We all know about the old "black hat" concept in westerns. The good guy always had a white hat; the bad guy always wore a black hat. It's easy to tell who the good guy and the bad guy is. Come on! It's just the way it is.
Well, we've always liked that concept. Today we're not quite so obvious, but it's still easy to tell who the good guy is and who the bad guy is. The good guy is the one who agrees with you, and the bad guy is the one who doesn't. Simple!
Take the "Calvinist vs Arminian" debate. If you are a Calvinist, "Arminian" is an epithet you throw out to describe those evil semi-Pelagian (and you use "semi" in that term because you are trying to be nice, even though you really think they are fully Pelagian) folks who deny the sovereignty of God, the problem of sin, and, ultimately, just about every significant issue surrounding the Gospel. Those evil Arminians. That's okay, because if you are an Arminian (even though most Arminians won't use the term to describe themselves), it's those Calvinists who are evil. They're not just wrong; they're evil. They deny free will, negate preaching the Gospel, and vilify God Himself! Those evil Calvinists. On neither side do you often find the idea that the other side is merely "mistaken" or "wrong". They're bad.
And it's not merely in Calvinist versus Arminian debates that you'll find this. The Democrats are left wing liberals who want to turn this country into a socialist nation ... if you're a Republican. The Republicans, on the other hand, are self-centered Capitalists who only care about making money for themselves ... if you're a Democrat. Not merely different or mistaken -- they're evil.
Christians are the root of all problems in society to atheists, and atheists have no morality at all to Christians. Liberals are "bleeding hearts" and conservatives are "right wing nut jobs". Those who are concerned about illegal immigration are racists, and those who are illegal aliens are dangerous criminals. On and on and on. The "other side", whatever side of which you speak, is "evil" and "my side" is "good".
Here's the problem, of course. As long as we are talking about a difference of opinion, two possible viewpoints to examine, varying ideas to discuss, well, there's room for conversation. We can look at the concepts together and see what we can see. But when my view becomes evil, it becomes a lot more difficult to discuss. The natural response is defense. It's not discuss. Unfortunately, even if you overcome your natural response to defend and attempt to discuss, it's mostly pointless. You're not offering a point of view. You're offering evil. Why would someone consider evil?
It's human nature, I suppose, to vilify those who disagree with you. It's not helpful. It's not productive. It's not logical. It's no way to win an argument. It is a perfectly useful method to shut down further dialog, and I fear that is too often the intent. If I can't make headway with evidence, reason, and logic, I'll just shut off the discussion flow with disparaging comments about how your opponent dresses or denigrating remarks about their intelligence or simply pointing out that they are evil ... and who wants to be evil? If you can't win the argument, crucify your opponent. That strategy has been tried ... and it didn't work. It still doesn't.
4 comments:
Vilify your opponent...good thoughts. I've been struggling with exactly how to put into words the difficulty I have been having in some discussions recently. This is close.
In some theological discussions, I have run into something I think of as "label and dismiss." Someone says something and the opposing side says, "that is replacement theology," or "that is dispensationalism" or whatever. The actual argument is never discussed, it is just attached to something the opponent seems to think everyone rejects and is then dismissed as irrelevant.
"The actual argument is never discussed, it is just attached to something the opponent seems to think everyone rejects and is then dismissed as irrelevant."
That is very true.
Many concepts are complicated enough that the discussion needs to take place - not the guilt by association / paint with the broad brush effect.
Sometimes that is a function of audience and presumption of consistency. In the 'replacement theology' / 'dispensationalism' example this occurs frequently. For example, some churches (PC(USA) and its predecessors for one) officially reject 'dispensationalism' so the attempt to attach equate 'dispensationalism' with other more complicated issues re: Judaism, Christianity, Israel, and the Palestinians - is an attempt to discredit via inconsistency.
The same is true on the other side in this debate with 'replacement theology'. Again, the audience in question (usually this argument is occurring in the Mainlines) has already rejected what it called 'replacement theology' - yet many elements of 'replacement theology' appear in support of its activism. Again, rather than addressing the particulars - the assumption is made that allegations of inconsistency are able to discredit.
In a sense these are (e.g. arguments of inconsistency can be strong) - but the two examples are simply words - most of those using them, and most of the audience appealed to have no detailed understanding of their meanings.
Too often these terms ("replacement theology", "Calvinism", "Republican", "right wing conservative", etc.) are used as a grouping that they shouldn't be. The nuances and variations are ignored and, thus, the ideas are ignored. A person ends up with "Calvinism is wrong" without ever actually hearing the point because they lumped it in with "Calvinism". (And more often than I can say the people that are rejecting groups -- on all sides -- far too often don't actually understand the positions of those groups, let alone the individuals in them.)
"And more often than I can say the people that are rejecting groups -- on all sides -- far too often don't actually understand the positions of those groups, let alone the individuals in them.)"
Sadly that is spot on.
Post a Comment