Abraham Lincoln famously said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” [He was, as one commenter points out below, quoting the Bible.] Does Christianity hold a consistent world view, or is it a mass of contradictions that can be (and is) used to justify any number of obviously contradictory positions? How long can Christianity remain divided against itself?
Perhaps the most fundamental set of contradictions in Christendom has to do with differing views on salvation and what one must do to obtain it. This excellent article (off-site) lays out a nice table detailing the numerous conflicting interpretations and doctrines having to do with Christian salvation.
Hmm… I like tables.
But setting the abstractions of salvation aside for the moment, in this post I want to compare a number of sites on which self-professed Christians defend (and attack) a variety of viewpoints, lifestyles, hobbies, and predilections as either not in conflict with, or in conflict with, Christian faith. I hope to show that the Bible is hopelessly ambiguous about many aspects of how we live our lives, and is often used to justify both sides of strongly-opposing views.
If you have other examples of Christianity divided against itself in areas I haven’t already covered, post the links in the comments, and I’ll add the best ones to the table.
[...] A House Divided [...]
Excellent!!! Most excellent…I recently commented to a new acquaintance with regards to just one of the mentalities sited here in your latest blog entry, that religion in “The Bible Belt” is a very delicate dance. And, with regards to my particular circumstances, I explained that I felt as if this last soiree was like unto a tap dance of sorts on a steel girder suspended approximately 30 stories up in the sky. Thankfully my tap dancing skills with regards to this particular issue have been finely tuned by a lifetime of exposure to such attitudes. I must say, that even though I have been exposed to these deeply disturbing attitudes and mentalities over much of my life, I still felt an immense amount of discomfiture. I feel terrible for all the people that are placed in these situations without ever having a single dancing lesson (so to speak).
You may have demonstrated that people can come up with different conclusions but I don’t know that you have effectively shown the Bible to be ambiguous. Plenty of things are done in the name of Christianity that are not in agreement with the Bible. “Not everyone who says ‘Lord, Lord…”
I’m not sure that the examples for Burning Man were really in opposition at all. Neither were condoning it, both were there because they thought God wanted them to be but not to participate in the usual way.
Incidentally, you probably knew that Abraham Lincoln was quoting the Bible ?
Tara,
Yes, I know it’s a Bible quote. Kind of strengthens my case, don’t you think? You admit that I have “demonstrated that people can come up with different conclusions.” If people can come to different conclusions, then in what sense is the Bible not ambiguous? If the law says, “don’t cross an intersection against a red light,” is that unambiguous? Couldn’t an all powerful God have produced a less ambiguous text? Even on a matter such as imbibing alcohol— something that definitely existed since the dawn of history— the BIble can be interpreted different ways by people of goodwill.
A major problem that Christians face in making the case for their religion is that their own house is far from in order— both on the matter of “what one must do to be saved,” and on how one should live their life.
Tara,
The point I was making about Burning Man was that two self-professed Christians can see the entire event in two completely different lights. One sees it as an exercise in godly qualities– giving, creativity, etc., and also a place in which to reflect the positive aspects of their religion. The other, also a devout Christian, sees their attendance at “Satan’s Birthday Party” as a kind of infiltration of the enemy for the sole purpose of warning other believers away from the event and its “depravities.” Again, two Christians, different views on what is sinful. One can participate with a clear conscience, while the other feels that they must excoriate everything about the event and its participants. Both believe that Jesus would be well-pleased with their behavior. Well, which is it? Who decides?
[...] In ‘A House Divided‘, Robert ‘Ironwolf‘ McNally uses the words of the ‘chosen ones’ to point out just how much they disagree with each other over some very everyday practices here in the real world. [...]
The Bill of Rights, for example, is supposed to be an unambiguous document yet people wrangle over what the right to bear arms really means. Is there any document with a comparable number of adherents that is exempt from this treatment? You have not demonstrated the Bible’s ambiguity but rather people’s tendency to give weight to their own beliefs by superimposing them onto it or any voice of authority.
The Bible is not unclear on its view of alcohol consumption (nor is it on the subject of legalism, which is possibly the real problem in this instance).
Tara,
I’m not certain why you wish to dig yourself deeper and deeper into trouble here. Nobody claims that the Bill of Rights is a divinely inspired document. On the contrary, it was clearly created by men fully aware that they were designing a pluralistic society. On the other hand, Christians in general believe the Bible to be the epitome of divine inspiration, and believe it provides firm moral guidance for every aspect of life, both ancient and modern. You yourself just claimed that the Bible possesses a view on alcohol consumption (although you don’t say what you think it is.) Yet until you convince all the other self-professing Christians to hold your particular view of the Bible, Christianity remains “a house divided,” and the argument that anyone else should become “Christian” (whatever that is) never makes it out of the gate.
And if you find my examples from every day life too trivial, I recommend reading the much harder-hitting article I link to at the top of my post, that very clearly points out the divisions in Christianity when it comes to its basic theological propositions on salvation and divine reward/punishment. I believe either those arguments or the examples I gave provide plenty of refutation for the idea that Christianity is somehow “The Way.” The most you can state with any consistency is that some particular sect of Christianity is The Way, and then you’ve just damned everyone else who calls themselves Christian.
“Legalism” is an epithet that Christians throw at other Christians when they want to dismiss what the Bible really says. Is the Bible against homosexuality? I would say, yes it is. It condemns homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments. So if you are “legalistic,” then you will uphold that condemnation. If you are “not legalistic,” (and especially if you want to be gay and Christian) you are free to throw out those quite clear words in the name of the Great Sacrifice and Divine Love. Nonetheless, you will not win over your “legalistic” cousins with that rhetoric, who are right that the Bible is quite clear on the matter.
‘You have not demonstrated the Bible’s ambiguity but rather people’s tendency to give weight to their own beliefs by superimposing them onto it or any voice of authority.’
Voice of authority? Why would anyone elses take on this material be an ‘authority’ more than another?
This is simply a logical fallacy. If it is clear no authority is needed. It would be plain to all and it isn’t.
I suggested to Tara the Bill of Rights example. It was intended to make one point:
Divisions among Americans regarding our rights do not prove ambiguity in the Bill of Rights. Likewise, divisions among Christians about what is right do not prove ambiguity in the Bible.
The focus of this article was on “contradictions in Christendom”. You did a good job of finding a variety of topics on which Christians disagree. However, if you want to “show that the Bible is hopelessly ambiguous”, you’ll need to find topics in which Biblical authors disagree.
Jeremy,
I think your example fails to make the point you wish it to make. Most of the Christians who wrote the web pages my article points to do not feel the Bible is ambiguous at all— most of them use actual scripture to back up their world view. They do this as a way of claiming that their views are backed with Divine authority, and they do it implying (sometimes coming right out and saying) that other Christians are wrong, mistaken, or mislead, and possibly headed to hell because of their contradictory beliefs. Finally, the Bible (in Revelation) threatens ultimate curses upon anyone who wishes to change or amend one bit of that text.
On the other hand, where the Constitution is ambiguous (by design, in fact), the American system is to have humans (ultimately the supreme court) resolve the dispute. Over time, the same dispute can be resolved again a different way. The Constitution may be amended to include things the framers never even imagined. This is a quintessentially human system, acknowledging at every step its fallibility and placing checks and balances on the power it gives some over the lives of others.
Do you not see the difference?
The focus of my article is not on “Contradictions in Christendom” as such. It is on the fallacy of Biblical authority and reliability in matters of how we should live our lives.
Of course the Biblical authors (plural) disagree— they were all human. They wrote as humans, and primitive ones at that. The Bible is the work of humans with varying kinds of superstitious beliefs, and various social and political agendas.
The Bible has had an enormous impact on our world and should be studied from a historical and literary standpoint. But it raises my hackles that many of those who grant that book the weight of divinity all suddenly feel like they know the way other people should live their lives— in detail. The Bible is not only errant, but granted that kind of authority it is dangerous.
Dianne,
I have deleted your comment for preaching. i do not allow that on my blog. If you wish to address the logical arguments I or other posters I have made, please do so. But I will not endure threats of hellfire here.
Nice chart; I like.
Mentioning D&D instantly reminded me of the hillarious ‘Father Ramos’ talk about it, which apparently wasn’t from a real pastor (but is very funny nonetheless – http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Father-ramos.com/sermons.html)
[...] In ‘A House Divided‘, Robert ‘Ironwolf‘ McNally uses the words of the ‘chosen ones’ to point out just how much they disagree with each other over some very everyday practices here in the real world. [...]