Though the concepts behind this book make the most sense when examined through the lens of the Bible, they are so "other" that I am actually a tad reluctant to label this as a "Christian book". Not that it's wishy-washy -- far from it. But the ideas presented here are so very antithetical to an error that seems to have become almost sacramental in Christianity -- both conservative and progressive -- that I'm not sure where Brant Hansen's "Unoffendable" fits. And that's a Good Thing.
So what is this radical idea that Hansen presents? Simply this: Being offended is not a Christian virtue. And not only is it not a virtue, but it's never called for.
You see, when I take offense at something Joe did, I am standing in judgment of Joe's actions. Meanwhile, Joe has taken offense at something I did. And both of us are so wrapped up in these offenses, that neither of us are grateful for the forgiveness that God has already granted both of us. We've lost the plot; we aren't trusting God.
But what about sin? Surely we should be angry at sin, right? Well, the Bible tells us that God poured out His wrath at everyone's sin onto Jesus on the cross. Are you telling me that He has to climb back up on that cross to endure your wrath, too?
Hansen answers several other objections to his idea -- largely with Scripture, so if you disagree, take it up with God. But there is one upshot of his thesis that is the most damning to our perspective -- one that, ironically, many will find offensive. That concept: there is no such thing as "righteous anger".
Immediately comes the rebuttal: Ephesians 4:26 says, "Be angry, and sin not." Right there, it would seem that Christians not only have permission to be angry, but are told that they ought to be. But other translations say, "When you are angry, do not sin." That's definitely not a command to be angry, and doesn't even really sound like permission.
But even if you dismiss those translations, we are told later in the same paragraph to "get rid of" a bunch of things. And you know what's in that list? Anger. Add to that a host of other Scriptures that all speak negatively of anger, and "be angry" sounds less and less like the best way to interpret the concept.
This even goes for injustice. Hansen notes that we have conflated "anger" and "action". Some Christian leaders even state that we can't have the latter without the former. But here's the thing: the cross, the ultimate righting of wrong, was not because God was angry at sin; it was because God loves us. Love is the motivation behind seeking to correct injustice. If someone needs "righteous anger" to fuel their pursuit of justice, I have to question their dedication to justice.
Being angry and taking offense come naturally to us. Should that not be a warning bell for us? That which is easy to do rarely is what we ought to do. Or as Hansen puts it: Anger, selfishness, defensiveness and judgmentalism are "not exceptional ... but grace is."