Critiquing: What Should I Say to Someone Who Claims to Be a Christian but Doesn’t Live Like It?

March 9, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Advice on Christian Living — Sexual Ethics — Church Discipline — LGBTQ Issues — Mentorship Challenges

---

Introduction

In evaluating the logical coherence of the content, I will outline and explain key points while highlighting logical inconsistencies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims.

Structure and Summary

1. Introduction and Context

• The content opens with a question from a listener about how to address a relative who identifies as Christian but whose lifestyle does not reflect traditional Christian values.
• It then transitions into a broader discussion on how a church should handle a “married” LGBTQ couple attending services.

1. Main Arguments

• Cultural Hostility: The speakers argue that contemporary culture is increasingly hostile to Christianity, which complicates open dialogue about faith.
• Truth and Gracious Communication: They emphasize the need to communicate truthfully and graciously, despite potential hostility.
• Sexual Ethics: They assert that deviations from traditional sexual ethics (e.g., homosexuality, fornication) are contrary to God’s plan.
• Christian Identity and Behavior: They question the authenticity of those who identify as Christians but do not adhere to biblical teachings on sexuality and behavior.

Logical Inconsistencies

1. Assumption of Universal Agreement on “Truth”

• The content assumes that the “truth” of Christian doctrine is self-evident and universally applicable: “It is our job to tell the truth. And we should do it in a gracious way, in a thoughtful way and in a persuasive way.”
• This overlooks the pluralistic nature of modern society where different individuals and cultures have varying definitions of truth and morality. The assumption that everyone should or would agree with this particular truth is a logical leap without substantiation.

1. Equivocation on “Judgment” and “Truth”

• The content equates judgment with truth-telling: “Christianity has always been judgmental. It’s the bad news and the good news.”
• This presents a false dichotomy by suggesting that judgment is inherently a part of conveying truth, without addressing the nuances of compassionate or non-judgmental approaches to truth-telling.

Cognitive Biases

1. Confirmation Bias

• The content shows confirmation bias by selectively presenting information that supports the speakers’ views while dismissing or ignoring counterarguments or alternative perspectives: “What has happened is the culture has changed and gotten more angry at Christians.”
• This bias skews the analysis, as it does not consider reasons why the culture might find certain interpretations of Christian ethics problematic beyond mere hostility.

1. In-group Bias

• The speakers exhibit in-group bias by favoring the perspectives and experiences of their own community while viewing outsiders or those who disagree as hostile or less informed: “There are lots of people who in some sense identify with Christ…but this doesn’t seem to have any impact on living a virtuous life as characterized by scripture.”
• This perspective undermines the potential for meaningful dialogue and mutual understanding between different groups.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

1. Cultural Analysis

• The claim that the culture is “aggressively against Christianity” is broad and unsubstantiated: “I was actually reading an article just yesterday about how the culture has turned so aggressively against Christianity…”
• No specific evidence or sources are provided to support this sweeping generalization.

1. Effectiveness of Christian Sexual Ethics

• The content claims that adhering to Christian sexual ethics leads to human flourishing: “When the plan is followed…it provides a robust and satisfying life.”
• This assertion is presented without empirical evidence or acknowledgment of studies that might show differing outcomes for individuals who do not follow these ethics.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

All claims, especially those with significant social and moral implications, should be substantiated with evidence. This is crucial to ensure that assertions are credible and can withstand scrutiny. Unsupported claims weaken the overall argument and reduce the persuasiveness of the content.

Testing Alleged Promises

To test the alleged promises of God (such as living a more fulfilling life by adhering to specific moral codes), one could:

1. Empirical Studies: Conduct longitudinal studies comparing the well-being and life satisfaction of individuals adhering to various ethical frameworks.
2. Comparative Analysis: Analyze existing research on different lifestyles and their impacts on health, happiness, and social cohesion.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

One’s degree of belief should be proportional to the degree of evidence available. Strong claims require strong evidence. In this context, the speakers should provide concrete data or well-documented case studies to support their assertions about the benefits of Christian sexual ethics and the cultural hostility towards Christianity.

Conclusion

The content analyzed contains several logical inconsistencies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims. To strengthen their arguments, the speakers should provide evidence, acknowledge alternative perspectives, and avoid assuming universal agreement on contentious issues. A more balanced and substantiated approach would enhance the logical coherence and persuasiveness of their message.

---

If you have any thoughts or further questions about these arguments, feel free to discuss them in the comments section below.