Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

The Pangea Blog

Home

Home
Progressive Christian
One person’s ceiling is another person’s floor – Evangelical Sophistry

One person’s ceiling is another person’s floor – Evangelical Sophistry

Last updated on: March 11, 2013 at 12:30 pm by Kurt Willems

One person’s ceiling is another person’s floor – Evangelical Sophistry 2013-03-10T16:07:00-07:00 Kurt Willems

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

*The follow post is written by Al Molineux

Have you ever listened to a sermon or read a blog that seems to have the ring of truth about it but leaves you with misgivings because you recognise that what’s on offer it is not the whole story? I heard one recently and it left me with the need to dig a little deeper into what was being said. The speaker made huge statements about key issues facing evangelicalism at this time and linked them in ways that appeared to be legitimate. It didn’t help that his audience seemed to be lapping up every word.

He was attempting to make a reasoned, and thought out argument, but what we were given was a great example of sophistry.

At its heart sophistry is an argument, viewpoint, or thesis that at first sounds plausible but is essentially misguided – at least in the way that the case is made. It is not that I am saying that the conclusions are without merit but that the style of argument does not prove what the speaker intended.

It went a little like this (shortened for the sake of space):

Speaker ‘we need to be biblical’ – Audience ‘yes’.

Speaker ‘we need to have a balance of grace and truth’. – Audience ‘yes’

Speaker ‘family life is breaking down’. – Audience ‘yes’

Speaker ‘people have no respect for God’. – Audience ‘yes’

Speaker ‘Pastor X has questioned beliefs that we hold dear’. – Audience ‘yes’

Speaker ‘She/he is undermining God’s word’. – Audience ‘yes’

Speaker ‘this means that they are no longer an evangelical’. – Audience ‘yes’

At first glance it may not be completely apparent why this is problematic; let me try to explain.

Sophistry can take many forms but in the context discussed here it follows this well worn pattern:

1) The speaker/writer makes a number of statements that are seemingly easy to agree with. For example ‘we need to be biblical’ or ‘we need to have a balance of grace and truth’.

Neither of these two statements are easily measurable. To quote Paul Simon ‘one man’s ceiling is another man’s floor’. The listener/reader is inclined to agree with what is on offer because they judge them from their own context and so are drawn into the sophistic trap.

Most Christians will concede that having the correct mix of grace and truth is essential because it suggests to them a comforting balance; but who is to judge what the correct mix is.

I am a big of a fan of television cooking competitions. Watch a few shows and it is not long before you hear the idea offered that good cooking needs the correct balance of both sweet and savoury. Here is where the difficult lies. Every judge has a different palate. They approach the dish in different ways. They can agree with the idea of balance but they cannot agree with how this should be achieved. In this context the statement ‘good cooking needs a good balance of sweet and savoury’ becomes a truism in that it does not offer any useful, measurable guidance. So it is with the notion of ‘a balance between grace and truth’ – we can agree with it as a statement but how on earth can we measure whether we are agreeing with the same theology or practice.

2) The next stage is to introduce statements that appeal to the hearers sense of fear. Often these revolve around the various levels of dysfunctionality found in society. The link is made to the problems highlighted in point 1 and so we see cause and effect confirmed in the mind of the listener/reader.

3) Added to the above is a good number of statements about unrelated subjects that show how poor the theology is of the Christian preacher being disagreed with. Quite often there is enough reference to the original speakers work to be recognisable but in truth what is offered is a caricature.

4) It is often at this point that questions are raised about the opponents evangelical pedigree; sometimes even to the point of calling them a heretic. Firstly it is worth noting here that the original meaning of the word was ‘a free thinker’ and used to identify those who didn’t tow the party line so to speak. This is where evangelicals have a problem; essentially there is no formal party line. For sure people will trot out various reference points that suggest there is common agreement, but most groups are subject to being called heretical by other sincere evangelicals at some point. It is not that long ago that some reformed evangelical Calvinists were throwing the accusation at Pentecostals. Indeed, if you care to read the comments section on most Christian blogs it still occurs today all too regularly. Again Paul Simon’s ceiling and floor analogy is useful to us here in understanding our own folly.

All of the above is intended to ensure that the audience agrees with the stated position of the speaker. This is done by a growing sense of the hearers need, or inclination, to say yes to the various statements being proposed.

We emotionally say ‘yes’ to the truisms of ‘we need to be biblical’ and ‘we need to have a balance of grace and truth’ even though they are subjective and not measurable.

Our insecurities are engaged and we agree that ‘family life is breaking down’ and that ‘people have no respect for God’.

It seems obvious that ‘Pastor X has questioned beliefs that we hold dear’ and that ‘She/he is undermining God’s word’.

At this point the hearer has become so used to saying ‘yes’ to the statements offered that the final premiss is agreed to without question ensuring that the audience will feel comfortable in dismissing Pastor X and their ‘heretical’ views and nod assent to the conclusion that ‘this means that they are no longer an evangelical’.

The reason that the above example can be called sophistry is because it sounds like a reasoned argument when in fact the link between the initial truisms (being biblical and the need for grace and truth) and societal dysfunctionality has not been proved, at least not in this sermon. Added to this is that Pastor X’s views are being linked to the other statements in a spurious way.

I suggest that this form of argument treats neither the subject nor the audience with respect. If we feel the need to disagree with another’s theology surely we can do so without resorting to sophistry.

**************************************

Thanks to my good web friend, Al Molineaux for this challenging guest piece. Connect with him on Twitter.

Guest Contributors

Previous Post

March 11, 2013

A soon-to-be dad dreams of a daughter liberated for her soon-to-be world

Next Post

March 12, 2013 Oremus: A Catholic Friend Brings Us His Prayer Request for the Papal Conclave

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category (Series) All Out War-Spiritual Warfare (Series) Church Plant Journal (Series) Dear Reader... (Series) Earthquakes...Signs of the Times? (Series) Entering the... Conversation (Series) Evangelical Culture Myths (Series) Everything is Meaningless [Pete Enns] (Series) Evolving Evangelicalism (Series) Hell Yes. Hell No! Who Cares? (Series) Hidden Worldviews (Series) If Evolution is Right, what about Adam? (Series) in less than 300 words (Series) Jesus and Nationalism (Series) Liberating Women for Ministry? (Series) Life-Changing Books (Series) Markers of Church Plant Movement (Series) Nonviolence 101 (Series) Philemon - Reconciliation (Series) Quote to Ponder (Series) Red Letter Dialogues (Series) Resource of the Week (SERIES) Revelation Sermons (Series) Share Something Sundays (Series) Simplicity in the Burbs: $2 a day (Series) The Binding of God [Open Theism] (Series) The Creed: Anabaptist Reflections (Series) Values for Church Leadership (Series) Video to Ponder Anabaptism Animal Advocacy Books Church Ministry Church Planting Community Culture Eschatology Eucharist Evangelical Reject Evolution Fundamentalism Greek Greg Boyd Guest Contributors Hell Holy Spirit Israel/Palestine Kingdom of God Lent Missional N. T. Wright Nationalism New Creation Nonviolence Open Mic Open Theism Parenting Passover Paul Philemon Podcast Politics Restorative Justice Revelation (the book of) Rob Bell Ron Martoia Sermon Shane Claiborne Social Justice Speaking Engagement Spiritual Warfare Spirituality Temple Theology Tim Geddert Tribulation Uncategorized universalism Video Blog Women in Ministry Worship Music Youth Ministry

Select a Month August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 October 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 December 2016 October 2016 August 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: The feast of Purim commemorates the Jewish people's deliverance from Haman's plot.

Select your answer to see how you score.

TRUE FALSE

Support this
Column