Controversies: the list

Updated with links: 02/09/2011

This post is my working draft of the controversies I'd hope to consider. I have some notes but I'd bore everybody if I put those above the list -- so they're below it.

1. The liberal/conservative group of controversies:
a. Creation/evolution
b. Role of women
c. Is heterosexuality normative?
d. Reliability and trustworthiness of the Bible
e. Moral authority of the Bible
f. Models and methods for interpreting the Bible

2. Controversies over the identity of God
a. Can we know God?
b. Who is Jesus?
c. How can Jesus Christ be both God and man?
d. Who or what is the Holy Spirit?
e. Is the doctrine of the Trinity warranted?
f. What is God like?

3. The Catholic/Protestant group of controversies:
a. Scripture, Tradition, and the basis of doctrine
b. Apostolic succession
c. The Bishop of Rome
d. What gives unity to the church?
e. Saints and heroes of previous ages
f. The controversies over Mary
g. Doctrinal development and the faith once given
h. Celibacy and holiness
i. Monasticism and holiness

4. The salvation controversies
a. How are we saved?
b. How do we grow in holiness?
c. How do we deal with sin in our Christian communities?
d. Is there a heaven?
e. Is there a hell?
f. Who is saved?

5. The sacrament/ordinance controversies
a. What is baptism?
b. What is the Lord's Supper?
c. The right place of Other sacraments, rites, or ordinances

6. The liturgical/free-church controversies
a. The lectionary
b. The liturgy and the movement of the Holy Spirit
c. Clerical garb
d. Special offices and the priesthood of all believers
e. The creeds
f. How should we worship?

7. Christianity in the world
a. Is Christianity unique?
b. How should we witness?
c. How should we live out our faith?
d. What is the gospel?

---

And here are the introductory notes that would have put any unsuspecting readers to sleep before they reached the list:

Notes:

• This list is likely to be fluid. I use this blog like an on-line notebook at times, and I expect that this post will change as I add or rearrange the material, or add links.
• Looking at my current list, I suppose I'd rather have started with what is now section 2 on controversies over the identity of God. When I set out, starting with Genesis seemed natural, but for most things it's not practical to take them in the order in which they appear in the Bible, since the controversies range all over the place. So I'll finish up the conservative/liberal group of controversies first, then move on.
• I'm aware that my list is weighted towards controversies where I'm more involved. This is not out of any plans to exclude anyone's favorite controversies; it's more a matter of starting with what I know. I can hardly start somewhere besides where I am. I'd be glad for comments on other things to discuss.
• Some controversies could easily fit under more than one heading. I usually grouped them where I thought it would be most helpful to discuss them.

---

Edward Babinski has a survey of the diversity of Christianity.

Contoversies: What's the scope?

For anyone wondering about the intended scope of this series, I would like to say from the outset that this series is beyond me, not only in wisdom and understanding but also in sheer size. What I hope to do -- and I hope you all will help me -- is map out the fault lines within Christianity. The primary goal is that we at least understand where the other person is coming from, whether we agree or not. Anyone who has read my blog for any length of time will already know that I'm not consistently good at that.

When I start mapping out the fault lines within Christianity, in my mind I start in the early days, tracing back to the New Testament and just afterward. Do I count the Gnostics within the scope of this series? No; while the Gnostics are interesting in their own right, my thoughts about the Gnostics are mainly addressed in posts about whether the New Testament contains the best available material on the life and teachings of Jesus. So the controversies in this series will be the controversies among those who adhere to some form of apostolic Christianity -- acknowledging that the people who knew Jesus or knew the apostles are the best sources of information about them.

That much said, the early Christological controversies are still fair game. There are, to this day, non-Chalcedonian groups that have survived from the ancient times. (I'm hoping to make this year's entry into the Trinity Blogging Summit on one of these views.)

At the more recent end of the time scale, what about Mormons? Again, the question is interesting in its own right. For purposes of this series, since Mormons have additional canonical Scriptures that they consider to be on the same level as the New Testament writings, they aren't part of this particular series. That is not to ignore the Mormons; in fact I have a series on the Mormons (already written, but being saved for this summer when I know I'll be too busy at work to write much new material).

I haven't quite decided about the JW's yet, whether they're within the scope.

But the intent of this series is to look at all the groups that are Christian, and all the groups each one considers to be incorrect in their beliefs, and see what exactly is diving us.

Examples of broad families of beliefs:

Oriental Orthodox
Eastern Orthodox
Roman Catholic
Lutheran
Calvinist
Church of England / Episcopal
Baptist
Methodist
Pentecostal

I don't mean to snub any group by not listing it separately. Take, for example, the Church of Christ or the 7th Day Adventists. They aren't listed above mainly because of their size; I'm not really going to list all 30,000+ groups in a blog post, and the sample groups listed above made the "examples" list because of either their commonness or their historical importance. But before the series is done I hope to have discussed some of the controversies that matter to them, too.

What I don't want to do is get into "Group A's laundry list of complaints against Group B". I want to keep it on the level of the controversies themselves, and steer as clear of partisanship and resentments as is possible considering the topics. Within those broad families of beliefs listed, there are internal controversies; many of those internal controversies are fairly repetitive, such as the creation / evolution controversy which has played itself out within each group in different ways. We've even seen modern groups of Christians form alliances and fellowship based on common ground on the liberal/conservative divide, without regard to the differences about understanding God.

Next post in the series will be on the controversies I have in mind to cover. I will need some help with the perspective on controversies where I don't understand how someone could hold one or more of the perspectives. For controversies where I don't get it, the posts will probably have a "Can somebody explain this to me?" approach.

Like a woman in childbirth: a quick note on End Times

(No, I'm not stopping my series. But it's not all I think about either.)

---

I've kept an eye on some of the current news about troubles around the world, and I was thinking, "Here we go again." The Bible compares the end times to a woman in labor. I think there's more to that comparison than how nobody knows the day or the hour. I think there's more to it than it hurting a lot.

I have two children. I remember labor very vividly. And the pains weren't steady; they were contractions. It would be unbearable. Then it would be gone, absolutely fine for a few minutes. Then it would be unbearable again. Then it would be fine again.

We see the same cycles in the catastrophes in the world. Like a woman in labor.

I guess one question for end-time watchers is this: can you tell if the contractions are getting closer together?

I sometimes wonder, when the Bible mentions that the world to come does not have a sun or even need one, does that mean that we shouldn't expect the final end until after the sun has gone out?

Just musing.

Controversies in the church: why in the world take that approach?

Now that I've posted the first piece in the "controversies" series, I wanted to put just a quick note explaining why I've taken that approach. Here are the basic points I've tried to address, and what I hope to accomplish with them.

The common ground: you can only have a controversy when there's a common ground to start with. There aren't controversies over whether the Houston Texans are better than the Utah Jazz. They'll never meet in regulation play.

The group's beliefs on the controversy: Can we define the group in such a way that both groups recognize it as a fair representation?

Internal diversity: Because many beliefs fall along a spectrum and are more complicated than simply being opposites.

Strong points: For every belief, there's an honest reason why people believe it.

External criticisms: For every opposing camp, there are things they just don't get about the belief in question.

Response to criticism: Most groups actually have thought about what the other camp has to say. It's not necessarily that they're closed-minded; they may honestly find the opposing arguments unpersuasive.

The slippery slope: If a controversy makes for a spectrum of beliefs, and if beliefs out among real people lie along a bell curve, then what is the outward edge of a set of beliefs? Can you articulate how to keep from going to the extreme, for your own side? Can you recognize that not everybody is at that extreme, for your opponents' side?

Uncharitable moments towards the other side: What is it about this group's reaction to the other group that tends to fuel the fire?

Charitable moments: What outlook would permit conversation again?

Fair questions: What are the honest questions about the actual beliefs of the other camp?

Related controversies: Because very few controversies stand alone.

Controversies in the church: Creation

The controversy: Creation

Many denominations have a rift caused largely by the question, "How do you interpret the creation account in Genesis?" Though that's not quite fair; some might phrase it, "How do you interpret the creation accounts in Genesis?" (on the view that the "7 days" account and the "Adam and Eve" account are two separate accounts). Denomination after denomination has split in two, forming separate groups for the evolutionists and the creationists -- though that split usually goes with several other differences among the same groups. Among those who believe in God and to some extent form their faith from the Bible, there is only a slight common ground on this issue: the two main groups both believe that God could not possibly be wrong about how the earth was made. From there, they diverge almost instantly.

---

Creationists

From the starting point that God could not possibly be wrong about how the earth was made, the traditional creationists work on the assumption that the Bible is God's word, infallible in all that it teaches, and that therefore the Genesis creation account can be taken as historically true.

Internal diversity: Creationists can be either young-earth or old-earth creationists. Advocates of Intelligent Design also have a place in the spectrum of beliefs.

Strong points: Viewing the creation account as historical was, for many centuries, the most common interpretation of the text; it was held by well-respected scholars. Prominent historians of previous ages took the accounts in Genesis as historical, incorporating them into their chronologies of world history. Though there were occasional exceptions, the historical view was the mainstream view for the majority of church history to this point.

External criticisms: Evolutionists see creationism as defending a fort that has already fallen. Evolutionists view creationism as a scientifically illiterate view. Critics also see it as putting the creationists' faith at risk of harm by making the adherents' Christian identity depend on something that is, in the scientific consensus, not true.

Response to criticism: Scientific consensus changes over time. New methods, new discoveries, and new theories continue to change how scientists view the natural world. It is possible that in the future evolutionary theory may become outdated or significantly revised. Whether or not this happens, one of the key claims of evolution -- namely, that the changes in life forms are the product of chance alone -- is not properly a scientific claim as it is not open to testing or verification. That particular claim of evolutionary theory is more of a philosophical stance based on a framework intended to exclude religion from consideration. It is not anti-scientific to call out particular claims that are not open to testing or verification.

The slippery slope: The historicist view requires rejecting today's scientific consensus. There is an internal risk of mistrusting the scientific consensus. Those who have gone to the extreme of the slippery slope may view evolutionary science as something like an anti-religious conspiracy. This concern is strengthened by the most outspoken evolutionists who have basically volunteered for the role of the anti-religious conspiracy, having gone to the opposite pole of the argument and openly trying to use science to overthrow religion. The general stance of mistrusting evolutionary science can, in some cases, lead to a broader mistrust of science. In the most extreme cases, it leads to a distrust of scholarship in general which is inherently unhealthy.

Uncharitable moments towards the other side: The creationists do not always attribute the best of motives to the evolutionists. Charges of selling out and unfaithfulness are not uncommon. Sometimes there are charges of doubting God, disbelieving God, or rejecting the Bible. There is frequently an all-or-nothing view of the Bible that equates hesitations or caveats over a part of the Bible with an outright rejection of the whole.

Charitable moments: Some creationists may recognize that the evolutionists, in accommodating their reading of Genesis to the scientific consensus, are actually trying to save and rescue things of value in the narrative in light of today's scientific understandings rather than trying to reject it. Creationists may recognize that many Christian evolutionists are not setting themselves up as enemies of the faith but as pioneers in building a new understanding.

Fair questions from evolutionists to creationists: At what point of certainty do you accept a scientific finding? Is there a double-standard used for accepting/rejecting evolutionary theory that would not be employed with other scientific findings that have no direct bearing on a traditional understanding of the Bible?

---

Evolutionists

From the starting point that God could not possibly be wrong about how the earth was made, the evolutionists work on the assumption that since evolution has been proven true to their satisfaction, the Bible's story of creation is perhaps true in a symbolic sense but not in the historical sense. (See "related controversies".)

Internal diversity: Evolutionists who believe in God may believe that God guided evolution. Others believe that God had no direct role, simply setting up the initial conditions so that things would take their natural course.

Strong points: Engages with modern science and can respond to those who want to use science to overthrow religion in such a way that they may respect or understand the answer. Speaks to those who have been brought up taking evolution for granted and wonder whether science and religion are compatible. It is comfortable in the modern world and does not see evolutionary science as a threat.

External criticisms: Creationists see evolutionists as watering down or undercutting the authority of the Bible. Critics also see a risk to evolutionists' faith by becoming too cozy with modern culture and too dependent on external approval of their beliefs.

Response to criticism: Any authority that the Bible has comes from God's truth. If something is not true, we have to interpret in light of what we know. The untrue understanding cannot be accepted as the right understanding of God's word. It is a misuse of authority to compel people to believe (or claim to believe) something that has been demonstrated to be false to the satisfaction of the majority of scientists in the field. Holding to outdated views does not increase the authority of the Bible, but diminishes the authority of the Bible by saying it teaches things shown to be false in the eyes of most scientists in the field.

The slippery slope: The evolutionist view requires rejecting the historical consensus of Christianity and putting significant conditions on the acceptance of the Bible. Those who have gone to the extreme of the slippery slope may view the entirety of the Bible as little more than myth and legend. This concern is strengthened by some prominent scholars of this camp who still designate themselves as Christians but who do in fact teach that the whole of the Bible, including the narratives about Jesus, are to be thrown out nearly wholesale. This is nearly the mirror-image of the "all or nothing" view of the Bible on the opposite side of the belief spectrum, but now choosing "nothing" rather than "all."

Fair questions from creationists to evolutionists: Once you begin second-guessing the narrative, how do you know when to stop? Is there anything in the Bible that you take as certain; if so, why that and not the rest? Is there any belief you are sure will not be overthrown someday; if so, what is it and how are you sure about that?

Uncharitable moments towards the other side: The evolutionists are deeply embarrassed by creationists, which has led to some strikingly unbrotherly attitudes and behavior towards them. Those evolutionists with an uncharitable bent are seen to publicly malign the intelligence, education, reasoning ability, and even the reading skills of people who interpret the Bible according according to a plainer reading of what it says rather than accommodating the scientific consensus. The sometimes savage way in which Christian evolutionists treat creationists may be intended merely to distance the evolutionists' Christian identity from the creationists and communicate that the creationists' view is thoroughly rejected; in practice, it often amounts to caring more about the acceptance of outsiders than about kindness towards brothers and sisters in Christ, and identifying more strongly with secularists than with other believers. At its worst, it puts respectability above brotherly love.

Charitable moment: Some evolutionists may recognize the huge cultural shock caused when the consensus changed from a historical view of the creation account in Genesis to a symbolic view of creation account in Genesis, and may respond with patience and understanding as it takes awhile for views to adjust. Others may recognize that the creationists behave as they do out of allegiance to God and an independence of spirit.

---

Related controversies: The authority of the Bible. Models and methods for interpreting the Bible.

---

The conversation continues:

Martin LaBar writes on Young Earth Creation vs Intelligent Design. I also thought the flow chart of beliefs on origins was helpful.

Howard Nowlan looks over the conflicts between naturalism and supernaturalism in The Present Danger?

Craig points us to Gerald Schroeder's scheme for mapping the Genesis days onto contemporary scientific chronology, an example of one approach to compatibility between the "7 days" narrative and current scientific views.

Controversies in the church: series introduction

Every once in awhile I start a series that I know I'm not quite capable of doing justice, but that hardly lets me off the hook of trying. I wish a book, booklet, or field guide existed that did a good job of explaining various controversies in the church, while doing justice to both sides -- or all sides, as the case may be. I've seen a few things that were in the neighborhood -- catalogs of differences or lists of which groups stand where on various things. But they either made no real effort to explain, or made an effort to explain only the side of the group running the publishing house.

For some controversies that divide the church, I can see both sides. For other controversies, I have no earthly idea what is behind certain views. So as I go along in this series, I'd like to invite other people to comment with either more perspective on their point of view or mentioning that they've responded on their own blog. Anyone who tells me of a response on their own blog -- and the post constructively explains without being condescending or polemic -- will get a link.

My hope is that, at the end of this series, we'll have an on-line resource for anyone who wants to hear both sides of the story, to better understand their brothers and sisters in Christ. I should be plain that I'm not expecting to resolve any controversies at this point; if we can simply understand them, it will be a step in the right direction.

Confirmation day and my niece's bat mitzvah

Today was confirmation day at our church. We had a good sized confirmation class this year. They seemed bright. They could articulate their faith.

But it's only been a few months since my niece's bat mitzvah. And again, much like the year of my nephew's bar mitzvah, I couldn't help but notice a few differences in the way the two congregations approach a youth's coming of age. For my niece and nephew, it was the day they first wore the tallit, the prayer shawl -- and all that comes with that. But just a quick note on the shawl before the more important part about what comes with it.

Every time I look at a Jewish prayer shawl, I can see an inheritance of our Christian faith from its Jewish roots -- because I see a prayer shawl every week in Christian worship. Most Christians would also think a prayer shawl looked familiar -- any Christian who has ever been to worship in a church that is rooted in the ancient traditions: the priest or pastor or minister still wears one. Though we call it by a different name, the pastor's stole is still recognizably based on the Jewish tallit. It even still has the trailing tassels inherited from Judaism: "Throughout the generations to come, you are to make tassels on the corners of one's garments ..." (Numbers 15:38) Apparently it passed into Christian practice back in the days of the apostles when the leaders of all the earliest Christian churches were Jewish.

But more important than the prayer shawl was what came with it. In the synagogue, it wasn't just the rabbi who wore the prayer shawl. Being a conservative synagogue, everyone both male and female past the age of bar mitzah/bat mitzvah wore the shawl. You may think, "Well, it's just not a sign of leadership, then." Actually, it is. On the day my niece took up her shawl for the first time, she led the services. She led the prayers. She read the readings. She led the songs. She gave the sermon. Now don't get me wrong -- Billy Graham's reputation as an articulate speaker was not in any danger from her, or from my nephew before her. But when she came of age, it came with leadership responsibility. Every adult member of that congregation not only can lead services if needed, but in fact has already done so at least once. (Well, twice if you count the Friday evening and Saturday morning services separately.) It's part of being an adult member of the congregation. That level of leadership, at a minimum, is expected of everyone. So it's not that you look out on a congregation full of shawls and think, "Well, it means nothing; everybody is wearing them." Instead, it means, "Every last one of them is capable of leading, in a pinch." That's something to be proud of.

People generally rise to our expectations of them. In our churches, we do the youth no favors by setting low expectations.

As for our confirmands of 2010: Other than the confirmation itself when they were received as adult members, their participation in the service was limited. They did not lead the services. They did not lead the prayers. They did not lead the songs. They did not read any of the Scripture readings. They did not give a sermon. And they joined a congregation in which leadership is not expected of its people.

There are many things we have known and claimed of our Jewish heritage. I believe that here is another inheritance for us to claim: training all of our members to lead.