Inconsistent Tolerance

I have noticed something interesting over the last year, something I knew before but had seriously reaffirmed in this exercise of sharing my thoughts and ideas in this blog. Most of the commenters to my blog as well as those who have referenced my stuff in their blogs call themselves Christians. (I don't seem to get a lot of feedback from non-Christians. I don't suppose that's a big surprise to anyone.) What is interesting is that most of those Christians who disagreed with stuff disagreed because they thought I wasn't inclusive enough. I was too judgmental, too narrow-minded, too exclusive. It seems that to some it's the height of arrogance to believe that you know what is true and others don't.

I was fascinated by this. People like John Shuck are arguing that we need to be more inclusive. When I took his ideas to task regarding the clear deviation from basic Christianity, another blogger responded with the allegation that believing the Bible too much kills faith. When I wrote about the fact that Christianity claims to be exclusive, another blogger argued, "Maybe we all are right in our perception of the truth as we see it." He concluded, however, "Except for Stan."

Brian McClaren, one of the prime movers of the Emergent Church, has written a book entitled, A Generous Orthodoxy. (The title is much longer than that, but that's the basic title.) In the book (as the title suggests) he argues that everyone should be included. Let's not exclude anyone. This is the popular concept of the day, not merely from Pastor McClaren, but from many who call themselves Christians. This is Pastor Shuck's theme song. Let's include the Moslems and the Buddhists and the Hindus. Let's not leave out the atheists or the agnostics. Let's be sure to include every belief, every person. We'll label it "humility", clearly a Christian virtue. What could be more arrogant than excluding people because you believe you have the truth and they don't? And the idea is catching on.

And yet, with all this "Can't we all just get along?" spirit, when it comes down to it, there is one group that cannot be included. It is a group I am part of. It is those of us who believe that the Bible is God's Word and that Christianity is exclusive. It is those who are convinced that there is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved. The only group, it seems, that the all-inclusivists will exclude is the group that believes there is truth, the Bible is true, and those who disagree are mistaken. Why is that? Why is it that those who rail against intolerance are intolerant of Bible-believing Christians? Why is it that those who howl against being judgmental are so judgmental of Christians? Why is it that those who, in the name of Christ, spread their arms in the widest of embraces for nearly everyone save their harshest words for those of us who believe that the Bible is true, the Christ of the Bible is real, and we are bound to follow that? Why is it that it is at a part of Christianity that the McClarens, the Shucks, the "Progressive Christians" have decided to aim their cruelest attacks?

I've never quite understood that. It seems like a contradiction to their own position. Wouldn't it nice to find consistency somewhere out there? I would think that the consistent position would be, "Yes, you believe that you have exclusive truth and everyone else is wrong, but that's okay with us. You can be part of our all-inclusive worldview." And yet ...

I've never quite understood that.

Update
Please note that calling someone "inconsistent" is not calling them heretical or even wrong. It is calling them "inconsistent". And also note that when one believes that Christianity is exclusive and those who are outside Christianity are wrong, it is consistent to point it out.

Update 6/2/2007 8:29
I tried to clarify that "inconsistent" doesn't require "wrong". Apparently, I also need to clarify that "inconsistent" doesn't mean "hypocrite". "Inconsistent" means "not consistent" as in "The position you are taking over here is not consistent with the position you hold over there." If your position is "We all are right in our perception of the truth as we see it", it is inconsistent to say "except Stan". It is not hypocritical, not heretical ... it is inconsistent. To say "we are all right" and then proceed to try to explain why I am not right is -- not consistent. To argue that "we are all right" and then to argue that "orthodoxy is not right" is inconsistent. I hope this helps. (A little hint here. Simply admitting "We're not all right" will eliminate the inconsistency. It will also admit to exclusivity -- because it excludes those who are not right -- but it would allow for consistency.)