expect us to come to the right conclusions and be saved? Besides, the fact
remains that only if some of us would NOT have sinned in the Garden of Eden
as the first human pair did, is it possible to view that test as a fair one, rather than
a sham? For if we all would have sinned, then God is to be blamed for how he
created us, or the test was a sham. But if some of us would not have sinned
under the same initial test conditions, then there are human beings who have
been punished for something they would never have done.
I don't have the space to deal in any greater depth with each one of these post
hoc rationalizations, but that's what they are. They fall on deaf ears. It takes
more faith than I could ever possibly muster to believe that Christians simply did
not want to properly understand God's will so they knowingly distorted it for
their own selfish ends, or that God's purposes are higher, more mysterious ones,
or that he didn't even try to reveal his real will. The overwhelming numbers of
Christian believers are sincere people who want to please God and understand
his will. As a former preacher, people would ask me all of the time what God's
will is for their lives. Many believers agonized over it. But as we look back in
history many Christians "misunderstood" it, and many still do today. I don't even
doubt the sincerity of the Inquisition.
Christians just want to blame human beings, not God, no matter what the
problem is. But communication is a two-way street. If there is any
miscommunication, then both sides involved are probably at fault to some
degree. Today we know that effective communication between persons is
problematic, to say the least. We don't always understand what people say. We
disagree about everything and we are constantly correcting misunder standings
about what we have said. Sometimes we hear what we want others to have said.
In Plato's dialogues Crarylus didn't even think communication was possible. So
in response to any question he would merely wiggle his finger. I'm not that
skeptical. But if Cratylus has any point to make at all, then God should have
known this and communicated his will much more clearly than he did. He should
have at least created us so that we can better understand that which is being
communicated. And even if not, the Holy Spirit should be doing his job much
better than he is.
This is especially the case in the high context, ancient society of the Bible.
High-context societies are what sociologists describe as those societies where
there is a "broadly shared, well-understood knowledge of the context of anything
referred to in conversation or in writing."34 Communication in these societies
didn't require the blanks to be filled in, so to speak. The details were already
understood. By contrast, lowcontext societies are ones where there are "highly
specific and detailed documents that leave little for the readers to fill in or
supply"3' Communication in these societies requires highly specific, detailed
knowledge to fill in the blanks. One must spell the details out to be properly
understood.
For example, the title to this chapter, "What We've Got Here Is a Failure to
Communicate," comes from a line in the movie Cool Hand Luke, starring Paul
Newman. In a high-context society I would not need to tell readers where it
came from because it would be understood. But in a lowcontext society I need to
tell my readers where it came from if I expect them to understand where I got
this line. I use that line to show we live in a lowcontext society, and to illustrate
that by revealing himself in a high-context society, God made it extremely
difficult to understand what he meant.
The conservative publisher InterVarsity Press has published books on various
doctrinal and ethical disputes among Christian authors who offer different views.
There are books like: Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialog,
What about Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the
Unevangelized; In Search of the Soul: Four Views of the Mind-Body Problem;
Divine Foreknowledge-Four Views; Four Views on Divine Sovereignty and
Human Freedom; Four Christian Views of Economics; Four Theologians Debate
the Major Millennial Views, The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views; God
& Time: Four Views; Science di Christianity: Four Views; Psychology &
Christianity: Four Views, Women in Ministry: Four Views, Divorce and
Remarriage: Four Christian Views, Theologians and Philosophers Examine Four
Approaches to War, and others.
Another conservative publishing company, Zondervan Press, as part of their
Counterpoints Series, has produced similar kinds of books: Two Views on
Women in Ministry; How ,newish Is Christianity? Two Views on the Messianic
Movement; Three Views on the Rapture; Three Views on the Millennium and
Beyond; Three Views on Creation and Evolution; Three Views on Eastern
Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism; Remarriage after Divorce in Today's Church:
Three Views, Are Miraculous Gifts for Today: Four Views, Show Them No
Mercy: Four Views on God and Canaanite Genocide; Understanding Four Views
on Baptism; Who Runs the Church? Four Views on Church Government; Four
Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World; Four Views on the Book of
Revelation; Four Views on Eternal Security; Four Views on Hell; Evaluating the
Church Growth Movement Five Views; Five Views of Law and Gospel; Five
Views on Sanctification; Five Views on Apologetics, Exploring the Worship
Spectrum: Six Views, and more.
Neither series from either publisher is finished. Maybe they'll each do one on
why there is doctrinal disagreement among Christians? Christian theologians
cannot even come to a consensus on what the Bible requires them to believe36-
that's why there are so many denominations and "cults." They cannot even come
to a consensus on how to interpret the Bible in the first place.37 What is the best
explanation for this? In light of such confusion and disagreement, can anyone
take seriously the idea that God communicated his perfect will to his believers?
C. Michael Patton, a graduate from Dallas Theological Seminary with a Th.M
in New Testament, and founder of "Reclaiming the Mind Ministries," wrote a
blog post titled "Doctrinal Disagreement to the Glory of God." In it he outlined
various answers for why there is doctrinal disagreement, including ignorance,
sin, or that people who disagree aren't even Christians. While Patton does not
default to these answers he does think they are "possibilities." And he humbly
acknowledges he might be wrong. Then he suggests a more likely possibility. He
suggests that Christians don't agree with each other because "God does not want
us to agree, irrespective of who is right." He claims: "God does not want
absolute doctrinal unity. In fact, practically speaking... I believe that doctrinal
disagreements are healthy for the church.... Conflict, in the end, can bring about
a deeper conviction of the truth.... It is often said that heresy is God's gift to the
church. Why? Because when a false option is presented the truth becomes much
clearer. In contrast there is clarity. In clarity there is convic
tion."38
Patton adequately expresses what Christians have been forced into accepting
by the violent conflicts of the past. But his view is a hindsight conclusion
learned from this conflict. The believers who were killing each other in the name
of Jesus did not share this conclusion. That's why they killed one another. The
thought never occurs to Patton that if this is the lesson God wanted Christians to
learn he could've just said so. He could've said that the only thing important to
him is that Christians agree on several essential matters of faith and then
specifically named them and articulated them. Then God could've said the rest is
nonessential, a matter for opinion and speculation, that other things don't matter
much to him or to their salvation. Instead we have the Apostle Paul saying this:
"I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you
agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you
may be perfectly united in mind and thought" (1 Corinthians 1:10; see also John
17:21, Ephesians 4:4-6).
Christians might finally respond by claiming that no matter what God
revealed it would still be misunderstood by the Church to some extent and used
to justify harming other people. Maybe this would be true in some respect, if I
grant for the moment that God created us like he did, which I don't. But even if
he did, God created us with the very propensities we have for misunderstanding
and violence, otherwise we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place (think
Adam and Eve if you want to). Nonetheless, if God had clearly revealed his will
in the Bible, then the kind of violence resulting from it would not have taken
place. It's this very violence that allows me to make this argument. There would
be no way the historic church could biblically justify religiously motivated
crusades, wars, heresy trials, witch hunts, or slavery-just for starters.
For Christians to argue that the church would still have done harm to others
because she is made up of sinful human beings, then what kind of wrongs would
she have done? Certainly, whatever evils would remain, they would have been
far fewer and less awful than what we have been witnesses to. And even if I
grant there would still be some leftover misunderstandings and harm done had
God been clearer in his revelation, the Christian must still explain why the Holy
Spirit has not done his job by illuminating the faithful with the proper
understandings. The Christian claims about such things are all very improbable.
The real reason why Christians don't agree is because of a multifaceted set of
problems including the problems of language, and the fact that God supposedly
revealed himself in a high-context, superstitious society of the ancient past. My
contention is that if God revealed his will to believers, he chose a poor medium
and a poor era to do so, and that makes an omniscient Christian God look stupid
as well as uncaring.
One would think with very good reasons that an omniscient God like that
would be the best communicator in all of history. One would expect he would
express his will in a crystal clear fashion with an eye on how believers might
misunderstand it. Or, he would have created us so that we could understand what
is being communicated. Even if not, one would expect that the Holy Spirit would
do his job better. That God did not do this strongly disconfirms the hypothesis
that the Bible was inspired by him.
Today's Christians say the churches of the past that committed atrocities were
wrong. And that's correct. They were wrong. But not for the reasons stated. They
claim the Christians of the past were wrong because they misinterpreted the
Bible. The truth is that they were wrong to believe the Bible in the first place.
They were wrong just like Christians of today are wrong, and just like the
Christians of the future will be, too. My contention is that there is not a single
statement in the Bible that reveals a divine mind behind the human authors.
Everything in it can be more credibly explained by the hypothesis that it's just
the musings of an ancient, superstitious, barbaric people-period.
NOTES
1. Isaac Asimov, Feb. 22, 1966, letter, A Lifetime of Letters, ed. Stanley
Asimov (New York: Main Street Books, 1996), p. 316.
2. Hallquist said this in debate between himself and Campus Crusade staff
member Tim Leisz on April 25, 2007, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
3. For examples of this see chapter 8 in this book, "Yahweh Is a Moral
Monster," by Hector Avalos. See also the additional chapter on this topic posted
online by Richard Carrier, "The Will of God," to be found on our official Web
site: http://sites.google.coin/site/thechristiandelusion/Home/the-will-of-god.
4. "The Lectures of R. G. Ingersol" (New York: Globusz Publishing, n.d.),
http://www.globusz.coin/ebooks/Ingersoll/00000026.htm.
5. Friedrich Nietzsche, Daybreak, trans. R.J. Hollingsdale (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 89-90.
6. Lou Cannon, "Why Reagan Was the `Great Communicator"' USA Today,
June 6, 2004.
7. John W. Loftus, Why I Became an Atheist A Former PreacberRejects
Christianity (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books), pp. 276-77.
8. On this, see my extensive documentation in a blog post, "The Bible and the
Treatment of Animals," The Christian Delusion, http://sites.google.com/
site/thechristiandelusion/, which I consider a chapter for this book in and of
itself.
9. After a survey of the biblical texts on homosexuality, evangelical expos-
itorJohn R. W. Stott finds that the one lone, "essential" scriptural text that shows
homosexuality is wrong is this one. See chapter 16, "Homosexual Partnerships?"
in his book Decisive Issues Facing Christians Today (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming
R. Revel, 1990), pp. 336-64.
10. For two book-length treatments on this topic, see Stephen R. Haynes,
Noah:r Curse: The Biblical justification of American Slavery (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2002), and David M. Goldenberg, The Curse of Ham: Race
and Slavery in Early 7udaism, Christianity, and Islam (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2003).
11. This passage does not support the claim that God condemns
homosexuality per se, since any forceful rape of another human being is wrong.
Besides, according to Ezekiel their sin was that they did not help the poor and
needy (16:48-50). A classic liberal Christian statement about homosexuality and
the Bible can be found in John J. McNeill, The Church and the Homosexual
(New York: Pocket Books, 1976), pp. 48-98.
12. The text cannot apply to abortion since the related incident is about an
accidental injury and not an intentional abortion. The law does not require the
death penalty for an accidental death (Exodus 21:13-14, 20-21; Numbers 35:10-
34; Deuteronomy 19:1-13). The concern expressed is for the husband's loss of
property, both his wife and his child to be. If antiabortionists want to use this
text, then let them also embrace the property status of the woman to her husband,
and let them also embrace a barbaric "eye for
an eye" justice.
13. See Brian Levack's books The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe, 3rd
ed., (Harlow, England: Longman, 2006), and The Witchcraft Sourcebook (New
York: Routledge, 2003).
14. See, for instance, Thomas Gordon, Parent Effectiveness Training-The
Proven Program for Raising Responsible Children (New York: Three Rivers
Press, 2000).
15. "Origen of Alexandria," Religion Facts, http://www.religionfacts.com/
christianity/people/origen.htm.
16. To see what this sin is, read my blog post "The Blasphemy Challenge: Is It
What Jesus Meant?" at www.debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com.
17. See Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God-The Struggle to Define
Christianity During the Last Days of Rome (Orlando: Harvest Books, 1999).
18. For an account of the history of Anabaptists in the sixteenth century, see
William Roscoe Estep, The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-
Century Anabaptism, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996). See also
Thieleman van Bragt, Martyrs Mirror. The Story of Seventeen Centuries of
Christian Martyrdom from the Time of Christ to AD 1660, trans. Joseph E Sohn
(Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 2001).
19. For a list of quotes from the Protestant reformers, see Catholic apologist
Dave Armstrong's Web site, http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/protestant -
inquisition-reformation.html. For an overview of this period, see Diarmaid
MacCulloch, The Reformation (New York: Penguin Books, 2005). On Luther,
see Heiko A. Oberman, Luther. Man Between God and the Devil, trans. Eileen
Walliser-Schwarzbart (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006). To read a
fair and balanced account of John Calvin's involvement in the trial and
condemnation of Michael Servetus, see Bernard Cottret, Calvin: A Biography
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), pp. 205-33, and then read "John Calvin:
His Life in Geneva" at http://www.biblestudying.net/johncalvin.htinl.
20. Luther, "Commentary on Psalm 82," Luther's Works, The American
Edition, eds.Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut Lehmann (St. Louis, MI: Concordia
and Fortress Press, 1955-1986), 13:54-55.
21. Bryan Moynahan, The Faith: A History of Christianity (New York:
Doubleday, 2002), p. 455.
22. On this subject I recommend David Eller's "Religious Violence," in
Atheism Advanced (Cranford, NJ: American Atheist Press, 2007), pp. 153-97,
and Hector Avalos, Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence
(Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2005).
23. Moynahan, TheFaith, p.456. William T. Cavanaugh has argued that
religious wars were caused by the rise of the state in Europe during the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries, and that Queen Mother Catherine de Medici
unleashed the Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre, which was entirely politically
motivated. See Cavanaugh, "A Fire Strong Enough to Consume the House: The
Wars of Religion and the Rise of the State," Modern Theology 11 (1995): 397-
420. But Hector Avalos argues that the church was "deeply involved" in this
massacre, in chapter 14 of his book Fighting Words. The Catholic Church
produced the "rhetoric and policies that made such a massacre probable," and the
church leadership celebrated this massacre afterward. Avalos writes: "If
Catherine de Medici, or any other politician, was able to unleash anything, it is
because religious hatred was already there to begin with. Had there been no
steady drumbeat of violent anti-Protestant rhetoric and instructions from the
Vatican and its allied institutions, there would have been no reason for Catholic
populations to behave the way they did against their neighbors" (p. 341). Avalos
concludes that Cavanaugh's analysis is "fatally flawed" and that "the massacre of
Why Faith Fails The Christian Delusion Page 26
