That Can Never Happen to Me?

Problems with Proper Context And Misreading the Bible

A few months ago, I wrote a post about the problems of context when an author uses a common term but applies and uses the term with a different definition than is commonly understood. Redefining a term and clearly communicating your new definition (without changing the term) does not constitute an informal logical fallacy in itself, but it does set one up for slipping into a linguistic booby trap and sets up a high probability for falling into an error of equivocation and ambiguity. The listener tends to slip back into a common understanding of the term. James Sire touches on this issue in his book "Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible," though Orthodox or Evangelical Christians with the highest view of Scripture can also fall prey to these same pitfalls and errors as well.

This is a general principle of hermeneutics wherein to understand a particular piece of literature properly, we must understand the terminology used. When we read the Bible, we must make sure that we have not redefined terms, and we must also understand the type of literature. For instance, when we read poetic books, we do not interpret those poetic terms literally. If examining an historical book, we take into account that what has been written refers to actual events in time and space. When we read about Paul’s missionary journeys in the Book of Acts, we understand that these places existed, we can look at a map to see his route, and we can thus read the Epistles and how they corresponded with his missionary journeys. We can also lay out a timeline and trace Paul’s ministry. Secular writings such as Josephus, for example, can also be considered and reviewed to confirm and expand upon our understanding of the culture in which Paul ministered. All these pieces of information expand upon and deepen our understanding and appreciation of the text because they all broaden our perspective of the author's experience.

When we pull a passage of Scripture away from it’s original context, we must be sure that we apply it in a way that is faithful to how the passage was used in the original text. The cults in particular make a hay day of misquoting the poetic books of the Bible, tearing them out of context and misapplying them, as to many Christian groups. For instance, James Sire points out in his book that Eastern cults often quote verses like “Be still and know that I am God,” as a support of pantheistic ideas, implying that *Jesus* indicates that every human being is also God. But he makes two errors here because Jesus did not state this. It is contained in a Psalm that speaks of Israel. It does not and cannot possibly refer to any individual human being in context of the entire Psalm.

Sometimes completely unrelated texts are taken and put together to build a doctrine. I remember a Jehovah’s Witness asking me to explain to them what was meant by Ezekiel 18:4, and must have repeated this verse about 20 times, asking me to explain what was meant by “all the souls are mine.” She tried to link this up to John 1:1, saying that the Ezekiel verse supported her misinterpretation of John, stating that Jesus was a god and had a separate soul. The two verses had nothing to do with one another. My other favorites from my shepherding days came from “Touch not mine anointed and do my prophets no harm” which was used as a doctrine that stated that no pastor could ever be criticized because Romans 11 states that “the gifts and callings of God were irrevocable.” So a particular pastor who was caught in sin many times over could never be called to account for his very terrible sins because God would not relinquish that pastoral calling and as God’s anointed, it was wrong to “touch him” with accusation. But neither of these verses speak to the issue of pastors who are found to be in sin in any way, while other Scriptures that directly address repentance of sin are completely ignored.

Another error that can be made involves eisegesis or reading presuppositions into a text when there is just not enough information to support the conclusions that individuals draw from a text. I heard Ken Copland once extrapolate how tall Jesus was, the representation of God in human form. Based upon the Isaiah 40:12 or 48:13, Copeland speculated that he could figure out how tall Jesus was in His physical body because of his hand size, extrapolating about the size of a span and a cubit or something. That may not be the right verse, and I heard this more than 20 years ago but distinctly remember his presentation. It seemed lovely to think about Divine Three setting the stars in the sky and dressing the landscape, like a Van Gogh in front of his canvas, painting “Starry Night.” I stand in awe at the wonder of the artistry of God, but this amounts to little more than poetic speculation using much artistic license. It might be an academic musing, but it is not doctrine. This is anthropomorphization – ascribing human qualities to God, seeing the creator as a mere creature, though I believe it is likely a natural human curiosity to wonder about what Jesus looked like.

Another example of eisegesis or a presuming of things about a text that are not clear to us has been woven into the meaning of Numbers Chapter 30 by the patriocentrics concerning their doctrine and practice related to unmarried women. The group that promotes their views cite no other Scripture, save for the Proverbs 7 reference to the prostitute whose feet never want to stay at home which delineates nothing related to the Numbers 30 material. Jewish tradition, some portions of the Talmud, statements made by Rabbis like Maimonides and Hebrew words that define marriage as well as the status of women before and after marriage bear witness against the patriocentric paradigm concerning women. Yet this text is used to openly promote a rigid doctrine, one that holds serious implications regarding major life decisions for young women. The presuppositions of those who crafted the doctrine have read Numbers Chapter 30, inserting their own presuppositions into that text. We can certainly speculate about contingencies as an impression or even hold a personal belief based upon our interpretation, but we cannot claim that those matters are expressly Biblical if they are not clear and obvious in the Scriptures. Many religious doctrines are not definitive, and some teachings can be little more than wishful thinking about what one desires to find there.

Another error in language that can cause much confusion in interpretation can stem from mixing language meanings in one language with meanings from another can create much confusion. An atheist for whom I have tremendous respect for his scientific knowledge once explained to me that the words “God” and “dog” were not similar by any accident. I happened to know that God was “El,” “Elohim” or “YHWH,” and that dog was “kelev” (because a friend of mine considered this as a name for his dog). Another person told me with the utmost seriousness that they were taught that hell did not exist, a place of eternal, firey death, because “live” spelled backwards spelled out “evil.” So evil was lived out in our mortal lives, and we would all go to heaven. Many variations in words, mitigating languages and from poor exegesis result in these types of doctrinal error. Sire points out several more examples in “Scripture Twisting,” including several occasions where Mary Baker Eddy makes this same type of error of mitigating the meanings of language in a wishful causality, but it seems scholarly if you do not examine it too closely.

In his discussion of different ways that the Bible can be misinterpreted, James Sire identifies what he calls the figurative fallacy. It occurs whenever a passage speaks of literal terms, but those terms are interpreted as figurative. It can also represent the opposite, where figurative language such as those in poetic literature is interpreted as literal. In John Chapter 3, Jesus refers to the Spirit as like the wind, but is the wind itself actually the Holy Spirit? Do living waters literally flow from our bellies under the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, using language that also typically describes the overflowing of water? When Jesus speaks of being born again, as Nicodemus tries to discern and Jesus explains, a man does not enter his mother’s womb again but is born of the Spirit. The figurative fallacy can also work from the other perspective, describing factual and literal events as ones that were only intended as poetic or figurative. I once took a class with a Rabbi who stated that, personally, he believed that the creation account in Genesis was just a narrative that was figurative, written by wise old men who wanted to establish some general concepts. There were no literal trees in the Garden of Eden, and there was no man and woman. The story of original sin was just a construct created by very wise rabbi sages who used their work of fiction to communicate basic ethical concepts.

Following the descriptions of contextual problems that Sire outlines in his book, I’ve added some contemporary examples and some from my own experience, but “Scripture Twisting” contains far more examples of how many Bible-based cults and Eastern cults distort the Scriptures. A very large portion of the book can be read online, though the helpful appendices and index are not shown there. It is an excellent resource, particularly for study and preparation for witnessing to Mormons, New Thought followers, and many Eastern-oriented cultists, though the principles he teaches throughout build discernment that is quite relevant within Evangelical churches. The sound hermeneutics and the revealing of how some of these rhetorical fallacies and errors originate prove relevant for every discerning believer.

The Manifesto for Christian Education?: Just More Patriocentric, PT Barnum Spin

Taking a brief interlude away from examining different ways the cults misuse the Bible, I would like to present an update on the awaited Men's Homeschooling Leadership Summit that was held by men and for men (and boys, of course), sponsored by the Christian Home Educators of Colorado (CHEC). One of the grand achievements of this summit, I understood per the advertisement and information on the internet, was the writing of a grand patriocentric Manifesto for Christian Education.

For some preliminary information about this exciting conference, please refer to this post and read comments from Bill Roach of the CHEC.

I think it's been another lesson in the wisdom of Solomon that there is nothing new under the sun, and there is nothing really new in patriocentricity and the Vision Forum driven CHEC, save their revisions that are made to their doctrinal statements, all without repentance or comment.

John Holtzmann of Sonlight Curriculum has already introduced some ideas on his blog from his experience, and Karen Campbell posted the actual Manifesto itself. I left some comments on Karen's Thatmom blog which I may post here later, but I soon realized that all of the information for this manifesto has already been written. This Manifesto for Christian Education (MCE) is, in fact, a very brief summary of a document that already exists. The MCE is essentially an outline of major points already contained in the Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy.

Allow me to demonstrate what I mean, and you can compare these ideas for yourself. What the MCE actually looks like to me is a worksheet that can be used to improve the existing Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy. So here are my comparisons and suggestions for those who want to redeem the activity of working on the MCE, something apparently handed to the Summit 2009 attendees like something of an afterthought.

Visionary men, you don't need a new list of rules,
just perk up your original lists of rules!

I'll get you started.
You didn't seem to have time anyway.

It seems that folks like Voddie Baucham were too busy refuting issues and making strawmen ("prince of all fallacies") out of items discussed on this blog and other places like True Womanhood's "Visionary Daughters" threads to get much solid work done on the manifesto.

Please note the content noted on the screen behind Dr. Baucham and note this blog post and this blog post.

Comparison of the
Manifesto for Christian Education with
The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy and
A Biblical Confession for Uniting Church and Family

TBP 3.09:
(Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy,
March 27, 2009 Version)

BCUCF 3.09:
(Biblical Confession for Uniting Church and Family,
March 27, 2009 Version)

Facets	Manifesto for Christian Education (MCE)	Vision Forum Document (Note that each corresponding Tenet or Article from each respective VF document follows this table)
Proposition One	The beginning of wisdom and knowledge in the education of our children is the fear of God.	TBP (#5, #18) BCUCF (VIII )
Worldview	All education assumes and presents a basic worldview, and Christian education is based on a biblical, God-centered worldview.	TBP (#16, #18, #24) BCUCF (I)
Purpose	The primary purpose of education is to equip our children to live to the glory of God.	TBP (#5, #18) BCUCF (X)
Sphere	It is the family - not the state or the church - whom God has assigned the responsibility and attendant rights to educate their children.	TBP (#5, #17, #19) BCUCF (VIII, IX)
Teachers	Parents are the principal and primary instructors for their children.	TBP (#5, #17, #19) BCUCF (VIII, IX, X)
Content	The training in humility -and fear, faith and character is preeminent and inseparably integrated in the intellectual development of a child.	TBP (#5, #16, #18, #24) BCUCF (I, X)
Curriculum	The Word of God is the primary textbook for our children's education.	TBP (#24) BCUCF (I)
Summary	Therefore, we affirm that education is discipleship, and Christian Education is Deuteronomy 6:7. And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.	TBP (#5, #16, #17, #18, #19, #24)

Suggested Additions to

The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy

(March 27, 1009 Version)

The Authority of Fathers

5. A husband and father is the head of his household, a family leader, provider, and protector, with the authority and mandate to direct his household in paths of obedience to God. (Gen. 18:19; Eph. 6:4)

• From MCE “Purpose” add: “for the glory of God”
• From MCE “Sphere” add: “primary educator” into list of duties
• From MCE “Summary” add: Therefore, we affirm that education is discipleship, and Christian Education is Deuteronomy 6:7: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

Education & training of children

16. Education is not a neutral enterprise. Christian parents must provide their children with a thoroughly Christian education, one that teaches the Bible and a biblical view of God and the world. Christians should not send their children to public schools since education is not a God-ordained function of civil government and since these schools are sub-Christian at best and anti-Christian at worst. (Deut. 4:9; 6:6-9; Rom. 13:3-5; Eph. 6:4; 2 Tim. 3:15)

• From MCE “Worldview” add: “and worldview”

17. Fathers are sovereign over the training of their children and, with their wives, are the children’s chief teachers. Christian parents are bound to obey the command personally to walk beside and train their children. Any approach to Christian education ought to recognize and facilitate the role of fathers and mothers as the primary teachers of their children. (Deut. 4:9; 6:6ff.; Ps. 78:3-8; Prov. 1:8; Eph. 6:4; )

18. Educational methodology is not neutral. The Christian should build his educational methodology from the word of God and reject methodologies derived from humanism, evolutionism, and other unbiblical systems of thought. Biblical education is discipleship, a process designed to reach the heart. The aim is a transformed person who exhibits godly character and a trained mind, both of which arise from faith. The parents are crucial and ordinarily irreplaceable in this heart-level, relational process. (Deut. 6:5-7; Lk. 6:40; 1 Thess. 2:7-12; 2 Tim. 1:5; 2 Pet. 1:5-8)

• From MCE “Proposition 1” and “Worldview” add: “educating them in the fear of the Lord and a Christian Worldview”
• From MCE “Content” add: “The training in humility -and fear, faith and character is preeminent and inseparably integrated in the intellectual development of a child.”

19. Since the educational mandate belongs to parents and they are commanded personally to walk beside and train their children, they ought not to transfer responsibility for the educational process to others. However, they have the liberty to delegate components of that process. While they should exercise great caution and reserve in doing this, and the more so the less mature the child, it is prudent to take advantage of the diversity of gifts within the body of Christ and enjoy the help and support that comes with being part of a larger community with a common purpose. (1 Cor. 12:14ff.; Gal. 4:1,2; 6:2; Eph. 4:16)

The Sufficiency & application of Scripture

24. Scripture is the believer’s sufficient guide for all of faith and practice, and Christians must believe and obey whatever it teaches and commands. The Bible provides the Christian — through precept, pattern and principle — all that is necessary to make wise decisions concerning the many ethically complex issues of life. (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3)

Suggested Additions to

A Biblical Confession for Uniting Church and Family

(March 27, 2009 Version)

Note: “b” section of Articles not referenced here; not applicable to MCE

Article I -- Scripture is Sufficient

We affirm that our all-wise God has revealed Himself and His will in a completed revelation—the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments—which is fully adequate in both content and clarity for “everything pertaining to life (salvation) and godliness (sanctification)” including the ordering of the church and the family (2 Pet. 1:3-4; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

• From MCE “Worldview” add: “and educating them in a Christian Worldview”

Article VIII -- Church and Family Mission is Generational

We affirm that God intends both church and family to carry out evangelism and discipleship through multiple generations, “so that you and your son and your grandson might fear the Lord your God to keep all His statutes and His commandments” (Deut. 6:2; Lk.1:50).

Article IX -- Church and Family Method is Relationships

We affirm that the saints of God are to be equipped for spiritual ministry and maturity primarily through the preaching of the Word of God by qualified shepherds and that children are also equipped primarily through family-based, one-on-one, father-directed, heart-level discipleship relationships (1Tim. 3:4-5).

Article X -- Church and Family Milieu is Everyday Life

We affirm that the church’s relationships are nurtured primarily through daily discipleship in everyday life, especially fathers and mothers training their families and living out the gospel in ministry to the saints and witness to the lost (Eph. 5:21-6:4).

• From MCE “Purpose” add: “for the glory of God”

~~~~~

So if you still need a manifesto,

just cut and paste

from noted Tenets and Articles.

“The Biblical Hook” (Using Nancy Campbell’s Ontological Subordination of Women as an Example of Sloppy Rhetoric)

From pages 41 -42 of “Scripture Twisting" by James Sire:

When Scripture is quoted, especially at the beginning of an argument which turns out to promote a cult doctrine or point of view, it may be that it is being used primarily as a hook to grasp the attention of readers or listeners. “The Bible says” gets the attention, but what follows the quotation may be far from traditional Christian teaching and far from the intention of the Bible itself.

We use shortcuts to help us sift through the tremendous amounts of information that we are bombarded with every day, and we do not have time to search out the truth about every fact. Cialdini’s book “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion” presents one of the best reviews and descriptions of this “rule of thumb” we use to help us get through daily life. For instance, when we see a person in a police uniform, we tend to assume that the person wearing the uniform is actually a policeman. This is a reasonable assumption to make, and we automatically respond to the person in the uniform as though they are with the police, but we may learn that they are only wearing the uniform as a costume or could be trying to be deceptive.

I believe that this also happens to us on a very subtle level when we hear the use of the word “Biblical” as it is applied to religious concepts and doctrines, though unless we go to the work of examining the actual details, we risk deception. Cults use specialized language as a “shortcut” for followers, using terms to communicate lengthier concepts using only a few words. Specialized areas of study also develop specialized terms that are unique as means of communication “shortcuts,” but in those instances, there is no ambiguity about meaning. In contrast, manipulative groups use specialized language to establish the group as more advanced, and generally, the specific meaning of that language is poorly understood outside of the group’s culture. Such terms are used to connote emotional meaning as well as enhance the sense of “specialness” that the group promotes. This language enhances the sense of an elite status that the group imparts, secret language only shared by those who are perceived to be more enlightened.

I believe that this also happens with the use of the word “Biblical” itself, giving the listener the impression that the material proves to be truly Biblical without question or contest. Any reasonable believer in the concept of sola scriptura or Biblical Authority will identify anything truly Biblical as something that cannot be challenged. Sometimes this is an honest error, sometimes the term is used to communicate a particular group’s interpretation of what is Biblical, but often it might represent a disputable intramural doctrine. Other alternatives may be considered just as Biblical, but the term is used to subtly sway the listener into accepting the speaker’s premise as THE only possible Biblical alternative or interpretation. Unfortunately, deceivers also use the terminology to twist and obscure truth, advancing their own ideas. When the term “Biblical” seems to be over-applied to everything as a modifier, the term itself can become a “thought stopping cliché.”

When this manifests in a manipulative or idealistic group, the thought-stopping cliché becomes part of the specialized language of a group that actually serves to suppress critical thinking or problem solving in their followers. All contingencies have already been considered and offered to the group, often in the form of the thought-stopping cliché. Robert Lifton called this technique the “loading of language,” one of the hallmark techniques or characteristics of idealistic and totalistic groups. Sadly, in many Christian groups, the term “Biblical” can become part of this loaded language used by the group to bypass discernment in order to communicate its ideas with a low likelihood of scrutiny.

I recently read of another example of the “Biblical Hook” that would be obvious to a knowledgeable believer in New Testament Scripture in the new book, “Quiverfull” by Kathryn Joyce. She quotes Nancy Campbell who articulates her understanding of woman’s essence, a statement that defines her concept of the ontological subordination of women. I happen to think this statement is riddled with hermeneutical errors that speak more of Campbell ’s presuppositions than of Scripture, and I missed that part in Genesis that describes in this detail how God made the male and female genders of each animal.

From page 49, quoting from an interview with Nancy Campbell, in "Quiverfull":

“’She is flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone,’ said Adam. ‘She shall be called women, because she was taken out of me.’” Campbell repeated the oldest story with starry-eyed wonder. “Adam recognized that, of all the animals, she was not a new creation. Every single thing God created was a new creation – the stars, the sun, the moon. Adam and the animals were dust of the earth. Eve wasn’t. She wasn’t made from dust. She was not a new creation. She was not some independent, new creation who could do what she liked. She was part of man. Out of man. Made for man.”

Though I take great issue with the concept and this quote in particular, my point here is not that Campbell maintains that Eve was not made from the same substance, but Campbell’s use of the term “new creation.” We are not told this in Genesis, and the term “new creation” refers to the Gospel of Reconciliation that Paul lays forth to us, describing that all who become washed in the Blood of the Lamb become a new creation in Christ. This is a subtle use of a similar term that I find to be disturbing and confusing for anyone who is familiar with this passage in 2 Corinthians, something that should be familiar to all mature Believers. For the Biblically literate, this becomes a higher level of another type of “Biblical Hook.” Please refer to this previous post that explains how these types of linguistic snares predispose the audience to the fallacy of equivocation and ambiguity.

By Campbell's use of Paul's term, using it as a reference to woman being made for man in an argument that defines woman as a part of man, it carries some very subtle implications that are actually believed in certain patriarchal circles and within some Family Integrated Churches. First, there is suggestion that women must be under the care, direction, service and physical protection of a man at all times, something I call the mysterious salvific man belief within the so-called "Biblical patriarchy." If a woman is defined as part of a man, and she was never created as a new creation (but as recycled man parts?), does this not mean that her salvation process differs from the man? She can only realize salvation through a man in the spiritual sense as well as the physical because she is not really her own creature apart from man?

The other subtle and related implication by extension here is one that also applies to the complementarian/egalitarian debate. The subtle message conveyed here by vague reference and unstated assumption (informal logical fallacies) suggests that women never really become new creations in Christ. And regardless, 2 Corinthians 5 tells us that even if a woman was not a new creation and was uniquely a dependant part of man, anyone in Christ becomes a new creation anyway. The old rules no longer apply, I would think, as woman would be specifically made a new creation on this new level as a consequence of redemption. (I suppose that the next progression in this aberrant doctrine will maintain that this Scripture only applies to the male gender, further supporting the woman’s need for a male intercessor and overseer. Read that way, all women would need some individual male intercessory priest in order to be reconciled unto God.)

2 Corinthians 5:17-20:

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

This goes hand in hand with the ambiguous interpretations held by some in patriarchy and the Family Integrated Church that men are mediators for their wives before Christ (another concept also vaguely suggested elsewhere in “Quiverfull”). Many teach ambiguous descriptions and others state openly that Paul calls husbands to sanctify their wives in Ephesians 5:25 -27. By ignoring Paul’s reference to the Hebrew language regarding sanctification and presenting Christ to us as our Sanctification through His Sacrifice, they further perpetuate this doctrine of sacerdotalism (the need for an individual to have a mediator in order to approach God).

So here is an example of another very subtle type of “Biblical Hook” which references another well-known Scripture that is essential to Christian doctrine used in a way that is not true to the text in order to support an unrelated doctrine. Such uses of Biblical phrases without careful attention to these implications create confusion and foster beliefs in false doctrine that the text does not support in context.

Does The Bible Really Say That?

Often, doctrinal errors arise from inaccurate translations of the Bible, or sometimes merely because verses are misquoted or misapplied. This is actually a common and sometimes an easy error to make. Mixing up a word or two can form a whole new doctrine or an unrelated Scripture can be used to form a new doctrine, merely based on a bad quote or misapplication. Recently someone brought the verse “I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me” to my attention (Philippians 4:13), but they stated it as “Christ who strengthens me.” The first statement implies that doing things through Christ makes one stronger. The second misquote means that Christ gives strength first so that all things can be done, something not necessarily contingent on being “in Christ.” It’s a simple mistake that leads to serious doctrinal error. It might also be misapplied to state that Christ will strengthen a Believer as they commit a sin, for example.

If you ask random people on the street where the saying “God helps those who help themselves” comes from, many will tell you that the statement came from the Bible and is likely something Jesus said to His disciples. It may be harder to discern what we accept at face value as being Biblical when, in fact, it may not be Biblical at all. We need to examine whether the Bible has actually said what we attribute to it, as it may just reflect our presuppositions about what we assume that it says.

This type of pressure becomes more overwhelming when your environment deprives you of time to process information, you find yourself depleted in some way, or you are subjected to undue stress. Quite often, when the misquotations or misapplications of Scripture are hidden amidst other legitimate information, you might not detect the error. If bombarded with a lot of information at once, and much Scripture is thrown at you at once, it becomes more difficult to identify. Consider also how much more difficult identifying error becomes when you also find yourself under social pressure, when you are isolated from support (your own Bible, knowledgeable others who support you and share your faith, your own enviroment), or when you are physically or emotionally depleted. All these factors make it increasingly harder to ask yourself whether “the Bible actually says that.”

Loaded Terms

From Page 20 in James Sire in "Scripture Twisting":

Unfortunately, there is one loaded word that I cannot conveniently avoid. The word cult itself is heavy with negative connotations. Imagine a friend you haven’t seen for a while greeting you and saying, “Oh, by the way. Last week, I joined a cult. Would you like to hear about it?”

In the aftermath of publicity about Jim Jones and the murders and mass suicides in Jonestown, other nontraditional religious movements became nervous. The Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon, for example, often tried to disassociate itself from the whole cult concept. No one confesses to being a member of a cult. They are followers of a Master, devotees of Krishna, pilgrims on the way – but not cult members.

Should we not honor this feeling and refrain from using a word with such a stigma attached to it? We should, if we could, but we can’t. Other terms such as religion, religious movement, alternative religion are too general and do not give the sense of exclusivity associated with groups commonly termed cults. A term like spiritual counterfeit is even more loaded than cult. So I think we are stuck with it.

From James Sire's

"Scripture Twisting:

20 Ways Cults Misread the Bible"

InterVarsity Press, 1980

Emergent Conversations

When Francis Beckwith and Greg Koukl sat down to write “Relativism: Feet Planted Firmly in Mid-Air,” I don’t think they were thinking about talking to Christians about Christian doctrine. Sadly, I find that their strategies recommended in their book more useful to me when conversing with the Emergents than I do when conversing with Athiests and New Age Pagans. It’s really quite sad.

On pages 145 and 146 of their book, they offer this strategy, one I have used when discussing the Emergent Church with it’s advocates:

“You Shouldn’t Force Your Morality on Me”

When confronted with the line, “You shouldn’t force your morality on me,” simply ask, “Why not?”

This response is effective for two reasons. First, it’s only two words; it’s simple and easy to remember. Second, it makes the one challenging you justify his objection, putting the ball back in his court where it belongs. He’s going to have a hard time explaining why you shouldn’t impose your view without imposing his morality on you. This forces him to state a moral rule while simultaneously denying that moral rules exist.

This same tactic is played out in the following short dialogues:

“You shouldn’t force your morality on me.”

“Why not?”

“Because I don’t believe in forcing morality.”

“If you don’t believe in it then, by all means, don’t do it. Especially don’t force that moral view of yours on me.”

~~~~

“You shouldn’t push your morality on me.”

“I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that statement. Do you mean I have no right to an opinion?”

“You have a right to your opinion, but you have no right to force it on anyone.”

“Is that your opinion?”

“Yes.”

“Then why are you forcing it on me?”

“But you’re saying that only your view is right.”

“Am I wrong?”

“Yes.”

“Is that your view?”

“Yes.”

“They you’re saying only your view is right which is the very thing you objected to me saying.”

“Don’t push your morality on me.”

“Why? Don’t you believe in morality?”
“Sure, but I believe in my morality, not yours.”

“Well then, how do you know what’s moral?”

“I think people should decide individually.”

“That’s exactly what I’m doing. And I’m deciding that you’re immoral. What’s the problem? Live and let live is your value, not mine.”

~~~~

“You shouldn’t push your morality on me.”

“Correct me if I’m misunderstanding you here, but it sounds to me like you’re telling me I’m wrong.”

“You are.”

“Well, you seem to be saying my personal moral view shouldn’t apply to other people, but that sounds suspiciously like you are applying your moral view to me. Why are you forcing your morality on me?”

~~~~

I used this tactic on a relativist who objected when I moralized about his personal choice of homosexuality. “You can’t push your morality on me,” he charged.

“As a point of information,” I responded, “I’m the only one who can talk about morality in this conversation and make sense, because I believe in an ethical system that allows judgments. You’re a relativist, so you can’t even say my judgments are wrong.”

Notes and quotes taken from

“Relativism: Feet Planted In Mid-Air”

By Francis Beckwith & Gregory Koukl

Baker Books, 1998