Truth Wars sample chapter
Chapter 1: Ministry of Dissent
Nick Pollard
This sample chapter is taken from Truth Wars: Talking about tolerance, edited by Tony Watkins and published by Damaris Books (an imprint of Authentic), November 2005.
I was recently a guest lecturer at a media college, teaching ethical philosophy to a group of trainee journalists. I asked them what they thought was the most fundamental basis for ethics. Their almost universal reply was a single word: tolerance.
Many have observed that tolerance seems to have become the touchstone of morality in our culture. Tolerance seems to be the ultimate virtue. And an accusation of intolerance seems to be the most damning criticism that anyone can face.
These students told me that we should be tolerant of everyone and everything. I tried to help them to think more deeply about this by demonstrating that they did not really believe what they were saying. 'Imagine,' I said, 'that someone has been picking his nose all the way through my lecture. But I am a very tolerant person and so I have not objected to this. I have just let him get on with it; if that is what he wants to do, then I will let him do it.' From their murmurs of approval, it was clear that they considered this was a good thing. My tolerance was a virtue. 'And now imagine,' I continued, 'that a few minutes ago a man came in at the back of the lecture theatre with a carving knife, and he has been working his way along the back row, stabbing people to death. Now, would it be good for me to tolerate him? Should I just let him get on with doing what he wants to do?' It was clear that they did not think that this type of tolerance was good. 'So,' I suggested, 'we do seem to believe that there are certain things that should not be tolerated. If so, this raises questions: How do we decide what to tolerate and what not to tolerate? If we don't think that tolerance means tolerating anything and everything, what do we really mean by the word?'
Talking about tolerance
The questions I explored with these students are raised quite often in our culture. They are usually stimulated by particular events in the news, or particular films in the cinemas. Let's look at a few recent examples.
In October 2004, many people began talking about Rocco Buttiglione, Italy's choice as the European Union's Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security. Mr Buttiglione is a philosopher as well as a politician, 'a man equally at home giving an ethics seminar as discussing practical solutions to Europe's immigration issues.'[1] A 56 year old father of four, he is a Christian Democrat and had been Italy's European Affairs minister since 2001. He is also a devoted Roman Catholic, and that was where the problem arose. MEPs questioned Mr Buttiglione for three hours about his views on some of the issues which come under his new portfolio (including immigration and security). Some of his responses raised concerns, but it was his remarks on homosexuality that sparked such outrage that he was forced to withdraw his candidacy.
He dared to express his view that homosexual behaviour is a sin. He was very careful to make it clear that this did not mean that he thought it should be criminalized. He said:
'I may think that homosexuality is a sin, and this has no effect on politics, unless I say that homosexuality is a crime.'[2]
However, a whole host of MEPs demanded that he be stripped of his portfolio and so he withdrew.
The controversy generated a great deal of discussion in the media, and in pubs and offices. A lot of that discussion centred around the nature of religious views. In a liberal democracy, how do we handle the fact that some people hold religious views that are contrary to popular opinion? In particular, if people hold a position of authority, is it contrary to the principles of a liberal democracy if they also hold such religious beliefs? Or is this actually the fundamental basis of liberal democracy?
Meanwhile, in the cinemas, a particular film was also sparking a similar debate, but from a personal rather than political perspective. Saved! (MGM, 2004) is a controversial film which tells the story of Mary and her final year at a Christian high school. Mary discovers that her boyfriend Dean thinks he is gay and so she tries to cure him by seducing him into having sex with her. She doesn't cure him, but she does become pregnant. Her Christian friends ostracize her, and she turns instead to a disabled boy and a Jewish girl, who are both already quite familiar with this experience.[3]
The film's website says that, 'the film speaks out against those who are intolerant and their inability to open their hearts and minds to others' way of thinking.'[4] They claim that they are not criticising Christians specifically, but the fact that the story is set in a Christian community makes this inevitable. As a result, the film tends to reinforce the view that there is something inherently intolerant about Christian faith and that this is not acceptable. If Rocco Buttiglione had to change his job because he was accused of intolerance, should Christians also change their faith if they are accused of intolerance?
Then, hot on the heels of these two controversies, around Christmas 2004, three events hit the headlines and caused almost everyone (even those who had missed the debate concerning Buttiglione and Saved!) to talk about tolerance. First, the Birmingham Repertory Theatre staged a play called Behzti which told the story of sexual abuse and rape in a Sikh temple. A few weeks later, the BBC held a Jerry Springer Night in which they showed Jerry Springer The Opera . Packed with obscenities, this performance represented Jesus as a nappy-wearing fetishist. Then a few days later, the front pages of UK newspapers were covered with photographs of Prince Harry wearing a Nazi uniform, complete with a swastika armband, at a fancy dress party. This was particularly offensive because of the timing just a few weeks before the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.
All of these events created outrage amongst different groups. In particular, Sikhs protested about Behzti , Christians protested about Jerry Springer The Opera , and Jews protested about Prince Harry's Nazi uniform. Consequently, Behzti was cancelled and Prince Harry apologized. But the BBC refused to cancel or apologise for Jerry Springer The Opera . Indeed, much of the discussion around this subject centred instead upon accusations that Christians are once again being intolerant, illustrated by the National Secular Society's accusation that Christians were being 'religious bullies.'[5]
Clearly then, if Christians are to engage in reasonable discussion on such issues we must be able to help people to understand what tolerance is and, in this contemporary culture, it will not be easy. But it must begin with us understanding the meaning and nature of tolerance for ourselves and perhaps this should begin with a consideration of the meaning and nature of beliefs about truth.
Talking about truth
When people express a belief, or a truth claim, what do they mean? Let's look at two philosophical approaches to this question, and see how this impacts upon the question of tolerance.
There is a philosophical approach which argues that different beliefs are actually only the result of different people looking at the same thing from different perspectives.
The classic story that is usually told to illustrate this is that of an elephant that is taken into a room full of blind people who have to guess what it is. They all get different perspectives because the elephant is so big that they can only touch different parts of it. One feels the tail, one feels the trunk, one feels a leg, and so on. Thus, they all come up with different suggestions about what the thing is because they all perceive it differently. Similarly, it is argued, truth about any issue in life is always so big that we can only have a very limited perspective on it, and so we must be tolerant of others who see it differently.
More recently, this was illustrated in the film Hero (Miramax, 2004). This told the story of a Chinese king and a group of assassins. But the story wasn't just told once, it was re-told and re-told. Each time some key facts remained the same, but other 'facts' changed, and the interpretation of the sequence of events was very different. Each scene was filmed almost entirely in different colours and these, according to Jet Li (who played Nameless in the film), 'talk about the different story perspectives.'[6]
As with any philosophical approach one can trace its roots in the thinking of past philosophers, and its shoots in today's world.
For example, this approach has roots in the work of the empiricist philosopher David Hume (17111776). Hume believed that all knowledge of reality comes from the five senses which make impressions upon us, and which form the basis of ideas in our mind. Thus human knowledge becomes an interpretation of human experience. So, according to this idea, we must be sceptical about our understanding of the real world since it depends upon the way in which we interpret it. Your interpretation may be different from mine. Then, this approach clearly affects many postmodern thinkers. Postmodern historians, for example, will not talk about history in terms of any objective reality that can be established. Rather they argue that we all have our own views of history which come from our own perspectives on the world. Thus they will talk of 'feminist history' or 'black history' or 'gay history' ('queer history' as it's now known) history as told through the perspectives of different people.
There is another philosophical approach which focuses not just on different perspectives of different people, but on different perspectives within the same person according to the roles that we play in different phases of our lives. One story that is told to illustrate this is the rather embarrassing tale of the young female executive who was sitting next to the company chairman at an important corporate dinner. She was so used to having dinner with her children that she automatically lent over to the chairman's plate and cut up all his food for him. This behaviour was perfectly appropriate for her role as a mum, but not for her role as a company employee.
More recently, the approach that different beliefs and actions are outworkings of different roles that we play was illustrated in the film My Summer of Love.[7] In this movie the main character Mona is torn between her brother Phil, a violent criminal who has become a Christian, and her new friend Tamsin, a rich private-school pupil who has adopted the thinking of the philosopher Nietzsche (who called himself the anti-Christ). While Phil prays for Mona, Tamsin leads her into a life of passionate experimentation and libertarianism. But in the climax of the film, Mona discovers that both Tamsin and Phil were only playing temporary roles for a short while: Phil gives up his faith and returns to his violent ways, whilst Tamsin goes back to school as a dutiful and submissive pupil.
Again one can trace the roots of this approach in the thinking of past philosophers and its shoots in today's world. This approach has roots in the work of Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934)[8] and is affected by the work of Michel Maffesoli. Vygotsky, a Soviet psychologist, argued that intellectual development is a function of human communities, rather than of individuals. Focusing particularly on the mental development of children, Vygotsky emphasized the importance of social interaction as a means of internalizing the shared knowledge of the culture. According to this social construct theory, our beliefs are constructed through our involvement in our culture.
But what happens if we don't actually live in one static culture, but in many, changing, subcultures? That is the question considered by the French sociologist Michel Maffesoli,[9] and developed by the British sociologist Zygmunt Bauman.[10] They argue that we live in a time of 'neo-tribes.' Whereas traditionally people may have lived in one static tribe, now we flit in and out of many groupings of people with whom we associate for a temporary, fragile period. Applying this to Vygotsky's idea means that, if our knowledge and understanding develop from our interaction with our cultural community, then in a culture of neo-tribes we will develop different beliefs at different times in our different sub-groupings.
So there we have two philosophical approaches, each rooted in academic thinking and each expressed in popular films. And both of them lead to the elevation of indiscriminate tolerance in our popular culture which has an impact upon our conversations about the Christian gospel. Thus, when we talk about our faith in Christ, people will often reply, 'That's just your personal view,' or, 'That's just the phase you're going through.' Those who say, 'That's just your personal view,' appear to be demonstrating how much they have adopted the approach that our view of truth is just a personal perspective. They may not have heard of Hume or postmodern historical theory, and they may not have seen the film Hero , but they still seem to be influenced by their approach. Then, those who say, 'That's just the phase he's going through,' appear to be demonstrating how much they have adopted the approach that our view of truth is socially constructed and variable. They may not have heard of Vygotsky or Maffesoli, and they may not have seen the film My Summer of Love , but they still seem to be influenced by their approach.
So all Christians who want to help others to explore the Christian faith, whether we are talking from a pulpit or over the garden fence, will want to understand these approaches and know how to respond to them.
Responding thoughtfully
There is no doubt that we all have different perceptions of reality. But that does not necessarily mean that there is no actual reality which exists independent of our perception. Indeed, even in the classic elephant story there was actually a real elephant that existed regardless of what any of the blind people thought. If they had not been blind then they would have been able to see it.[11] Perhaps we need to help people to consider whether it might be possible that there is a bigger picture out there that we can't see because we are 'spiritually blind.' Perhaps if we could have our eyes opened, then we would see a bigger reality. But that would only be possible if there was a God who would open our eyes and reveal his truth to us.
There is no doubt that we all play different roles in our lives. And most of us do go through different phases of belief. But that does not necessarily mean that there is no one truth that is true for all phases of our life. Perhaps, for example there is a universal truth that all human beings are created for a love-relationship with God and with other people. Of course, that would only be possible if there were an all-loving God, and if that God provided some way to call us into a loving relationship with himself.
Taking these two together, then, it might be reasonable to consider whether there is a God who has revealed his truth and his love to us. If people will explore that question they will find that the answer is to be found in Jesus. However, they will also discover that this Jesus made absolute and exclusive truth claims. For example, when he gave us the good news that he came so that we might know God's truth and enter into his life, he added on the claim that he is the only way to know that truth and enter that life. This is recorded in John 14:6 where Jesus says, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.' When I point people to those words, I am always careful to make it clear that this is not me making that exclusive claim; it is Jesus. I am simply reporting what he says and inviting them to consider it for themselves. I am not trying to force them to accept my belief. I am simply inviting them to look at the life and teaching of Jesus. If he is who he claims to be, God become human, then we must listen to what he says. Similarly, I am not trying to stop other people from expressing their opinion. It is good to listen to others, even those who state the opposite to Jesus. How else would we know whether or not to agree with them? Thus, I want to help people to listen to different views and to consider them as long as they do the same with the life and teaching of Jesus.
That, it seems to me, is what true tolerance is. The Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which takes up seven inches of many philosopher's bookshelves) defines toleration as 'the patient forbearance in the presence of something which is disliked or disapproved of.'[12] It is not accepting every view as equally true. Tolerance assumes disapproval it cannot require us to approve of a view with which we disagree. But tolerance does mean that we recognize other people's right to hold different views we even protect their right to express them. And, in that context, we have the right to encourage people to hear the message of Jesus who claims to bring true life even though he carries with him the exclusive truth claim to be the only way to that life.
Footnotes
[1]BBC News news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3718210.stm
[2] BBC News news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3718210.stm
[3] For a fuller outline of the plot see chapter 5, and for further discussion of the film's content see chapter 4
[5] National Secular Society press release: 'BBC Must stand firm against religious bullies', 6 January 2005 www.secularism.org.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=206&Itemid=31
[6] 'Jet Li Our Hero', World Movie Magazine , 23 September 2004
[7] Written and directed by Pawel Pawlikowsky (BBC Films, 2004), based on the novel by Helen Cross (Bloomsbury, 2002). For a study guide on this film, go to www.damaris.org/content/content.php?type=1&id=257
[8] For more information on Lev Vygotsky, see www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Vygotsky
[9]See Michel Maffesoli, The Time of Tribes: Decline of Individualism in Mass Society (Sage Publications, 1995)
[10] For more information, see www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygmunt_Bauman
[11] In fact, this is really true of Hero too the three versions of the story are not equally valid. The king tells his version because he disbelieves Nameless, not because his story is equally valid. The third version, again told by Nameless, contradicts the king's at certain points because he is now, apparently, telling the true story.
[12] Maurice Cranston, 'Toleration' in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Paul Edwards) (Macmillan, 1967) Vol. 8 p. 143
© Damaris Trust, 2005. All rights reserved. This sample chapter may not be reproduced in any format or medium.