I do not understand the contention that “doctrine divides.” In what sense is a church body whose members believe different things unified? It seems to me that doctrine is precisely what can unify different people and personalities into one community. Otherwise, what do you have? When the unity is based on people, what you end up with is homogeneity of personality, socio-economic class, age demographic, and superficial affinities. You end up with people that you “like”; but what is the virtue in that? What about being unified with people you don’t like or who are different from you? The Bible’s model in 1 Corinthians is that the church should be diverse in all of these worldly ways but unified in a common faith in Christ.

The Anglican tradition allowed for diversity–or vagueness–of belief, as long as everyone followed the same form of worship, namely, the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer. Thus, worship became the basis for unity. That hasn’t worked all that well, but what about when the congregation is not agreed on how to worship, or, as is often the case today, features several different styles, with members choosing which one to go to. So how is that unity?

It seems to me that a congregation that splits because of disagreements is going from disunity to unity. The dissensions within the congregation keep it from being unified. But when the members form two congregations, each enjoys a greater amount of unity than was experienced before.

All true Christians already ARE unified in Christ. This is a spiritual reality, not something that needs to be worked for, but already in existence, to be appreciated now and fully known in eternity. We are all members of the Church Universal. Why isn’t that enough? We don’t HAVE to belong to the same particular congregations. Efforts to incarnate the Church Universal in an earthly institution do not seem to work very well in this fallen world. In the meantime, we can appreciate our spiritual unity with all of our fellow Christians–as well as the different kinds of unity we share with our fellow citizens and our fellow human beings–while benefiting from the special unity that can exist when diverse individuals have the same bond of a common belief in their churches.

Just some of my thoughts on that “basis of picking a church” post.

Richard Cohen asks why people get tattoos (which 40% of 26-40 year olds have) and, after showing how styles and commitments keep changing, poses a theory and an application:

I asked a college professor what she thought of tattoos, and she said that for young people, they represent permanence in an ever-changing world. But how is that possible? Anyone old enough and smart enough to get into college knows that only impermanence is permanent. Everything changes — including, sweetie, that tight tummy with its “look at me!” tattoo. Time will turn it into false advertising.

The permanence of the moment — the conviction that now is forever — explains what has happened to the American economy. We are, as a people, deeply in debt. We are, as a nation, deeply in debt. The average American household owes more than its yearly income. We save almost nothing (0.4 percent of disposable income) and spend almost everything (99.6 percent of disposable income) in the hope that tomorrow will be a lot like today. We bought homes we could not afford and took out mortgages we could not pay and whipped out the plastic on everything else. Debts would be due in the future, but, with any luck, the future would remain in the future.

Is that it, that tattoos reflect “the permanence of the moment,” or the attempt to make the moment permanent? I suspect that among the readers here, some of you fall within the tattooed 40%. I am curious about what the attraction is to having your body all carved up with needles to make a picture on your body. I’m not criticizing you. I’d just like to know the meaning of tattoos.

Anne Applebaum writes about the textbooks that Saudi Arabia uses and sends free to Islamic schools around the world. Here is a multiple choice question from a textbook on Islam and jurisprudence:

Q. “Is belief true in the following instances:

(a) A man prays but hates those who are virtuous.

(b) A man professes that there is no deity other than God but loves the unbelievers.

(c) A man worships God alone, loves the believers, and hates the unbelievers.”

The correct answer, of course, is (c): According to the Wahhabi imams who wrote this textbook, it isn’t enough to simply worship God or just to love other believers; it is important to hate unbelievers, too. By the same token, (b) is wrong as well: Even a man who worships God cannot be said to have “true belief” if he also loves unbelievers.

“Unbelievers,” in this context, are Christians and Jews. In fact, any child who attends Saudi schools until ninth grade will eventually be taught outright that “Jews and Christians are enemies of believers.” They will also be taught that Jews conspire to “gain sole control over the world,” that the Christian crusades never ended, and that on Judgment Day “the rocks or the trees” will call out to Muslims to kill Jews.

This, by the way, is from the new edition that was revised to downplay Muslim extremism.