Meet Our Staff

Support The Argus

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Submit A Tip

Submit A Letter

Letters On Pragmatic Hope

It’s Intolerable Being Tolerated: The Problem with Diversity from a Christian Perspective

Written by

dkeller

Drew Flanagan calls us to “reflect on the importance of diversity, both moral and cultural, to our university and our modern society.” I have been reflecting on diversity a lot, but I have yet to be convinced that it is “important,” or rather, I have yet to be convinced that it is a “good.”

Both writers who responded to Gloria Fanchiang’s Wespeak, however, seem to take this as the fundamental assumption that we all share here at Wesleyan. Both authors start from the idea that we all believe in tolerance, and move from there to tell Gloria that her call to prayer in the name of Jesus is thus inappropriate and potentially offensive. They call on her to rethink her position, and they call on us as readers to reaffirm our commitment to diversity. There is a lot of calling going on here.

To be sure, Gloria’s piece did little to directly challenge the diversity fetish. Gloria’s Wespeak leaps from problems caused by being identified as/identifying as Asian-American, to positing “celebrat[ing] our differences” as a solution, and then, somehow, to the idea that praying together to Jesus will help us do that. So while Gloria’s message, no matter what she may say, is clearly not open to people who have rejected Christ, she uses popular secular catchphrases in an attempt to sweeten the bitter pill I would argue she has hidden in her last paragraph: that Christ is the only way to be reconciled to each other and the world.

Drew and Isaac are insightful enough to see through Gloria’s attempted appeal to secular “values,” but their line of argument exposes a deep flaw in the secular project. A fundamental assumption of secularism is not that religious perspectives should be eradicated, but rather that they should be instrumentalized in service of secular “values.” Thus we have Isaac’s claim that “Like Christians (and those of other faiths) we [Jews] desire nothing more than peace and harmony among all peoples of this earth (and, by extension, this campus).” But Christians desire much more than “peace and harmony among all peoples of this earth”—they are focused, to varying degrees, on what is outside the world. Earthly peace, earthly justice—these things are only tools, at best, to be used only as necessary for the greater purpose—saving souls, building the body of Christ, whatever. Whatever God is, it necessarily cannot be bound by human notions of morality.

But all that is offered up in response to these radical claims is a secular demand that the faithful not express them. ‘In public, stick to the ethics, but leave out the religion, please.’ Drew argues that instead of praying to Jesus, we should use “a method based on empathy and appreciation of difference.” As with Isaac’s statement that all religious people seek peace, Drew has expressed the code that guides the secular project: a watered-down Christian ethics minus Christ: “peace, understanding, humility, compassion, etc.” This code keeps the worst and sheds the best. It is undeniably a “slave morality” radically different from the heroic “values” valued in antiquity, and it is on extremely shaky ground without its divine source of authority. For instance, it is popular for secular humanists and secularized Christians to point to Jesus’ life as admirable and worthy of emulation. This is patently absurd. As Gary Wills remarks in “What Jesus Meant,” Jesus as depicted in the Gospels is either really God, or he is a megalomaniacal liar to the profoundest and most repugnant degree. The laws we live by just don’t stand up very well without a lawgiver which we can, in Isaac’s words, “rally[…]underneath.”

Secularists respond that Christianity must shed its claims to universal truth in order to be a beneficial force for social stability. Or peace. Or harmony. The problem with this, I think, is pretty well illustrated by the way Isaac closes his Wespeak. Isaac ends by admonishing Gloria, writing to her: “Don’t…try to project your values onto others, and in the future try harder to respect the views of those who believe differently from you.” I would be fascinated to hear Isaac’s conception of ‘respect’ for others’ views,  as he clearly didn’t think it to be a matter of ‘disrespect’ to effectively equate Jesus to other “figures” like “Ronald Reagan [and] L. Ron Hubbard,” two of the more overtly disgusting people in recent American history. I don’t take issue with the insult, Isaac, as insults can lead to interesting discussions, I take issue with your stunning hypocrisy.

Unfortunately though, I don’t see how the secular push toward “tolerance” can avoid such moves. Within it, there is no room for people like Gloria to make her claims. There’s no real room for anyone to make any claims so long as they involve truth. When Thomas Merton and Thich Nhat Hanh spent time together, they were not interested in “tolerating” each other, they took each other’s spirituality on their own terms. They didn’t demand conversion, but they were able to engage with each other, talk seriously, without being paralyzed by the need to “respect each other’s views.” But that’s not the sort of thing that seems to fly at Wesleyan. We seem to like our stylish sense of interest in religions as facets of personal identity, an interest consciously muted by ever-flowing irony and mockery that help set our mind at ease lest we consider too carefully the claims of faiths.

But should someone even dare to suggest there is a truth, even if everyone is welcome to it, then come the sincere feelings, feelings marshaled to enforce silence. “Diversity” reigns, and I welcome any attempt to prove that it is not a homogenizing master.

Comments

15 responses to “It’s Intolerable Being Tolerated: The Problem with Diversity from a Christian Perspective”

  1. Drew Flanagan Avatar
    Drew Flanagan

    Your point is well taken, well written and thoughtful. On the other hand, my call for reflection was as non-binding as Gloria’s call to prayer. Each was a free expression of a worldview and each implied a critique of the other. Neither was silenced, although both contradicted. Your worry about the “secularizing project” Isaac and I are involved in seems to me misplaced, as ours is in the grand scheme of things a minority opinion. I would argue that there is much more than style or fashion to tolerance and the acceptance of diverse approaches to truth. You invoke truth as unitary, whereas I see it as specific to circumstances and to historical moments. We should respect the views of others rather than suggest that the diversity of views on campus is the source of conflict and is thus undesirable. As to your claim about “considering too carefully the claims of faiths,” I have considered them and find them no more or less convincing than a thousand other philosophical approaches to the world. You make the error of setting faiths apart as unique entities, rather than seeing them as worldviews on the same plane as secular humanism or, say, Marxism. Regardless, to invite people to pray to Jesus Christ does imply that they must convert, and that very act of prayer is tantamount to a conversion and (for someone of another faith) a betrayal of one’s own beliefs. It’s ballsy of you to come out against “respecting each other’s views”, but ultimately the world will never be religiously homogeneous and we will need to summon respect for others.

    Reply
  2. Drew Flanagan Avatar
    Drew Flanagan

    p.s. you seem to lay claim to secular humanism’s ethics for Christianity, saying essentially that secular ethics owe a debt to Christian ethics and faith. I will concede that this is true historically, but I would point to the pluralism of Akbar the Great and many other examples to show that there is a capacity for tolerance and peaceful virtue in humanity independent of a specifically Jude0-Christian tradition.

    Reply
  3. Isaac Meyer Avatar
    Isaac Meyer

    The juxtaposition of Jesus to figures like Reagan and Hubbard was intended to underscore the ridiculousness of trying to get any group of people to rally under one single figure, regardless of who it is. And by the way, you’re hardly one to lecture others about respect if you’re going to attack the beliefs of hard working Scientologists and Reagan fanboys.
    You seem to think I have some kind of secular agenda, whereby Drew and I will convert everyone to atheism and then raise the Soviet flag over Usdan and commence with the executions. I am, however, perfectly content for Gloria or anyone else to believe whatever they want, as long as they do not press their beliefs on me. Notice I’m not out there trying to convert anyone to Judaism, secularism or anything else. All I ask is the same in return, and honestly, if you can’t give it how do you expect to interact with anyone who believes differently than you in a meaningful way.

    Oh, and I hate to break it to you, but morality does not, in my book, consist of “watered down Christian ethics minus Christ.” It’s a bit more complex than that.

    But anyway, I digress. I’ve made my counter-case, and I’m going to leave it there. After all, if we continue this further it’s only a matter of time before someone gets compared to Hitler, and then we all lose. If you’re interested in an exchange of views outside of the internet, look me up. I’d love to hear what you have to say.

    Reply
  4. Gloria Avatar
    Gloria

    I hope that my new wespeak clears up the whole conversion business. I wasn’t pushing for (in)tolerance or diversity…my invitation was an attempt at being hospitable.

    Anyway…don’t have time right now to address other things..gotta do homework and try to graduate! I will say this though: I have been taking the bitter pill. It’s not always pleasant to swallow..can actually be very difficult…but it’s been working wonders for me, literally!

    Reply
  5. Ron Medley, `73 Avatar
    Ron Medley, `73

    David wrote:
    “But Christians desire much more than “peace and harmony among all peoples of this earth”—they are focused, to varying degrees, on what is outside the world. Earthly peace, earthly justice—these things are only tools, at best, to be used only as necessary for the greater purpose—saving souls, building the body of Christ, whatever. Whatever God is, it necessarily cannot be bound by human notions of morality.”

    Exactly. God isn’t bound by human notions of morality; the Hebrew Bible is very clear on that and thus, as a practicing Episcopalian I would hasten to add that it isn’t the job of Christians to “save souls”.

    If meant as a metaphor for gaining a happier more fulfilling life here on earth, then yes I would agree with you that joining the body of the greater church community can often feel as if one’s soul has been saved.

    However, let’s be clear: only God can in any literal sense grant salvation and, even that pardon is by grace alone and not by means of performing specific good acts. The idea that you can exchange good works here on earth for heavenly indulgence sort of went out with the Reformation.

    As for “the body of Christ”, I’m not sure what is meant here. It could be a metaphor for the church as an extention of Christ, clearly an earth-bound concept. Or, it could refer to the Eucharistic meal which in some denominations involves the descent of Christ’s actual person in the form of bread and wine. I think, in that sense, there is a preoccupation with being in close physical touch with Christ, but, eschatologically speaking, the Eucharist should not be confused with Christ’s second coming, with end times, Revelations or with all that.

    In fact, my reading of Gloria’s original post interprets her call to prayer as nothing less than a simple request that Christ be among us; as the Gospel states, in Matthew 18:20, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.” Frankly, if there were a way, as a Christian, I could invoke the presence of Moses, or Muhammed, or Buddha, I would do so on a regular basis. They seem like eminently good company.

    Reply
  6. Jason Craige Harris '09 Avatar
    Jason Craige Harris ’09

    I think David is right to critique the contradictions present in the way a certain secular humanist culture orders Wesleyan reality. It seems to me that Wesleyan-style secularism is, perhaps like Gloria’s Christianity, rather conversion-oriented. Wesleyan has a broadly secular humanist moral standard against which all is measured, though the actual rhetoric of “morality” is widely shunned, given its (conservative) Christian undertones; “community standards” seems to be preferred. Despite and perhaps because of its perceived societal marginality, secular humanism frequently adopts a self-righteous attitude toward (similar to that of many conservative Christians) and aims to discipline any religious (particularly Christian) expression that oversteps its perceived boundaries. Gloria’s ethics are being critiqued from a particular ethical positionality – not from no where – that may find desirable her conversion to a kind of supposedly non-conversionist worldview. My point is not to say that this is a “bad” thing per se; rather, it is to acknowledge that secular humanist culture(s) and (conservative) Christian culture(s) often operate as mirror images of each other. And, many of us Wesleyan folk – regardless of our varied religious or non-religious commitments – have been engaged in conversionist projects at one time or another, whether we recognize it or not. For some, the very idea of conversion inherently harbors a certain discursively and culturally violent – dare I say, colonial and imperial – impulse. If this is true, I would wager that we are all guilty. For this reason, I would caution against assuming that “tolerance” and “acceptance” – whatever we mean by those terms – are automatically and only secular values. For better or worse, discourses of assimilation and sameness can be read in the solutions that Gloria, Drew, and Isaac proffer. Conversely, varying degrees and different kinds of respect for difference can be read into those solutions as well. In short, all of this reveals the limits of “diversity” and “tolerance” talk, at least in its present incarnation. In the name of “tolerance” and “diversity” we often seek to erase social expressions that we deem intolerant and “non-diverse” or not diverse enough to make them worthy of our fetishism and exoticism. I think the best we can do is to continue engaging in these sorts of conversations recognizing that we all have our biases and may subsequently occasionally do violence to one another’s beliefs despite our intentions to do otherwise. Tensions and arguments – friction – are near inherent to community formation. Can we manage to live with contradiction and complexity?

    For the sake of critical thought and risking contradicting myself, I will offer another interpretation of Gloria’s motivations – though not fully accessible to me. For sure, Gloria’s words can be read, as David contends, as a not-so-thinly-veiled attempt at campus-wide conversion, which, to some, might be deeply problematic and offensive. Indeed, to some, the very extension of such an invitation might represent a sort of imposition and might enact a measure of violence. However, Gloria’s invitation can also be read as just that – an invitation that people are not obligated to accept, though their acceptance is probably desired. I am sure this invitation has conversionist undertones, but it is still an invitation to which people can freely decline. One might even say that Gloria’s willingness to embody an ethics of hospitality through extending this invitation counters what she perceives to be the prevalence of “self-segregation” in Wesleyan culture. By inviting others to participate in her religious culture, she may be resisting what she takes to be status-quo exclusionary and isolationist practices. If more of us were willing to participate respectfully in each other’s cultures and communities and to open our cultures and communities up to others without the stipulation that those folks permanently become like us – if and when we feel relatively safe to do so – the world might be better for all of us. Now, perhaps, where all of our authors can be faulted is in their dearth of an overt desire to participate in and learn about other people’s ways of seeing the world. We can all use a lesson in this, I think.

    Reply
  7. Gabe Lezra Avatar
    Gabe Lezra

    Dave is right to point out that we have a “diversity fetish” on this campus; I would go farther, arguing that in fact we have a “diversity fetish” in the modern, northeastern, liberal multicultural word. We are taught to celebrate differences, to celebrate different cultures, and to respect the diversity of opinion. I agree with all of this; the question we have to ask though, and I couldn’t quite figure out what Dave’s response is–is this bad? Is this liberal multiculturalism bad–is celebrating the diversity of opinions and religions a problem, or is it simply a cultural phenomenon, void of normative qualities?
    Let’s examine it: if we argue it’s a problem we can approach it in a few ways–the first is the one currently on display in the Tea Baggers, an anti-multicultural conservative movement that stresses its’ Christian roots, and is based on rooting out the “inequalities” that “diversity” has created. The Teabaggers don’t like diversity because they believe it unfairly privileges minorities over whites–it’s a movement based on white anger. Obviously, there’s more to this movement than just this, but this is their basic attack on liberal multiculturalism. I don’t, though, think that this is what Dave is arguing for–though I might be wrong, and if it is, then that’s a totally different discussion that we need to have.
    My critique of liberal multiculturalism (and I’m sure I’m going to generate some anger from Mytheos and others), is that it actually reinforces the divisions that are used to oppress. Saying that we “tolerate” other cultures, as various people have said, actually implies that “while we know that you’re wrong and we’re better, we recognize your right to believe whatever you want–even though it’s wrong.” “Tolerance” implies being better, “tolerating” the imperfections, the worse people, because you’re better than them, but you know we have to tolerate them.
    Again, my critique is that this regime of “tolerance” and multiculturalism simply reinforces the dichotomies, the categories that the white male hegemony has used to control the minority and female population. The socially constructed categories that we “celebrate” simply reinforce the social paradigms of domination that we have created over minorities and women.

    There, that’s my shot. Hopefully you’re not a Teabagger, but if you are, as I said, that’s a different argument.

    Reply
  8. Merton Avatar
    Merton

    photo

    This comment is pending approval and won’t be displayed until it is approved.

    “On the last day of January 1915, under the sign of the Water Bearer, in the year of a great war and down in the shadow of some French mountains on the borders of Spain, I came into the world. Free by nature, in the image of God, I was nevertheless the prisoner of my own violence and my own selfishness, in the image of the world into which I was born. That world was the picture of Hell, full of men like myself, loving God and yet hating Him; born to love Him, living instead in fear and hopeless self-contradictory hungers.”

    -Thomas Merton

    Now is the time for all good Catholics to brush up on their Thomas Merton:

    http://tomdegan.blogspot.com/2007/02/thomas-merton-1915-1968.html

    Tom Degan

    Reply
  9. Mytheos Holt Avatar
    Mytheos Holt

    I have a column forthcoming on this little controversy, but for now, let me just respond quickly to some of Gabe’s points. I don’t disagree with all of his analysis, not by a long shot, but some of it is indeed troubling:

    Gabe, what you call the teabaggers (and what those of us who sympathize with them call the Tea Party Movement), while it does believe in attacking “diversity,” is not doing it remotely on the basis of race, but on the basis of CULTURE. People from your side of the aisle commonly conflate the two, so let me explain – the conservative argument against diversity boils down to a semi-Lockean, classically republican (not the party) view that society needs to be constructed around a social consensus about moral values, which is developed via a homogenous national culture. The color of your skin is completely irrelevant, just as long as you can assimilate into that culture, which is an idea that goes back to Frederick Douglass. As such, from the conservative point of view, permitting people to hold on to cultural traditions which run counter to the dominant moral ethos (in this country, one with Western European origins defined by the Christian and Ancient Greek moral traditions) is the equivalent of telling people to accept sociopaths with open arms. According to my side, absent a homogenous moral consensus, society falls apart, which is why we tend to be skeptical of religious pluralism and absolutely repulsed by multiculturalism.

    The current complaints from the Tea Party Movement which you outline are, thus, not really about privileging minorities over whites, but rather about giving minorities an incentive to continually view themselves as different from whites. Especially in areas like affirmative action, this transforms into an objection that minorities are being given a crutch which removes the incentive for them to stamp out the social/cultural pathologies that prevent them from fully assimilating into the dominant culture. And yes, from the perspective of the Right, it is the responsibility of the minorities themselves to fix the problems they face. The notion that a more powerful group could somehow do it for them is perceived as an attack on the agency of minority communities, as well as a truly racist and condescending attempt to encourage dependency by those who want to attempt such a thing. Seeing as dependency runs counter to the Lockean individualist tradition which conservatives hold so dear, this is itself seen as an attack on the dominant culture.

    So, and this may surprise you, Gabe, I don’t disagree that the notion of “tolerance” provides cover for what you call “oppression.” Where I disagree with you is your implicit premise that such “oppression” can never be warranted. I think most liberals hold such a premise, but it simply fails to live up to the requirements of any coherently organized society, which (at least in my view) MUST have a hierarchical arrangement in order to survive, given that hierarchy is itself a symptom of moral consensus. Trying to forge such a consensus around concepts like “diversity” or, god forbid, “empathy” seems to me to be a massive example of social question begging, given that neither of these terms have meaning, except in OPPOSITION to consensus.

    That is just my two cents. I look forward to what I am sure is an inevitable rejoinder from you, or someone else.

    Reply
  10. Gabe Lezra Avatar
    Gabe Lezra

    Hey Mytheos,

    I actually have no rejoinder to your argument because we disagree on the definitions and the premises–things that can’t really be disputed, as I see things one way, and you the other–but come to a weird agreement on the middle. Neither of us like “tolerance” or “multiculturalism” but for literally the opposite reason–and I actually don’t think we should debate that.

    For the record, I’m not sure how practical a lot of my dislike of the “tolerance society” we currently live in is feasible–but in my view the simple act of figuring out where the nodes of oppression is is a good start. It’s important, in my view to outline the underlying forms of dominance in society; to deconstruct the very framework of cultural values to find where the problems we have arise.

    I think it’s interesting that with such radically different premises we can come to a sort of odd consensus. And I think it’s better to talk about where the right and the left can get along and find common ground than to fixate on the arguments we could inevitably be having. My grandfather, for example, was always great friends with some of the conservatives in the Senate–John McCain, for example–and he always told me that it’s better not to focus on the fighting when you could focus on the agreeing (and I know I sound ridiculous/childish saying that). But you get my point.

    Reply
  11. Gabe Lezra Avatar
    Gabe Lezra

    That should read “nodes of oppression ARE” rather than is. I should really proofread things.

    Reply
  12. Drew Flanagan Avatar
    Drew Flanagan

    Mytheos, if you really believe all of that, there’s a guy you should really get to know. His name is Francois de la Rocque. Check out his monograph, Service Public. It was published in English as “Fiery Cross,” for your convenience.

    Reply
  13. Mytheos Holt Avatar
    Mytheos Holt

    Drew,
    Actually, Joseph deMaistre had more influence on the above than de la Rocque, though I’m aware of him. I take it this was thesis reading for you?

    Reply
  14. ... Avatar
    …

    Mytheos Holt = poster child of white male hegemony

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Drew Flanagan Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts

The Wesleyan Argus

Since 1868: The United States’ Oldest Twice-Weekly College Paper

Log in

© The Wesleyan Argus