Yet Another Logical Fallacy
In the heat of rhetorical battle, clarity is often lost to expediency. Or “wins.” However you want to frame it, it can be very frustrating to have someone attempt to avoid the question by using one or more of the big three common logical fallacies: a) the “ad hominem,” where a person’s character or motives are criticized instead of the substance of the argument, b) the “red herring,” where they attempt a distraction away from the substance of the argument, and c) the “straw-man,” where they misrepresent the substance of the argument in order to knock it down more easily. These three seem to be used quite a lot in discussion groups and on social media. And honestly, it’s not good to win an argument by not treating your interlocutor like you want to be treated. Engage honestly and frankly, deal with the actual arguments being set forth, and speak the truth in love.
There is another kind of fallacy that really bothers me, and it’s a bit more difficult to recognize. Nowadays, it is called the “Jesus-Juke,” where in the middle of a discussion, someone turns the whole thing into a Sunday-school, WWJD? opportunity and “spiritualizes” the issue. This phrase was coined by Jon Acuff in 2010 on his blog, Stuff Christians Like, referring to the ‘juke’ done by athletes, in which they feint a move one way and immediately shift another. In our case today, the “Jesus-juke” is actually more of a “Bible-juke,” where a Bible verse, taken far out of its original context, is quoted in an attempt to thwart whatever uncomfortable reality is in view. This is actually a clever version of a red herring argument, given to lure the audience off the main track and onto a side path, thus avoiding the question.
It’s clever because most Christians are susceptible to any use of the Bible, legitimate or otherwise, and many Christians are also more easily manipulated because of a charitable, “let’s give the benefit of the doubt” posture. The phrase “shrewd as serpents, innocent as doves” comes to mind.
The “red-herring” fallacy is believed to have been coined from the example of hunting dog trainers dragging a stinky, smoked, red (the color it takes on after its preservation) herring perpendicularly across the trail of the critter that the dog’s supposed to be sniffing out. After a few tries, a good dog
won’t be distracted from the trail of a coon or possum just because another odor leads off in a different direction—ergo, an argument that tries to distract away from the actual argument is called a “red herring.”
I want to examine one such recent attempt on my person by a modern, empathetic, left-leaning “Jesus follower” whose identity will not be disclosed—I don’t want to unduly embarrass anyone. The topic wasn’t immigration (for once) but homosexuality, more specifically, an upcoming drag event with an afternoon “workshop” included. (The mind boggles—will there be written instructions? Hands-on wig placement? A quiz at the end?) I made a comment about the natural ick factor’s insufficiency to describe my thoughts, and of course I was being a bit snarky by writing this, and I added something like “This is an appropriate setting for imprecatory prayers: ‘Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth…’” Immediately someone fired off how “unChristian” that response was, and how the Bible doesn’t allow anyone to “criticize the gay.”
“But They Used The Bible!”
So I did what any normal person would do—I asked for some genuine biblical proof of this. Here’s the response:
“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” – Galatians 3:28
“So now I give you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other.” – John 13:34
“Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.” – 1 Peter 4:8
“For there are eunuchs who were born that way… and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” – Matthew 19:12
“People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” – 1 Samuel 16:7
“All of these verses are talking about loving everyone equally, and not judging people based on their personal beliefs. There is no reason one should hate another because of who they chose to love.”
So this smattering—this scatter-gun volley of verses—supposedly seals the deal. Love wins. Be nice. Judge not (I’m surprised that this wasn’t included). And this was intended to demonstrate what the Bible teaches about how we are to interact with people caught up in the lifestyle known as homosexuality. Never mind that the Bible posits an absolute binary, “man and woman,” as the creation norm for all people.
Never mind that the Bible says that great blessing is reserved for monogamous marriages that well-reflect Christ and His Church. Never mind that the Bible never, ever communicates anything positive about same-sex attraction or behavior, and in fact, reserves the greatest of condemnations of it, even using it as the primary example of idolatry’s effect on man (Romans 1). Apparently, none of that matters when marshaled against the great impenetrable forces of love, acceptance, and tolerance.
But before we can move ahead, we need to stop for just a moment and ask: Are these verses really communicating what this person thinks? Is there a way to examine whether or not this person’s beliefs are justified? Thankfully, yes. It’s called hermeneutics, the art and science of biblical interpretation. It’s not very complicated at all—consider the author’s reasons for writing, the audience to whom it’s written, and the original intention of the author. That’s why we jokingly say that the first three rules of hermeneutics are “context, context, and context.” Let’s apply these simple principles and see if what this person wrote has any validity.
I’ll use the standard grading system we Americans grew up with.
Examining the Data
First verse: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” – Galatians 3:28
Context: The apostle Paul is writing to the Churches in Galatia that there can be no return to the Jewish (Mosaic) economy, because doing so nullifies grace. At the end of chapter 3, he is making the case that for anyone, regardless of background, sex, or situation, justification is by faith alone. No former religious affiliation or current caste makes any difference to the baptized believer—all are equally guilty before God, and all who believe are equally justified. So, does this verse support the thesis?
No. Grade: F.
Second verse: “So now I give you a new commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other.” – John 13:34
Context: It is the occasion of the Last Supper, and Jesus is preparing His disciples for their mission as His ambassadors after He has finished His mission. The audience is the twelve, and by extension, all those who are united to Christ by faith. Jesus goes on to say that because of this love, “all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (vs. 35) Now, the person who posted this may be including practicing homosexuals as part of this group. It’s possible. It’s not true by any stretch, but they may be under that assumption. I don’t for a single second grant that unrepentant, practicing homosexuals are my brothers or sisters in the Lord. So, does this verse support the thesis?
No. Grade: Again, F.
Third verse: “Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.” – 1 Peter 4:8
Context: The apostle Peter is writing to a Church, made up mostly of ‘diaspora’ Jews, encouraging a close and giving fellowship between them Ironically, for our topic, back up in vs. 3 he reminds them of how they used to live, “carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties and abominable idolatries.” This is how the pagans around them currently live. I can’t think of anything more illustrative of “ sensuality” and “lusts” than a drag show. This passage is to and for Christians, and doesn’t pass our thesis muster.
Grade: F.
Fourth verse: “For there are eunuchs who were born that way… and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” – Matthew 19:12
Context: Jesus is teaching on marriage and divorce, correcting the prudential allowance that Moses gave due to their “hardness of heart,” and the traditional divorce options that the Pharisees abused. The use of this passage in the context of transgenderism is a classic conflation of categories, and frankly, an example of extreme wishful thinking.
These three classes of eunuchs in Matthew 19 are ancient realities (being born without sexual capacity), ancient practices, sometimes forcibly and in the duty of overseeing a harem (not at all uncommon in the 1st century), and the symbolic “made themselves eunuchs,” for the sake of chastity and having the gift of continency (and therefore singleness) when it comes to sexual practice. In absolutely no way is this to be compared or confused with the barbarism of so-called gender-reassignment surgery. It’s utterly anachronistic, and any appeal to this verse can be readily dismissed as a gruesome and macabre modern fairy tale.
Grade: A great, big F-.
Fifth Verse: “People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” – 1 Samuel 16:7
Context: Here, after rejecting Saul as King over Israel, God is chiding Samuel for assuming that Eliab, Jesse’s son and David’s brother, was the one he was to anoint as the new king. The verse is incomplete without its own immediate context—and the phrase “Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature” lets us know just why Samuel thought what he did. This verse is almost universally misapplied as if to say “outward appearance always means nothing.”
To be sure, outward appearances are definitely not everything! And of course we shouldn’t automatically judge someone because of how they look—and I for one am grateful for that. The point here is that God knows who belongs to Him, and who He has chosen for His own ends, and it’s usually not based on the things that we think deserve the spotlight. So the question again is does this verse support the thesis? Nope—it has zip-a-dee-doo dah with “loving everyone equally,” or “judging people based on their personal beliefs,” or “hating another because of who they chose to love.”
They Flunked
Sorry, kid—another failing score—you gotta take 9th grade over again. You flunked every single test. Your claims have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Literally none of the five verses proffered by our friend had anything whatsoever to do with the actual substance of the argument, and all of the verses served as an attempted distraction away from the central question regarding public events where transgender (what a misnomer that is) individuals would be shamelessly parading around. In other words, those Bible verses were being used as red herrings.
Remember that Scripture-twisting is nothing new—it’s been an issue even since the time of the New Testament’s writing, and “the untaught and unstable” will no doubt continue the practice until they are unable to do so (2 Peter 3:16). Part of the problem is this: Often Christians fall for these kinds of arguments not so much because of a charitable, let’s-give-the-benefit-of-the-doubt posture, but frankly because they are gullible. Our friend Michael Clary just published a piece on this very issue as it relates to illegal immigration. Believing everything that’s propped up and baptized by a few verses, they end up believing lies. 1 John 4:1: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”
Some claim or other isn’t automatically true just because a smattering of Bible verses has been quoted. Examine whatever scatter-gun Bible verses are used to justify some idiot, worldly thing, apply the first three rules of hermeneutics (context, context, and context), and you will be able to discern whether or not those verses really do justify the claims of the person who has now put themselves in the position of teacher.
So, Christian, be on your guard against “Bible-jukes,” the often-used red-herring argument that never addresses what you’re genuinely trying to discuss, and seeks to distract, leading you down the path of whatever the popular thing is.