Be Intolerant :: Vol 2

A few days ago, I posted about Ryan Dobson’s new book, Be Intolerant. I emailed Ryan and the co-author, Jefferson Scott and received a reply from Jeff today. He gave me permission to put his reply up on my blog, so you will find it below. The words in italics are from my original email, and then you can see his responses. I would like to hear more thoughts on this issue concerning tolerance and inclusivity. How would you describe Jesus? Radically inclusive (as I would like to say) or radically intolerant (as Jeff, and I’m guessing Ryan, would like to argue)?

[below you will find Jeff's email response to me]

Adam,

Thanks for your note. I haven’t spoken with Ryan about your message so I don’t know if he’ll respond, too. I should also say that my opinions are my own, not Ryan’s, Multnomah’s, or anyone else’s.

I skimmed your book yesterday - and I just cannot believe you would even choose a title like that — are you just out to create more walls between Christians and non-Christians?

Since you only skimmed the book you can perhaps be forgiven for not understanding our message, audience, or intention. While I would personally love it if non-Christians read this book, it was never designed as an evangelistic tool. This book is targeted to those people trying to be “inclusive Christians” or “tolerant Christians,” those who perhaps wink at sin in order to not offend someone, who wonder why they can’t love Jesus and other people love Buddha and everyone be okay with that.

Specifically, we’re targeting young people (aged 16-22) in our youth and college groups who are trying to ride the fence between Christianity and the world; the ones who don’t want to offend anyone, assume one truth is superior to another truth, or do anything that is not politically correct.

Our goal is to get these people off the fence–to one side or the other. Here’s a quote from the book:

“I want to bring you out of the darkness of political correctness into the light, peace, and freedom of the truth. I want to take you from hypocrisy to consistency, from moral cowardice to moral confidence. I want to show you that it’s not just uncomfortable to be a Christian and be friends with the world at the same time - it’s impossible. I want you to speak out for your Lord out of love for your friends….By the end of this book, either you’re going to be stoked for Christ or you’re going to decide you never really believed in Him in the first place.

So, to address your concern, we’re not trying to build walls between Christians and non-Christians. We’re trying to inspire Christians to pick whom they’re going to obey–so that they can then go love the non-Christians in their circle and call fellow Christians to a walk of purity before Jesus Christ.

– you can’t go around being “totally, radically intolerant” and expect non-Christians to be really interested in whatever “T(t)ruth” you may have for them, ya know?

Again, it may be that you have missed our purpose, message, and audience. I would never write an evangelistic book–a book designed specifically to bring the reader to Christ–that started by pointing out all their sins. Those issues would have to be dealt with in time, but of course you can’t expect people to be holy before they have the Spirit of holiness inside them.

The thing that’s great about our title is that it riles people up. It flies in the face of the “Oh, let’s lie low and not offend anybody” kind of attitude that some Christians have adopted and that the world demands: “You can be a Christian, just don’t rub it in my face. Do it quietly and don’t say what I’m doing is wrong, and I’ll let you be.” Christians are supposed to be bold, strong, and heroic in their faith, not insipid little mice afraid of offending. This title struck the very note we were after. It goes completely counter to what the world wants from Christians, and I believe is completely in line with what God wants from Christians.

I want to ask you about your use of “T(t)ruth.” Why do you spell it this way? To me, this kind of looks like someone who doesn’t want to be seen as saying his truth is THE truth. It looks as if you’re saying, “Maybe my truth is Truth, but maybe it’s not. I don’t know and I would never presume. Your truth is just as valid as mine, and might be Truth, too. Who am I to judge your truth? Please don’t hurt me or think I’m not cool and tolerant.”

If that is not what you mean, then I apologize for interpreting it so. If it is what you mean, then I begin to understand why this book may have offended you. Ryan and I wrote to address this precise attitude. As we say in the book: “Jesus didn’t say He was one of the ways to get to God; He said He was the only way.” His truth is THE Truth, capital T. All other “truths” are lower-case truths–if that. I think it would be difficult to please God if a Christian thought Jesus’ Truth was on the level with the supposed truths of Mohammed, Buddha, or the New Age.

Again, keep in mind that our target audience is young people in Christian churches who are riding the fence. They need to get it straight that the Truth of the Bible is superior to all other truths. If Christians think other truths are just as valid, then why not believe those other truths? Why learn the Bible when the Koran is just as true? And when they begin building their lives on principles from multiple faiths, their foundation is certain to dissolve. We’re trying to help Christians build on only the Rock.

I think Jesus was much more inclusive than you make him out to be —- like someone commented on my blog, “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?”"

Yes, He ate with them. That implies an acceptance on some level, and it stood in direct contrast to the legalism of the Pharisees. However, He never condoned the corrupt behavior of the tax collectors and sinners (just as He never condoned the hypocrisy, greed, and legalism of the Pharisees). He defended the woman caught in adultery–but then He said, “Go your way and sin no more.” He stood for the individual (who was precious to Him) and against the sin of the Pharisees (which was abhorrent to Him). But in that very encounter–not after weeks of getting to know her and showing He was an okay, non-judgmental guy–He was standing against her sin, too. He was inclusive toward the individual but intolerant of her sin.

He emanated holiness. He was called Rabbi, not Bubba. People knew what He stood for. He didn’t look like them or act like them or have a reputation like theirs. That’s what made it so remarkable when someone so obviously holy would deign to be with those the religious leaders had labeled as unclean outcasts. But make no mistake: He stood against their sin. He didn’t wink at their adultery or get drunk with them so no one would feel bad or judged.

This holiness communicated without Him even having to say a word, as when Zacchaeus came to full repentance simply by Jesus’ act of noticing him as a person. Jesus honored and accepted the person, but the person’s sin had to go. Jesus never would’ve stood by while Zacchaeus ripped someone off. He did turn over a few tables when He saw that kind of thing happening, as I recall. Pretty intolerant behavior, I’d say.

Jesus was intolerant of sin wherever He saw it. The Pharisees were perhaps His most common targets–largely because their sin was so egregious, because no one else dared speak out against them, and because they blocked people from getting to God.

That’s the point of our book, too.

The political correctness brigade is a powerful force in our culture. Almost no one dares speak out against it. Yet it is wrong–the sin it promotes and defends is egregious–and I believe Jesus Christ is Himself set against it. He loves the individuals in that brigade and wants each of them to come to Him–just as He loved individual Pharisees, such as Nicodemus, and wanted them to come to Him–but He spoke out boldly against anything that kept people from finding God.

Jesus’ love was radically inclusive — to all people — not intolerant.

I agree with the first part of this statement and disagree with the second. He was radically inclusive–in the sense of reaching out to those the church people had labeled untouchable. In this way He showed that God’s love was extended to them, too, that they were precious to Him. But He was also radically intolerant. He was not radically inclusive in the sense of just allowing everything anyone wanted to do. He would not tolerate sin in His presence, just as God cannot. His inclusiveness was radical in whom He reached out to, not in what He let them do.

People can take an idea like being “radically inclusive” and interpret it to mean they should allow people to do whatever they want: “You want to smoke, shoot up, have sex, steal, break, cuss, blaspheme…? Hey, any and all of that is A-OK with me, friend. I’m radically inclusive because of Jesus, you know?” I personally think that would make Jesus throw up.

Now, I could see someone holding such a party and inviting people in who normally do such things–that’s the radically inclusive part–and then once they’re there ask them to refrain from doing that here and start telling them about the Truth and purity of Jesus Christ and the life He offers them.

Jesus told the parable about the people who wouldn’t come to the wedding feast (Matthew 22:2-13). All the invited guests were too busy to bother. So He brought in the unclean and the outcasts, the street people, to enjoy the party instead. Radical inclusiveness. But they apparently all knew they had to behave a certain way–because one man (only one) was found there without proper attire, and so was thrown out. God is radical to include those whom others have neglected or ostracized. But He is not radically inclusive about their behavior. His holiness drives out sin–not by condoning their behavior and showing Himself to be “cool” and tolerant, but by standing against it. In love.

I would love to hear from you…please know that I don’t write this email to just blast you or to just call you a narrow-minded, fundamentalist, white male bigot — but I want to actually know what you think. Thanks bro.

With the exception of the last word in the list, I will gladly own every adjective on that list. When it comes to Truth, I have the narrow-mindedness of an Olympic athlete. When it comes to the essentials of biblical faith, I am a fundamentalist. And I can’t do a thing about being white and male, no matter how the world wishes I were something else.

Thanks for your note, Adam. I hope I haven’t blasted you, either. I pray that both of us will move closer to the heart of Christ in the days to come.

Jeff

www.jeffersonscott.com

Tagged as: Intolerance, James-Dobson, Ryan-Dobson