Critiquing: Does Matthew 19:27–29 Incentivize Leaving Your Spouse to Do Ministry Work?

September 25, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Marriage and Ministry — Confrontation Guidance — Justification Concerns — Familial Responsibilities — Interpretation of Sacrifice

---

Introduction

The discussion centers on whether Matthew 19:27–29 encourages believers to leave their spouses for ministry work. The content from Stand to Reason raises multiple points, including the interpretation of biblical texts, the role of personal peace in moral decisions, and the responsibilities of church leadership in confronting sin. This critique will focus on the logical coherence of these arguments, highlighting inconsistencies, logical fallacies, and unsubstantiated claims.

Overview and Key Issues

1. Interpretation of Peace and Personal Feelings
2. Biblical Text and Church Discipline
3. Sacrifice and Familial Responsibilities
4. Claims and Justifications
5. Testing Alleged Promises

---

1. Interpretation of Peace and Personal Feelings

The content critiques a friend’s justification of his relationship with a married woman, based on feeling peace about it:

“He said he had peace about it. Apparently, no one at his local church has confronted him about it, even though he serves actively there.”

The argument against relying on personal peace is presented as follows:

“Some people determine God’s will based on their feelings… They violated a very basic rule. Never read a Bible verse [out of context].”

Explanation

This argument highlights a critical logical issue: Equating subjective feelings with objective moral truth. While personal peace can indicate one’s comfort with a decision, it does not objectively validate the morality of the action. The content rightly identifies this problem but fails to provide a robust alternative framework for moral decision-making beyond referencing scripture, which is outside the scope of this critique.

2. Biblical Text and Church Discipline

The content suggests a process for addressing sin within the church community, referencing specific texts:

“Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5… neither fornicators nor adulterers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Explanation

Here, the argument’s logical coherence depends on accepting the authority of the referenced texts, which might not be compelling to all audiences. The suggestion to confront the individual and involve church leadership if necessary follows a structured approach, but it assumes universal agreement on the interpretation and application of these texts.

3. Sacrifice and Familial Responsibilities

The content discusses whether leaving one’s family for ministry work is incentivized by Matthew 19:27–29:

“Does this apply to all followers and does this incentivize leaving one’s spouse if they feel called for the kingdom?”

Explanation

The critique acknowledges that certain historical figures may have justified leaving their families for ministry, but it questions whether this is a correct interpretation of the biblical text. The argument distinguishes between hyperbolic and literal interpretations:

“Jesus wasn’t speaking literally here… He was speaking in the language of reward, satisfaction, fulfillment.”

This distinction is crucial for logical coherence. However, the content does not fully resolve the ambiguity, leaving room for multiple interpretations, which could weaken the argument’s clarity.

4. Claims and Justifications

Several claims within the content are both unsubstantiated and dubious, particularly regarding the consequences of sin and the efficacy of church discipline:

“If people are living in adultery or fornication, they are not in God’s kingdom… If they’re living like hell, they are probably going there.”

Explanation

Such claims require substantial evidence, especially when making definitive statements about moral and spiritual consequences. The content fails to provide empirical support for these assertions, undermining the argument’s credibility. The obligation to substantiate all claims is critical, particularly in discussions of morality and behavior.

5. Testing Alleged Promises

The content discusses the promises associated with sacrifice for the kingdom:

“If you are required to make sacrifice because of your circumstance for the kingdom, there is going to be a payoff here.”

Explanation

To evaluate such promises, one must outline potential methods for testing them. For example, tracking the long-term outcomes of those who have made significant sacrifices for their faith could provide empirical data to support or refute these claims. The need to map one’s degree of belief to the available evidence is essential, ensuring that confidence in these promises is proportional to their substantiation.

Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases

The content exhibits several logical fallacies and cognitive biases:

• Appeal to Authority: Relying heavily on scripture as the ultimate authority may not be persuasive to all audiences.
• Confirmation Bias: The content selectively interprets texts to support pre-existing beliefs without considering alternative viewpoints.
• Slippery Slope: Suggesting that any deviation from scriptural commands leads to dire spiritual consequences is an overgeneralization.

Conclusion

In summary, while the content addresses critical issues related to morality, personal feelings, and church discipline, it often relies on unsubstantiated claims and exhibits logical fallacies. A more rigorous approach would involve substantiating claims with empirical evidence and ensuring that moral arguments are logically coherent and universally applicable.

---

I invite you to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.