Search:

Let us Reason Together: Irrelevant Attacks

Mark Roberts

“Can you see from 1 Peter 3:21 the necessity to be baptized?” “You’re just spreading lies from the devil!”

In almost any kind of religious discussion or exchange people will employ some kind of defense against the truth. The truth discomforts us, and it is hard to admit we are wrong, so quickly we run out something that says “No, I’m not in error and here is why I’m not in error.” Of course, if I can show from the Bible that my conduct, action or belief is scriptural than all is well and good. However, when people are violating the Scriptures (in practice or belief) nothing can be said except “God is right, and I am wrong. I must change.” Not many want to say that! Instead, various matters that are irrelevant to the issue of truth are often pushed into the discussion. Let’s learn how this works so that we will not use such false tactics, nor be distracted by them as we reason with people from the Bible.

Some people appeal to force. In Acts we read that the Sanhedrin couldn’t deny the miracle Peter and John had done. “Seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it” (4:14) but they still refused to accept the truth Peter and John preached. Their response instead was brute force! “So when they had further threatened them, they let them go” (4:21). This is to argue through intimidation: “See it my way or you will wish you had!” Yet, as the Sanhedrin found, beating people or even killing them did not change what was true, nor did it stop the Gospel.

Fortunately, in our society we don’t experience this tactic often. However, if a man is told he will lose his job over his beliefs, or if someone begins to hint “I just couldn’t be friends with someone who believes —” then the attempt to squash truth with force is being made. A brother or sister who is unhappy with something in the church may announce he or she is leaving. This is another attempt to coerce people to one’s views through unpleasant immediate consequences. The disciple’s response to this must be the same as the apostles: “So they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name” (Acts 5:41). Truth cannot give in to error, even when error puts on brass knuckles!

Some people will abuse the messenger of truth. This is formally called “argumentum ad hominem,” a Latin term for “attack the man.” If someone says “You are in sin” and you reply with “Your tie is ugly” you have introduced something that has nothing to do with truth or the charge about your behavior. However, the chances are good your assailant will be rocked back on his heels and begin to defend his tie. In the process, your sin may be forgotten. Since Jesus’ enemies could not convict of Him sin we should not be surprised to see this tactic used against the Lord. In Matthew 11:19 some reject Him because He was “a friend of sinners.” In Matthew 13:55 others refused Jesus’ teaching because He was a “carpenter’s son.” Rather than deal with the evidence Jesus presented that proved He was deity, people preferred to call names and smear Him due to His humble beginnings.

Sadly, this tactic still is employed. In the institutional struggle of the 1950’s those who argued that congregations could not participate in the sponsoring church arrangement were often branded “anti.” The name means little. Aren’t all disciples “anti” sin? Yet it was a very powerful argument because people didn’t want to be called “anti.” Further, the tag colored people’s perceptions of the reasoning done by those who were “anti.” It made those arguments sound like they were made by negative people who would oppose anything. What a powerful word “anti” became, and yet it had nothing to do with whether the sponsoring church arrangement is scriptural!

Others met arguments that the church was limited in its benevolent work to saints alone by shouting “You hate orphans.” What does that have to do with anything? If I hate orphans I am in sin, and I will be lost unless I repent (Gal 6:10). How I individually feel about orphans, and how I treat orphans as an individual, however, has exactly zero to do with the church’s obligation to orphans. It is irrelevant to the question at hand, but many were persuaded the church did have benevolent obligations to everyone because they didn’t want to be tagged an “orphan hater.”

A variant of this “attack against the man” is to attack the idea being considered. Instead of slamming the man, you slam the man’s message. For example, if you argue that the New Testament doesn’t authorize instrumental music in worship I could respond with “You are stupid!” but that is blatant abuse and might not work. Instead, I might say “What a stupid idea!” In truth, it doesn’t matter if I think the idea is stupid. All that matters is “What does the Bible say?” Designating something “stupid” or “unfair” or is only a distracting dodge but it can be very effective.

In an article about complicated questions of bioethics and what is right and wrong for a childless couple to do in order to have a child an author assailed current medical techniques by saying “It is my candid opinion that this practice has its origin in the very pit of hell and is satanic from beginning to end . . . Obviously, one should not be particularly surprised when people who do not know the Lord engage in this practice.” That is not much of an argument, is it? Where is the discussion of what the Bible teaches? Yet who wants to be part of something from the pit of hell, that is satanic and that the ignorant and lost participate in? The writer has attacked the message successfully. His task is to show the error of these practices, not summarily announce the verdict he has reached and we must simply take his word for it.

Of late I have observed this tactic being used in what I would call the “put’em in the big bucket” argument. This is done when someone attacks the message (and the messenger) by lumping it in with indisputably evil and sinful practices. For example, if Brother X were to argue that it is not sinful for a Christian to play cards I could respond with “Playing cards are the tools of gambling, greed, covetousness, and even organized crime!” Brother X is not arguing for gambling but by shoving him in the “bucket” with gambling and other evil people I can prejudice my listeners against him and his arguments.

This tactic is very effective whenever someone opposes something new among brethren. Sometimes new ideas are unscriptural, but not everything new is sinful. Yet, rather than showing that a new idea is unscriptural it is much easier to say “Looks liberal to me.” That does it, doesn’t it? Who wants to do anything the liberals are doing? Put it in that bucket marked “Liberalism” and few will have anything to do with it. Of course, we do things that liberal brethren do all the time - like build church buildings, hire preachers, print bulletins, use PowerPoint and more. Hopefully no one will notice all of that. They will just hear the word “liberal,” latch on to all its connotations, and reject the new idea without anyone ever having to prove that this new method is liberal or even leads to liberalism. The message has been slandered, but it has not been shown to be unscriptural.

Appeals to force and threats, attacking the messenger and even attacking the message are popular means of defending error from truth. Let us be careful that we do not engage in such, and let us be ever ready to help others “reason together” clearly and forthrightly from Scripture.