How to take a stand on difficult issues (part 5)

It's been a while, but here is the fifth question to ask when taking a principled stand on a difficult issue of interpretation.

Have I employed sound critical reasoning skills?

Difficult issues don’t just require diligent study of texts; they also require sound, critical reasoning skills. Too often, in our haste to settle a dispute or a debate on a difficult issue we employ lazy and inflammatory rhetoric. Christians are often guilty of loving rhetoric too much and reasoning too little. Such rhetoric is not only unfair to the person on the other side of the issue. It is also unfair to the issue itself and hinders our ability to make principled and informed stands on the issue. Here are some of the most common fallacies in critical thinking that are made when debating difficult issues. I will illustrate with the issue of pacifism:

a.       Making hasty or unwarranted generalizations: Jesus said to turn the other cheek. Therefore he is calling all of his followers to pacifism.

b.      Begging the Question: Jesus was obviously a pacifist.

c.       Either/or Fallacy: Either you are a pacifist or you are militant.

d.      Ad hominem: Pacifists are just cowards.

e.      Straw man argument: Pacifists are simply passive about injustices which are being committed.

f.        Ad populum: Most people in the church are not pacifists, therefore pacifism is probably wrong.

There are likely other fallacies that could be added to the list, but hopefully the point has been made. When Christians debate issues of difficulty – whether it’s pacifism or some other hot button issue – we do not argue the way that the talking heads on CNN or Fox News argue. Instead, we use sound critical reasoning skills in order to faithfully represent the issue at hand and those who are involved in the debate. I have committed too many of these fallacies myself, and I have learned the hard way that even though it might make you feel good in the moment to rattle off some grand, clinching statement any debate won with faulty logic will inevitably be a shallow victory. It is the Golden Rule of debating. Debate with others in ways that you would have them debate with you.

If you'd like some more information on logical fallacies in theological arguments, see the instructional video below.

Intelligent people drink pop

Semantics has always been an important part of the discipline of hermeneutics. In short, what did words mean as used by their authors/speakers in their original context? Our tendency is to see words as empty vessels which we feel free to fill up with our own meaning. Many anachronistic interpretations make this exact mistake. We see a biblical author use words like "love" or "hate" or "servant" and our inclination is to understand those words through a contemporary lens.

Good interpretation must acknowledge the fluidity of language. Word meanings are always changing. And word meanings are always deeply contextual - both literary and cultural. This slipperiness of language is well illustrated by the maps in the link below. Americans can't even agree what to call certain things or how to pronounce certain words and we all supposedly speak the same language. Our difficulties are compounded then when we are reading an ancient text originally written in a language and a culture very different than our own. This is one reason why the study of original languages (or at least the listening to those who have studied the original languages) is such an important part to Bible study.

22 Maps That Show The Deepest Linguistic Conflicts In America - Business Insider

N.T. Wright on Debate about Homosexuality

N.T. Wright on Women in Ministry

How to take a stand on difficult issues (part 4)

Have I clearly identified and defined the issue?

Before taking a stand on any difficult issue, it is essential that we take some time to clearly understand and define the issue. It might be good to answer these questions:

a.       Is this issue an essential? In the Restoration Movement, we have always operated under the slogan: “In essentials unity, in opinions liberty, and in all things love.” This slogan isn’t of course unique to the Restoration Movement. There is wisdom in this principle. There are such things as essentials and opinions in theology, and it is important to know the difference between the two. We don’t have the same disposition towards essentials and opinions. There is a flexibility and freedom in opinions that doesn’t necessarily exist in the essentials of the faith. This principle also highlights the superiority of love in all things. But like all principles, this one has within it a major flaw. What exactly counts as an essential or an opinion? And who gets to decide? Some groups see adult immersion as an essential. Some groups see glossolalia as essential. Some groups see dispensational eschatology as an essential. Others see specific church governance structures as essential. The only point that I wish to make here is that when we are taking a stand on any issue we should pause to ask ourselves, “How essential is this issue to me?” and “How essential is this issue to others?” Maybe I could phrase it another way: How willing are you to damn another over this issue? And if an issue is an essential to you, can you justify that position? There are certainly issues that are this important, but I would humbly suggest that these issues are relatively few. Most issues that we will have to take a stand on fall into the category of opinion. Don’t get me wrong though. Just because it is an opinion does not mean that we shouldn’t have an opinion – even a strong, passionate one. But it does mean that we should have more charity with opposing views.

b.      Does this issue involve a principle or a practice? Some passages teach principles. They are broad in their scope and application. Some passages, on the other hand teach specific practices in specific contexts. Maybe the best example of this involves the role of women in the Church. Galatians 3 teaches a broad principle. When Paul says that within the Church there is neither male nor female he is saying nothing about day-to-day ministry within particular congregations. This is one phrase among several in this text which is stating a broad principle of unity and equality within the family of faith. In 1 Corinthians 14 however he restricts the role of women within that particular congregation. This text is focused on practice and application. It is narrower in its intent than Galatians 3. Many debates are the consequence of one side arguing a principle (“Women and men are equal.”) and the other side arguing a practice (“Women and men, while equal, do different things within the church.”).

c.       Is this a good/better issue? May Christians watch R rated movies? May Christians drink alcohol or smoke cigars? May Christians go to casinos? These types of ethical questions cause no end of debates between Christians. Some would argue on the side of freedom. Some others would argue on the side of righteousness. One side would accuse the other of legalism. The other side would respond with accusations of cheap grace and self-indulgence.  I would argue that usually these debates are framed up in the wrong way. We talk about these things as good or bad, right or wrong. It may be more constructive to talk about them as wise or foolish. This seems to be the approach that Paul uses with the Corinthian church. Certain things may be permissible, but are they beneficial?

d.      Is this issue implicit or explicit? There is not a verse in the Bible that explicitly forbids abortion. There is not a verse in the Bible that explicitly forbids the institution of slavery. In fact, some passages seem to support the institution. There are some issues that are only implicit in scripture. Implicit issues require that we understand how the Bible creates a sort of “hermeneutical trajectory” for many issues. For instance, the Bible doesn’t forbid abortion. But the Bible does establish that all people have been created in God’s image and are precious to Him. The Bible does establish principles of justice especially for the vulnerable and the weak. The Bible also forbids murder. Based on these clear teachings of scripture, we can discern a trajectory that when read in our day would forbid the practice of abortion.

e.      How are key terms being defined? I have a good friend who begins virtually every theological discussion with the question “What do you mean by that?” We occasionally give him a hard time about it, but it is actually a very good question to ask. There are so many times where two people will be discussing an issue being totally oblivious to the fact that they are defining the terms completely differently. For instance, when I say “pacifism” what comes to your mind? How would you define it? Chances are good that your definition may be completely different than the definition of someone else. Definitions matter. If we are going to take a stand on difficult issues, we have to take care to understand the way that we are using key terms. Pause to ask the question, “What do you mean by that?” You may also want to pause and ask yourself the question, “What do I mean by that?”


Part 3
Part 2
Part 1
 

Lectio Divina

How to take a stand on difficult issues (part 3)

Have I studied the opinions of the church both past and present?

The Bible is a community book. It is a revelation that we share with one another. It is revelation that we share with the community of faith past, present, and future. Modernity has given us the philosophy that our own human reason is enough for discovering truth in scripture. Technology has made such a philosophy practical. And pietism has provided a spiritual justification for such individualistic approaches to the text.

The reality however is that scripture was never intended for mere private consumption. Do I believe in the virtue of individual study of the text? Yes. Certainly. But do I believe in the privatization of the text and studying the text in isolation? No. The Bible is and always has been the word that shapes our community as believers. Our New Testament was originally received through the ears as it was read publicly among the Church.

This has some important implications for us when it comes to navigating difficult theological/hermeneutical issues. Augustine (among many others) argued strongly for what is known as the “rule of faith.” This rule of faith (regula fidei) is closely associated with the T word – tradition. When we come across a text that is difficult to understand or an issue that is tough to figure out, Augustine advocated looking back on what has traditionally been taught in the tradition of the Church.

We modern evangelicals don’t much care for tradition. It’s a word that makes us feel constricted. (“What about freedom?”) It’s a word that we too often associate with “backwardness.” (“What about relevance?”) And to an extent, we are correct. Tradition has oftentimes been appallingly wrong. Those who preached indulgences in the late Middle Ages and those who preached segregation in more recent times come to mind. There have clearly been times where tradition has become more important than the clear teaching of scripture. But to shut the door on tradition altogether seems to me to be very unwise and extremely arrogant. It smacks of the type of generational prejudice that says, “We have got it all figured out. We would never make the types of embarrassing errors made by generations past. All of human history has been anxiously awaiting the wisdom and insight of our generation. You’re welcome!” (I’ve seen the same people turn into young curmudgeons as soon as they start to get passed by the next generation who obviously don’t know anything about anything.)

In light of this, I want to offer this suggestion. When taking a stand on any difficult issue, we should pause and ask, “How has this been handled by the Church historically?” This probably shouldn’t be our first question, but it definitely should be one of the questions we ask. There may be some insight to be gained from looking at 2,000 years of church history.

On a related note, I would also suggest that you should seek out expert opinions on issues from Christians in your own day (particularly Christians who might be outside of your immediate heritage). There are experts who have dedicated substantial time and effort to studying virtually any issue that we might have to deal with. Draw from their insight as they have struggled with the text.

The Bible is a community book. Interpretation does not begin and end with you. And further, let’s get rid of this pietistic error that essentially teaches that the Holy Spirit only (or principally) works on an individual level. The Holy Spirit is active in Christians everywhere and through all times. It could be that the Holy Spirit wants to teach us through the insights of others.

Part 1
Part 2