The Daily Christian - Ill-Informed Arguments
As a writer, I am often interested in reading the Amazon.com and Goodreads.com book reviews left for other authors. Many times, it is a great source of what not to do in my own work. This curiosity once led me to a website which listed the books that received the lowest Amazon.com rating for that particular year. On the page, one analysis in particular caught my eye. It was a review of a book about whether God loved those involved in the homosexual lifestyle.
I've never read this nonfiction piece nor do I recall its title. The work may have been one of the worse books ever written. This is of little matter, for the quality of the book was not the focus of the reviewer’s analysis. Instead, the individual was sidetracked by the author’s viewpoint on homosexuality. In doing so, the critic provided a number of arguments that I'd like to go through which may be helpful to us when we present our own arguments.
The reviewer’s critique began with the conclusion from the work’s author that God did in fact love those involved in homosexuality. The reviewer then followed this with a rather snarky comment similar to “…well, sort of anyway.” My guess is that this last part was an add-on by the critic and that it wasn’t apart of the author’s conclusion. This became evident as I continued to read the reviewer’s analysis.
Following this aside, the critic explained that we should not, as he believed the author of the book had, cherry-pick the Bible to get it to say what we want it to say. I suspect that most Christians would agree with this statement. I agreed as well, and in doing so, I assumed the reviewer himself was someone who respected the Bible. However, his next comments demonstrated that he actually possessed little interest in what the Bible said particularly on the subject of homosexuality.
The reviewer went on to argue that if someone was going to call homosexuality sinful then that person should also call those who eat shellfish sinful. The critic then proceeded to list the other seemingly (to our eyes) odd laws given to the ancient Israelites. If the reviewer had listed any of the other sexual sins provided in the Old Testament, I would have agreed with his statement. For example, you can’t in one breath point at someone involved in homosexuality and say that he or she is doing wrong while you continue to sleep with someone of the opposite sex outside of marriage. One supposes you could do this, but you would probably stand a good chance of being called a hypocrite if you did not change your behavior first (Matthew 7). In other words, if you decide to follow the Bible in one regard, then you need to be consistent and follow it in the other, for both fornication and homosexuality are considered a sin according to the Bible. However, this was not what this reviewer was getting at. He contended that the Old Testament commands against homosexuality were just as archaic and strange as not eating shellfish or following the various other laws in regards to diet, priestly tasks, or ceremonial duties. However, if the critic were knowledgeable about the biblical text, he would have read in the New Testament that Christ fulfilled all of these laws and made unclean animals—clean (Acts 10:11-15, 1 Timothy 4:1-5) thus eliminating these ceremonial aspects of the law from the Christian life. However, sexual immorality which includes homosexuality still applies as it is reiterated several places throughout the New Testament (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Romans 1:26-28, 1 Timothy 1:8-11).
Due to the reviewer’s inaccurate views on Christianity and not understanding how certain laws could be disregarded by Christians today, the reviewer truly believed that the book’s author cherry-picked the Bible. If the reviewer had only understood this biblical background, he would have known how nonsensical his statement would be to Christian readers. In fact, the Bible is consistent in regards to homosexuality being a sin. If the Bible, in one instance, said homosexuality was okay and then in another explained that it was not, then the reviewer would have a point that the author of the book was indeed cherry picking. But the author was simply following the consistent message found throughout the Bible on that particular subject. If one did not like that consistent message, then they didn’t like the message in the Bible. It was obvious at this point that the reviewer did not like the Bible.
This became more apparent with the reviewer’s next statement when he explained that the Bible was merely an ancient fictional tale. This assertion destroyed any credibility he may have possessed concerning his concern for how one read the biblical text. The reviewer, first having given the impression that he respected the Bible and was someone who truly cared when people erroneously cherry-picked it, was now making it evident that he didn’t care what the Bible said. This argument completely cannibalized his first statement against cherry picking, for if he didn’t even believe that the Bible was worth reading, there was no point in arguing against those who cherry-picked it. The whole text, in his opinion, was rubbish.
As the reviewer ended his arguments, he further added to this lack of credibility on the topic. He quoted the great theologian of our time, Morgan Freedman, who he claimed once made a blistering comment about those who criticized homosexuality. (1.) But why quote Mr. Freedman? Was it because he played God in a few movies? Does that make Mr. Freedman an expert on Christian Theology and the Bible? I don’t think so. Quoting Freedman did little to add to the reviewer’s arguments.
Thinking over this assessment reminded me of a list of logical fallacies that can often creep into arguments. The most prominent one is, “Well, it’s true because the Bible says so.” The problem with this statement is that it may work on fellow Christians who see the Bible as a source of authority, but it probably won’t work on someone who doesn’t. As a side note, I always think it’s interesting that this example is given in the classroom while other non-Christian examples could work just as well such as, “It’s true because the Koran says so” or “because Professor so and so says so.”
As Christians, we need to be aware of the types of statements we provide for our faith. Our arguments, and even how we present them, are a reflection of our faith. If they are sloppy like the reviewer’s above with little thought or research put into them, then our credibility and the reliability of our faith becomes diminished.
One way to avoid uninformed arguments is to know who our audience is. For example, my statements above where I reference the Bible’s view on homosexuality would not have impressed the reviewer since he obviously believed that the Bible was a fairy tale. Starting from a place of logic and eventually moving into biblical territory may be more advantageous with someone like our critic. C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, for example, is a wonderful model on how to minister to those who have no respect for the biblical text or for Christianity in general. Some believe, however, that any ministry should strictly originate with the Bible. For those who take this stand of a purely biblical approach, may want to begin with an explanation on how the Bible has correctly prophesized historical events and how the general moral laws of the Bible (do not murder, do not steal, and do not commit adultery) are the basis for our moral standards and laws even today. Both arguments provide a starting point on how the Bible is a credible source.
The importance of understanding one’s audience in the ministry became more significant to me one day when I was listening to an interview of a Christian singer. The singer admitted that when he was young, Christianity never really took hold. The reason for this was he didn’t understand the concept of sin and salvation. It wasn’t until he was older, after he’d actually done some rather sinful things that he finally got it—that he needed Christ. Strangely enough, this young man’s innocence kept him from knowing God. The good thing was that he did finally come to understand what he was taught as a child. But beating the message of sin over this child’s head, at that time, would have simply frustrated the person ministering to him and would have gotten the child nowhere.
Therefore, if the opportunity presents itself, asking questions and finding out where the person is coming from may go a long way in ministering to them.
(1.) The quote has been attributed to Morgan Freedman. It is contended by many that Freedman never said it.
I've never read this nonfiction piece nor do I recall its title. The work may have been one of the worse books ever written. This is of little matter, for the quality of the book was not the focus of the reviewer’s analysis. Instead, the individual was sidetracked by the author’s viewpoint on homosexuality. In doing so, the critic provided a number of arguments that I'd like to go through which may be helpful to us when we present our own arguments.
The reviewer’s critique began with the conclusion from the work’s author that God did in fact love those involved in homosexuality. The reviewer then followed this with a rather snarky comment similar to “…well, sort of anyway.” My guess is that this last part was an add-on by the critic and that it wasn’t apart of the author’s conclusion. This became evident as I continued to read the reviewer’s analysis.
Following this aside, the critic explained that we should not, as he believed the author of the book had, cherry-pick the Bible to get it to say what we want it to say. I suspect that most Christians would agree with this statement. I agreed as well, and in doing so, I assumed the reviewer himself was someone who respected the Bible. However, his next comments demonstrated that he actually possessed little interest in what the Bible said particularly on the subject of homosexuality.
The reviewer went on to argue that if someone was going to call homosexuality sinful then that person should also call those who eat shellfish sinful. The critic then proceeded to list the other seemingly (to our eyes) odd laws given to the ancient Israelites. If the reviewer had listed any of the other sexual sins provided in the Old Testament, I would have agreed with his statement. For example, you can’t in one breath point at someone involved in homosexuality and say that he or she is doing wrong while you continue to sleep with someone of the opposite sex outside of marriage. One supposes you could do this, but you would probably stand a good chance of being called a hypocrite if you did not change your behavior first (Matthew 7). In other words, if you decide to follow the Bible in one regard, then you need to be consistent and follow it in the other, for both fornication and homosexuality are considered a sin according to the Bible. However, this was not what this reviewer was getting at. He contended that the Old Testament commands against homosexuality were just as archaic and strange as not eating shellfish or following the various other laws in regards to diet, priestly tasks, or ceremonial duties. However, if the critic were knowledgeable about the biblical text, he would have read in the New Testament that Christ fulfilled all of these laws and made unclean animals—clean (Acts 10:11-15, 1 Timothy 4:1-5) thus eliminating these ceremonial aspects of the law from the Christian life. However, sexual immorality which includes homosexuality still applies as it is reiterated several places throughout the New Testament (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Romans 1:26-28, 1 Timothy 1:8-11).
Due to the reviewer’s inaccurate views on Christianity and not understanding how certain laws could be disregarded by Christians today, the reviewer truly believed that the book’s author cherry-picked the Bible. If the reviewer had only understood this biblical background, he would have known how nonsensical his statement would be to Christian readers. In fact, the Bible is consistent in regards to homosexuality being a sin. If the Bible, in one instance, said homosexuality was okay and then in another explained that it was not, then the reviewer would have a point that the author of the book was indeed cherry picking. But the author was simply following the consistent message found throughout the Bible on that particular subject. If one did not like that consistent message, then they didn’t like the message in the Bible. It was obvious at this point that the reviewer did not like the Bible.
This became more apparent with the reviewer’s next statement when he explained that the Bible was merely an ancient fictional tale. This assertion destroyed any credibility he may have possessed concerning his concern for how one read the biblical text. The reviewer, first having given the impression that he respected the Bible and was someone who truly cared when people erroneously cherry-picked it, was now making it evident that he didn’t care what the Bible said. This argument completely cannibalized his first statement against cherry picking, for if he didn’t even believe that the Bible was worth reading, there was no point in arguing against those who cherry-picked it. The whole text, in his opinion, was rubbish.
As the reviewer ended his arguments, he further added to this lack of credibility on the topic. He quoted the great theologian of our time, Morgan Freedman, who he claimed once made a blistering comment about those who criticized homosexuality. (1.) But why quote Mr. Freedman? Was it because he played God in a few movies? Does that make Mr. Freedman an expert on Christian Theology and the Bible? I don’t think so. Quoting Freedman did little to add to the reviewer’s arguments.
Thinking over this assessment reminded me of a list of logical fallacies that can often creep into arguments. The most prominent one is, “Well, it’s true because the Bible says so.” The problem with this statement is that it may work on fellow Christians who see the Bible as a source of authority, but it probably won’t work on someone who doesn’t. As a side note, I always think it’s interesting that this example is given in the classroom while other non-Christian examples could work just as well such as, “It’s true because the Koran says so” or “because Professor so and so says so.”
As Christians, we need to be aware of the types of statements we provide for our faith. Our arguments, and even how we present them, are a reflection of our faith. If they are sloppy like the reviewer’s above with little thought or research put into them, then our credibility and the reliability of our faith becomes diminished.
One way to avoid uninformed arguments is to know who our audience is. For example, my statements above where I reference the Bible’s view on homosexuality would not have impressed the reviewer since he obviously believed that the Bible was a fairy tale. Starting from a place of logic and eventually moving into biblical territory may be more advantageous with someone like our critic. C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, for example, is a wonderful model on how to minister to those who have no respect for the biblical text or for Christianity in general. Some believe, however, that any ministry should strictly originate with the Bible. For those who take this stand of a purely biblical approach, may want to begin with an explanation on how the Bible has correctly prophesized historical events and how the general moral laws of the Bible (do not murder, do not steal, and do not commit adultery) are the basis for our moral standards and laws even today. Both arguments provide a starting point on how the Bible is a credible source.
The importance of understanding one’s audience in the ministry became more significant to me one day when I was listening to an interview of a Christian singer. The singer admitted that when he was young, Christianity never really took hold. The reason for this was he didn’t understand the concept of sin and salvation. It wasn’t until he was older, after he’d actually done some rather sinful things that he finally got it—that he needed Christ. Strangely enough, this young man’s innocence kept him from knowing God. The good thing was that he did finally come to understand what he was taught as a child. But beating the message of sin over this child’s head, at that time, would have simply frustrated the person ministering to him and would have gotten the child nowhere.
Therefore, if the opportunity presents itself, asking questions and finding out where the person is coming from may go a long way in ministering to them.
(1.) The quote has been attributed to Morgan Freedman. It is contended by many that Freedman never said it.
No comments have been added yet.
