Current college students and young adults are the most tolerant generation in history, according to the Pew Forum’s 20-year study of generational attitudes.
Members of this “millennial generation” (born 1981-2000) are far more likely to be accepting of different perspectives on sensitive issues.
It’s hard to generalize about an entire generation of individuals, but in my experience working with young adults, I have found them to be an especially tolerant group. Even those with more traditional moral views tend to be very respectful of other’s opinions, sometimes to the extent that conversation about sensitive issues is almost nonexistent.
There seems to be an unwritten agreement among younger adults that other’s views are to be respected at any cost.
Despite the increased tolerance among the millennial cohort, there are still obvious exceptions.
Many colleges and universities in the United States have struggled with hate crimes in recent years. Last February students at UC San Diego La Jolla were shocked to discover someone had hung a noose in the campus library.
This incident followed on the heels of another occasion in which the university took action against a student group that had thrown a theme party based on racial stereotypes during Black History month. Further controversy erupted when a campus radio station criticized the university for its actions.
Such incidents have typically been followed by massive campus protests against intolerance and hate, indicating that most young adults really do want to create a more tolerant culture. Yet their existence is a reminder that this work is far from over.
As Christians we are called to resist such examples of hate and injustice, yet ironically this is where the issue of intolerance most often appears among this “tolerant generation.” Hating the actions of those who hang nooses in libraries and promote racial stereotypes is one thing, but hating those who have committed these acts is quite another.
In fact, I would say that the biggest struggle for the millennial generation is its intolerance for the intolerant.
It seems to be acceptable for many young adults (and older adults I might add) to hate those whose actions make them enemies of respect and tolerance. It’s easy for righteous indignation to cross the line into stereotyping and dehumanization.
I especially see this intolerance expressed toward less educated and poorer individuals who don’t seem to fit into the emerging and tolerant mainstream. The terms “redneck” and “white trash” are applied to those who seem intolerant, but in the end it simply exposes our own intolerance.
In Matthew 5 Jesus says:
You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. … For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
The challenge for this “tolerant generation,” and the rest of us, is to not allow our hatred of intolerance to harden into hatred of those who commit such acts. Working for justice and tolerance does not inoculate us against hate. We are not only called to love our neighbors and seek their best interests, we’re called to love our enemies with the counter-cultural values of God’s kingdom.
Brian Beckstrom is campus pastor at Wartburg College in Waverly, Iowa.
Brian, you make some important points, but some that are often hard to admit. I will also note that, sometimes, our neighbors and our enemies are the same people. Complicates both how to respond (with love and prayer, as Jesus commands), and how to deal with our own too-real emotions of hurt and betrayal. Thanks for giving so much to think about.
Thank you for your comment Erma. That's an excellent point about enemies and neighbors often being the same people.
Should we not be intolerant of intolerance?
Maybe as Christians we should be less “resistant” and more intolerant of people who do evil things. We can be lovingly intolerant.
We are losing our ability to distinguish between that which we should, and should not tolerate. We have blurred the definitions between the words “forgiveness” and “toleration” into “perpetual forgiveness”. Toleration has become the required act of perpetually forgiving (tolerating) people, even when we know that by tolerating some behaviors it may be a counter to the well being of some people. Forgiveness used to apply to an single event, not an ongoing prerequisite for how we are to tolerate (perpetually forgive) that which we know is wrong.
In a world where truth is relative to one perspective, it’s becoming very difficult to identify absolute right and wrong. This leaves us to tolerate (or be silent about) that which we feel is wrong, but are not sure. We are being lead to error on the side tolerance.
The things we are supposed to tolerate are growing. The very few things that we should not tolerate are shrinking. In our quest to be Omni-tolerant, we are loosing our moral relevance.
I think there's a difference between hating someone's actions and hating them...which is I think what you're saying as well Dave.
Speaking out against things that are "wrong" is something that has to be done very carefully. If that "wrong" action is not against the person's cultural mores, or you don't have a relationship with them, you're not going to accomplish much other than hardening their hearts.
Speaking out against "wrong" is a broad subject, so maybe we should consider concrete examples. The one that first springs to my mind is dealing with the recent CWA decisions regarding same-gendered relationships. There's a lot of this intolerance that Pr Beckstrom speaks of on both sides of this issue. The one that we all mostly "know" is wrong is intolerance of homosexuality, which is still a huge issue in our church, and the wider Christian church. There's a lot of healing needed here.
The other issue is that us so-called tolerant types ARE quick to dismiss, trivialize and hurt those who do not agree with the CWA decisions or see homosexuality as a sin. Words especially like 'bigot' and 'homophobe' shut down the conversation, and leave wounds. In our zeal to protect a persecuted group, we're not careful about the wounds we inflict on others in the process. There's healing needed here, too.
On both sides of the issue, we need to be "tolerant" of the intolerance shown to us. By which I suppose I don't mean "tolerant" so much as forgiving. And the only way I see us doing that to our enemies comes from the cross and what Christ has first done for us. If we're both forgiven by Christ, and trust that promise of forgiveness, can we still demonize the other side?
Well hello Peter,
As usual you have framed a decent argument. One side is warning people of a perceived folly; and one side is convincing those same people to relax, there is no problem. If the people that see trouble ahead are wrong, the consequence of their error will rest with themselves. If, on the other hand, those who don't see any trouble are wrong, the very people they meant to comfort, will be in peril. What we desperately need is someone who knows the truth, and can tell us how we should behave. Since the Bible can no longer be trusted as the inerrant word of God, but is the inspired word of God, we will have to rely on our own interpretation. And since I don't trust myself to be smart enough to know which parts are from God, and which parts are from man, I'll will remain silent to not offend someone. Toleration at its best....or its worst. We will see.
Hi again davebob,
Before I get into clarifying my main point, I do want to say one thing about the relationship between the Bible and the Word of God, since this is a separate, but very important issue. If you follow Luther, he never referred to the Bible as the Word of God (Wort Gottes in German), but always as The Bible, or Holy Scripture (Bibel and Heilige Schrift in German). That isn't an oversight on his part, so much as a very important statement about Christianity. The Word of God is God's promise of forgiveness for sinners, on account of Jesus' dying and rising alone and only and NOT the Bible. It is also the person of Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, whose purpose was to reconcile us with God. In this sense, the Word of God is inerrant, because we trust God's promise (which is faith). That Word of God is true and what we must build on, rather than our interpretations.
But back to my main point... This time around I'm not talking as to whether one side is right, or which one so much as to how we act and deal with the issue regardless of which side we're on and how that affects others. One thing that gets largely missed is that in their zeal to warn people, a lot of people make a lot of hurtful remarks and have attitudes that have only helped Satan out. At the least it's a violation of the 8th Commandment, if not outright murder.
And those on the receiving end of the hurt have responded to that hurt and anger as any person does: acting to make that hurt and anger stop however they can. What that's turned into at this point is labeling anyone who might want to hurt them as a 'bigot' or as a 'homophobe' and try to fight all of the 'hate' that is being felt. The problem is that in the process, they* in turn violate the same Commandments. This is what Pr Beckstrom is speaking to, I think. It's safe to dismiss people as a 'bigot' because then we don't have to pay attention to them anymore. A lot of people have been hurt by being labeled as 'bigots', regardless of what they are saying or doing.
The challenge is indeed how we have this conversation without hurting each other. It's further complicated by the fact that most people on both sides of the issue have been hurt by the fight already. Incidentally, remaining silent isn't viable either, as then we're letting this issue stay between us and our neighbor, even if we try to pretend it isn't there.
Actually, though, if we simply leave it here, we don't have a Lutheran answer to our problem. Since sin is rebellion against God, we need to reach that final stage, and come clean that we're ruled by our hatred, anger and need to be right, and don't trust God to be right. It is only through Jesus' loving us to the point of dying for us that our hearts can be rescued from the hatred, anger and self-righteousness, and instead point to God's righteousness. If we start the conversation from that perspective, trusting not in our right, but in Jesus' death and resurrection-- God's right--I think we will have productive dialogue.
*just in case you noticed that I'm not including myself here, I'm in the category of 'people not directly hurt by this but still managing to violate Commandments in my response to this issue', so I'm not off the hook, either.
As a new follower to the site, this string caught my attention as it contains some of the concepts I'm recently struggling with. In trying to get a better understanding of current ELCA issues I keep realizing that the root of my confusion is based largely on the 2 statements found here:
Davebob and Peter made statemets of what the Bible is not - not the inerrant word of God and is seperate from a definition of the Word of God. I have heard variation on this in my questioning and reading for the past year and would be grateful for a resource that can bring this together by way of explaianation from our ELCA view. From my seat as a simple layperson in a medium sized ELCA congreagetion this is not ringing true with the non-learned followers because God does not leave us without the tools to do the job. Rolling the Message up to a 30,000 foot level does seem to make it simpler and cleaner, but as they say, the devil is in the details.
Hey Jacob,
Could you be more specific in what it is you are asking? I would be happy to clarify my statements.
Hi Jacob,
To which 'job' are you referring? God gives us the tools to do our job. The big problem is that we generally try to do God's job, and that's one place where we run into problems.
The other big problem we have is that trusting Christ means leaving the Law behind, and we really don't want to abandon it. I'm not saying that it's now a free-for-all, but that Jesus Christ, who loved sinners so much that He went to the cross for them, is now our guide. It's not something for which a strict formula can be laid out, because any strict formula would be Law, and then it's back to the yoke of slavery. Werner Elert described Christian freedom as when what I want to do is what I ought to do. Luther similarly talks about a Christian being both perfectly free and a perfect servant.
Elert's book, The Christian Ethos might cover what you're looking for. While it's a great text, Ed Schroeder summed it up much more clearly and succinctly than the original, in two parts.
HTML formatting fail. Here are the actual links:
http://www.crossings.org/thursday/2010/thur012110.shtml
http://www.crossings.org/thursday/2010/thur012810.shtml
Can you say antinomianism?....Hey Peter
davebob,
Let me clarify about 'leaving the Law behind'. So-called First Use of the Law is the use of the Law to structure society. It impacts on salvation only so far as it preserves creation so that there is something to redeem. So-called Second Use of the Law drives us sinners to Christ. Once driven to Christ, though, there is no longer any need for Second Use. The Law's aim of perfection is achieved in Jesus, not in our own actions and this is given to us freely. So-called Third Use is that we are simultaneously sinner-saints, and thus the first two uses are relevant to us only insofar as we are sinners.
So in one sense, we will not escape the curse of the Law until God terminates us as sinners. But the new life in Christ, the Good News, is both something Good and New, and in being New, is not just a revamped version of the Law and its system of rewards and punishments.
Hey Peter,
Christ is absolutely useless to us if we do not acknowledge that we have broken the law. We must come to the conclusion on our own that we have broken the law and are in need of a savior. The convicting nature of the law is as important as the saving grace of Christ. Without one, we don’t need the other. This holds true even after we come to know Christ.
This is the classical argument between antinomianism and legalism. I think the safest place to be is right smack in the middle. Acknowledge, respect and obey the law, but know that Christ is there when we fall. Christ said “go and sin no more”. Even though none of us can achieve that, I don’t believe Christ was wasting His breath.
I believe it is ill-advised to assure someone that once they know Christ, they can eat, drink, and be merry because they are heaven bound; especially when we are not participating in that particular behavior. If we are wrong we contribute to someone else’s destruction.
davebob,
I agree that if we don't need God's mercy we don't need Christ, and if there is no violation on our part, Christ is meaningless to us. However, there are two problems. If we are in rebellion against God and cannot free ourselves, we're not necessarily going to admit that we have broken the law (note that the adultress never confesses-- Jesus asks about her accusers, and then tells her that he doesn't accuse her either) And yet, I believe Christ can yet save such a person, which is exemplified in John. Sometimes it's only after being saved that we realize just how bad it was. The second problem is that without Christ, everything convicts us. Luther suggests that 'God walking in the Garden of Eden' immediately after the Fall is physically nothing more than a breeze through the trees, and yet to the sinners Adam and Eve that breeze conveys God's wrath.
I disagree that Christ is just a helper or crutch for fulfilling the Law. New wine does not go into old wineskins. Christ is God's completely new way of dealing with sinners, and that is mercy. It's not just 'God will help those who try hard enough', it's the Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Law, on the cross. I think this the very heart of Justification and the Reformation.
I think there is also a communication failure when it comes to our discussion of knowing Christ. I don't just mean head-knowledge, or that we claim to be Christians. I mean hanging your heart upon Jesus, trusting His promise of mercy, and allowing that promise to guide, shape and transform your life. This side of the grave, we are not freed from our old Adams and Eves, and we live in tension between our new life in Christ and our old rebellion. This is why Luther speaks of 'daily drowning the Old Adam in the waters of baptism'. He doesn't say 'try to live the law harder', but turns us to baptism.
This is also why it isn't just a free-for-all. Trusting Christ does free us to know peace and joy, but we also get to follow Him to the cross, which is suffering and death. Consider this: Is God good because God follows God's own Law, or is God's Law good because it comes from God? If the former is true, what would happen if God did not follow His own Law? If the latter is true, doesn't that mean God can give good things through a mechanism other than the Law?
That's difficult because the ELCA does not have one view on the interpretation of Scripture. There are those in the ELCA who believe the historical Christian (and as far as I understand Lutheran) view that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and there are those who do not. But even this is over simplistic. I will tell you this though; this is a very important time that all in the church be good "Bereans" (see Acts 17:11).
Thanks for your thoughtful column Brian, we are much in agreement. May I suggest you make a correction with your assertion that it happened at SDSU? It actually happened to the north of SDSU on the campus of UC San Diego in La Jolla. The incidents also happened during Black History Month in February.
As a pastor serving in this area, I can tell you that debate about the racially-insensitive party and subsequent noose spread beyond the campus and into the larger community. Former President Clinton was right when he called slavery "America's original sin" as we are still even today having these conversations. With each new generation progress is made, but not quickly enough for some. Keep up the good work.
Spencer,
Scripture on its own authority: "these words are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31)
The whole point of Scripture is trust in the Gospel promise. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thanks for your comment Michael, and for the correction. I'll try to get it changed. Blessings on your work!
Brian