What is tolerance anyway?!

I've been thinking recently about the subject of "tolerance". Tolerance has become one of the buzzwords of our day. It has taken a few years but tolerance has morphed into a "whole new animal" from what it once meant.

In its original meaning, "tolerance" meant putting up with things that you didn't deem to be correct. In actuality, tolerance - by definition - requires that there be dissonance between the individual's preference and what is being "tolerated".

In today's rendition of the word you must approve of anything and everything or you are deemed intolerant. ...and intolerance is deemed the worst ill of our society. The worst ill, that is, if you are intolerant of certain things. (As I write this, a cross has been removed from federal lands – by apparent vandals – after a court case questioning the constitutionality of the cross, though it is not a religious symbol any more than the thousands of crosses in Arlington National Cemetery. Intolerance toward supposed religious symbols seems to be acceptable.)

Recently, in a men's group meeting I was facilitating, one of the guys chimed in on the topic of tolerance when I mentioned it. He said, "I know about tolerance because I was a machinist!" He went on to explain that from a machinist's point of view, tolerance is the amount of deviation from the assigned specification a part can be machined without it being rejected. The implication is that items outside of “tolerance” are rejected.

In the "good ole' days" tolerance was measured in 100ths of an inch. As long as you stayed within the acceptable range of tolerance the parts were acceptable. If your part fell outside the acceptable range, the part was rejected. So you see, tolerance is the line between acceptance and rejection, not the ability to accept anything and everything.

A machinist must be held to this standard for rather obvious reasons. In the world of machinery, parts must be a certain size and shape or the machine will not function properly. Imagine taking your car to your mechanic and he says, "I don't have the right part, but I can use this bolt and some paper clips and have you back on the road in no time!" Confident? I think not.

However, in our society, we have decided to toss out such standards in every sphere EXCEPT for machinery. We seem to think that we can suspend judgment (and logic) on all matters, tolerate ANYTHING and all will be well. Why do we think this will work in matters of morality, when we know it won't work in any other sphere?

When it comes to morality, we seem to think that the machinist can make the part anyway he chooses and when we try to run the mechanism all will be well. No need to measure, or to verify a good fit. We just dump in whatever we have, and expect that the society will flourish.

I do not advocate intolerance. I am simply saying that if we want to insist on tolerance, we must understand what tolerance actually is. If we want our society to work, we need to understand that there must be some design specification, and there must be a line between acceptance and rejection before we can ever begin to measure tolerance. “Everything goes” is not the order of the day for a tolerant society.

Book Review: 5 Cities that Ruled the World

5 Cities that Ruled the World
by Douglas Wilson

Belief, thought, self-rule, imagination and commerce; these are key elements that have lasting effect on human culture. Douglas Wilson has taken a unique perspective on the development of these themes and their ongoing effect on modern culture. In “5 Cities that Ruled the World”, Douglas Wilson views these significant elements through the lens of five individual cities.

While there are a multitude of cities that could be seen to have significant effect on modern culture and belief, Douglas Wilson has chosen five specific cities very specific reasons. This is an interesting book comparing and contrasting some of the most important cities in human history. By the time you’ve read through each city, you understand why he chose the cities that he did.

Jerusalem gave us the spirit. Athens gave us reason. Rome gave us love. London gave us literature. New York gave us industry and commerce.

Throughout the book, Wilson points out that these different places have given us the freedom to believe, to think, to rule ourselves, to imagine, and to make money. Along with these freedoms come bad, evil, and undesirable things, but in the long run the truth, the beautiful, and the good will be remembered.

The book was well-written and free from “insider” jargon. I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in world history, or anyone interested in cultural trends and their roots. I found the book a pleasure to read and look forward to sharing it with my friends.

“5 Cities that Ruled the World”; each of these cities has good and bad points. Years later, we remember the good, and continue to learn from that good that emanates from these “Cities that Ruled the World”.

Prayer...a civil right?

Tomorrow is the National Day of Prayer here in the United States. It has been pretty much in the media of late, because of a few political situations surrounding the event. It is sad that a thing as simple as prayer has become a divisive political issue. Politics in the US has become such a polarized affair that just about anything can become a divisive issue.

One of the politically-charged issues that has netted significant attention is the fact that Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, was dis-invited to the National Day of Prayer observance at the Pentagon (HQ for the U.S. military) because of the objections of a Muslim activist group. Many are upset, believing that the rescinded invitation is bowing to a tiny minority, while offending the Christian majority in the U.S.

In another case, Senior U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Crabb, of the District Court in Madison, Wisconsin ruled that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. The "Freedom From Religion Foundation" filed the suit, saying that such an establishment of prayer was not legal. (It is interesting to note that their foundation's name is anti-constitutional, since the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion...not freedom FROM religion....)

Lately I've been thinking about some of these political issues and contrasting them with what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2. In 1 Timothy, Paul urges us to pray for our political leaders and all leaders. He goes on to say that the reason we should be praying is so that we can live peaceful and Godly lives. Further, he says that the reason we live Godly lives is so that others can come to know Jesus because God is not willing for ANY to live and die without knowing Jesus.

So...do we need a nationally recognized event, one day per year, to fulfill this urgent request from Paul? I say no. Is the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional? I say no. The bigger issue is that we are prone to spend so much energy on preserving our "constitutional rights" that we spend NO energy praying! This cannot be good!

I contend that open prayer - even on government property (gasp!) - is our constitutional right. When the president, a governor or any other public official begins to establish a "National Religion" they are crossing the line set out in the Constitution proscribing as unacceptable any "establishment of religion". The National Day of Prayer is not such an establishment. While I would argue that it is our constitutional right to pray, I would argue more loudly that we don't need the governments permission to pray. More that a Constitutional right, prayer is a God-given privilege paid for and provided by Jesus! I think we need to quite "fighting for our rights" and start praying.

I say don't wait for the National Day of Prayer to exercise your rights! Pray often. Pray every day. Shucks...go ahead....pray without ceasing! And while you're at it, pray for our government leaders. They are facing a lot of adversity and division. They need wisdom beyond their own ability. I know only one source for that wisdom...and prayer is the conduit!

...been thinking about humility...

I've spent a lot of time lately thinking about humility. Humility doesn't get a lot of press these days. It is a hidden attribute and definitely not something you see displayed very often.

I had an interesting interchange recently with one of the most arrogant people I've ever come across - or at least he used language to seem that way. After a couple of rounds of interaction in which he did all in his power to humiliate me and never answered a simple question I asked, I'd had enough. I wrote a couple of paragraphs in which I took a few sarcastic jabs and then proceeded to point out how juvenile he seemed in his use of words. I really wanted to help this guys see how he was coming across.

...and then it dawned on me. Was I really going to get through? Did my sarcastic jabs do anything to help me reach out to him? Did my references to "Jr. High" to describe his attitude have much chance of helping him get better? No, if I really wanted to reach out to him, I needed to respond in humility. It meant I had to do more than use self-deprecating humor. I had to express real humility to him.

In the end, it meant that I had to delete all the trash I had written - thank heaven I hadn't pressed "Send" yet! - and quietly express humility. I simply said, "You didn't answer my question yet :-)" and left it at that. It felt better than anything I had written to him before, and he hasn't responded to me yet.

Do I have a "right" to not be humiliated? No. (Surprise! Oprah probably never pointed that out to you!) I claim to follow Jesus Christ with my life. Look at a couple of things from the Bible about what we can expect if we actually follow Jesus:

Jesus said:
Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. (John 15:20)

Paul wrote:
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

Jesus did have the right to be exalted but he chose to humble himself. If I'm going to follow Him, I'll have to follow in His footsteps. (Not exactly the most profound thing I've ever written, I'll admit! But a profound concept nonetheless!)

How about you? How do you battle against humiliation and humility? I'd love to hear about your journey as well!