The Implications of Contradictions

by

Clifton D. Healy

You’ve seen the Far Side cartoon, I’m sure. There’s a boy standing outside the School for the Gifted, books in one hand, the other hand pressed against the door, and he’s pushing as hard as he can on the door. The sign below the handle reads, "Pull." Gifted, indeed.

Funny thing about life: two contradictory things cannot both hold true. If a door requires one to pull it open, pushing won’t do the trick. Two two’s will never make a five. If it’s wet, it’s not dry.

This is called the law of non-contradiction. A and not non-A. This principle is used to defend the biblical witness against silly claims of contradiction (and therefore claims against its veracity). Matthew tells of two demoniacs. Mark and Luke write about only one. "Ah!" say the skeptics. "See! A contradiction. The Bible is not true." But Mark and Luke do not say there were not two demoniacs. Nor do they say there was only one. They simply tell about one. It is A and B. It is not A and non-A. The law of non-contradiction.

This principle should also be used when it comes to discerning the truth of various churches’ teachings.

Recently, I was skimming through the Ultimate Biography published by A & E. In the pages describing the life and followers of Jesus, there was a note indicating that there were 22,000 Christian groups worldwide. I’ve heard a similar figure before. In a lecture Frank Schaeffer (son of the late philosopher and theologians, Francis A. Schaeffer) gave a few years ago, he claimed that UN figures he’d studied showed there were 23,000 Christian groups worldwide, with 5 new ones being added each week. Whatever the case, one would not be unjustified to think that that was too dang many.

I was raised in the Stone-Campbell churches, more particularly, the non-denominational Christian churches/churches of Christ. These churches frequently defined themselves by who or what they were not. We’re not a denomination, like the Disciples of Christ (another Stone-Campbell church group). And we’re not against instruments in worship, like the a capella churches of Christ (yet another Stone-Campbell church group). But their claim was that they were out to restore the belief and practice of the New Testament Church. Thus, on matters of significance, like baptism, church polity, and the Lord’s Supper, their conviction was that what they themselves believed and practiced was that which the New Testament Church had taught and done.

As a member of the Stone-Campbell churches, I was also part of the evangelical world. For most of my life I wasn’t all that aware of other churches, although occasionally I would hear about how the Baptist church wasn’t as close to the New Testament pattern as we were because they were a denomination, or how the Methodists sprinkled babies, instead of immersing believers. There was an amorphous evangelical world out there of which I was barely conscious until high school.

As I got a little older, I discovered another sort of Christian, the charismatic believer. These Christians believed in speaking in tongues. But of course, we in the Stone-Campbell churches knew the charismatic gifts had ended at the conclusion of the first century, so whatever it was they were doing, it wasn’t based on the New Testament.

By the time I was about to graduate from high school, I became more aware of the Roman Catholic Church. Growing up, the Catholic Church mainly served as a foil about all that had been wrong with the Church before our Stone-Campbell movement had come along to bring a second reformation to the Church. But I was aware that Catholics had bishops and priests instead of elders like we did; that they baptized babies instead of believers; and that they believed Jesus was present in the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper, or Eucharist, instead of believing the Lord’s Supper was just a memorial.

So things went for the first thirty or so years of my life. I knew there were a bunch of other Christians out there, that there were disagreements among us all, some of which were extremely significant, but just sort of shrugged and remained willfully agnostic about the situation.

I was able to put these tensions and contradictions on hold for a few more years after I became a member of the Episcopal Church. I had thought--mistakenly--that I had found a church which could cut through all these contradictions with a broad-minded latitudinarianism. Yet I also believed I could hold on to the one faith of the New Testament Church, once for all delivered to the saints, by being part of an institution of the historic Church, such as the Episcopal Church. But it wasn’t long before I began to understand that one could not both claim to adhere to the faith of the Church, yet claim the contradictions that were rampant in the Episcopal Church, just as there were in the larger Christian population..

In the last several months it has become increasingly clear to me that the contradictions among various groups in Christianity is not to be taken lightly. These doctrinal differences have resulted in the more than 20,000 schisms in the Church. Christian groups have divided the body of Christ, and in so doing, sinned despite their best intentions. That is to say, our very religious lives in our various denominations and Christian groups reflects the sin of schism. It is a sin I believe must be repented.

Oh, sure, there are some differences in teaching and practice that are of lesser importance. Whether or not one thinks instruments can be used in worship is, ultimately, an area about which Christians may disagree. No one’s salvation is at stake, nor is anyone denying key Christian beliefs. Similarly, what time the usual Sunday worship service is to be held is not a matter over which Christians should be overly exercised. And goodness knows, Sunday School need not be a requirement, though in our day and age, it may be a necessity. Furthermore, in all these differing customs, Christians will, as humans naturally do, gravitate toward those of like mind. Though one church might be an a capella one, it need not separate from her sister church which uses instruments. A church which emphasizes Sunday School need not view another church which does not as somehow inferior, or perhaps not a part of the true Church. Customs, even if churches associate among themselves on the basis of them, need not become schismatic.

But there are matters about which determining the truth of the issue is of vital importance. Christians differ on these, but it is not a difference about which we can shrug our shoulders and say, "Oh, well, you have your opinion. I have mine. Let’s agree to disagree." I will only briefly highlight three topics: baptism, the Lord’s Supper (or Eucharist), and church polity. I will not do much more than try to show why these differences are significant.

There are basically only two positions on the essentiality of baptism, though variations in its meaning, mode and candidate. Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and Stone-Campbell churches, and some others, teach that one must be baptized to be saved. Or, perhaps better, baptism is a non-negotiable aspect of salvation. No baptism--just like no faith--no salvation. This should not be misunderstood to mean that faith, the saving power of God, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and grace are not part and parcel of salvation. It is rather, to state, that in the act of baptism, the saving activity of God is appropriated by faith on the basis of grace. The other position on baptism is that it is not essential. One is saved without baptism. This does not mean that a believer will not also be baptized, but it does mean that baptism is not a part of salvation. It might be the way one places one’s membership in a local church. It might not be done at all. Whether or not one is baptized has no bearing on whether or not one is saved. Both these positions on baptism cannot be true. They contradict one another.

-480 The implications are serious. If baptism is essential, then those who refuse it and claim to have been saved apart from it are in significant doctrinal error. They are guilty of disregarding the Lord’s will on a very important matter. They have placed themselves in a situation of some doubt about their being Christians or not. On the other hand, if baptism is not a necessary element of salvation, then those who press for its essentiality are guilty of elevating human works above God’s grace. By doing so, they are guilty of heresy, and by such guilt similarly place themselves in a situation of doubtfulness regarding their being Christians.

As far as the Lord’s Supper is concerned, I want to examine only one aspect: the presence of Christ in the elements (bread and wine) of the Eucharist. Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans (each in a slightly different ways), and perhaps some others, all claim that in the act of observing the Eucharist, Christ is specially present in the bread and wine. Almost all other Protestant groups hold the position that sixteenth-century Reformer Ulrich Zwingli held: the Eucharist is just a memorial act. Jesus is not in any way present in the bread and wine. We just consume the elements and remember the meaning of his crucifixion and resurrection. But both these positions cannot be true. They contradict one another.

If Christ is, indeed, present in a special way in the Lord’s Supper, then those who consider the Lord’s Supper just a memorial meal are in significant danger. Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 11 holds true: by not discerning the body and blood of Jesus, they bring judgment against themselves. On the other hand, if Christ is not present in the Eucharist, those who claim he is are in a similarly precarious position by potentially venerating created matter as God. Again, either position carries eternal implications, if it is true, for those who oppose it.

Finally, Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans, and perhaps a few other groups, believe that the one ministry of the Church contains as an essential aspect of that ministry the ministry of bishops, priests and deacons. Indeed, bishops, as representative of the Apostles, are required for the Church to be fully the Church. Most Protestant groups deny this. Some say the Church is governed locally by elders (presbyters) and deacons. Others have a slightly different understanding of church polity. But they all say in one way or another that a church may or may not have bishops. Bishops are not essential to the Church. Once again, both these positions cannot be true. They contradict one another.

That these contrasting propositions are serious in their implications should be easily seen as well. If those who oppose bishops are right, then proponents of episcopal ministry (leadership by bishops) are guilty of remaking the Church of Jesus Christ in ways he did not intend. They are guilty of trying to build the Church on a foundation other than that on which it has been laid. While there may not be so direct a connection between church polity and eternal consequences as is evident in the contrasting teachings in the Lord’s Supper and baptism, still the potential for great harm is there. And in any case, it is no light matter to redo Jesus’ work in a way contrary to his will. On the other hand, if, indeed, bishops are the apostolic successors for leadership in the Church, if it is true that bishops have been part of the New Testament Church from the beginning (as is generally the claim), then those who propose a different form of Church ministry are similarly guilty of remaking the Church, and furthermore, are guilty of separating themselves from the one Church and its ministry. Again, the eternal consequences may not be so direct or so dour, but it is not a light matter, either, to separate oneself from the Church’s ministry.

The temptation, when faced with contradictory church teachings, is to respond something like: "Okay, fine. Christians contradict one another, so what? We each have our churches where we can live out our convictions. Occasionally we can get together with each other and work on a common ministry or evangelism project. What’s the big deal?" I hope that I have been persuasive as to what the big deal is, with regard to these matters. If I am accurate in my diagnosis, this is a very serious situation which demands our full attention.

But what about a remedy? How do we resolve this dilemma? How can Christians get past contradictions to the truth? It seems to me, the following possibilities present themselves.

We can be agnostic. That is to say, we can claim simply that all these Christians are sincere and honest in their convictions, each has come to the matter with the best of intentions, and we are not able to humanly resolve the issue. We can say that despite our confidence in our understanding of the issue, we simply just do not know the truth of the matter. So we will table the matter until the Lord’s return, when all will be revealed for what it is.

This is not all that bad of an approach. It is the road whose intention is charity toward our Christian brothers and sisters in other groups, some of whose specific beliefs contrast with some of our specific beliefs. It is properly humble in that we don’t claim to have an exclusive handle on the truth. And it is the way much of the evangelical world has handled the many divisions among the Protestant churches. However, the problem here is that by taking this approach, we are showing an irresponsibility for truth and reality. Love without truth is ultimately not love. It’s permissiveness. Humility without conviction is finally not humility but apathy. If we cannot ultimately know the truth, then why do we believe anything at all?

We can be rationalistic. That is to say, we can claim that though we have differing conclusions about these matters, this is not a result of our inability to know the truth, but is more a matter of faulty reasoning, human prejudices, and our fallen human natures. But since we can know the truth, then we must get behind all these failures in human thought, and our reason will get at the truth.

This too, has some positive consequences. It takes seriously the reality that human belief is not just a simple amalgamation of various facts built into logical conclusions. Rather, our beliefs are shaped by our human sin, our prejudices, our worldviews, and our personal histories, as well as the social, historical and political settings in which we find ourselves. However, it, too, has significant failings, not the least of which is an unreflective conviction in the infallibility of human reason. Or, to say it another way, our reasoning abilities, while still able to understand reality and truth, have been affected by the Fall. Even the best human reason will err. We cannot trust completely, though we may trust a great deal, in our ability as humans to reason. Only God knows all, and we know that which he wishes to reveal, whether generally through the created order (including our reasoning abilities) or the Holy Spirit and Scripture.

We can be sectarian. That is to say, we claim that though we acknowledge the possibility of the presence of Christians in other groups, still we believe our Christian group has, in all sincerity, a better, perhaps even the most correct, understanding of these teachings than other Christian groups, and therefore other Christians should conform their teachings to our understanding.

While this approach has the advantage of acknowledging how the Church should shape and focus our beliefs, it has some disadvantages as well. The weakness of this approach should be obvious. It begs the question as to which group has separated from whom, and why a particular group may be privileged over the rest, as well as over the Church of history. In any case, a sectarian approach is only a step away from schism.

Of course, very few Christians follow only one of these approaches. Indeed, most Christians find themselves aligned with one or another of these approaches, and various modifications of them, depending on the time and place. But this only adds to the confusion. If one takes the rationalist approach, mitigating it slightly with some humble agnosticism, then one has undercut one’s ability to come to the truth. That is, one cannot claim to know the truth, but then also turn around and claim, with Dennis Miller, "Then again, I could be wrong." Similarly, one cannot hold allegiance to one’s Christian group’s truth claims, as a sectarian approach would have it, yet also claim that other groups’ contradicting beliefs might also be right. Perhaps the most dangerous combination is that of a sectarian and rationalistic approach. In essence, this is the claim that our group has a better handle on the truth, a better ability to reason, than any other group, including the historical Church. That would be quite a claim.

So what else is there?

It seems that one could go back to the New Testament (and the rest of the Scriptures) and follow what it says. But here we run into a problem. Christians don’t agree on what it says. How can you discern between truth claims? Both sides claim the Scripture as the basis for their views? Who’s right? Both use reason and their group’s traditions to come up with their conclusions? How is one to decide between the two?

It seems to me that the impulse to get back to the New Testament is the correct one. The problem, however, is that no individual Christian is authorized to elevate their experience or interpretation over that of Scripture itself or that of the Church. Peter, in his second letter, says our private interpretation cannot be privileged over that of the Holy Spirit’s (1.20). But how do we know what the Holy Spirit’s interpretation is? Christians in Acts 15 were faced with the same dilemma. The Church’s leaders met, and the Holy Spirit gave them the answer to their problem. This is exactly what Jesus promised to do in John 16.13. He promised to guide his Church in truth by the Holy Spirit. He not only did this in Acts 15, but the consistent witness of history shows he continued to fulfill his promise in the later Church councils. So we Christians need to submit our private interpretations to the Holy Spirit. We do that by submitting them to the consistent witness and doctrine of the Church.

An example. In the fourth century, a priest, by the name of Arius, had come to the conclusion, based on his own study of Scripture, that Jesus was not divine, but was a created being like the angels, even if he was the highest created being. (By the way, there are people today who believe doctrines similar to what Arius taught, the Jehovah’s Witnesses.) A lot of people were persuaded by Arius’ views--after all, he was getting this from his Bible study--and it became a tough problem that threatened to split the Church. There were persons who opposed Arius, the most famous of which was Athanasius. He, too, used Scripture to prove that Jesus was both God and man. Who was right? How was the Church to decide?

Though various important social and political factors led to the organization of what is called the first ecumenical (or worldwide) council of the Church, still, in the midst of human failings and chaos, and just like in Acts 15, the Holy Spirit guided the bishops who met in that council to the Truth. They realized that the consistent teaching of the early Christians, the Church after the first century, showed that the proper interpretation of Scripture about whether Jesus was both God and man, was that of Athanasius. They developed a creed to help guard the proper belief about the Trinity and about Jesus, and the teachings of Arius were condemned.

Unfortunately, the teachings of Arius and his followers did not disappear for some time. Furthermore, the Church was forced by other heresies to continue working out what was the proper Scriptural belief about God and Christ for many centuries. But Jesus’ promise still held true. The Holy Spirit would lead the Church to the Truth. The gates of Hades would not prevail against his Church. The point: Scripture is only properly interpreted in line with what the historic Church has always taught, as she has grown and developed in her understanding, of the faith once for all delivered to the saints, believers like you and me.

The first several centuries saw a unified Church. After the Church council in Acts 15, there were seven other Church councils (including the first dealing with Arius’ teachings), councils which the whole Church recognized, that met to decide matters of doctrine in relation to Scripture and the teaching of the Apostles. Who am I to ignore these councils? I live in a time of a myriad of divisions among the churches, with contradicting truth claims. The first several centuries of the Church saw a unified witness, bought at tremendous cost of human life, rigorous thought, humble prayer, as well as all the failings of human natures. We are already indebted to the historic Church for our clarified beliefs in the Trinity, the divine and human natures of Jesus, the transmission of our Bibles, and many other things. To ignore what the ancient Church had to say--on matters of baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and church polity, among other things--indeed, not to give it appropriate weight, seems to me a reckless, if naive, thing to do.

Granted, this approach can end up being as problematic and as fraught with narrow-mindedness as the other approaches I’ve mentioned. There is a rigidity of thought which wants to simply replicate eighth century Constantinople. But while there’s no call to mindlessly replicate the past, there is I believe the obligation, in continuity with the ancient Church, to believe and live what the Scriptures reveal. Though the ancient Christians were as fraught with human sinfulness and frailty as we are today, they were closer to the events described in the New Testament, were closer to the Apostles (some of whom had personal relationships with the Apostles), and seem to me to be in a better position than we are to determine what the Scriptures really meant.

The joke is an old one. A man is being taken on a tour of heaven by an angel. He’s shown one room full of people where a solemn and dignified liturgy is taken place. "Those are the Catholics," says his angelic guide.

The next room is full of noise and music, singing and clapping. The man looks at the angel. "Those are the Charismatics," the angel says.

Before they proceed to the next room, the man is instructed to take off his shoes. Following what the angel does, he tiptoes to the next room. The door is closed and on it are placed warning signs with large red letters: Quiet! and Do Not Disturb. The man begins to ask the angel a question, but the angel motions frantically for him to remain silent. They quietly creep away, and after a while the angel indicates to the man he can put his shoes on once more.

"What was that all about?" the man asks.

"Those," said the angel, "were the Baptists. They think they’re the only ones here."

We chuckle on hearing it the first time. Different versions of the joke have different groups represented. We think it’s funny precisely because of the irony that we Christians are not to judge the eternal destinies of others.

And of course, that’s true. Jesus said that we are not to judge one another. But he also told us not to cast our pearls before swine. John says, Test the spirits.

When two Christians claim contradictory propositions only two possibilities remain. Only one of the propositions is true, or they are both false. Some claims are such that they cannot both be false; one of them has to be true. A person is either dead or alive. If he is alive, he is not dead. If he is dead, he is not alive. There is no alternative. The three matters I’ve looked at are such that only one of them can be true. Either baptism is an essential aspect of salvation, or it is not. If it is not essential, then one may or may not submit to it. If it is essential, then one may not refuse baptism. Either the ministry of bishops, priests and deacons is an essential aspect of the one ministry of the Church, or it is not. If it isn’t, then one may choose another polity. If it is, then only those churches that have bishops, priests and deacons have it right. Either Jesus is present in the elements of the Lord’s Supper or he is not. If he is, then our observance of the Lord’s Supper is going to be radically essential. If he isn’t, then we may be pretty much free to do what we want.

One could multiply examples.

It is true that we cannot, indeed, must not, determine another’s eternal fate. We cannot presume ourselves to be the only ones who will be in heaven. But when it comes to the truth of various Christian teachings, that can be discerned. Perhaps not easily. Perhaps not completely. And certainly in our individual fallen existence, not infallibly. But known it can be. If we think otherwise, then perhaps the joke is on us.

© 2002 Clifton D. Healy

Return to What I Have Learned