Reading Time: 9 minutes The other day, I posted my first take on John Loftus’ and Randal Rauser’s debate book God Or Godless? recently. Randal Rauser has now posted two responses to the post: Part 1 and Part 2 In this return fire, I will be inter-paragraphically (that might be a new word) commenting on his claims and views. Thanks to Randal for engaging in this debate. For those who don't know, we have some history in debating the Nativity on radio. Please comment below on what you think.
Reading Time: 9 minutes

My country lurches toward the one day in the year when we are specifically thankful for stuff. On this grand day, I wanted to share something with you that makes me happy to be alive and part of the human tapestry. I hope this story lifts your spirits as much as it did mine.

wedding at cana
The Wedding at Cana. (Dennis Jarvis, CC-SA.)

A Quick Christianese Lesson.

Before we get to the wonderful news, though, let me explain some Christianese. Most Christians regard the entire group of Christian believers as one body. Sometimes you hear this body referred to as “the Bride of Christ” because the end of the world will feature at some point a marriage feast between Jesus and his bride. Christians identify this bride as the universal body of Christians.

Moreover, most Christians regard this feast as a literal one. They think that they will sit together at a table with Jesus and feast forever and ever.

We also need to briefly talk about the Christian term “sowing division.” Christians also phrase the idea as “sowing discord/strife.” Translated, the phrase means to speak out in ways that provoke arguments or ill-will.

The Bible depicts discord between believers as a very bad thing. Early Christians argued and squabbled about everything, so I can see why the Bible might do that. A lot of doctrines Christians totally take for granted today were the focus of huge fights centuries ago. Christians settled some of those fights with the brute force of law–or through violence. They continue to fight some of those ancient battles today.

For a religion about peace and love, its history is sure marked by conflict.

A Warped View of Discord.

Nowadays, sowing discord is the go-to criticism for any Christian who isn’t toeing the party line.

Such a person is “sowing discord.” That person is dividing the church body. There is a lot of ink spilled (well, especially digital ink) about how to tell if a Christian is sowing discord. If you have an accusation to make or a negative thing to say, it is of paramount importance that you say it the right way, for the right reasons, with the right expectations.

For example, on this link I just gave, notice that #1 on that blogger’s list of “no-nos” is his equation of just linking to a negative comment with spreading gossip:

Am I engaging in a “dude did you see this?” If I find an article of somebody dogging my friend, or another figure, its pointless for me to go to his website and then link to the guy that disagrees with him. It’s just sowing discord. It’s really no different than in your everyday life if you overheard gossip and then told your friend, “dude, do you know what Tom said about you”.

In such a circumstance, a Christian even just saying he or she saw another Christian doing something really bad could potentially be “sowing discord.” Just revealing knowledge of wrongdoing could be seen as “pointless” and “gossip.”

This particular blogger doesn’t mention if what’s “dogging my friend” is true or not–just that it is being said at all.

Don’t miss the comments, either. These guys are very, very, very concerned with making sure they’re judging their peers in just the right way. Let me tell you: I’m so glad I’m out of that religion.

Opening the Door to Predators.

The Gossip
The Gossip (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Obviously a church’s leaders desire to resolve problems. For a religion whose people are supposed to be inhabited and possessed by a real live god that informs their actions and makes them better people than us heathens, an awful lot of churches seem to see issues with “backbiting” and gossip.

For what it’s worth, I agree; many organizations suffer from the disharmony caused by gossip and destructive words. I’ve been the victim of these myself in the past. One or two malicious liars or gossips in even a large group can destroy it. We can all agree that this kind of behavior is not awesome.

The problem is that often you see Christians moving from obviously disharmonious and unhealthy practices like unsubstantiated gossip to accusing each and every dissenter of “sowing discord.” It gets to the point where any time someone has something to say that might be construed as a criticism, there’s all this second-guessing about whether or not it’s “sowing discord” and best left unsaid.

If I were a predator or scammer, I cannot imagine a better, more ripe environment for my activities than a group of people conditioned not to say anything negative about anybody who claims to be Christian.

Think about it. That’s a group of people who have been groomed since birth just about not to speak out about abuses or say anything negative about fellow Christians–especially Christian leaders.

When Divisiveness Gets Weaponized.

When Rachel Held Evans wrote a book about following the Bible to the letter for one year, you can bet that other Christians immediately thought she did it just to mock them. (Interestingly, one of the comments on that blog piece criticizes the blog’s author himself of being “divisive.”). It’s not even Ms. Evans’ first brush with accusations of divisiveness.

Commenters are still arguing over whether or not Rob Bell, who wrote a book criticizing the concept of Hell and other long-cherished Christian notions, is “sowing discord.” Christian Piatt, a growing voice in the religion who seems like a pretty good egg overall, thinks that just telling another person that he or she is “an abomination” is “sowing discord.” Seriously, I’ve lost track of how often I’ve seen in comments and on blogs that this or that author or speaker is just trying to divide the church body. Any time a criticism crops up, you can be sure someone will rush in to defend his or her cherished idol by denouncing and trying to cow the critic that way.

As we saw with Tony Anthony’s denial defense last time we talked, going on the offensive and accusing dissenters of wanting to divide the church body is a primary defense of those who don’t have anything left in the arsenal. It’s the Christian-against-Christian version of the singsong salvos “I’ll pray for you” and “I hope you’re right.”

It’s just so super-easy to use that accusation as a way to control dissent and direct the conversation. Families that leave churches get accused of “sowing dissent” to silence opposition. Ms. Evans, Mr. Piatt, and Mr. Bell, and legions of other Christians get accused of it so they’ll quit asking the legitimate questions and making the legitimate observations they are asking and making that might drain off supporters or increase doubt in the minds of Christians.

Control of the Conversation.

Sowing division is one of the worst things a Christian can possibly do. The privileged elite who control the discourse on the religion declare it so.

Christian leaders forbid their followers to speak out against abuses or overreaches. They value the imagined unity of their groups more than they value compassion.

The accusation of divisiveness is one that you only see from abusers–it is one of their last-ditch efforts to control others’ minds and tongues. It means that these abusers cannot offer any good, solid reason for not speaking out. So they beg instead for dissenters to stay silent. They threaten dissenters with incalculable harm, and they threaten to bring that harm down upon these dissenters’ friends, communities, and very families.

It’s so insidious–and so cruel and hateful! To me, their demands sound like the threats of a domestic-violence abuser:

  • “Shut up or you’ll break up the family.”
  • “Stop talking or you’ll make Daddy go to jail.”
  • “If you say a word about this to anybody, I’ll kill you.”

And I’m here to say: nothing about this demand for unity sounds like real love.

When the Mission Gets Overshadowed by Control-Lust.

What folks are really saying when they make that accusation is that their group’s survival depends upon people being silent about abuse. They’re saying that if victims and dissenters speak out, that the resulting disharmony is the fault of those speaking, not the fault of those whose abuses caused the disharmony in the first place.

I view this accusation, therefore, as nothing less than holding someone’s greatest desire–to be in a tribe, to belong, to be loved and accepted–hostage.

So when you see a church leader step outside the party tent, it’s time to rejoice. It’s time to hang out the banners and throw the kazoos into the air.

A Dissenter Refuses to Be Silenced.

And what better occasion for joy than a wedding?

A retired bishop with the United Methodist Church, Melvin Talbert, presided over the wedding of his gay son not long ago. Now, his church has long stated that it stands on the wrong side of history here–it opposes equal marriage rights for gay couples.

For his incredible humanity, he faces an inquisition–a trial. A trial! He is going to be judged in a trial.

His denomination leaders seek to defrock him over his disobedience.

He’s not even the only church leader in this situation. See, originally I didn’t have Bishop Talbert’s name specified up there, but then realized I needed to be more specific because there have been a rash of UMC ministers doing same-sex marriages.

And A Whole Bunch of Other Dissenters.

But there are a lot more defections from the party line.

Tom Ogletree, the retired dean of Yale Divinity School, did his son’s same-sex ceremony.

Frank Schaefer, a UMC pastor, officiated his son’s 2007 wedding in Massachusetts. His son thought that his dad would be upset if he didn’t ask him to officiate, even though he knew the request would put his dad into a serious bind with his church leadership. So he asked, and his dad agreed to do the wedding. Pastor Schaeffer performed the ceremony because he loves his son.

And for that love, he faces a trial at the hands of his denomination. His Dear Leaders gave him a chance to swear he’d never do another gay wedding, but since he has two other gay children, he knew he couldn’t do that. So he’s going to be charged because he is “sowing division within the church.”

This whole situation is so far past insane I don’t know whether to laugh or swear. (I settled on doing both.)

Two Christians refused to bow under to cruelty, inhumanity, and disgusting bigotry.

Two, but they are not alone at all–there are many other ministers who are joining them on the love bus.

Last year, Tara Spuhler McCabe, vice-moderator of the Presbyterian Church’s general assembly, stepped down from her post three days after getting it because a tipster let the church’s leaders know she’d officiated a gay wedding in Washington, D.C. The leaders “censured” her, but she refused to back down. She quit her post rather than buckle under. As that link reveals, the Episcopalian Church is having some major issues around gay rights as well.

Maybe Some Discord Ain’t Such a Bad Idea!

These bigoted denominations struggle now with plenty of discord. It’s definitely high time for these leaders to start seeing members bleed away. I wonder how long they’re going to be able to use the “discord” excuse with a straight face? Probably a while, but not forever. Sooner or later folks are going to wonder why all Christians seem so eager to “sow discord.”

The people calling for Bishop Talbert and Rev. Schaefer to go on trial–on trial, I repeat!–for their heretical views are missing the whole point. And maybe these organizations’ inability to recognize their own idolatry of their rules is why this story is such a big deal.

One of the Methodist leaders of “Good News,” one of the UMC’s groups, had this to say:

“As a retired bishop, assured of his pension, Bishop Talbert has little to lose by taking this action. Unfortunately, his words and actions are already causing great harm to our church, and if he follows through on his plans, the resulting consequences could be devastating to the unity and mission of The United Methodist Church,” he said.

Oh, we can only hope. That’d be the best outcome out of any of the available options.

Love Always Wins.

These denominations’ unity and mission depend upon bigotry and hatred. Clearly, they survive by oppressing and dehumanizing their chosen enemies. Thus, maybe they deserve a little devastation and discord. As Rev. Ogletree declared, “these are unjust laws, and therefore they do not really have the authority of law, even though technically they are established in the discipline.”

That’s the problem with love and dignity, isn’t it? To borrow an idea from Winston Churchill, love and dignity always win in the end. But first, folks try out all the other ways of suppressing and brutalizing each other. One step at a time, one defector at a time, we’re going to get there together.

The people facing these bizarre trials have my heartfelt hope for victory over bigotry. And if they lose their trials, well, then their denominations do not deserve them.

To these loving Christians, I say: You are better than this. You deserve so much more than you are getting at the hands of these foul abusers.

Please Support What I Do!

Come join us on FacebookTumblrPinterestTwitter, and our forum at! (Also Instagram, where I mostly post cat pictures.)

If you like what you see, I would love to have your support. My PayPal is (that’s an underscore in there) for one-time tips. I also welcome monthly patrons via Patreon with Roll to Disbelieve. You can also support the blog through my Amazon Affiliate link! Thanks!

This post was tidied up on February 14, 2019 by Cas.

ROLL TO DISBELIEVE "Captain Cassidy" is Cassidy McGillicuddy, a Gen Xer and ex-Pentecostal. (The title is metaphorical.) She writes about the intersection of psychology, belief, popular culture, science,...

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments