Dan Barker, of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (an organization that was established in a country premised upon the concept of freedom of religious expression), appears to have coined a new talking point.
Dan Barker has based his career as an atheist activist and certainly bases his argument from authority to condemn the Bible upon being an ex-pastor.
However, he consistently demonstrates a lack of knowledge, at even the most basic levels, of the Bible’s contents, concepts and contexts. This is no mere assertion as I evidenced very many times including at the parsed post: Scriptural Misinterpretations and Misapplications.
His latest talking point is to best expressed via a syllogism:
1) The Bible states that “God is not the author of confusion.”
2) The Bible has caused a lot of confusion.
3) Therefore, God is not the Bible’s author.
As much as on the surface this syllogism appears airtight; there are various fallacies packaged within.
As per usual, Dan Barker takes a text out of context to make a pretext for a prooftext. He takes the half verse “God is not the author of confusion” and, apparently, absolutizes it to mean any and all confusion. Thus, God does not author confusion but the Bible causes confusion ergo…
Before considering the context let us note that even if we grant his interpretation of the half verse—as meaning any and all confusion or simply confusion as to the Bible’s message—his syllogism is fallacious.
1) The Bible states that “God is not the author of confusion.”
2) The Bible has caused a lot of confusion.
3) Therefore, God is not the author of that confusion.
This is precisely what the half verse states, is it not? “God is not the author of confusion” and so we conclude that God did not cause that confusion.
Now, let us consider the context: it relates to the church and doing thing in order within the church. In particular, what is in view is aspects of early church life such as coming together to speak in tongues, prophesying, etc.
Let us succinctly survey the text:
…unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air…Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret…Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say?….
if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind?…
Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints…
Let all things be done decently and in order (1st Corinthians 14:9-40).
Thus, so that no one would walk into a church meeting and witness a confusing cacophony of various people speaking in tongues, prophesying, etc. all at one and think that this is God’s way, order is urged because God is not the author of such confusing disorder.
And so, as per usual Dan Barker makes a clever remark but he is found to be both illogical and uncontextual.