When "Jesus is Lord" is a Nonsequitur tagged: , , ,

When "Jesus is Lord" is a Nonsequitur

Posted by in Bible & Theology, News & Culture

This will be the first installment in a series on logic, debate, and persuasion.  Before you run for cover, read on.  We employ dozens of rhetorical devices every day.  This is especially true for those who are pastors, teachers, and missionaries.  Our role is to properly interpret the word of God and persuade people to heed our message through preaching, teaching one-on-one discussions, debates, blogs, books, and other forms of communication.  While our attempts may be valiant, their effects can be disappointing.  Practically everything we say in a sermon, gospel presentation, or reproof is an argument of some kind.  Have you ever put out your best and your listener remained solidly unmoved, unrepentant, and unconvinced?  The reasons are diverse.  We could look at human sinfulness which blinds the eyes.  We could look at God’s sovereignty.  While, these are worthwhile discussions, in this series we look at ourselves.  This series is not an attempt to belittle the divine aspect of our communication and persuasion.  Rather, since we have a message from God, we should put it forth in the purest form possible enshrouded in as little of our human sinfulness as possible over which our listeners will stumble, rejecting not the message rather the messenger.

There are a few reasons this is important.  First, the decorum through which we present our ideas to the brethren should be full of grace and above reproach.  This applies also to our critique of our fellow brother’s ideas as well.  Needless to say, we can all point to discussions and meetings in our churches and convention [not to mention the blogosphere!] wherein the vitriolic tone of the debate demonstrated flesh rather than spirit.  While our intent was to speak out for truth, we did it in such a way that the Truth Giver would be ashamed that we speak on His behalf.  These issues are close to home.

Second, we should be above reproach in how we handle truth before the lost world.  We are quick to accept things with which we agree and do not think about how the conclusions are reached.  We preach a sermon or share the gospel attempting to demonstrate some point [The Bible is inspired, Jesus is God, Miracles are Possible, etc] and do not realize how funny we sound to them.  While they may stumble over the message, they should never have to stumble over the form and presentation.  We often put truthful statements, wrap them in fallacious reasoning, and then cannot figure out why people are looking at us funny.

Third, we often receive objections and critiques from within and without which are based in fallacy.  Either our argument devolves into a tit-for-tat “Yes it is” “No it isn’t” kind of argument or we walk away with a war story about how “hard-hearted” people are.  We need to tools to rightly address fallacious reasoning when it is directed our way.  Having these tools will give us a kind of clinical objectivity which helps escape many sinful responses.

Finally, as believers, we should all be lovers of truth.  We should seek hard after right understanding and be quick to repent when we fail.

There are many great logic textbooks out there.  I will not be dealing with formal logic.  If you happen to own one of these books, my posts will fall under the “informal fallacies” section.  Informal fallacies are the kinds we usually appropriate in everyday discussions.  Armchair debates and political ads are the best places to find these.  I will not even be formally addressing informal fallacies.  We will look at specific informal fallacies and how we as Baptists in our various dimensions refine and employ our pet fallacies.  I will pick on lots of issues.  My goal is not to pick sides as much as it is to give entertaining [hopefully] examples.  I ask for grace when I use an example from your pet theological circle….  Just because I address something as fallacious does not mean that I am in agreement or disagreement with that position or its counter position.  Example: I may say something about abstinence/moderation and Calvinist/Armenian debates.  I am neither taking sides, nor am I wishing to discuss [read: debate] the issues specifically.  Just because someone used a fallacy to support a truth does not diminish from that truth, it only makes it less convincing.  For example, many people make really bad arguments as to why there is a God and He is the God of the Bible.  While their reasoning might be wrong, I still agree with their conclusion.

There is some front matter which needs to be addressed before we get to specific fallacies.

Truth and Validity
There are two aspects of every argument: truth and validity.  In order for an argument to work, its premises must be true and the premises must be in a valid order.  As evangelicals, we typically only focus on truth and hope that if what we say is true that it will some how bear itself out in a convincing manner and the Spirit will do the rest.  Here is an obvious example: The rooster crowed this morning, therefore Jesus is God.  Both statements are true.  Many thousands of roosters did in fact crow this morning and Jesus is in fact the “fullness of the Godhead.”  Being the rational person that you are, you noticed right away that while both these statements are true they have no bearing on each other.  While I don’t know of anyone who makes such an obvious mistake, we tend to focus on truth over validity.  I think it is human nature.  People will often reject perfectly rational arguments simply because they are from a different background or because they prefer their own conclusions while at the same time being willing to accept the most fallacious reasoning because they agree with a conclusion or because the one arguing is from their camp.  This is the double standard we so often see in media and politics.  It is not any more becoming when we do it to each other [we critique our opponent of proof texting and pulling verses out of context, but when “our guy” does it, we don’t say anything].  Because of pride, people are more prone to reject what they know to be true than to admit that they are wrong when confronted.  We need to be circumspect, in that, when we preach we do it through valid argument and do not prioritize truth over validity.  In reality you need both for an argument to be true.  At the same time, we need to have the humility and courage to go to those in our camps and explain that while we agree with their point, they need to come up with a better way to get there: “What you are saying is true, but your presentation is invalid–tighten it up!”

While a true argument must be in a valid form, a valid argument must have truthful premises.  Here is an example: “I like Armenians; John Piper is an Armenian; Therefore, I like John Piper.  The argument, according to formal logic is valid.  However, anyone who has spent more than a day in church will know that the middle premise couldn’t be more wrong.  There is many a wing-nut theologian who is convincing because he “sounds so smart,” but the problem is that often his premises are false.

This truth validity duo can manifest itself quite often in practice when we present something in such a way that it cannot possible be received by our listeners.  This happens a lot in cross cultural circles.  Some people will present Christ in such terms, while they may be true, that they are misunderstood and just appear to be grotesque to the host culture.  For instance, I could walk up to a Muslim and make a derogatory remark about Mohammed or take some point of my own theology [divinity of Christ] and throw it in his face.  What I am saying is true, but I am presenting it in a way that he cannot believe.  We can learn from Jesus here, who didn’t put the hard things first but called for simple followship, and the author of  Hebrews who rather than denigrating the opposing beliefs simply affirmed them where they were and exalted the higher way of Christ [your priest is good and we needed him, but look at the real high priest!]

Ethos, Pathos, Logos
There are three kinds of appeals, three attributes of any argument: ethos, pathos, and logos.
Logos is typically the part of the argument which receives any kind of attention.  This part is what you say and how you say it.  It is your true premises in valid form–hopefully.  The logos of your argument deals with facts, scriptures, statistics, research, exegesis, as well as your form and, hopefully, valid rhetorical devises.
Pathos is the emotive and charismatic dimension of your argument.  Many people can carry a debate or sermon on their charm and story telling abilities.  While that is wrong, having charm and using it to persuade someone of the truth is never a bad thing.  My logic professor used to say “Weak point–Pound the pulpit.”  Many people use theatrics, jokes, video clips, emotional appeals [everything is for the children right?] to manipulate people to action [let's build this building, its for the kids] or to pull the wool over their eyes [just look at a youtube clip of Osteen talking about homosexuality] when they do not have any sound reasoning or Biblical exegesis to back up what they are saying.  Watch Bill Maher or Stephen Colbert.  Their arguments are not built on facts and reasoning, but on whit and charm.  Their energy is not in truth but in the approval of the crowd.  Often they are so funny that even those whom they critique are laughing with them [guilty as charged here....].
Ethos is the final dimension.  This dimension deals with your credibility.  For those who cannot beat you in exegesis [logos] and have no real Christian character, they are going to attack you here first.  People will try to make you look unbiblical, unethical, or immoral.  At the same time, we may not realize that we are lacking in ethos when we make many arguments.  We look hypocritical when we stress that marriage is so important [we do this when homosexual marriage is addressed] and yet we have a divorce rate comparable to the secular world.  As you notice in this example, our lack of ethos does not diminish from our logos.  What we are saying is true.  Marriage is important, and homosexual marriage, on top of being irrational itself, is an abomination theologically.  Ethos is where kids like to hit their parents: “You did ‘X’ when you where young so you have no right to tell me not to do it.”  While a discrepancy between word and deed may rightly make us look like hypocrites, this does not change the truthfulness of the statement.  There is no difference in the statement “there is one God” when it is uttered by Hitler, Mohammed, Paige Patterson, you or I, or a moron.  What changes with all of those is simply ethos.  While Hitler would be right, it would be difficult for him to present that message simply because we hate him for what he did.

An old lawyer friend of mine told me an ancient adage: if the facts are on your side, argue the facts; if the law is on your side, argue the law; if neither the law nor the facts are on your side make your opponent look like a scoundrel!  Too often this is exactly what we do.  We selectively and inconsistently argue and pick and choose facts and methods which best suit us at the time to always “be right”.  This, brother, is pride.  We should always press on for truth.

Here are two quick definitions before I pull the plug.  Sequitur means that the conclusion follows from the premises.  That is to say the point you were trying to prove is the only conclusion in light of your argument.  Non sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow from the premises [like my rooster crowing and Jesus being God].  These terms are neither a compliment nor an insult.  In fact calling an argument a non sequitur is the objective way to address the argument and not the person–this is how we have civil discussions wherein we disagree without being disagreeable, argue without being argumentative, etc.  It is way classier than “you are a moron.”

The next posts will be categorized fallacies and our various perfections of them.  I hope you will find it enlightening, helpful, and entertaining.  Just to whet your appetite I will share the first one with you.  Since I just referenced the personal attack, we will start there.

Ad Homienm
Ad hominem is simply a personal attack.  The ad hominem attacks the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself.  It is often easier to call someone a name than to think through and deal with the issue at hand.
Why it works: it often diverts our attention to the personal attack.  We are prone to firing an insult back or retreating in fear.  When done publicly, there is the whole shame factor added in.  Calling someone a name–and doing it with pathos–is the quick way to influence the crowd against anything that the other person will say.
Why it is wrong: It fails to address the argument itself.  Even if the accusation is true, the argument is unscathed.  I might in fact be stupid.  I might also be fat and ugly.  But a person’s health, physical appearance, and even smarts have nothing to do with whether 2 + 2 =4.  If an Einstein crossed with Brad Pit is to say 2+2=4 it is no more or less true or false than if the kid at school who ate mayonnaise out of the jar says it.  From the biblical perspective, we are to be building each other up not tearing each other down.  At the same time we are to take every thought captive and able to teach and correct those who are astray.  Personally, I love when someone uses the ad hominem on me.  It is a dead giveaway that I have won.  Normally it happens well into the discussion, but when someone opens up with that, it tells the crowd that they have nothing substantive to say.
How we perfect it:
Our attacks follow certain patterns:
We attack age:  You are too young/old.  We never actually say that.  We say things like “you are just a young blogger” or “you are just too traditional to understand.”
We attack education: We may “name drop” their education status.  “He is just a college student”.  A college Calvinist is just as right/wrong as an Mdiv or PhD Calvinist.   The BA may not have the ethos of the PhD, but the logos is either true or false regardless.
We get nasty: “You are a liberal!”  Who ever uses the L word first wins…  On my devious days, I have been known to have fun with the L word.  I was arguing with one of my KJV only buddies.  I threw him for a loop by saying that I could never be KJV only because it was too liberal of a position.  The look on his face was priceless!  In other circles the F word works just as well [just to be clear.... fundamentalist].  We can get more creative.  Rather than argue exegesis over an issue like complementarian vs. egalitarian views on men and women we can just call someone a misogynist or a feminist.

I hope that this series will help us to create more light than heat in the coming days.  With each fallacy I would love to hear some of your examples of our perfections and applications of them.  Let’s to be careful not to gossip or slander.  And we must remember that we have all done most of these at some point or another.  We need some humility here.