A Word from our Namesake

‎"Take care of your life and the Lord will take care of your death."
~ George Whitefield

As Debate Season Arrives, Don't Lose Your Mind

We are about to find ourselves in the throes of the political debate season. This is the time where our local and national politicians grapple for positions like Olympic Greco-Roman wrestlers. The only difference is that there are no logical referees to flag and penalize formal and informal fallacies during debates. Wrestlers, on the other hand, must compete according to the rules of the mat.

I would contend that Christian believers are to be among the clearest thinkers in the political arena. As proponents of absolute truth in a world of relativity, followers of Christ ought to have the sturdiest grip on the logic of rational persuasion among all who grapple on the mat of political discourse. At the same time, we ought to be impervious to the techniques of our opponents who often break the rules of logic in order to toss us on our cognitive shoulders.

With that in mind, let me re-introduce some of the rules of Aristotelian logic, long lost among most political aficionados today.


First, let’s consider the difference between a formal and informal fallacy.

Logical arguments should be inferred from a persuasive set of premises and a clearly deduced conclusion (a) All men are mortal (b) Socrates is a man (c) therefore Socrates is a mortal. This completes a classical syllogism.

Formal logical fallacies draw conclusions that are not warranted or supported by the premises. If the premises are shown to be false or the conclusion is not derived from the premises, we ought to reject the argument as logically persuasive.

Informal fallacies however, are much less apparent. Often they are tied to the manner of presentation or the tact of the speaker. Although often emotionally very compelling, they are nonetheless to be regarded as non-persuasive rationally. Here is where we must be very careful. This is, after all, what logic is about: rational persuasive power, not emotive power.

With that being said, here are some of the top informal fallacies likely to be present in most political debates:

(1) Ad Hominem Fallacy: This is an attack against the man. While it may tell us about his character, personal attacks do not compel us rationally against a man’s position. Example: John is a Cretan. We cannot trust his tax policy. He may be the worst dirt-bag alive; but that has nothing to do with the logical consistency of this tax plan.

(2) Guilt by Association Fallacy: This is an attack against a man’s known associates or relationships. Again, while it may speak about his character, it says nothing about his argument per se. Example: John has been photographed with Hitler at a recent campaign rally; therefore we cannot trust his environmental protection policy. Notice that the emotional power of this correlation (John and Hitler) has nothing to do with his actual position on the environment.

(3) Ad Populum Fallacy: This is an appeal to the opinion of the majority of the audience. Here the candidate attempts to cast himself as a ‘man of the people’ and his opponent as an extremist. Notice how often this is done every day in ads. Again, the opinion of the majority can be and often is wrong and should not be rationally persuasive. Example: Most people accept homosexual marriage today; since John is in favor of traditional marriage, he is an extremist and should be regarded with skepticism. 

(4) False Alternatives Fallacy: This one is very subtle. Here the argument seems to suggest that there are only two possible alternatives that can be taken in any decision. It forces the opponent to choose between options as a false dichotomy. In reality, there may be dozens of other possible options and solutions. Example: We must either raise taxes or reduce our armed forces. So which is it, Joe? Are you for raising our tax burden, or weakening our national defense? 

(5) Straw Man Fallacy: Again, this is present in almost every debate you will watch this season. Here the candidate intentionally reduces the force and strength of his opponent’s position in order to knock it down more easily. He argues against a much lesser position than his opponent actually holds. By making a man’s position sound stupid, he evades actually having to take him to task on specifics. Example: Since my opponent stands for lesser government, he probably won’t even fund a police or fire department to protect our homes! 

(6) Invincible Ignorance Fallacy: In this fallacy, an individual refuses to accept proven facts no matter how persuasive they may be. His predispositions simply refuse him the latitude to change positions no matter how rationally compelling the actual data. Example: I don’t care what psychological affects a post-abortive woman suffers; I believe in a woman’s right to choose. 

(7) Circular Reasoning Fallacy: These are often a bit more complex to discern. Here, the debater assumes as a premise the very conclusion he is trying to prove. His conclusion is based on accepting a priori the very thing at which he hopes to arrive. Example: This tax will be good for local business. We all want businesses to thrive in this economy. Therefore we must write tax laws that will promote economic growth, such as the one I am presenting.

(8) Tu Quoque (You too) Fallacy: This fallacy alienates a man from affirming a position that he once denied by his actions. It exposes a man when he moves from a lesser position to a stronger one. Often we call this “flip flopping.” But, in some cases, changing positions is actually the best thing a man can do! Example: Jones says he is for reducing taxes. But he himself voted to increase taxes four years ago. Of course, times and situations do change. If a man realizes the error of his ways and changes, this cannot be logically held against the cogency of current position now.

As you watch the debates on television or perhaps in person this fall, see how many formal and informal fallacies you hear during argumentation. Once you notice how often our candidates argue emotively rather than rationally, you may wish you lived in a different generation completely.

Perhaps the Greco-Roman era?

Matthew Everhard is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville, Florida. Follow on Twitter @matt_everhard

Falling Leaves and Other Mysteries

‎"If you’ve got an infinite God big enough to be mad at for the suffering in the world, then you also have an infinite God big enough to have reasons for it that you can’t think of." - Tim Keller

How Does Exercise Relate to Sanctification?

Interesting discussion with John Piper and Bob Glenn on how exercise/sleep delves into our personal sanctification... Be blessed.

http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/how-does-physical-exercise-relate-to-sanctification

Drew Taylor
RTS Orlando 3rd Year MDiv Student

Book Review. John Piper. Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God

The heart burns in worship what the mind provides for fuel. This is true whether we are believers or idolators. Therefore let us burn on what is true.

This is the centering thought of John Piper's delightful book, Think: the Life of the Mind and the Love of God. Throughout, Piper connects these two great facets of our humanity: loving the Lord our God with both heart and mind as Jesus commanded.

Often these two pursuits (heart and mind) are placed at odds against one another as though doctrine was cold and dead, while real worship was "felt" emotionally, disconnected to propositional truth.

In this book, Piper admonishes believers to fully engage God with our mind. We are to intellectually pursue the wisdom of our Creator since worship and clear thinking (especially about His revealed Word) should be inseparable.

Piper gently attacks two false positions. The first false position is that worship is primarily done with one's feelings. Here Piper attacks the anti-intellectualism that has pervaded American forms of evangelicalism, especially since the Second Great Awakening. On the other hand, Piper deconstructs the prideful position of those whose knowledge "puffs up" lending itself to arrogance, conceit, and self-confidence.

Working through several key Biblical passages throughout the book (Proverbs 2:3-5; Matthew 22:35-40; 1 Corinthians 1:20-24) Piper is relentlessly exegetical. He never strays far from his key Biblical texts. He carefully shows how thoughtful Biblical Christians are exhorted to pursue an apprehension of divine truth with humility.

Chapters seven and eight are worth the price of the whole book. There, Piper utterly destroys modern relativism as both rationally incoherent, and intellectually dishonest. As I read these two chapters which expose the pride of the heart of unbelieving man, I repeatedly wished I could put these pages before the eyes of every member of my church.

Matthew Everhard is the Senior Pastor of Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Brooksville Florida.

A Rebellious Nation

And he said to me, “Son of man, stand on your feet, and I will speak with you.” And as he spoke to me, the Spirit entered into me and set me on my feet, and I heard him speaking to me.  And he said to me, “Son of man, I send you to the people of Israel, to nations of rebels, who have rebelled against me. They and their fathers have transgressed against me to this very day.  The descendants also are impudent and stubborn: I send you to them, and you shall say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God.’  And whether they hear or refuse to hear (for they are a rebellious house) they will know that a prophet has been among them.  And you, son of man, be not afraid of them, nor be afraid of their words,though briers and thorns are with you and you sit on scorpions. Be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, for they are a rebellious house.  And you shall speak my words to them, whether they hear or refuse to hear, for they are a rebellious house.

 “But you, son of man, hear what I say to you. Be not rebellious like that rebellious house; open your mouth and eat what I give you.”  And when I looked, behold, a hand was stretched out to me, and behold, a scroll of a book was in it. And he spread it before me. And it had writing on the front and on the back, and there were written on it words of lamentation and mourning and woe.

 And he said to me, “Son of man, eat whatever you find here. Eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” So I opened my mouth, and he gave me this scroll to eat. And he said to me, “Son of man, feed your belly with this scroll that I give you and fill your stomach with it.” Then I ate it, and it was in my mouth as sweet as honey.

And he said to me, “Son of man, go to the house of Israel and speak with my words to them. (Ezekiel 2.1-3.4 ESV)

This is a lengthy portion of Scripture for my post, but it is relevant.  Ezekiel was charged with bringing a message to Israel, however, they were characterized by God as being a “rebellious house”.  If you look closely, God makes it clear to Ezekiel that He understands Israel’s rebellious nature.  After all, He led them through Egypt and the wilderness and they turned against Him anyway.  While He led them through the wilderness and provided for them they still complained and wanted to turn back.  They were an ungrateful people.

Israel’s history included following Molech- an evil demon god whose worship required child sacrifice.  Human sacrifice was common as was sexual perversion as “worship” to the false gods Israel cavorted with.  How could Israel turn on God when He did so much for them?  They had a foundation God built with Moses and Joshua!  They had the Ten Commandments and the Law to keep them on track.  They had the prophets to bring them God’s Word.  What buffoons.

Of course, to be indignant about Israel turning on God is in some ways hypocritical.  As a nation, we have turned our back on God.  He brought together great, not perfect, leaders- just as Moses and Joshua were great and not perfect.  We were given men of wisdom who wrote the Constitution of the United States and brought forth, not a democracy, but a Representative Republic.  They were blessed by God with wisdom.  Preachers were used to bring about revivals and a dependence on God during the history of the United States.  It was a great parallel to how God acted toward Israel (though the differences are real).  

The United States has been blessed by God like none other than Biblical Israel.  

What is the result? The United States has cursed God to His face.  We, as a nation, have spit in the face of God and are begging for judgment.  Israel had kings, we have presidents.  We have chosen our poison.  Our president has flaunted his support of sodomy in our armed forces and in every sector of the nation.  He, as many homosexuals, show no shame in boasting in sin.  ’To the devil with God’s Word’ is an attitude we see in the world.  We sacrifice our children (unborn) to the god of “choice”- Molech would be envious of the blood our nation has shed through unborn lives.  Evil.  We have called evil good and good evil.  Can the United States really expect to survive under these circumstances?  Not without a revived church!  The church, like the prophet Ezekiel, is called to bring forth God’s message whether the rebellious nation listens or not.

Individually, we have been blessed to live in such a nation of freedom, but now the nation needs to receive God’s message.  He has called on us to be witnesses.  He has called on us to live for Him and to proclaim His Gospel to the nation.  Will we be like Ezekiel?  God emphatically demonstrated Israel’s rebelliousness, but when Ezekiel was told to eat what was put before him- a scroll, not a steak, fried chicken or ribs,- he obeyed.  No questions asked.  

The contrast between the rebellious house and Ezekiel are black and white.  Is the contrast between the church and society the same way?  Is the contrast between us, individually, and the society the same?  Pray about it.  Then follow God’s lead (He will only answer one way- He has commissioned us already-Matthew 28.18-20).

Pete Garbacki is a minister with Time for Truth Ministries and Mission.Brasil. Follow him on Twitter @mission_brasil or FaceBook at http://www.facebook.com/pete.garbacki.

Fried Chicken and Traditional Marriage?

I love Chick Fil A.

To be honest, the reasons I enjoy eating there have nothing to do with the personal views of their CEO or any management staff. I love Chick Fil A because I love their chicken and they have great service. But unless you've been hiding under a rock somewhere, you've heard almost every politico or cultural commentator  celebrating or snubbing the recent comments by CEO Dan Cathy that he supports marriage as between one man and one woman.

The Mayors of Chicago and Boston have reacted and promised to keep this business from opening in their city because of the personal views of their CEO. Of course I am biased (everyone is!) , but if you take a step back and consider  the reality of a government official promising to regulate commerce because of one person's  personal views , it is revealing and striking to say the least. The Jim Henson Company has notified Chick Fil A that it will no longer partner with them on future projects. Facebook had a "snafu" when Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee invited hundreds of thousands of subscribers to Chick Fil A appreciation day, and the invitation mysteriously disappeared for hours. Needless to say, this topic has exploded and generated strong opinions and comments on both sides.

As a minister I am both encouraged and convicted. I am encouraged anytime someone in our culture who is a leader in their community, or contributes in a sphere of influence, stands up for biblical values. But I am also convicted that as a culture, we exist in such an environment where behavior can become so normalized that to question it is to invite a firestorm.

While affirming my commitment that the practice of homosexuality is sin, nonetheless I can't help feel  the church has failed in reaching out to those in the homosexual community. Heterosexual sex outside of marriage is just as sinful, and yet our Christian sub-culture makes allowances for certain taboos and respectable sins (If you haven't read Jerry Bridges' "Respectable Sins" first repent, then go read it :) We in the church need to speak the truth in love, and unfortunately we have proven the culture right at times when they have claimed that those in the conservative Christian world (of which I am an unashamed member) are bigoted or hateful. We need to repent, just as we are calling homosexuals to repent and those who support "gay marriage" to repent. Homosexuals don't need to "get straight"...they need Jesus, just like you and I do. And once we are transformed, our desires and affections are changed that we want to live in the sweet spot of life; loving and delighting in the law of God.

(For more on this topic, click here to read "The Bible, Homosexuality, and Shellfish") 

The Apostle Paul (inspired by the Holy Spirit)  sums up the problem with his usual poise and grace when he wrote to the Corinthians, "For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Corinthians 1:18) Let us never forget, that our only banner is the crucified and risen Christ;  not any enterprise or fast food chain (as tasty as it may be). We should not be surprised when the world rejects our message, for it is folly to a self-centered and individualistic culture. Yet it is nothing less than the very power of God to those who are refined and refreshed by its healing grace. So on August 1, if you want to eat at Chick Fil A to support their CEO, by all means go ahead! But don't forget, that taking a stand for Christ involves daily dying to our own agendas, and remembering that our life is hidden with Him (Colossians 3:3)

It has been said that some things are as American as Apple Pie and Baseball. Maybe we our entering an era (good and bad)  where something is as traditional as fried chicken and marriage.

Lee Hutchings is an Assistant Pastor at Highlands Presbyterian Church in Ridgeland, Mississippi