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They do not cite anecdotes of abuses in the other direction, which would lead to a stalemate of bad stories.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.

Video Question of the Day, 10/13/09

First, open the following link in a new window to get to Ecclesiastes 10 - click here.

Second, read Ecclesiastes 10:8-20.

Third, click play on the following video to get the question of the day. (If you're looking at this through Facebook, there will be no video - instead, click here to go to the full blog.)

"What does verse 17 tells us about how we should vote?"

Health Plan

I think it's official. I believe I have now received more emails about the healthcare plan that's being debated across the nation than about any other topic. I receive emails for this and against that, fearful of this, reassuring of that - a non-stop parade of emails. What's a person to think about the whole mess?

By no means will I suggest to you how you should feel about the plan itself. I would not take away the responsibility from you to learn about this and think it through for yourself. But there are some thoughts about the manner in which we should consider this whole mess.

• God does not belong to a particular political party. He is not partisan in that regard. He does not reveal to us any directive on whether the government should be big or small, should deal with healthcare or not, hold the power at the federal level or at the state level. There are no biblical directives on these questions per se.
• God does reveal that governments do have specific responsibilities and should operate in certain ways. Governments should promote the good and deter the bad. They should treat citizens with fairness, and especially protect the vulnerable. They should protect civil order. Basic guidelines, but nothing specific along the political spectrum. Theoretically, those basic goals could be achieved by government doing something or getting out of the way (not to suggest that either is better than the other).
• God's people have successfully served under the worse kinds of governments. See Joseph, Daniel, and Paul for prime examples. No matter what government does, Christians can serve faithfully.
• God wants us to be salt and light for our communities and societies.
• God wants us to always act in a Christlike manner as we go about this business. He wants us to always speak in a Christlike manner. Some of the emails I've seen from Christians have been very un-Christlike.
• There is a tremendous amount of misinformation coming out from both sides of this debate. No side is vastly more accurate than the other, based on my observation. Therefore, in order for us to hold Christ-honoring opinions, we must do the best we can to sift through the misinformation, to examine the source of each piece information we get (whether or not it reflects our own opinion), and to hear both sides in order to try to discern where the truth is. You can even read the text of the bill yourself (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text).
• The Church has a biblical responsibility to help the poor and vulnerable, especially those who are willing to work. Now, this may or may not include providing healthcare insurance through business or government, but it is a truth that we must deal with before forming our opinions. The position that we each hold must in all honesty consider our biblical obligations.
• We should let our congressmen know what we think and why. If a Christian does not communicate his or her views to the ones who are charged with representing them, then he or she is forfeiting one of the best tools available to have the law reflect the will of the people.
• There are other ways to make your views known: letters to the editor, blogs, call-in shows, public meetings, and so on. But, whenever we take these public avenues, our words and actions should reflect Christ in content and in manner. In other words, what we say and how we say it must be Christlike.
• We must separate what parts of our views are based on biblical standards and which are political preferences. It's OK to have political preferences, but they must be consistent with Scripture and they must not be confused with Scripture.
  

I have good, respectable, Christian friends who differ widely on this issue. Each of them has some good reasons for the view that he or she holds. I have my opinions, but I do want to sort through and make sure my views are formed by biblical truth, and I want to sift out the portions of my views that are just political preference.