Aug 2006
Tolerance vs. Acceptance
I've been pondering the difference between acceptance
and tolerance. It's easy to get them confused,
especially with regards to Christian beliefs and
practice. The Bible says we are to
Depending on how old your dictionary is you will find varying definitions for the word, "tolerance". It used to mean simply, "the act of putting up with or allowing something". This definition implies that the thing you are tolerating is something not wanted or not approved of. You don't "tolerate" something that you like, or agree with, or of which you approve.
Contemporary dictionaries provide somewhat new definitions. Mirriam-Webster's dictionary defines tolerance as: "sympathy, indulgence, respect, or recognition for beliefs or practices different from one's own." The organization Tolerance.org cites UNESCO's definition as representing their own: "respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human." The main difference here is that now, you must not only abide or put up with the thing you are tolerating, but you must also respect, sympathize with, appreciate, and accept it.
I have my own convictions on what "tolerance" means and embrace the Mennonite approach to discerning truth, beliefs, core values (i.e., convictions), and church doctrine. I still see tremendous value in those things. Nevertheless, for the sake of discussion and community-building, I'd like to pose a few rhetorical questions to you readers out there. Trust me, I don't have any agenda whatsoever behind this blog entry or the questions that follow. Your views or responses will in no way jeopardize your standing in the church or with me.
1. Is it possible to tolerate a belief or practice while disapproving of it or believing it to be wrong?
2. What about the person who refuses to indulge, accept, appreciate, or sympathize with another's beliefs and practices but still respects another's right to their own opinion? Is he intolerant?
And while you're at it, what about these questions:
4. What do you think, if anything, is bad about defining "tolerance" the way UNESCO does?
5. What do you think, if anything, is good about defining tolerance this way UNESCO does?
6. And what do you think of Chesterton's statement? What was he getting at?
You can respond to these questions by clicking "comments" link below. Let's get a discussion started!
Well, where does tolerance and acceptance fit in with our convictions? G.K. Chesterton said, "Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." I believe he was ahead of his time in this comment as he was in many other observations."accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God." (Romans 15:7).
Depending on how old your dictionary is you will find varying definitions for the word, "tolerance". It used to mean simply, "the act of putting up with or allowing something". This definition implies that the thing you are tolerating is something not wanted or not approved of. You don't "tolerate" something that you like, or agree with, or of which you approve.
Contemporary dictionaries provide somewhat new definitions. Mirriam-Webster's dictionary defines tolerance as: "sympathy, indulgence, respect, or recognition for beliefs or practices different from one's own." The organization Tolerance.org cites UNESCO's definition as representing their own: "respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human." The main difference here is that now, you must not only abide or put up with the thing you are tolerating, but you must also respect, sympathize with, appreciate, and accept it.
I have my own convictions on what "tolerance" means and embrace the Mennonite approach to discerning truth, beliefs, core values (i.e., convictions), and church doctrine. I still see tremendous value in those things. Nevertheless, for the sake of discussion and community-building, I'd like to pose a few rhetorical questions to you readers out there. Trust me, I don't have any agenda whatsoever behind this blog entry or the questions that follow. Your views or responses will in no way jeopardize your standing in the church or with me.
1. Is it possible to tolerate a belief or practice while disapproving of it or believing it to be wrong?
2. What about the person who refuses to indulge, accept, appreciate, or sympathize with another's beliefs and practices but still respects another's right to their own opinion? Is he intolerant?
And while you're at it, what about these questions:
4. What do you think, if anything, is bad about defining "tolerance" the way UNESCO does?
5. What do you think, if anything, is good about defining tolerance this way UNESCO does?
6. And what do you think of Chesterton's statement? What was he getting at?
You can respond to these questions by clicking "comments" link below. Let's get a discussion started!
|
