Profound Words from Another Dobson…
November 28, 2003
Excerpts from Ryan Dobson’s book “Be Intolerant: Because Some Things Are Just Stupid.”
“I’m totally intolerant. Totally, radically intolerant. Some people call me a narrow-minded, Bible-thumping, backward-thinking, fundamentalist white male bigot. In fact, it happens every day.”
“I’m intolerant. I’m not ignorant, but I am intolerant. I’m not a racist or a bigot, but I am intolerant. I don’t hate people; I disagree with ideas. Make no mistake, I am intolerant. I am intolerant because I love. The world hates me because I love in this way, but I cannot stop. I dare not stop. I serve a Lord who loved enough to be intolerant. No more trying to please the world and please God at the same time. Get your armor on, take up your cross, and come on out to where the adventure beings. Go out and be intolerant–in love.“
This is the 2nd version of this post. Some friends reminded me that it’s easier to be ultracritical of someone, than to actually offer any constructive comments or pose any good questions. So, that is what I will try to do now. I emailed Ryan Dobson and his co-author, Jefferson Scott - so we will see if they come check out the blog and respond. I just have a real problem with the title of the book: Be Intolerant. One of the subtitles for Chapter 5 is “Being Lovingly Intolerant to Lost People in Your Circle.”
I think it’s a language issue. I can make no comments on Ryan’s heart or motivations behind him writing this book. But I can look at the language he used. And if I was not a follower of Christ, as soon as I heard Ryan say “I’m totally, radically intolerant” - I would tune him out. The language we use is so incredibly powerful; more powerful than we realize. The book is basically about moral relativism, and how that just doesn’t work. Ryan is against an “anything goes, we’re all good” approach to religious belief. I think many who read this blog would agree with that web of belief - but, what is the appropriate language to communicate that idea? Is it intolerance? I would never use the word, but what word would I use in its place?
Ryan Dobson talks about being intolerant out of love. However, that causes me to ask the question: if people are calling someone a narrow-minded, fundamentalist white male bigot, then maybe they’re not presenting the love of Christ in the best way. If anything, people got pissed at Jesus because he was including more people than he should have. His Love was not exclusive - it was a profoundly inclusive Love, reaching the outsiders, the people on the fringe, the lepers, the prostitutes, etc., etc. Granted, I myself do not buy in to an anything goes / all paths lead to God web of belief.
So where does that leave us?
Tags: James-Dobson, Ryan-Dobson
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
November 28th, 2003 at 3:59 pm
I’m not for “anything goes” either, but the last time I checked, the most common complaint against Jesus was “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” not “Why is he so totally, radically intolerant?”
November 28th, 2003 at 6:46 pm
well you know, he looks like a nice guy. maybe he’s right, he looks nice enough…
November 28th, 2003 at 6:58 pm
Okay Ryan, we all get it; you don’t accept the idea that all truth is equally valid. Neither do we. But can’t you come up with a better way of saying it? Why intentionally provoke people by adopting a word that you know is inflammatory?
Instead why not say that you’re tolerant in the real sense - i.e. you disagree with ideas, but you still respect people?
November 29th, 2003 at 3:01 am
i COMPLETELY agree with you. AMEN. wow. i can’t believe you exist. maybe i’ll keep going to church after all… :) someone else using my favourite line??? (me = “Jesus was inclusive, he loved the outcasts…”) i am so glad that someone else feels the same way about such a deeply personal issue. bravo.
November 29th, 2003 at 12:09 pm
Dude - shame on you for getting my rage going this early…
December 13th, 2003 at 11:02 am
Ryan…well done. I love the title…I love the idea…I love everything about this ‘movement’. You are exactly right…Christians have become so tollerant of everything, they don’t really have any beliefs that they stand for anymore.
“Sure one way to God, unless you believe differently, and for you, there must be many ways.” That’s bull, and it’s that lie that will cause many people to burn in a place called hell for eternity, unless there are more folks like you who will call sin what it is — sin — and be ‘intollerant’.
December 20th, 2003 at 4:28 pm
‚ÄúAnd if I was not a follower of Christ, as soon as I heard Ryan say “I’m totally, radically intolerant” - I would tune him out. ‚Äú
Adam, I know I’ve said this elsewhere, but again, this book is not for the unsaved. This book is for Christians. I don‚Äôt think there are masses of the unsaved and un-churched running out to the local Christian bookstore, or perusing the ‚Äúreligious‚Äù section of Amazon.com looking for books to piss them off. This book was written to challenge the thinking of fence riding, (sin) tolerant Christians.
‚Äúif people are calling someone a narrow-minded, fundamentalist white male bigot, then maybe they’re not presenting the love of Christ in the best way.‚Äù
Maybe, maybe not. Some people I’ve run across have an axe to grind and no matter how I present myself or represent my faith are threatened by Truth.
“If anything, people got pissed at Jesus because he was including more people than he should have.”
Who were these people getting pissed off? They were religious leaders of that time, not the unsaved. We’re on the same page here.
“His Love was not exclusive - it was a profoundly inclusive Love, reaching the outsiders, the people on the fringe, the lepers, the prostitutes, etc.”
Of course it was, just not of sin. Again, for the last time, this book is NOT for non-Christians. I don’t believe it encourages intolerance of PEOPLE, I hope it encourages intolerance (in love) of sin.
December 20th, 2003 at 4:31 pm
‚ÄúOkay Ryan, we all get it; you don’t accept the idea that all truth is equally valid. Neither do we. But can’t you come up with a better way of saying it?
Tim, no.
Why intentionally provoke people by adopting a word that you know is inflammatory?”
Because if I did you wouldn’t read the book or be talking about it here.
December 20th, 2003 at 11:26 pm
I don’t think the issue with Ryan is inTolerance but irrelevance. He is not an issue in today’s world. Just another book taking up space and chewing up trees.
December 21st, 2003 at 12:19 am
Cleave … I just wanna say … what the fuck?
You say you care about the language he uses, and you use words like “negative theology” and “postmodern Christianity,” which to me are far more loaded than “be intolerant” (or “fuck” :-).
That is all. I go now!
December 22nd, 2003 at 12:28 am
I have interacted with this book,and others like it. Ryan is correct that no self-respecting person, I mean non-christian, would run out and buy this book. For me it is indicative of all that is wrong with Christian publishing. It is shallow, ahistorical, acultural and oversimplistic. Ryan does no doubt have a heart for people that is without question. I can not doubt his sincerity, just his message. By interacting with this material I came to a conclusion. The issue for Ryan and other brothers and sisters like him is not complacency. It is that anyone who thinks differently than him is suspect. His dismissal of a rich heritage of Evangelicalism for his narrow fundamentalism makes me sad. Perhaps if Ryan read more broadly he would realize that his view is one of many, and not even that good. I also wonder why Ryan and his ilk are unwilling to trust that the spirit of God is in control? Why can we not trust that God is on control of his church and is willing and able to lead all his children into all truth? I also wonder why he has to be the one that convicts the world of sin????
Scott