May

27

False dilemmas… an evangelical problem

May 27, 2008 |

Posted by ben hind · Filed Under Logic, Christian Philosophy, Theology 

Penguin Logic

Wikipedia has a good article on false dilemmas if you get stuck: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

False dilemmas are things I hear a lot of in the evangelical world. Black and white statements with no middle ground. Taking two things and putting them against each other, when they were never meant to be mutually exclusive. Sometimes it’s done with good intentions, sometimes out of ignorance, and sometimes it seems to be used for the preachers benefit to add validity to his statements. Not everything is opposite to each other. I think we need to think a bit more before coming up with some of the statements we make. Not everything is black and white.

As my pastor says, ‘why not do both?’

Examples of this I hear often:

1. ‘Either you preach the Word of God, or you tickle peoples ears with emotional stories and jokes.’ This one is interesting because preachers usually use this to talk about other preachers they don’t like… and then usually go on to use a sermon illustration, as if that’s different! Telling stories and jokes really isn’t going against the Word of God. Didn’t Jesus use satire and sarcasm? Forgive me if I’m wrong but He didn’t really quote the Old Testament very much… it just seemed to be a load of parables! To say you’re not allowed to use stories and jokes when preaching just isn’t very realistic, and the two can go together nicely.

2. ‘Either you make the gospel relevant and contextualised, or you preach the gospel biblically.’ This one is a standard fundamentalist/well-meaning evangelical position on not ‘watering down’ the gospel. As if by putting the gospel in every-day language, and helping people understand it means you’re going against what the bible says the gospel is. The gospel really is a simple message that can be communicated in different ways, in different contexts, and with different methods. The two aren’t mutually exclusive by no means.

3. ‘Either you have a fancy light show, an expensive sound system, and professional multimedia preaching, or you have the Holy Spirit in your services.’ This is used a lot in pentecostal/charismatic circles for being jealous of churches who have these kinds of things… not that they’d admit to being jealous of course ;) . The two really aren’t mutually exclusive, so it’s wrong to say you have to choose. Hey, if we can, why don’t we have both? It’s not like lights, sound systems and multimedia stops the Holy Spirit from working… surely?!

4. ‘Either you believe the Word of God, or you don’t.’ This one is usually used to authenticate the message being preached by the preacher. The idea is that he is preaching the ‘Word of God’ and if you disagree, then you don’t believe the Word of God. It’s a false dilemma because you really aren’t stuck between these two choices; secret option number 3 would be ‘I just don’t agree with your interpretation of the Word of God’.

5. ‘Either you follow the teaching of the world, or you follow the Word of God.’ This is usually used by fundamentalists to try and speak against something they see as ‘worldly’. Whether it’s psychology, science, TV, movies or anything else, they see it as opposed to the Word of God. It is false to have to choose between because secular beliefs and practices aren’t necessarily contradictory to the bible. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water!

What false dilemmas have you come across lately? Do you believe any false dilemmas? How can you tell when something is/isn’t a false dilemma?


Comments

14 Comments so far

  1. michaelp on May 27, 2008 8:03 pm

    This is an awesome post. I think you need to mirror it here: http://theologica.ning.com.

  2. ben hind on May 28, 2008 5:07 am

    http://theologica.ning.com/profile/benhind

    ‘It is finished.’

    - Ben

  3. JoanieD on May 28, 2008 5:19 am

    I love the “cartoon” Ben and as usual you have written very well on the point you have taken. I will have to think some more about your questions, though.

    Joanie D.

  4. steve moore on May 28, 2008 10:07 am

    Michael,

    Perhaps you could clarify for me the relationship of all these new sites? (P&P, submerging, and the new ones). When it was P&P and Submerging things were clear, but the lines have gotten very fuzzy about what to submit where, and what to expect where. Where’s it all heading towards?

    Thanks,

    -steve

  5. ben hind on May 28, 2008 10:21 am

    Steve,

    I’m guessing it has something to do with the closing of the forums. They seemed to be out of the way on the Parchment and Pen page and very overlooked. Theologica seems to be a community page for discussing theology in a forum/facebook/myspace/blog format, which makes up for the overlooked forum at Parchment and Pen.

    It might also have something to do with the fact that since I took over the Submerging Influence, Michael thought it would be a good idea to let other people have their own Reclaiming the Mind blog aswell. Theologica offers this for all it’s members. It’s like a community Parchment and Pen on steriods!

    Then again I’m only guessing, I could be completely wrong ;) .

    - Ben

  6. steve moore on May 28, 2008 12:15 pm

    Ben,

    That was my thinking as well, but I was trying to see what the official strategy was. If I were to post something would I post it on Submerging as I once did? Or on Theologica? Or on a personal blog off of P&P? Or submit it for a Friday free-for all post on P&P? And as such, where should I go to look for individual contributors vs the P&P main contributors? It seems there are about 4-5 ways to do this, but why so many? What is unique about each one or are they all going away or merging?

    Knowing Michael, there is a clear vision for the direction of all of these options - but things have been changing a lot and there has not been a clear statement of this vision. That’s all…

    -steve

  7. Truth Unites... and Divides on May 28, 2008 2:04 pm

    “What false dilemmas have you come across lately?”

    “The gospel is a person (Jesus), not a doctrine.”

    This is a false dichotomy.

    The living word and written word are not enemies, but friends. As much as I agree with presenting the person of Christ, not just flinging concepts at people, Christ must be defined. A content-less Christ will not save anyone. Christ is being redefined to fit people’s preconceptions. Biblical illiteracy abounds and the possibility of misleading people about Jesus is real. This means that biblically sound doctrine is absolutely necessary to explain who Christ is. You have to know a person as you come to know and grow in relationship with that person, yes?

  8. lisa robinson on May 29, 2008 5:10 am

    Ben, great thoughts. 4 & 5 are my faves. I also wholeheartedly agree with TUAD statement above. We can’t know Jesus without knowing about Jesus.

  9. ben hind on May 29, 2008 10:40 am

    Truth, (what a name!)

    I absolutely agree. A lot of Christians I come across tend to think of Jesus and what He has done for them in terms of a personal-subjective experience rather than a historical fact. Jesus really was a historical person and what we believe about Him really is a matter of facts and knowledge. Personal experiences are good, but if theres no real person behind them, it’s not really worth anything, right? ‘A content-less Christ will not save anyone.’ Powerful statement.

    - Ben

  10. ben hind on May 29, 2008 10:55 am

    Steve,

    If you want to be posting, feel free to post on here. Do you already have an account on Submerging? I’ll be away next week so you’ll be more than welcome to fill in the gap. And if you haven’t got an account and you’re interested I could go about setting one up for you. This is still a community blog, so it’s for everyone.

    - Ben

  11. Chad Winters on May 30, 2008 8:53 am

    Just for fun lets let blog post interpret blog post :)

    “Ben,

    That was my thinking as well, but I was trying to see what the official strategy was. If I were to post something would I post it on Submerging as I once did? Or on Theologica? Or on a personal blog off of P&P? Or submit it for a Friday free-for all post on P&P? And as such, where should I go to look for individual contributors vs the P&P main contributors? It seems there are about 4-5 ways to do this, but why so many? What is unique about each one or are they all going away or merging?

    Knowing Michael, there is a clear vision for the direction of all of these options - but things have been changing a lot and there has not been a clear statement of this vision. That’s all…

    -steve”

    ” Taking two things and putting them against each other, when they were never meant to be mutually exclusive. …. Not everything is opposite to each other. … Not everything is black and white.

    As my pastor says, ‘why not do both?’”"

    HAHA I just thought that was funny…..maybe you’re having a false dilemma!!

  12. steve moore on May 30, 2008 1:34 pm

    Chad,

    Heh, good one. ;^)

    I think it’s more of an epistemological issue - with all these changes and new sites and individual blogs, etc. how am I to know where to look? ;^)

    -steve

  13. ben hind on May 31, 2008 6:03 am

    Chad,

    It’s only mutually exclusive when it involves a contradiction, in which case I would say Steves issue is in some sense a false dilemma. Though is not necessarily a dilemma at all (neither a false or true one) since Steve is not trying to put them against each other. Then again… :o

    - Ben

  14. Wendell Brewer on November 12, 2008 7:27 pm

    ksx2fkq4ii91zlgy

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind

FireStats icon Powered by FireStats