|
Recently I was meeting a friend for lunch at a local restaurant, and he happened to bring along a person who I had not met before. I'll call this new acquaintance “Frank.” As the lunchtime conversation between the three of us came to close and we prepared to return to work, it came out that I was studying for a Ph.D. in theology. This revelation brought on a passionate outburst from Frank. “I can't wait for the day when all religions finally figure out how to believe the same thing-I can't wait for all religions to finally become tolerant!” Frank's deeply passionate exclamation reflects a point of view that is distressingly becoming more common. This view holds that tolerance is defined as everyone believing the exact same thing, at least with regard to religion. This view has been appearing with increasing frequency in all levels of our culture, and the more it is used in this sense, the stronger it will become. First of all, this view doesn't make any sense. The religions of the world are vastly and intrinsically different. Some points of view simply cannot be reconciled into sameness. Recently, a priest in Seattle declared that she was both Muslim and Christian-a heresy in both faiths. Despite her desire to find that both faiths are fundamentally the same, the truth is that they are not. Christianity embraces the doctrine of the Trinity, which states, in part, that Jesus is God (along with the Father and the Holy Spirit), and that he is the “only begotten son” (John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). An English translation of a copy of the Quran claims that the Trinity is horrific heresy and that one should “believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not 'Three' - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son” (4.171). This is one example taken from many fundamental, incompatible differences between religions. Some things are simply not compatible with each other-a shape cannot be both a triangle and a square at the same time. Is it truly “tolerance” when one abandons common sense for delusion? Ignoring the issue of vast religious incompatibilities for now, there are others who argue that none of the religions are actually tolerant in their current form, and that tolerance will only be found when all the religions change their different believes to match each other. A quick visit to dictionary.com is all it takes to begin unraveling support for this erroneous view. The first definition offered is as follows: “a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry” (emphasis added). Tolerance, by definition, deals with things that are different. If there isn't difference, then there is no possibility for tolerance to exist. In other words, in order for religions to be tolerant of each other, they must have different beliefs. If all religions believed the same thing, then there would be nothing to tolerate. Tolerance is not a process by which different points of view change until they become the same point of view. That is known as syncretism, and syncretism is very different from tolerance. For example, would we ever define racial tolerance as causing races A and B to morph into race C? Would we define tolerance as races A, B, and C losing their individual characteristics and instead becoming a hybrid of A-B-C in equal proportions with no discernable differences? Of course not! In fact, we would probably label these views as racist and full of hatred. They're certainly intolerant. We don't define racial tolerance as racial syncretism, just as we don't define tolerance in other areas as syncretism. We have multiple political parties, multiple musical styles, multiple approaches to psychology, and many different ways to treat cancer. We tolerate-and even celebrate-these differences. Yet, with regard to religion, tolerance is increasingly counter-defined as syncretism. In reality this new “tolerance” is a smoke screen by which anti-religious bigots can advance their intolerance on the rest of society, all the while hoping to appear morally superior and socially acceptable. Those who proudly proclaim that all religions need to be exactly the same display amazing ignorance in an approach that is manipulative and disingenuous. Far from being tolerant, syncretism demands loss of identity while imposing monolithic singularity. True religious tolerance starts with an acknowledgement that we have vastly different beliefs, and it is followed by the view that it is o.k. to have these different beliefs-even if we disagree with them completely. This is not universalism or inclusionism. This is not the belief that all religions are ultimately true and that everyone will be saved or enlightened regardless of their beliefs. Instead, religious tolerance agrees that religions are different and incompatible in many ways, particularly with regard to salvation or its equivalent. But, while we may try to convince one another that our particular view is correct (just like we do with politics, gardening, and sports), we should do so respectfully, truthfully, and in an educated manner. Just a few hours after my lunchtime conversation with Frank, I received an email from a family that I know and love. They are a devout family who have dedicated their lives and sacrificed much during their life-long service of Christ. However, this email spoke of the conspiracy and great danger with another religion, and it urged people to spread the word and forward the email for the sake of all. It stated, in part:
Unfortunately, the email's claims about the other religion were severely distorted and inaccurate. To forward this mail would be to forward something that is false and intolerant. We need to deal with our differences in an informed and truthful manner, and we shouldn't use ignorance as an excuse. I think that Paul set a great example for us to follow. While in Athens he went to the top of Mars Hill and engaged in serious conversation with the philosophers who gathered there. Paul understood Greek culture and religion, and he was able to communicate truthfully using terms and a frame of reference that they understood. This approach was educated, informed, and respectful, even though it communicated a fundamentally different point of view. Some believed what he presented, although many did not. Regardless, he was tolerant, educated, and sensitive, even though he disagreed and taught a new point of view. Far from being bigoted and intolerant, this is a model of the true religious tolerance that we should strive for.
|
