How Do We Live With Our Differences?
Bible Study
Questions Of Faith For Inquiring Believers
For those thinking about a career with significant employment possibilities, let me suggest training to become a cartographer. The people at the National Geographic Society report a booming business in mapmaking. Since the end of World War II, the number of countries in the world has doubled and it is estimated that the number of countries may double again. How ironic that even as science and technology make the distances between people smaller and smaller, the lines on the maps that divide human community multiply as rapidly as spider-web cracks in a car's broken windshield.
Unfortunately, growth in the mapmaking business demonstrates the fragmentation that characterizes the times in which we live. In recent years, tribal wars, religious violence, ethnic disputes, racial tensions, and acts of xenophobic savagery have become commonplace: another mass grave encountered in the Balkans; a soldier murdered on the suspicion he might be gay; the local chapter of the Neo-Nazi Skinheads holds a rally.
As we might anticipate, this divisiveness spills into the life of the church. Most of the branches of Christianity presently engage in haggling over everything from the nature and authority of scripture, to the role of women in the church, to pro-choice versus pro-life, to how inclusive or exclusive the church should be regarding matters of heterosexual divorce, not to mention homosexual marriage. We spend a great deal of our time both inside and outside the church at odds with one another. If we don't find some way to ameliorate the situation, the world risks fracturing along a multitude of racial, ethnic, political, and theological fault lines.
The question, "How can we live with our differences?" demands serious consideration. How do people who have radically different views find a way to get along? How do those separated by race, religion, or politics scale the barriers? How do we help people overcome their fear of those who are different? When we are around people we just don't like, how do we find a way to live peacefully? How can people who disagree on substantive issues disagree agreeably? Indeed, how do we live with our differences?
Obviously, I have no secret remedy for the malady. If I did, my Nobel Peace Prize would be in the mail. Having tendered that disclaimer, however, let me offer a few principles for getting along with those with whom we disagree.
First, let us remember that the goal must be learning to live together in peace and harmony. Never should we expect to resolve all our differences. In fact, setting a goal to eliminate or resolve every difference escalates frustration unnecessarily and geometrically.
Jesus once told a parable about hired hands noticing that weeds were growing in the wheat field. They came to the farmer and asked if they should try to pull out the weeds. They were told not to do that because any attempt to pull up the weeds would destroy much of the wheat. The advice was just to live with weeds in the wheat field until the time of harvest.
Although that parable doesn't really deal specifically with differences, it has application. The farm workers were encouraged to learn to live with the weeds because it was not possible to remove them all. In that same way, it isn't possible to resolve every difference without doing enormous destruction to human community.
One of the ways we can do that is by distinguishing between tolerance and toleration. Tolerance is an engineering term having to do with permissible variance. If you are manufacturing sewer covers, a certain tolerance is permissible. The maintenance lid to the sanitary sewer can have a quarter of an inch tolerance and still catch the lip of the manhole. If the lid is too big, it will not fit down into the opening. If the lid is too small, it falls into the sewer. There is, however, a certain degree of tolerance. Acceptable variance: that is the meaning of tolerance.
Toleration, on the other hand, has to do with overlooking and even respecting differences. Let me offer a generalization. I know all generalizations are false, including the one that I just made about generalizations. However, generally speaking, tolerance is a standard each of us can apply to ourselves as vigorously as we like. Toleration, on the other hand, is the objective for our treatment of others.
Think of it this way: I see nothing wrong with my being intolerant of my shortcomings. I know who I am and what I believe. I have set certain ethical standards and I strive to live by them. Frankly, I can do it no other way. On the standards I have set for myself, I allow very little tolerance -- permissible variance.
On the other hand, I must allow for greater tolerance in others. I do that because I am responsible for the way I behave. I am not responsible for the way other people behave. I am accountable for my life, but God does not make me accountable for the lives of others. God reserves the judging function for God. My job is to love others. God decides the limits of tolerance.
There is something magnificently liberating about that. If I will promise to strive to overlook and even respect differences, God will handle the task of judging. The first principle for living with our differences is accepting that God doesn't charge us to resolve every difference. God only calls us to love one another in the midst of our differences.
A second principle is this: keep things in perspective. There is nothing new in disagreeable people disagreeing. There have always been wars and rumors of wars. There have always been conflicts and differences of opinion. There have always been church fights. Much of the content of the New Testament books of First and Second Corinthians focuses on the conflicts and differences of opinion that kept things stirred in that little Christian community. From the beginning, churches have had to deal with differences.
Paul's letter to the Galatians responds to the news about a group in that congregation trying to undermine Paul's teaching on whether or not one had to be converted to Judaism before one could become a Christian. As part of addressing that, Paul remembers how he and the Apostle Peter got into an angry exchange over a difference of opinion they had. Keep things in perspective. Struggling to live with differences is not a new problem.
Periodically, the media report on a battle waged on the floor of the national convention of one denomination or another. The press often seems appalled that those who claim to be Christian are not always in perfect agreement on every matter. Although nothing of which to be proud, church groups have a 2,000-year history of public disagreement.
In fact, present-day debates that occasionally degenerate to screaming matches are an historic improvement. In 1553, the Protestant reformer, John Calvin, governed Geneva. A Spaniard named Michael Servetus came to town. Servetus was a deeply religious fellow who had sincere differences of opinion with Calvin over the teachings on the Trinity, infant baptism, and predestination. Calvin did more than acknowledge the two of them had different opinions. Calvin had him arrested. Servetus was tried for heresy, found guilty, and sentenced to death. In defense of John Calvin, he did plead for a merciful execution. In spite of Calvin's request, Servetus was burned at the stake, crying through the flames, "O Jesus, thou Son of the eternal God, have pity on me."1
Do you see what I mean when I say that religious people have always had disagreements? Claiming that things are worse now than they have ever been is simply not true. In fact, catastrophizing on the nastiest of today's strife only makes the problem seem worse. Disagreement has been a constant theme of history.
An important principle for living with our differences is to keep things in perspective. Conflict is a constant in the on-going story of human community. There is nothing new about it. Every generation struggles with getting along because living in peace and harmony does not come naturally to us.
Notice that Jesus never told his followers it was necessary for them to eat food to live. Jesus did not have to do that. Our humanness comes "hard wired" with that bit of information. The Master did, on the other hand, instruct us to love one another. Loving, unlike eating, has to be learned. In the same way, arguing with one another comes naturally. Getting along with one another has to be learned. Doing so takes effort. In fact, it takes more than effort. It requires nothing less than an enormous dose of the grace of God.
Get this issue in perspective. Living in peace and harmony is not a new problem. It has plagued human community throughout history. Every generation struggles to find a way to live with differences. That is one principle for getting along with one another. Another is that because the problems are so enormous, we should never expect to resolve them all. At best, we learn to live with them.
Consider this third principle. Rather than a problem to solve, differences need to be understood as a gift of God to be enjoyed. God must value differences. God certainly gave us an ample supply of them. Consider the rainbow -- white light broken down into its constituent colors: violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red. One color is not more important than the others are. It takes all the colors to form the white light. Every color makes a contribution.
God uses that same principle to create the human community. No two people are alike. We don't look alike, sound alike, or think alike. As with the colors of the rainbow, one is not more important than the others are. Each contributes to the beauty of the whole. Even as we must learn to live with them, let us seek to value our differences.
Just as we should value physical differences, we should value opposing views. Rather than being wrong, those with whom we differ may only be offering a different perspective on the same truth. God, after all, has created a very complex world. In a disagreement, seldom is one side right about everything and the other wrong about everything. In matters of faith, the truth of what God has done in Jesus Christ is usually so great that there is no one opinion, creed, denomination, or list of fundamentals that encompasses it all. Therefore, rather than arguing about whose tiny perspective contains more of the truth, we should listen to one another to see what might be added to our own understanding.
That does not happen when we remain closed to the views of others. The old story is told of two ministers who disagreed about most things. Each was convinced of the rightness of his views. The only attempt at conciliation came when one said, "Yes, I will admit that both of us are trying to do the work of the Lord. You in your way and I in God's way." That may have been the same fellow who told his congregation, "You can argue with me. However, you cannot argue with God, and this is what God told me to tell you."
How easily we can fall into the pit of thinking, "My opinion and God's truth are one and the same. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with me must be wrong." In reality, none of us possesses all the truth. Rather than right and wrong, differences are usually better understood as different perspectives on the same truth. We should value our differences and not worship our personal opinions. When we can do that, we have taken a giant step toward learning to live in peace with one another.
How do we live with our differences? This is one of the most persistent questions of human history. Every generation struggles with it. It is our prayer that by God's grace we will find a way to do it. As hymn writer Miriam Winter puts it, "Oh, for a world where everyone respects each other's ways, where love is lived, and all is done with justice and with praise."2
____________
1. Kenneth Scott Latourette, The History of Christianity (New York: Harper and Row, 1953), p. 759.
2. Miriam Therese Winter, "Oh, for a World," Medical Mission Sisters, 1990.
For Further Reflection And/Or Discussion
The author states, "I do not have much tolerance for myself."
Are you tolerant of yourself?
How much tolerance is enough?
How much tolerance is too much?
What principles do you use for distinguishing "enough tolerance" from "too much"?
What principles do you use for determining when it is best to live with differences and when differences need to be resolved?
What principles do you use for determining which differences are to be valued and which ones must be resolved?
Unfortunately, growth in the mapmaking business demonstrates the fragmentation that characterizes the times in which we live. In recent years, tribal wars, religious violence, ethnic disputes, racial tensions, and acts of xenophobic savagery have become commonplace: another mass grave encountered in the Balkans; a soldier murdered on the suspicion he might be gay; the local chapter of the Neo-Nazi Skinheads holds a rally.
As we might anticipate, this divisiveness spills into the life of the church. Most of the branches of Christianity presently engage in haggling over everything from the nature and authority of scripture, to the role of women in the church, to pro-choice versus pro-life, to how inclusive or exclusive the church should be regarding matters of heterosexual divorce, not to mention homosexual marriage. We spend a great deal of our time both inside and outside the church at odds with one another. If we don't find some way to ameliorate the situation, the world risks fracturing along a multitude of racial, ethnic, political, and theological fault lines.
The question, "How can we live with our differences?" demands serious consideration. How do people who have radically different views find a way to get along? How do those separated by race, religion, or politics scale the barriers? How do we help people overcome their fear of those who are different? When we are around people we just don't like, how do we find a way to live peacefully? How can people who disagree on substantive issues disagree agreeably? Indeed, how do we live with our differences?
Obviously, I have no secret remedy for the malady. If I did, my Nobel Peace Prize would be in the mail. Having tendered that disclaimer, however, let me offer a few principles for getting along with those with whom we disagree.
First, let us remember that the goal must be learning to live together in peace and harmony. Never should we expect to resolve all our differences. In fact, setting a goal to eliminate or resolve every difference escalates frustration unnecessarily and geometrically.
Jesus once told a parable about hired hands noticing that weeds were growing in the wheat field. They came to the farmer and asked if they should try to pull out the weeds. They were told not to do that because any attempt to pull up the weeds would destroy much of the wheat. The advice was just to live with weeds in the wheat field until the time of harvest.
Although that parable doesn't really deal specifically with differences, it has application. The farm workers were encouraged to learn to live with the weeds because it was not possible to remove them all. In that same way, it isn't possible to resolve every difference without doing enormous destruction to human community.
One of the ways we can do that is by distinguishing between tolerance and toleration. Tolerance is an engineering term having to do with permissible variance. If you are manufacturing sewer covers, a certain tolerance is permissible. The maintenance lid to the sanitary sewer can have a quarter of an inch tolerance and still catch the lip of the manhole. If the lid is too big, it will not fit down into the opening. If the lid is too small, it falls into the sewer. There is, however, a certain degree of tolerance. Acceptable variance: that is the meaning of tolerance.
Toleration, on the other hand, has to do with overlooking and even respecting differences. Let me offer a generalization. I know all generalizations are false, including the one that I just made about generalizations. However, generally speaking, tolerance is a standard each of us can apply to ourselves as vigorously as we like. Toleration, on the other hand, is the objective for our treatment of others.
Think of it this way: I see nothing wrong with my being intolerant of my shortcomings. I know who I am and what I believe. I have set certain ethical standards and I strive to live by them. Frankly, I can do it no other way. On the standards I have set for myself, I allow very little tolerance -- permissible variance.
On the other hand, I must allow for greater tolerance in others. I do that because I am responsible for the way I behave. I am not responsible for the way other people behave. I am accountable for my life, but God does not make me accountable for the lives of others. God reserves the judging function for God. My job is to love others. God decides the limits of tolerance.
There is something magnificently liberating about that. If I will promise to strive to overlook and even respect differences, God will handle the task of judging. The first principle for living with our differences is accepting that God doesn't charge us to resolve every difference. God only calls us to love one another in the midst of our differences.
A second principle is this: keep things in perspective. There is nothing new in disagreeable people disagreeing. There have always been wars and rumors of wars. There have always been conflicts and differences of opinion. There have always been church fights. Much of the content of the New Testament books of First and Second Corinthians focuses on the conflicts and differences of opinion that kept things stirred in that little Christian community. From the beginning, churches have had to deal with differences.
Paul's letter to the Galatians responds to the news about a group in that congregation trying to undermine Paul's teaching on whether or not one had to be converted to Judaism before one could become a Christian. As part of addressing that, Paul remembers how he and the Apostle Peter got into an angry exchange over a difference of opinion they had. Keep things in perspective. Struggling to live with differences is not a new problem.
Periodically, the media report on a battle waged on the floor of the national convention of one denomination or another. The press often seems appalled that those who claim to be Christian are not always in perfect agreement on every matter. Although nothing of which to be proud, church groups have a 2,000-year history of public disagreement.
In fact, present-day debates that occasionally degenerate to screaming matches are an historic improvement. In 1553, the Protestant reformer, John Calvin, governed Geneva. A Spaniard named Michael Servetus came to town. Servetus was a deeply religious fellow who had sincere differences of opinion with Calvin over the teachings on the Trinity, infant baptism, and predestination. Calvin did more than acknowledge the two of them had different opinions. Calvin had him arrested. Servetus was tried for heresy, found guilty, and sentenced to death. In defense of John Calvin, he did plead for a merciful execution. In spite of Calvin's request, Servetus was burned at the stake, crying through the flames, "O Jesus, thou Son of the eternal God, have pity on me."1
Do you see what I mean when I say that religious people have always had disagreements? Claiming that things are worse now than they have ever been is simply not true. In fact, catastrophizing on the nastiest of today's strife only makes the problem seem worse. Disagreement has been a constant theme of history.
An important principle for living with our differences is to keep things in perspective. Conflict is a constant in the on-going story of human community. There is nothing new about it. Every generation struggles with getting along because living in peace and harmony does not come naturally to us.
Notice that Jesus never told his followers it was necessary for them to eat food to live. Jesus did not have to do that. Our humanness comes "hard wired" with that bit of information. The Master did, on the other hand, instruct us to love one another. Loving, unlike eating, has to be learned. In the same way, arguing with one another comes naturally. Getting along with one another has to be learned. Doing so takes effort. In fact, it takes more than effort. It requires nothing less than an enormous dose of the grace of God.
Get this issue in perspective. Living in peace and harmony is not a new problem. It has plagued human community throughout history. Every generation struggles to find a way to live with differences. That is one principle for getting along with one another. Another is that because the problems are so enormous, we should never expect to resolve them all. At best, we learn to live with them.
Consider this third principle. Rather than a problem to solve, differences need to be understood as a gift of God to be enjoyed. God must value differences. God certainly gave us an ample supply of them. Consider the rainbow -- white light broken down into its constituent colors: violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red. One color is not more important than the others are. It takes all the colors to form the white light. Every color makes a contribution.
God uses that same principle to create the human community. No two people are alike. We don't look alike, sound alike, or think alike. As with the colors of the rainbow, one is not more important than the others are. Each contributes to the beauty of the whole. Even as we must learn to live with them, let us seek to value our differences.
Just as we should value physical differences, we should value opposing views. Rather than being wrong, those with whom we differ may only be offering a different perspective on the same truth. God, after all, has created a very complex world. In a disagreement, seldom is one side right about everything and the other wrong about everything. In matters of faith, the truth of what God has done in Jesus Christ is usually so great that there is no one opinion, creed, denomination, or list of fundamentals that encompasses it all. Therefore, rather than arguing about whose tiny perspective contains more of the truth, we should listen to one another to see what might be added to our own understanding.
That does not happen when we remain closed to the views of others. The old story is told of two ministers who disagreed about most things. Each was convinced of the rightness of his views. The only attempt at conciliation came when one said, "Yes, I will admit that both of us are trying to do the work of the Lord. You in your way and I in God's way." That may have been the same fellow who told his congregation, "You can argue with me. However, you cannot argue with God, and this is what God told me to tell you."
How easily we can fall into the pit of thinking, "My opinion and God's truth are one and the same. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with me must be wrong." In reality, none of us possesses all the truth. Rather than right and wrong, differences are usually better understood as different perspectives on the same truth. We should value our differences and not worship our personal opinions. When we can do that, we have taken a giant step toward learning to live in peace with one another.
How do we live with our differences? This is one of the most persistent questions of human history. Every generation struggles with it. It is our prayer that by God's grace we will find a way to do it. As hymn writer Miriam Winter puts it, "Oh, for a world where everyone respects each other's ways, where love is lived, and all is done with justice and with praise."2
____________
1. Kenneth Scott Latourette, The History of Christianity (New York: Harper and Row, 1953), p. 759.
2. Miriam Therese Winter, "Oh, for a World," Medical Mission Sisters, 1990.
For Further Reflection And/Or Discussion
The author states, "I do not have much tolerance for myself."
Are you tolerant of yourself?
How much tolerance is enough?
How much tolerance is too much?
What principles do you use for distinguishing "enough tolerance" from "too much"?
What principles do you use for determining when it is best to live with differences and when differences need to be resolved?
What principles do you use for determining which differences are to be valued and which ones must be resolved?
