Anecdotal Theology

As I continue to do research for my thesis, I am at the point where I need to read more from authors who disagree with my conclusions. It's only good scholarship, and it's actually very helpful. The authors I'm reading are not stupid - they have sound logic and intelligent points. I think they make some fatal logic errors here and there, but they are not blithering idiots.

The authors I'm now reading are arguing for egalitarianism with respect to gender, and against complementarianism (equal in Christ but different in role) and against patriarchy (or authoritarianism). Sadly, most of the authors throw complementarity into the same category as patriarchy, then attack patriarchy, and conclude that they've successfully argued against all of the views that oppose them. This is not always the case, but it is predominates these writings. Their underlying view is that all views other than their own prescribe only one thing: odious, overbearing male domination. They make it sound like they are the only ones who truly believe that men and women are equal in Christ.

The other thing I've noticed is how many of these authors use personal anecdotes to justify their conclusions. One will talk about a female friend who was dominated by an overbearing husband who claimed to be Christian. Another will talk about a woman she knew who was a strong leader, but pushed down by insecure men in authority. And so on. In almost every case, they use the anecdotes to explain how they came to their own conclusions, or at least how they began to question the more traditional views. The stories they cite are sad and compelling. They ask, "How could God's plan be like that?!?!?", and therefore assume that the only choice is to reject all views that recognize any significant difference in gender roles in Christ.

They do not cite anecdotes of abuses in the other direction, which would lead to a stalemate of bad stories. They never stop to ask if the anecdotes are fair examples of true complementarity or patriarchy. They don't acknowledge positive examples of the views they reject. They come across a bad story, and then paint an entire scholarly view with that negative image.

And then they begin the job of showing how Scripture supports their view. Rather than start with Scripture, they start with the worst possible examples which do not truly represent a particular view, then look at Scripture. Not every one of them in every case, but so frequently that they undermine their own scholarship.

(By the way, the view I espouse is complementarity, with an important nuanced difference from the standard names associated with this view.)

I see the exact same thing happening in politics, and in particular with the healthcare debate. Find a bad story, paint the entire "other" view with that unfair example, and then argue against the entire view based on that bad example. And I see both sides of the debate doing this. It is dishonest dialog.

And I see the same thing happen with a variety of Christian and moral issues. People can use anecdotal stories of bad consequences to justify all kinds of unbiblical behavior, from premarital sex to homosexuality to abusing one's spouse to gossip to greediness, and on down the line.

The Bible never uses anecdotes to draw conclusions. It uses anecdotes, and hundreds of them! But the conclusions of the Bible are all drawn from one place and one place only: the character of God. Everything, even the Old Testament Law, is based on the character of God. That's the only unchanging standard upon which we can base any important conclusions.

As you consider your moral decisions, your theological views, or even your politics, rely on God's character, not anecdotes, to draw your conclusions.