experience.

I'm not going to go into details here. The outline summary is that differences of outlook and vision with the existing eldership made it impossible for us to work together and worship together in practice. We left, rather than run the risk of becoming underminers of the eldership.

We would have preferred to stay, to try and work out ways of co-operating together. These days I think we would have handled the discussion and the final departure with greater wisdom. We might have found a way of living with our differences without being bent out of shape as much as we were. At the time, we both became exhausted by the struggle and desperately needed a break.

As it happened, the parent church had moved on; most of its eldership shared similar vision and outlook with ours. We'd been on parallel paths with them, without really being aware of that.

After a short interval, during which we basically just "floated" or "floundered", we were invited back to "mum" (the parent church). It took us a while to accept that offer, the experience had been very disillusioning. But we decided to give it a try, not without a lot of reservations.

Folks were very wise. We were just allowed to "be". We were never criticised, nor pressed for reasons. We've both been very grateful for the gift of space and time we were given. Looking back on it, that was a remarkable thing to happen. Without that kindness, I'm not sure where we'd be now. That was what made the difference.

In the end, although there were issues of belief and practice, what mattered most was the recognition of the price we'd paid for trying and failing (Lord, how hard we tried), the need to lick our wounds. And just the kindness.

I think the experience has enabled us to help folks who find themselves in the same boat. The emotional cost is very easy to underestimate. I remember explaining to a friend that it felt like a much loved child had died. I never expected to have to mourn over anything like that. But I did.

[ 21. November 2012, 13:48: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I don't honestly know the answer to this, but it's my faith that challenges the extent of my tolerance. Without it, I know I'd be a hell of a lot less tolerant and I think it goes hand in hand with charity and grace. Often - particularly in church - that tolerance is severely tested (for many reasons). But ultimately being in any community (whatever it may be) is to an extent about having your limits of tolerance tested. I think there is something we in the western world are quite bad at, which has to do with duty to a community. To put it in a faith context, it is in some sense modelling Christ. To be tolerant, to be charitable and graceful in disagreements. Not to be a walkover or a doormat, but to be engaged, because you owe it to the community. It can be for some, a calling.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Thinking of some of the issues that have forced me out.

How acceptable is it for a small group to attend one church as "the best boat to fish from" because it's the biggest in the area but get their "feeding" from summer camps at an entirely different denomination? Is it then acceptable for the same small group to force their teaching and theology on the boat they've chosen to fish from?

Would it become any more acceptable if there are other churches within walking distance that have a theology more in keeping with the small group? Or if the members of the same group felt "called" to bring their theology to the bigger church?

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

I don't have great attachment to the idea of a denomination so can't really advise on that. I have happily attended different denominations and have been more swayed by the quality of teaching and leadership, and the love shown by the community. There's lots I don't agree with in my current denomination, including male headship, but I find that the love within the congregation transcends this as it does many other issues.
I have got experience with local church splits though. The last Baptist church I attended had a very messy split, many members leaving and yet returning over the years to try to force votes of no confidence in the minister. And it was very ugly, with strangers turning up to shout accusations at meetings. Yet we stayed because the faithful (including the minister) continued to show love and concern for the congregation. It ended with the minister leaving having set the church on the way to recovery. We actually delayed leaving the church when we had scheduled to and I gather the church is now much stronger.
Unfortunately my next church was a far more heartbreaking experience. I have never witnessed such hatred in any other sphere of my life as I did in Trumpington. The behaviour of some members was beyond belief and truly hurtful. We stayed several years but decided to leave when we started to find excuses not to go to church. Greenbelt was the final straw, we finally felt relaxed and refreshed and decided not to stay at a church that could not love.
So, why stay at one church split and leave another? In our case it was the love of the congregation that was the deciding factor and it is the same that keeps us at our current church.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by CK:

quote:

Thinking of some of the issues that have forced me out.

How acceptable is it for a small group to attend one church as "the best boat to fish from" because it's the biggest in the area but get their "feeding" from summer camps at an entirely different denomination? Is it then acceptable for the same small group to force their teaching and theology on the boat they've chosen to fish from?

Would it become any more acceptable if there are other churches within walking distance that have a theology more in keeping with the small group? Or if the members of the same group felt "called" to bring their theology to the bigger church?

That is a difficult situation and one that can affect any church. I've seen it happen in a small church community and it can have truly devastating results. There are a lot of issues around this too; some of which likely can't be drawn out on a public board tot he extent that it would make a useful conversation, but I still think communication is the key to messy communities. It's important for the parish not to become a microcosm of the larger divisions in the church, but instead to find some way to move forward together in a positive sense, learning to deal with and cope with difference and learning to tolerate what sometimes would be intolerable for some -both ways obviously. There needs to the creation of a safe space to air differences and for people to have the willingness to really listen rather than empire build and invest the sheer amount of time and energy.

In any community it's easy to draw battle lines and to enact a seige mentality, but its harder to create a positive sense of a community moving forward together with a shared vision, but ultimately it is better for all involved. But its always going to be messy; interspersed with arguments, spats, bluster, power games and silliness, and a community where honesty is prized can also be painful for all involved. We like to think of community as easy, comfortable, loving, supportive and good, but community can also highlight our failings, the failings of others, the pain of being disjointed, embittered of having to have concern for the other even when you dislike everything they stand for.

I've seen a church that had an anglo catholic service and an evangelical service in the same building and I always thought they were two separate communities. But they weren't - they grew to love each other and respect one another and they enriched each other and they lived, worked and played together, and once a month they worshipped together. But the one thing that really took me by surprise was that the priest in charge said 'Yes it does work, but it was also costly. A lot of tears were shed to get to this moment'. I could only but admire that the congregation had taken up the challenge of it. I'm honestly not sure I could have, but it was inspiring just to know it was possible.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

Posted by ofeo:

quote:
It's several years ago now, but I recall getting involved in a thread about 'tolerance'. And I recall the conclusion that the one thing it was logically impossible for tolerance to tolerate was intolerance. [ ... ]

I just remember the conclusion. It's fundamentally impossible for a position based on accepting diversity of views to allow the view that diversity is unacceptable.

This makes great sense to me. I realize how fortunate I am to be a member of a parish whose commitment to inclusion fits my own very well.

It is difficult when the national church, as in
England, opposes you on what you think of as a matter of strong principle. But I could live with it, especially since this setback will be temporary. Tolerance is harder, and possibly not worth it, when it takes over one's own, local parish setting, the people you see, worship with, and work with every week.

If my parish were the kind in which a sizeable, vocal, influential group are actively in favor of this Synod vote, I think that I would drop out for a while, pray on it, talk with friends, and start doing research about alternatives.

This whole tolerance/intolerance thing is morally quite complex. Making the right decision takes time, though it eventually must be faced -- and action must be taken one way or the other.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

And here is my problem with this...

Periodically, threads get started complaining about how badly the Roman Catholic hierarchy treats dissenters. The most recent example of this was nuns in the United States. When I suggested those dissenters leave the Roman Catholic Church and join TEC, the idea was roundly rejected. How dare I suggest people leave their church? It is their church too, damn it!

Same thing happens when we have threads over the importance of the Creeds. You aren't Trinitarian? Don't believe in the Divinity of Christ? Join the Unitarians. They are a fine group of people. What do we get? How dare you try to exclude people who don't agree with you? Why does it have to be your way or the highway?

Now, a conservative wrench gets thrown into the progressive cog works and all of a sudden we want those who disagree with us to bugger off to Rome where they belong. Why? Isn't the COE their church too? Why do you want to exclude people?

It doesn't stop there. Let's imagine the shoe is on the other foot. Suppose those lay people had voted the progressive line against a conservative majority even though it meant voting against the position taken by their own diocese. How many of you would call it a brave group of lay people refusing to do what they are told by a bunch of reactionary clerics? How many of you would be applauding the lay people for being prophetic and speaking truth to power? Don't they owe it to their diocese to vote their conscience and not just go with the majority?

Be honest with yourself! The actual issue isn't as important as the principle. When in the majority, we should treat the minority the way we would wish to be treated if we are in the minority. If we don't, then we can't complain how we are those who hold similar opinions are treated when we or they are in the minority. Doing anything differently is simple hypocrisy. And, we know how Our Lord felt about hypocrites.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

A small group going against the grain of the wider church in a way that has no effect whatsoever on what anyone else in the church does is one thing. A small group going against the grain of the wider church in a way that totally prevents anyone else in the church from doing what they want is a different thing altogether.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

What 'wider church' are we talking about. If tis is a reference to the women bishops issue, the wider church - Rome, orthodoxy, does not have them. The c of e is only a small part of the wider, catholic church.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The OP is deliberately not talking about the CofE and women bishops. There are already three threads running on that. It's talking about the wider church in general.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Churches belonging to the same denomination are too interconnected for that. Nuns in the United States represent the Roman Catholic Church. What they teach and do very much has an impact on Roman Catholicism. Clergy who ignore the Creeds and teach whatever they damn well please impact the rest of the church and even more so if they are elected bishops. As a priest, I have to deal with the aftermath of decisions made by the national church or diocese regardless if I approve, disapprove, or don't care.

I think that's just more of the hypocrisy. If we get what we want, we don't care about the effects on others within our church or denomination. They all need to just get over it. If we don't get what we want, then how dare those selfish bastards not consider how their actions affect the rest of us.

I remember when Katharine Jefferts Schori was elected presiding bishop. There were people in my seminary class vehemently opposed to women bishops. The next day one of the professors told his class, "Even if you are upset about the new PB, I hope you can at least be happy for your female classmates." I doubt the same professor would be saying, "Even if you are upset about vote in the COE Synod, I hope you can at least be happy for those faithful, lifelong members of the COE who can in good conscience stay in the COE for at least another 5 years."

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think this boils down to personal discomfort with what's been going on in your local parish church, CK - essentially a very conservative bunch trying to foist their views onto everyone else.

I think I'd do the same as you if I lived in the same place, but I don't think I'd drop out of church entirely - I'd find another church to get involved with ... but I'm not you.

There must be other people with similar views/reactions where you've been. The leadership may be dealing with it well or they might be dealing with it badly ...

I'm not sure there's any right or wrong answer. You have your own personal tolerance level. Mine might be callibrated differently to yours - I've stuck it out longer at our local parish than I might otherwise have done. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, we're all different.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

A number of posters on both this and the other thread were suggesting that community and support of the church was important. So would you agree that lack of support and community would be a reason to leave a church?

When does community become a hindrance, and when a help?

@Gamaliel, I'm really trying to keep this impersonal and leave it as an open thread for others to discuss ideas, not my personal situation.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The OP is deliberately not talking about the CofE and women bishops. There are already three threads running on that. It's talking about the wider church in general.

I said on my first lengthy post on this thread that it was about the principle and it is. This type of hyporcisy on the part of those who use the language of tolerance and inclusivity reveals their words to be empty rhetoric at best and self righteous bullshit at worse. What those in progressive/mainline denominations really mean by tolerance and inclusivity is that we tolerate views not tolerated by Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and conservative Protestantss and and are include those who disagree so long as they keep their mouth shut and don't try to change anything. Well, by that definition, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and conservative Protestants are also tolerant and inclusive. They just tolerate beliefs not tolerated by progressive/mainline denominations.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Be honest with yourself! The actual issue isn't as important as the principle. When in the majority, we should treat the minority the way we would wish to be treated if we are in the minority. If we don't, then we can't complain how we are those who hold similar opinions are treated when we or they are in the minority. Doing anything differently is simple hypocrisy. And, we know how Our Lord felt about hypocrites.

When the issue in the church was racial integration, how should racists have been treated? Should their wish for an all-white church have been tolerated?

Next time there is a rector search committee in my parish, if there are people on the committee who want to rule out candidates solely because of their ethnic background, or because they use wheelchairs, how much of a hearing should their views receive? Should the other members of the committee agree to remove all such candidates from consideration?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

But Beeswax Altar - that's not answering the question about limits of tolerance, and when it is acceptable to have reached the end of tolerance.

You're stating that all churches are tolerant and intolerant to an extent, which I'm not disputing. You're then talking about those churches being hypocritical in forcing dissenters out, which I'm not disputing either.

What I'm asking is when is it acceptable for an individual to decide that they are being forced out, that the church is no longer for them?

It's all very well saying that the church shouldn't be doing this, but I know that, take it as read. It's how to handle the fall out when it does happen and what can be done in those situations.

The example Barnabas62 gave is exceptional, churches are not usually that good at letting people be and giving them space to move on and grieve.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I said on my first lengthy post on this thread that it was about the principle and it is. This type of hyporcisy on the part of those who use the language of tolerance and inclusivity reveals their words to be empty rhetoric at best and self righteous bullshit at worse. What those in progressive/mainline denominations really mean by tolerance and inclusivity is that we tolerate views not tolerated by Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and conservative Protestantss and and are include those who disagree so long as they keep their mouth shut and don't try to change anything. Well, by that definition, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and conservative Protestants are also tolerant and inclusive. They just tolerate beliefs not tolerated by progressive/mainline denominations.

You know what? You're right. Certain things are intolerable, and folks like me need to make that more clear.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I remember a period of time when I attended a United Methodist church in Chicago which had serious conflicts within the congregation. The U.M. church was formed by a merger of Methodists and Evangelical United Brethren, and at the local level, the merged congregations did not always get along well. I believe some people left as a result. Others left because the preacher kept mixing politics into his sermons.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Be honest with yourself! The actual issue isn't as important as the principle. When in the majority, we should treat the minority the way we would wish to be treated if we are in the minority. If we don't, then we can't complain how we are those who hold similar opinions are treated when we or they are in the minority. Doing anything differently is simple hypocrisy. And, we know how Our Lord felt about hypocrites.
When the issue in the church was racial integration, how should racists have been treated? Should their wish for an all-white church have been tolerated?

Next time there is a rector search committee in my parish, if there are people on the committee who want to rule out candidates solely because of their ethnic background, or because they use wheelchairs, how much of a hearing should their views receive? Should the other members of the committee agree to remove all such candidates from consideration?

I'm saying that if you don't truly tolerate people who hold certain opinions, then it is hypocritical to get upset when your opinions aren't tolerated by others in other denominations. My response to somebody kicked out of the KKK for preaching racial tolerance would be the same as to a priest kicked out of the RCC priesthood for blessing a same sex union. Leave and find a home someplace else. I also have no problem telling a priest in TEC who can't affirm the Trinity or the Divinity of Christ in any real way to stop functioning as an Episcopal priest.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Curiosity killed:
What I'm asking is when is it acceptable for an individual to decide that they are being forced out, that the church is no longer for them?

Depends on if you mean a local church or a denomination.

I'm all for trying different churches before making a commitment to one. People and local churches change. A new pastor might change the thing you most liked about a church. Whatever that is. You might decide to look for another church especially if your denomination has several in your area. On the other hand, you may change. In that case, the thing to do is admit that you've changed and leave instead of causing trouble by trying to get the rest of the church to change with you.

As to changing denomination, it's the same basic principle. Learn about the denomination before you join. You would be surprised at the number of people who join The Episcopal Church and are then surprised at how much power bishops have. Episcopalianism isn't for everybody. Fine. Just don't try to make TEC a Congregational church or pretend it ever was one. Go somewhere else.

Why you leave isn't the issue. My reasons would be different from your reasons. The issue is how you leave. Did the church really change or did you change? I grew up in very fundamentalist pentecostal churches. I'm now an Anglo-Catholic. I changed. They didn't. I would not expect Anglo-Catholicism to be tolerated by the Assembly of God or United Pentecostals. At the same time, I don't care if Anglo-Catholicism is unappealing to Pentecostals.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Okey-dokey, sorry about personalising it unduly, CK.

I think the general point stands, though, that we each have different 'tipping points'. But that's probably a truism and not worth saying.

I'll get my coat.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

Tolerance is often misunderstood. It isn't a soft position. It means "Now everyone sit down and play nicely." It doesn't work when you have people who will not play nicely - and they therefore have to be not tolerated. A no-kicking sign can be enforced with hobnailed boots.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Tolerance has become a rather meaningless concept. For you, some people won't play nice and don't have to be tolerated. No doubt you'll be willing to play referee and determine who is playing nice and who isn't. However, not everybody will accept you as the ultimate arbiter of who is naughty and who is nice. I dare say some will even decide you are among the naughty and don't have to be tolerated.

I note you are in favor of both tolerance and compromise only if you are allowed to define what they mean. Isn't everybody? Hell, let me define words any way I want and I can always be Batman.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Tolerance has become a rather meaningless concept.

Nonsense. Its not meaningless at all. Its the fundamental virtue of civilisation. The only alternative to a war of all against all.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

A brief observation that 'tolerance' seems to me to be in danger of conflation with 'acceptance' in general use. In which case, it _is_ meaningless.

To my mind it actively implies dissent - after all, if we agreed, I'd agree with you, not tolerate you.

In which case I guess the limits to tolerance occur when one runs out of (God-given) grace to put up with ideas / actions one disagrees with. Some level of tolerance may remain - I may not find it necessary to kill you - but I may no longer want to eat / worship / work with you.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

As for "when is it time to leave a church?", I'd suggest that when they clearly don't really want you is a pretty good point to pick.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
As for "when is it time to leave a church?", I'd suggest that when they clearly don't really want you is a pretty good point to pick.

Isn't that fairly self-evident? The dilemmas and difficulties come from the other end, where they want you around but you're not sure that you want to be there.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:

To my mind it actively implies dissent - after all, if we agreed, I'd agree with you, not tolerate you.

In which case I guess the limits to tolerance occur when one runs out of (God-given) grace to put up with ideas / actions one disagrees with. Some level of tolerance may remain - I may not find it necessary to kill you - but I may no longer want to eat / worship / work with you.

This.

The sense of "running out of" willingness to live with the differences to such an extent that you need space, need to break away.

And what Gumby said.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Or when some parts of the church want you around, and other groups are making it clear they don't. When do you continue to support those who want support and when do you cut your losses and walk away?

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

I think it's kind of interesting that of all the people I know, those who talk the most about wanting others to be tolerant seem to be the least tolerant people in my circle of friends and acquaintances. I sure do hope I'm wrong, and that they actually are the most tolerant. But actions, they say, speak louder than words....

I think one problem that surfaces is that some people want to be tolerant of others, but they fear that doing so somehow compromises some closely-held belief (which may or may not be a Dead Horse), which in turn means that they are upsetting God. That seems a ridiculous problem, at first, but I do believe these folks are sincere. They want to do right by God, as they understand it, and when that comes into conflict with what others are doing they choose what they understand to be God's will over being tolerant of others. In other words, loving God becomes more important than loving others -- even though loving others is a form of loving God.

That's not true of everyone, by any means. There are a bunch of mean gits who go to church, and who cannot seem to play nicely no matter what. There are also many who do not have much patience with the people I outlined above, for whatever reason.

As for me, I don't quite know how I stand. I sympathize with those who don't want to compromise what God wants, while also understanding those who say that getting along is more important. I tend toward the latter, because God gives grace, and so should I. That doesn't mean I have to do whatever it is that person is doing, and it doesn't mean (to me, anyway) that being nice to that person equals condoning that person's actions.

Tolerance is great. I just wish those who talk about it would actually do it. Tolerance means being nice to others when you have a disagreement -- whether that person is more "liberal" than I am, or more "conservative".

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
That doesn't mean I have to do whatever it is that person is doing

Except when it does. Such as, say, the recent unpleasantness where tolerating the beliefs of a minority means none of us can have female bishops, however much we may want to.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Or when some parts of the church want you around, and other groups are making it clear they don't. When do you continue to support those who want support and when do you cut your losses and walk away?

When you are at the end of your tether, I think. I also think changes to social limits on tolerance tend to be determined by individuals saying "Up with this I can and will no longer put" and others joining them, saying "you're right; it's wrong".

[ 24. November 2012, 08:14: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's several years ago now, but I recall getting involved in a thread about 'tolerance'. And I recall the conclusion that the one thing it was logically impossible for tolerance to tolerate was intolerance.

I'm not going to attempt to dredge the details of the argument up out of the depths of memory just now, not least because it's midnight. I just remember the conclusion. It's fundamentally impossible for a position based on accepting diversity of views to allow the view that diversity is unacceptable

I think there's a flip side to that argument. If you tolerate everything you don't stand for anything except tolerance.

Whether it's churches or nations or clubs or any other human institution, what the institution stands for is exactly what it does not tolerate dissent from.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Not really. An institution or individual can stand up against something without trying to destroy or persecute or punish their opponents.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

This thread brings up so many thoughts on my part. I have witnessed two major splits in the Lutheran Synods I have attended, and then there is one time when I was forced to leave a congregation.

First, the splits in the Synods--in the Lutheran Church in America there are several major Lutheran bodies and they refer to themselves as Synods. The first Synodical split I experienced was when I was in the Missouri Synod. Back in the sixties, a conservative movement took over the Synod and made moves to instill its perspective on Concordia Seminary in St Louis. That took over 15 years to accomplish. There were several investigations, the faculty had to defend their teachings,and the Board of Control was loaded with conservative people until it reached a tipping point and the president of the seminary was discharged for harboring false doctrine. The faculty and students walked out. At the time of the walk out I was just returning from an internship that had to be terminated due to the untimely death of my supervisor. I was less than one hour away when it was announced over the radio that the faculty had been fired. Talk about walking into a spiritual firestorm! It was so confusing that I sought shelter in an American Lutheran Church Seminary. I stayed there for two years to let the dust settle.

When I thought it was safe to go back I returned to the Missouri Synod, only because I had the endorsement of the Missouri Synod to become a military chaplain. I was able to serve some parishes that were more liberal in their thinking so it was not much of a problem for me. That is until I made a mistake of accepting a call to a parish that I later found out had forced its previous pastors out for various reasons. I was able to hang on for five years before the group forced me out. My sin? Not cowtowing to the powers that were--pointing out to them that their constitution said the parish council was there to assist the pastor in the ministry of the church. They thought the council should have control of what the pastor said or did.

The last, most recent struggle, has been the reaction to the ELCA's Human Sexuality statement and the decision to allow ministers who where in committed same sex relationships. If one looked at the Human Sexuality statement, one would be struck by how tolerant the document was of the various views. Even in the decision to allow for ministers in same sex relationships, there was the stipulation that no parish would be forced to accept such a minister if it was not comfortable with the relationship. However, there was a sizable group who could not tolerate the openness of document or the decision to other viewpoints.

I am not sure of how many parishes or ministers have left the ELCA so far. The process is still on going.

Somethings I have learned from the experience: First, as in the case of the first two experiences, I remembered the instruction of Jesus when he sent out his disciples he told them that when they went into a village, they should say peace be with you. If that peace was returned, they should stay there, if that peace was not, they should move on "shaking the dust off their feet."

When the Missouri Synod split up the group that was forced to leave actually became the catalyst for the development of the ELCA. When I was forced to leave my last parish I joined the ELCA and have been in a very vibrant congregation since. The lesson has been God is in control and everything will work out according to God's plan.

In the case of the more current split, God is still in control, and while I am not sure were it is still going, I firmly believe it is still in God's plan.

For those who are leaving because they could not tolerate more openness, church history does not suggest they will have a long life. They are on the wrong side of history. No one can say how long it will take, a generation, two generations, three?

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Hmm - Gramps49; given a longer perspective, including the various liberal denominations of the 19th century that are now a shadow of their former selves, such as the Unitarians and many brands of Presbyterianism, I suspect your confidence that the more 'open' always win out is a distorted perspective. Certainly in England the statistics suggest that the Methodists and United Reform church are declining faster than the Anglicans.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0