Tolerance vs. Acceptance

Calvin and Hobbes are copyright Bill Waterson

About a month ago I got in a discussion with someone about the difference between Tolerance and Acceptance. Before we continue, let's define these two terms in the context of this discussion so that we understand just what we're talking about:

Acceptance refers, quite plainly, to whether or not you accept something as being right, correct, or most appropriate.
Tolerance might be described as the allowance of something to exist despite feelings that it should to the contrary. Hence a person might be said to "tolerate" the subject.

I'll demonstrate these differences first with a silly example, then move on to a better one.

My coworkers and I (much to our fault) enjoy imbibing energy drinks from time to time. However, while I prefer Monster energy drinks and have a mild distaste for Red Bull, they're both fans of Red Bull and have a distaste for Monster. In this situation, I do not have Acceptance for their drink preference - however, I have Tolerance for it. If they start talking about how much they love Red Bull (provided they don't do it for two hours) I don't try to silence them by shouting them down. I permit them to state their opinion, and then I give mine if conscience demands it.

Now for a better example, this one regarding faith and religion: I do not believe Buddhism is the true faith, nor do I believe it to be a true religion (insofar as it is the right religion). I could not nor could I ever be a Buddhist. I do not, therefore, have Acceptance in regards to Buddhism. However, do I believe that Buddhists should be persecuted for their beliefs? Do I believe the American government should ban Buddhism? Do I believe that Buddhist priests should be forbidden from performing their rituals? Do I believe Buddhist holy books should be burned and forbidden from being published? Absolutely, positively not. I firmly believe Buddhists should be left alone to worship as they see fit, and do not believe the government should interfere in any way so long as the individual Buddhist obeys the law. In this regard, I have Tolerance for Buddhism, because even though I do not accept it as the true religion, I tolerate its existence alongside my own faith.

Here comes an important question then: is there a visible difference between the two? In some ways there can be. If I engage in dialogue with a Buddhist and discuss the topic of faith and spirituality in a calm demeanor, not talking over him or yelling him down, then I am showing that I do not have Acceptance but I have Tolerance. That is, I display the lack of Acceptance in my disagreement, but I show Tolerance in permitting the Buddhist to state his beliefs without directly intruding upon them in any manner other than my disagreement.

One might now be asking: Why is this long discussion necessary? I answer because of two reason: 1) the necessity for such a difference in a free society; 2) to tame a dangerous flame sweeping through the post-modern world.

1) In a free society where ideas can be exchanged, a difference between Acceptance and Toleration must be permitted. How else can different political parties be permitted to exist? Democrats and Republicans cannot coexist unless some Tolerance is present, even if Acceptance does not exist between the two of them. A truly free society should permit the variety of ideas to exist on the basis of Tolerance but not Acceptance. Note here that I said ideas should be permitted, not necessarily actions. A person who believes women should never have a job should, within a truly free society, be permitted to at least have such an opinion even if, by law, he is required to hire on equal terms between men and women.

2) In our time, the line is blurred between Acceptance and Tolerance, so that most people will not accept Tolerance unless it first complies with Acceptance. Such people would look to the earlier example with the Buddhist and myself and declare me intolerant for simply disagreeing with the Buddhist. In such a situation, a society becomes closer to George Orwell's 1984, with its concept of "thoughtcrime" or "crimethink," than it does any model for democracy. In many areas of the west, it is not enough to merely tolerate contrary thought...you must accept it heart, body and soul as well. To refuse to accept is considered a grave crime, and the person is labeled as deficient in thought on this basis alone. This places many ideologies not equal with others, but superior to others.

All of this is why the need for an understanding of how acceptance and tolerance are different needs to be expressed and discussed further among the populace today.

When Christians Trust in an Arm of Flesh

As the American election season draws closer and closer to voting day, I find that I seem to have a problem bonding with brothers and sisters who are more politically motivated that I am. Usually the conversation goes something like this:

Person: "Oh wow! You have to look more into this candidate! They're so amazing! They're going to save our country! Go to their website! Read their book!"
Me: "No thanks."
Person: "Why not? Don't you care?"
Me: "I do care, I just trust God more."

This is usually followed by me being accused of being something equal to a fatalist, but I wouldn't say I'm a fatalist. It's just when it comes to politics, I'm simply a cynic. The original Cynics, of course, were ancient Greek philosophers who were known for being doubtful of government, religious, and social bodies doing any good for humanity. Once upon a time I was very big into politics and political thought, but over time - as I observed what could only be described as stupidity exercising equal opportunity - I began to doubt the capabilities of the political machine. As I became more and more mature in my understanding of a Christian worldview, I likewise began to become cynical towards the idea that a man-made structure completely inhabited by fallible men could, on its own, do any great amount of good. It's not that I don't vote, and it's not that I don't have opinions on certain topics - it's simply that I don't see any reason to give passionate devotion to what appears to be an inherently flawed system made of individuals who themselves are inherently flawed.

I said, all this isolates me from my more political brothers and sisters. Republican Christians become upset with me because I don't trust the government enough. Libertarian Christians get upset with me because I trust the government too much. Democrat Christians get upset with me because I question their salvation. The Communists, Socialists and Anarchists...well, they're a special breed altogether. In any case which might come up, I tend to isolate myself when the political cynicism appears.

In all these conversations, I can't help but notice that the greatest hostility seems to come in regards to God's sovereignty in the midst of elections and political actions. When I bring up that I trust God will still be in control regardless of who wins the election or what our government does, people seem to lash out at such a notion. It will either be interpreted as putting too much emphasis on God's control or too little emphasis on man's involvement in the affairs of the world.

On this point, it is simply astounding that, for many people, God seems to permit complete and utter freedom among political bodies. He controls hurricanes, He aids individuals in their individual life problems, and even offers salvation for all mankind...but assistance in a political election? Whoa! Wait a minute now, that's going too far! It is no wonder then that so many of the hyper-political Christians I talk to, when they switch topics from politics to theology, seem to espouse what can only be described as deism. Many don't like this label being applied to them, but this is what one comes to when following their theology through to its logical conclusion. They believe God's there, yes...but He's far away. He won't meddle in the affairs of the mortal children and their elections.

Some responses are even more peculiar. I covered in another post an interesting argument where the person essentially said that yes, in olden times God controlled the fate of kingdoms...but democracy was that one form of government He could not touch, since there were no kings. Logically speaking, of course, that meant man had discovered and instituted a form of government that completely eludes God's sovereign will. Man in essence one-upped God, and God is up in heaven waving his fists and crying out, "Curse you and your democracy!"

The root of all this may be that many who call themselves Christian today are placing their trust in an arm of flesh. The term "arm of flesh" is from 2 Chronicles 32:8, where King Hezekiah says regarding Sennacherib of Assyria: "With him is an arm of flesh, but with us is the LORD our God, to help us and to fight our battles." To many self-proclaimed Christians today, the good that comes down to society must come down from Washington, not from heaven. This goes for both liberals and conservatives: liberals believe religion has no place in government and that the people must look to the government for the needs of the people; conservatives believe that all those who believe in deity must band together to get the government back on track, and whether this fellowship involves solely Christians or Christians along with Jews, Muslims, Mormons or otherwise is irrelevant.

Both of these beliefs have two things in common: 1) they throw emphasis on human institutions over God; 2) they are an entirely horizontal view of society and God. That is, they are both views of theology that deal solely with human interaction within government. Liberals demand that humans bring about change through the government, whereas conservatives demand believers band together to bring about change in the government. God has no real place in these two systems, for He is unwanted in the one and minimalized in the other. Our trust either way is not truly on God, but on ourselves first and foremost and secondarily on our government. Our trust, therefore, is in an arm of flesh.

So in 2012 Americans will go out and vote, and we will have either the same president as before or a new president altogether. Some good might come from it, some bad, maybe both. In either case, I'm not terribly concerned about what will occur. God will still be in control, despite how high our voting participation is or how qualified the candidate is who wins. There will still be one God reigning in heaven and on earth, and the church will still be made up of His people, regardless of borders, nationalities or political parties. God bless.

The Struggle Against Reality

This is from Monty Python's 1979 film Life of Brian. It's a little shocking how this scene is incredibly relevant to today's society.

Of God and Government

The separation of church and state is a perpetual discussion in modern western democracy that can often lead to heated arguments. On the one hand, someone always drops the Spanish Inquisition card, while, on the other hand, many will point to the persecution of various religions by communist and socialist governments.

In regards to religion itself, there can be a fine weakness in seeking government support in toto for your faith: your are at the whim and mercy of the government itself. The emperors of Rome throughout the fourth century meddled in the affairs of the church, both for good and bad. This might lead to an interesting the Arians sought their power from governmental support, and so when the empire eventually came to side completely with the Nicene faith, the Arians completely lost power. By contrast, the Nicene faith based itself on the grounds of scripture disregarding the opinion of the government, and so it could survive the tides of emperors who were oppositional, neutral, or supportive. God's word is eternal; political powers are not. Yet even ignoring the actions of individual Christians in regards to government involvement, I think a deeper question here is one that is not often addressed: God's involvement within the actions of a government system.

First, it should be established that God has, in the past, plainly stated that He was the one truly in control of the affairs of state. When the Assyrian king was looking at his massive, expansive empire and saying, "By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this" (Isa 10:13), God replied:

Is the axe to boast itself over the one who chops with it? Is the saw to exalt itself over the one who wields it? That would be like a club wielding those who lift it, or like a rod lifting him who is not wood. [Isa 10:15]

When Sennacherib besieged Jerusalem and was boasting to the Jews of what he had done with his empire, and all the successes he had won against nations bigger than Judah, God replied through the prophet Isaiah:

"'Have you not heard? Long ago I did it; from ancient times I planned it. Now I have brought it to pass, that you should turn fortified cities into ruinous heaps.'" [2 Kings 19:25]

God's point in both these passages is clear: though the leaders boasted that it was they who had done these great things, it was actually God who was in control the entire time. On the one hand, the king was simply the axe which God wielded to exercise His judgment; on the other hand, the king only had so much success during his reign because God had long ago planned that it should occur. In neither scenario was God merely reacting to what the kings had done, nor was God utilizing earthly means outside of His control to His own personal ends.

An even greater example is found in Paul's epistle to the Romans, where he speaks of Pharaoh being raised up by God:

For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." [Rom 9:17; ref. Exo 9:16]

Let me expel a common straw man right off the bat: this does not mean that God controls political leaders like puppets or robots that He controls with a remote control. Pharaoh, the kings, etc., had as much control as they believed they had. However, God's will and purpose was sovereign over their individual wills and purposes. The kings of Assyria, for certain, all believed that they were really the ones in charge of their own destinies and empires, but in actuality God had complete, sovereign control over their fate. Their growth in power was merely part of God's purpose for His will.

This leads us to discuss how God interacts with governments in our modern day and age. Over the past few days, I've heard some rather peculiar things in regards to this, and, living in a democracy, they are very relevant: 1) God only involves himself within a democracy if people pray for the results; 2) God did not bring any president to power because the previously mentioned passages in the Bible are referring to hereditary kings and not elected officials.

Responding to the latter first, this is a blatant example of begging the question. Nowhere does God say that He only has power over a government if there is a hereditary monarchy in place. The only reason hereditary monarchies are focused on in the Old Testament and partially in the New is because no real democracies were interacting with the land and people at that time. Likewise, it was never emphasized that the kings were used solely because they belonged to a hereditary form of government - God emphasized that it was their power He was raising and utilizing, not their monarchical structure.

Might I propose that this, logically speaking, also means man found a way to usurp God's will and purpose? Since representative democracies, republics, etc., are all man-made forms of government, reason follows that we are now arguing that man found a form of government which God's will and purpose cannot touch. Man, in essence, found a loophole in the system, in which governments can act contrary to God's final purpose.

Moving to the first part second, nowhere is it shown that God is limited by the collective decisions of individuals. To understand this, let's review one of the biggest "elections" in the New Testament:

Pilate said to them, "Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all said, "Crucify Him!" [Matt 27:22]

Pilate held one of the biggest referendums in history: should Jesus be crucified? The resounding answer from the population: yes. Was this something God could not control? On the contrary - God had already predestined this to occur.

For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. [Acts 4:27-28]

Even in the willful decision of the Jewish population, Christ was in control. The election, in fact, was part of God's purpose. The Jews did not pray before "electing" to crucify Christ, yet their decision still fulfilled His purpose (the crucifixion, resurrection, etc.). To the disciples and many others, things were not going the way they had hoped. Everything seemed lost. Yet, to put it colloquially, it was, for God, "all part of the plan." Even in the lowest moment of man's treatment of God, God was nowhere near thwarted, and the will of those who crucified Christ was still subservient to the ultimate will of God. Even in the case of elections, referendums, or general public decisions, God is as much in control as He is in the general decisions of hereditary monarchies.

The point of all this is to present that, regardless of governmental decisions, God is still in control. Whether the president whom we want to be elected is elected or not, God is not thwarted. This also means, whether we like the president or not, he is there by God's will and purpose. We will not know how he fits there until perhaps decades after his terms are over, but nonetheless this is a theological truth we cannot deny.

In all things - whether we discover the truth sooner or later - soli Deo gloria.