Critiquing: Episode #082 — Disappointed by Church

September 9, 2021 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Abuse scandals — Church authority — COVID-19 response — Spiritual direction — Church leadership

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	B	The discussion on the Jonathan Fletcher and John Smythe scandals is factual and aligns with known events, as reported in reputable sources. However, some claims lack detailed verification, which slightly diminishes the accuracy.
Degree of Coherence	B+	The episode maintains a clear logical structure, addressing each question with relevant context and analysis. NT Wright effectively links different issues, providing a coherent narrative that is easy to follow.
Absence of Fallacies	C	Some arguments, particularly around COVID-19 responses, rely on anecdotal evidence rather than robust logical reasoning. The analogy comparing masks and vaccines to seat belts could be considered a weak analogy.
Degree of Evidence	C+	The episode provides moderate evidence for claims, mainly through personal anecdotes and references to known cases, but lacks comprehensive substantiation through empirical data or scholarly references.
Degree of Testability	D+	The claims made, especially regarding church responses and personal experiences, are difficult to independently verify. This lack of testability weakens the overall strength of the arguments presented.
Rational Confidence	C	Confidence is moderate, based on NT Wright’s authority and knowledge, but weakened by the lack of empirical evidence and reliance on personal testimony. Rational confidence would be stronger with more robust, verifiable evidence.

---

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Degree of Evidence:

The episode lacks comprehensive substantiation for many claims, relying heavily on personal anecdotes. For example, the discussion of spiritual direction and church leadership’s role could benefit from more empirical data.

“There are many online church communities, in some quarters more people have been attending church electronically than have actually been used to going in person on a Sunday morning.”

This statement, while plausible, would be stronger if supported by data from surveys or studies on church attendance trends during the pandemic.

2. Degree of Testability:

Many claims, especially those regarding personal experiences and church responses to COVID-19, are difficult to independently verify.

“My own position has been much more like the first of those. I’ve had friends who’ve suffered from COVID, nobody that I actually personally know has died from it, though one member of our extended family now in his 80s was in hospital with COVID.”

Such personal anecdotes, while compelling, do not provide a basis for others to test or verify the broader applicability of these experiences, limiting the overall reliability of the claims.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument #1: Abuse Scandals

1. Premise 1: Abuse scandals in the church have been revealed, involving figures like Jonathan Fletcher and John Smythe.
2. Premise 2: These scandals involve emotional, spiritual, and physical abuse.
3. Premise 3: Abuse scandals shake the trust and integrity of the church community.
4. Hidden Premise: The church should maintain a high moral and ethical standard.
5. Conclusion: The church must address and rectify such scandals to restore trust and integrity.

Counter-Argument:
While addressing and rectifying scandals is crucial for maintaining trust, it is equally important to implement preventative measures to avoid future occurrences. This includes establishing transparent systems of accountability and support for victims. Relying solely on reactive measures may not be sufficient to restore or sustain long-term trust and integrity within the church community. Proactive steps, such as regular audits, clear reporting mechanisms, and comprehensive training for church leaders on ethical conduct and abuse prevention, are essential to create a safer and more trustworthy environment.

Argument #2: Church Response to COVID-19

1. Premise 1: Different churches have varied responses to COVID-19.
2. Premise 2: Some members feel disappointed by their church’s lack of precautions.
3. Premise 3: Precautions are necessary to protect the health and safety of the congregation.
4. Hidden Premise: Churches should prioritize the well-being of their members.
5. Conclusion: Churches need to adopt appropriate precautions to maintain the trust and safety of their congregants.

Counter-Argument:
While it is essential for churches to prioritize the well-being of their members, it is also important to consider the diverse perspectives within the congregation. Balancing precautionary measures with respect for individual freedoms and beliefs can be challenging. A comprehensive approach that includes clear communication and community involvement in decision-making may help bridge the gap between differing views and enhance overall trust. Moreover, churches can provide education on public health guidelines and create spaces for open dialogue to address concerns and foster a sense of community responsibility.

Argument #3: Welcoming New Members

1. Premise 1: New members often struggle to feel welcomed in church communities.
2. Premise 2: Feeling unwelcome can lead to disengagement and disillusionment.
3. Premise 3: Churches should be inclusive and welcoming to all individuals.
4. Hidden Premise: Inclusivity is a fundamental value of the church.
5. Conclusion: Churches must improve their efforts to welcome and integrate new members.

Counter-Argument:
Inclusivity and a welcoming atmosphere are indeed fundamental values of the church. However, it is also important to recognize that individual efforts are needed to connect and engage with the community. Encouraging new members to take proactive steps, such as reaching out to church leaders or participating in smaller groups, can facilitate deeper connections and a more meaningful integration into the church community. Additionally, churches should provide clear pathways for engagement and mentorship opportunities to support new members in their spiritual journey. Creating a culture of active listening and responsiveness to newcomers’ needs can further enhance their sense of belonging.

◉ Addressing the Myth of Divine Protection During COVID-19

COVID-19 and the Question of God’s Promises

The COVID-19 pandemic presented an unprecedented global crisis, affecting millions of lives across the world. For believers, it was a time that tested the very core of their faith. The Christian God had the opportunity to display his might and power, particularly in fulfilling the promises of protection that are frequently preached from the pulpit. However, an examination of the morbidity and mortality rates among Christians during the pandemic reveals a stark reality: there was no discernible evidence that Christians experienced any divine protection from the virus.

Promises of God’s Protection

Every week, sermons resound with assurances of God’s protection over his followers. Scriptures like Psalm 91, which speaks of God’s deliverance from deadly pestilence, are often cited to comfort and reassure believers. Yet, the pandemic has challenged the veracity of these promises. If divine protection were indeed guaranteed, we would expect to see a significant difference in the rates of illness and death between Christians and non-Christians. The data, however, does not support such a distinction.

Christian Morbidity and Mortality Rates

Statistics from the pandemic period do not indicate that Christians were spared in any remarkable way from the effects of COVID-19. The virus did not discriminate based on faith, and many devout Christians succumbed to the illness just as people of other beliefs or no belief did. This absence of observable divine intervention raises critical questions about the nature of the promises made by Christian leaders regarding God’s protection.

Rethinking Promises from the Pulpit

Given the lack of evidence supporting the notion that Christians were protected by divine intervention during the pandemic, it is imperative that Christian leaders reconsider how they communicate God’s promises to their congregations. The emphasis on divine protection from earthly threats may lead to false expectations and disillusionment among believers. Instead, the focus should shift to fostering resilience, compassion, and practical support during crises, rather than relying on promises that do not hold up under scrutiny.

Theological Implications

If the promises of protection are taken at face value, then the failure to see these promises fulfilled could be interpreted in two ways: either God has broken his promises, or, more likely, there is no Christian God as traditionally conceived. This line of reasoning demands a profound theological reflection on the nature of God’s interaction with the world and the validity of the promises attributed to him.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for a more nuanced understanding of divine promises and their application in the lives of believers. The absence of clear evidence for divine protection calls for a reevaluation of how such promises are preached and understood. I suggest this inquiry should take Christians all the way back to their assumption that their God is real.

---

We warmly welcome you to discuss this topic further in the comments section. Your insights and perspectives are valuable as we navigate these challenging questions together.