I was talking with a fried the other day about the problem with the slippery slope argument (you know the one: if you question 1 thing the bible says, 6 day creation for example, then it’s a short downhill trip to questioning everything and losing your faith) is that it’s just too blunt. The way he put it was that it’s like using a chainsaw to chop garlic. I agree, I think we must look carefully at every issue independently of where it leads. If I am convinced that evolution is true, then I am convinced it is true, and I need to deal with my understanding of Genesis 1 in light of that. But I don’t need to worry about every other possible question that might come down the road. When those come, I will look at them carefully too.
So that’s settled, but, I also have been thinking of an equally blunt argument that takes the slippery slope argument head on which is the house of cards argument.
The house of cards argument says that if your faith is so constructed that to challenge any one aspect (be it the Bible, or the virgin birth, or miracles, or the church, or whatever) shakes the foundation of everything you believe, then you don’t have a very well built faith. What you have, in fact, is a house of cards. And what do you do with a house of cards? You protect it from anything that might blow it over – because it is so fragile.
However, if your faith is built so that every aspect is held independently (connected but not structurally dependent on each other) then it can stand the questions and challenges that are bound to come up if your life is going to be anything other than safe. Common images for this I have heard are like nodes in a web, or springs on a trampoline (thank you John Franke and Rob Bell, respectively).
The thing that connects these two arguments is that, at the end of the day, the concern of both of them is pastoral. The slippery slope argument fears that if you question any aspect of your faith you will lose it all, and the house of cards argument fears that if you don’t question your faith then you aren’t building it in a structurally sound way, and eventually the whole thing will come crashing down.
I suppose I am beginning to see my calling as someone who can help people reconstruct their faith in a not-house-of-cards way.
I wonder what you think are the most common “slippery slope” or “house of cards” questions that come up for people? As a pastor do you see people constantly being challenged by the same ones?
Really the most common time I hear the slippery slope argument used is when we are talking about how we interpret the Bible.
So take for example one of my Bile professors, who has “slipped down the slope” — so to speak — so far as to (i think) question the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus — both things I am not comfortable doing, btw. In some sense she’s the poster child for the slippery slope argument. And yet her faith and hope in God, as well as her care for the poor and marginalized is as strong as any other Christian I have known (and much stronger then most).
Contrast that with most people I know who hold strongly to an innerancy view of scripture. It seems to me that they actually live in fear and not in hope. Because they have to spend their religious energy making sure that their “house of cards” won’t be shaken. And they do not live with the sense of hope and service that I see in in my professor.
And what does Christianity give us if not hope and love for the other?