The False Dilemma

Perhaps you've heard of this logical fallacy. It's also called oversimplification or "black and white thinking"¹. In the False Dilemma, you are given a limited number of choices (usually only two), but, as it turns out, there are more. And it qualifies an argument as fallacious. Of course, if there are only the choices offered, then it isn't a fallacy. So "Either you're an American or you're from the Moon" would be a False Dilemma and "Either you're dead or you're alive" would be accurate. My favorite False Dichotomy is the lawyer's question in court. "Mr. Jones, answer 'yes' or 'no'. Have stopped beating your wife?" Of course, if Mr. Jones never beat his wife, there is no right answer to the question. False Dilemma.

On the topic of homosexual behavior we often face this dilemma. It is particularly difficult for a large number of people when it comes to a member of your own family. Is it true that there are only two options? Either you embrace homosexual behavior or you reject the homosexual. For Pastor Danny Cortez, it was either embrace his son as gay or embrace the Bible. Many choose the former and call it love. But even if it's not a family member, we are told that we are either "tolerant", by which they mean "embrace the behavior", or we are intolerant, meaning we are opposed to it². Welcome to the False Dilemma.

Culture is not at stake here. Public opinion isn't the criterion. Consensus isn't the final answer. What is at stake here is Christianity. Like Satan in the Garden of Eden, we are first asked, "Did God say ...?" (Gen 3:1). Regardless of our response (because many today have already been poisoned enough -- the Bible calls it "blinded" (2 Cor 4:4) -- not to know the obvious answer), they follow up with "You shall not surely die" (Gen 3:4) and even "Your eyes will be opened" (Gen 3:5). Having carefully and deliberately denied God, His declared values, and His authority, it is not possible to follow with "But I'm still in favor of Christianity." The Gospel is based first on the problem of Sin, and denying the problem doesn't solve it; it only removes the Answer.

So they leave us with a False Dilemma. Either embrace the sin or embrace the Word. And I deny that fallacy. I deny that a person is defined by their sinful propensities. We all have them, but they do not define us. And I deny that we must reject the person because he or she is a sinner. If the reason for such a claim is vague, it's because you aren't thinking of the reality that all of us are sinners. Rejecting a person who sins would require rejecting everyone ... including yourself.

I would argue, instead, there is indeed a "Third Way", although not the one being offered (which is no such thing). That way would be Jesus's way. "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more" (John 8:11). In Matthew 9 we read that Jesus ate with sinners and tax collectors (Matt 9:10), but not because He accepted their behavior. What He told His detractors was, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick" (Matt 9:12). Did you get that? They weren't "just fine". They were sick. This "Third Way" is where you stick around because you love them enough to help. Of the Christian sinner we read, "Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted" (Gal 6:1). And for those who are not believers we need to be there to offer the Gospel, speaking the truth in love (Eph 4:15).

This is not "embrace the behavior" nor is it "reject the sinner". It does embrace the Word and side with God, but not against the sinner. It is a better option. Because the "either-or" fallacy we are offered is a false dilemma. It is, therefore, incorrect.
________
¹ Let's not forget other terms for it, like false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, either-or reasoning, fallacy of false choice, fallacy of false alternatives, the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, bifurcation, excluded middle, no middle ground, polarization. In case you thought it was simple.

² In case you fail to see the problem with this idea, "tolerance" requires a difference of opinion. If we agree, their definition of "tolerant", then there is no tolerance required. "Tolerance" requires a difference of opinion that we, nonetheless, allow to continue. It is not embracing the opposite opinion.