I'm sure you've seen this. Bob makes an argument to a group about how 2 + 2 = 4. Jim says, "Oh, yeah? Well, you know Bob divorced his wife last year, right?" So the idea is we're supposed to ignore Bob's argument because Bob's a bad person. It is a standard logical fallacy. In fact, it's one of the most popular. They call it "ad hominem" for short (although there are actually valid ad hominem arguments). The idea is to attack the character of the source rather than the content of the argument. You understand, I hope, what's wrong with this. Basically, it doesn't address the question.
I'm not entirely clear on why we do this. Oh, we all do. But why? It seems to come from a fundamentally flawed perspective: "If you do something wrong, you can never be right." We use it all the time. We assume that if that person has divorced, then they're bad, unreliable, unworthy. If this person came from a homosexual culture or criminal background, they are untrustworthy and suspect. Beyond that, if "that song" came from a group that is suspect, "that song" is bad without regard to what it says. If a false teacher makes a statement, the statement is wrong because this teacher is a false teacher, not because the statement is wrong. We use it all the time.
Maybe it's laziness on our part. I don't know. Maybe it's just too hard to examine the truth claims and evaluate the logic and the evidence and the reasoning and come to a conclusion. Maybe it's just easier to dismiss someone because of something wrong in their character or associations. But we do so at our own peril. You see, if the truth was told, we are all flawed (Psa 130:3).
How do I know for a fact that it's a mistake to dismiss out of hand truth claims that come from bad sources? Well, turn with me in your Bibles to ... every single book. Every one of them is written by fallen men. Look at so many of the Psalms written by David, the adulterer and murderer. Look at the books written by Solomon who pursued idolatry in his latter years. Look at the New Testament written largely by the self-professed killer, Paul. Look at the letters written by the disciple that denied even knowing Jesus. If all of that is true and all of it came from "bad sources", you can be quite sure that God's truth can be provided from sources that are not, in and of themselves, good sources.
I've seen it before. "Don't listen to that song; it comes from Hillsong and everyone knows they're heretical." "I'm not even going to listen to you if you cite C.S. Lewis because he was wrong in his theology." "You know, that pastor disgraced himself and his church when he fell into sin. Don't listen to anything he says." Perhaps it is laziness ... at best. I suspect it is more often self-righteous arrogance. We should be better than that. Paul said, "Brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things." (Phil 4:8) Even if the sources are not perfect. They used to say, "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day." If God could use a donkey to speak the truth to Balaam, surely there might be truth in other poor sources as well.
10 comments:
Duly noted. I will no longer say, "That song is bad because it is from Hillsong," I will say, "Don't play that song from Hillsong, because it reminds me of them and they are bad."
Seriously, excellent points. Thanks for the reset. I need to be more precise.
I'm all for, "Watch out for them; they put out some bad stuff." (Lest anyone think "Hey, Stan thinks Hillsong is great!") But I've found truthful quotes from Hitler that can make a good point, so I tried to teach my kids, "Pay attention to what's being said. Don't accept it merely because you like the source and don't reject it merely because you don't." I tried to teach my kids that by practicing it myself.
My problem with Hillsong stuff isn't individuals listening to it, it's that churches are using their stuff. That gives implicit approval to Hillsong and puts money in their coffers to spread their false teachings. Same with Elevation, Vineyard, and Bethel material.
I understand your problem with Hillsong, Glenn. My problem is, essentially, the same thing in reverse. "Well, Hillsong does it so it must be good." No, don't do that. I would urge churches to be awake, aware, cautious. Whether it's from Hillsong or their favorite hymnal, pay attention. Is it saying what is true, or is it not? Ignore the source; examine the content. That applies to arguments or teachers, too.
That hymnal thing links back to your post about music in the church and one of the commenters said something about a hymn having bad lyrics. Just because it's from something you tend to agree with, or disagree, examine the content. Along those lines, I feel like a lot of people are doing that in their singing at church, "It's at church so it must be good". I frequently find myself not singing the songs because I don't know the words and am trying to process them and not blankly parrot the words.
Yes
This is incredibly common, and I hope I'm not guilty of it too often. I'm generally willing to investigate the claims of those with whom I disagree in debates on this here internet. Perhaps not so much those of people with whom I'm in general agreement, though when objections are strong it's hard for me not to resist the compulsion to do so. I do, however, admit that I'm suspicious of that which is culled from certain sources and sites. But that just makes me dig deeply to see what I can find that disputes what was put forth.
Conversely, regular readers of my blog...and of course I have tens of thousands of those...*sniff*...*ahem*...can attest that I have one particular visitor who immediately dismisses information I present solely due to the source...be it the person or the platform or medium whence it comes. Way back when I first started my blog, I linked to an article by a couple of guys that explained why some laws of Leviticus still apply to Christians today and why others don't. One of these dudes is by trade a helicopter engineer. So this visitor to my blog has never once addressed the arguments from this article, but instead continues to denigrate the merit of their argument simply because of the line of work of one of them...as if one cannot excel in making his living one way and still be expert in something else at the same time.
More recently, I posted a series of videos from made by different people all speaking on the same topic, each of which totally contradicted the position of this visitor to my blog. He never addressed their arguments, but again, simply dismissed them because I found them all on YouTube, as if YouTube itself was presenting the arguments. But let's assume they were, and that they gathered the information and those in the videos were simply hired by YouTube to present it. One still needs to address the info.
Again, I'm not likely to feel the sources this guy uses are trustworthy...I haven't found that they typically are...but I still do my own research so I have something to present after I ridicule the source (I reserve the right to be snarky). It's so much more edifying and personally profitable to do so.
You just made me think, Marshal Art, about my own writing. When I link to a source here, I am acutely aware that the skeptical types might question my source rather than the argument or story, so I try to make a point to find a source for the link that would be from "their side". A story, for instance, about how Christians are being attacked looks paranoid from a Christian source but plausible from, say, Huffpo. So I try to offer them a source they might more readily believe, not because either source has presented a false story, but because both agree, so the story is likely true.
That's a good practice for our own benefit as well. We're just as susceptible to taking for granted the validity and accuracy of our own sources that it makes sense to see how the other side reports the story as well. The downside is how painful it is to weather the nastier, anti-conservative anti-Christian biases while doing so. It's like masochism.
True. When I find the same story from an anti-source, I see it as evidence from a hostile witness. Much more compelling.
Post a Comment