\n<\/p>\n
I posted last week on \u201c3 things I would like to see (at least some) Evangelical leaders stop saying about biblical scholarship.<\/a>\u201d Today\u2019s post is about rhetoric I have heard from Evangelical leaders when defending a biblical position. Though these leaders may be well-intentioned, I feel their rhetoric only serves to score points, entrench positions, and detract from much-needed conversation.<\/p>\n You\u2019ll see that these three are interrelated.<\/p>\n 1. The \u201cit\u2019s possible\u201d or \u201cbe patient\u201d argument<\/strong>. When threatened\u00a0with a\u00a0genuine\u00a0and serious theological challenge, I have seen a\u00a0persistent\u00a0tendency to argue for the mere \u201cpossibility\u201d of the traditional position (or similarly, that the position is \u201cnot impossible\u201d).\u00a0Apparently, if a position is salvaged as possible\/not impossible\u2014however slim\u2014that warrants maintaining it.<\/p>\n This type of argument is like that of a defense attorney charged with defending the\u00a0accused at any and all costs. Such a defense attempts to establish the client\u2019s innocence by casting some shadow of doubt<\/em>, however minimal, on the prosecution\u2019s case. If innocence is \u201cpossible\u201d that\u2019s good enough. Sort of like the O.J. trial.<\/p>\n A close cousin is the \u201cbe patient\u201d argument, which says, \u201cAlthough what you say may look dire for our position at the moment<\/em>, further study, exegesis, reflection (and prayer) will eventually vindicate our position, so no need to jump to conclusions now. Let\u2019s be patient.\u201d<\/p>\n Both arguments are really\u00a0just obscurantist stall tactics that would not be tolerated for an instance<\/em> if the evidence were lined up in the opposite direction. Imagine if, say, biblical archaeologists had abundant and overwhelming evidence for the conquest of Canaan, but a small group of liberal renegades was holding out and constructing scenarios whereby their minority positions were still \u201cpossible?\u201d or were calling for more \u201cpatience\u201d as they continue to find new ways to defend themselves?<\/p>\n The \u201cit\u2019s possible\/be patient\u201d defense is an indication that the end goal determines the process.<\/p>\n 2. Emotionally<\/strong>\u00a0manipulative\u00a0rhetoric to achieve\u00a0the desired conclusion. <\/strong>This is related to #1.<\/p>\n We see this at work\u00a0when\u00a0a debate begins with a loaded premise that biases the argument toward the\u00a0desired\u00a0conclusion. For example: \u201cBrothers and sisters, we must be ever on\u00a0guard\u00a0to defend the Bible against those who seek to discredit it by claiming it is historically inaccurate.\u201d<\/p>\n Here we have an emotional appeal\u2014almost shaming\u2014that simple\u00a0equates attacking<\/em> the Bible with questioning<\/em> its historical accuracy, i.e., anyone who really<\/em>\u00a0believes\u00a0the Bible will not question the Bible on historical matters.<\/p>\n The key here is to interrogate<\/em>\u00a0the premise \u201cquestioning = attacking\u201d and to insist that the premise<\/em> be defended, rather than simply accepted. If you question\u00a0the\u00a0premise, the discussion can potentially<\/em> go in a different and helpful direction (provided both parties are willing to do so). But if this type of rhetoric is allowed to set the terms of \u201cdiscussion,\u201d there will be no discussion.<\/p>\n It\u2019s also not fun to be emotionally manipulated as a way of shutting you up.<\/p>\n 3. The problem is your faulty presuppositions<\/strong>. Arguments\u00a0over details can be avoided by appealing to\u00a0opponents\u2019 presuppositions. Now the debate is not about handling specific and complex data, such as\u00a0whether\u00a0the\u00a0flood happened or who wrote the Pentateuch, but\u00a0the \u201cfaulty\u00a0presuppositions\u201d that would drive one to doubt either.<\/p>\n This tactic is an effective way of disagreeing with someone who knows more.\u00a0Saying\u00a0someone\u00a0is wrong because they\u00a0have\u00a0the wrong presuppositions leaves the disagreement on the spiritual level and so avoids actually accusing someone of incompetence. It also sidesteps having to deal with details, which requires some expertise. \u201cYes, I know you are\u00a0brilliant\u00a0and respected and all this is quite complicated, and I\u2019m just a simple [fill in the blank], but can\u2019t you see how your presuppositions are leading your brilliance down the wrong path?\u201d<\/p>\n If\u00a0someone\u00a0asserts that the Bible must behave in a manner \u201cX\u201d because it is God\u2019s word (for example, it must be historically accurate), and yet in your reading of the Bible you are finding a lot of \u201cnot X\u201d (you find historical inaccuracies), you either (1) have to question your reading skills, (2) admit you are so spiritually depraved you can\u2019t read straight, or (3) consider that the assertion may be in error.<\/p>\n That\u2019s the choice, and after\u00a0being\u00a0fed a steady diet of \u00a0#1 and #2, #3 starts looking pretty reasonable.<\/p>\n I remember a\u00a0discussion\u00a0like this in graduate school. A professor was remarking\u00a0how some scholars have a penchant for holding on to a theory long after\u00a0the evidence piles up against it by talking about exceptions, or stretching the theory to fit the data, etc. He said, \u201cIf you find one thing that doesn\u2019t fit the theory, it\u2019s an exception. Two things, a sub-category; Three things, you need\u00a0a new theory.\u201d<\/p>\n All of this is to say, the \u201cfaulty presupposition\u201d\u00a0argument\u00a0only works if\u00a0the\u00a0presupposition is sound. At some point you may have to scrub a \u201ctheory\u201d about the Bible and make one that aligns with what\u2019s there.<\/p>\n The rhetoric used by some evangelical leaders may well be motivated by a sincere desire to uphold the faith<\/a> and ease the conscience of the faithful. But when the dust clears, they do neither.<\/p>\n [An earlier version of this post appeared in January 2013.]\n<\/p><\/div>\nBut here\u2019s the thing about\u00a0presuppositions: they are not all created equal.\u00a0They can be tested<\/em>.<\/h2>\n