Christians, Politics, and the Big Questions
Earlier this week, Ed Stetzer, President of LifeWay Research, posted the following tweet:
“Statistically, the unchurched lean heavily Democrat. So—and I know it’s just me talking crazy now—if you want to reach the unchurched, maybe constant Facebook/Twitter posts about how stupid Democrats are might be a bad idea.”
The tweet ignited conversation amongst Christians on social media: re-posting, commenting, approving, and disapproving. I didn’t re-post the tweet, but after reading his article expounding on the reasoning behind the tweet, I decided to make a few comments about Christianity and politics.
You can read Stetzer’s article here.
First, it is easy to talk politics on a basic level. Rallying around a party because it’s your party doesn’t take much consideration or thoughtfulness. Christians who constantly post on social media with an “us versus them” mentality may unwittingly convey that they don’t think through the issues at any level of depth. Being that we are followers of the greatest thinker who ever lived, Jesus Christ, this can lead to a misrepresentation of our Lord.
Jesus didn’t rally around a party. He saw all people as God’s creation and was broken hearted over the evil that was rampant amongst them. He lived in a time that was also politically charged—we are not special to that circumstance—yet he did not spend much time arguing the policies and practices. Jesus went deeper. He did what J. Gresham Machen described as “destroy the obstacle at its root,” (referencing 2 Cor 10:5). He addressed the sin in mankind, which is the root of the problems we face. [2]
Second, as Stetzer points out, these might be the people we are trying to reach with the Gospel. I’m not saying that one political party represents lost people while the other does not. This would be a superficial understanding of mankind. However, if people in one party are statistically higher in labeling themselves as unbelievers, then it makes no sense to constantly attack them, when we are commanded to preach the good news to them (Mark 16:15).[1] Take a quick inventory: What good news have you offered today to those who do not believe in God?
Third, when Jesus so thoughtfully answered the Pharisees, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s, ” he didn’t just avoid their political and legalistic entrapment, he also taught us an impacting truth about who we are in God. What did Jesus teach we should give to God? He said we should render to God, “the things that are God’s.” What do we have that belongs to God? The entirety of our lives belong to God (1 Cor. 10:31)! There is no compartmentalization of our lives into the party-politics-trash-talking room and evangelism-good-news-preaching room. This is a definite mistake.
The Christian should see the world through the lens of the teaching of God. Christ said that those who hold to his teachings will know the truth and the truth will set them free (John 8:32). To what freedom was Jesus referring? It is freedom from the slavery to sin (John 8:34-36), which conversely is the freedom to do what is good. Christians do not have to engage in politics like those who have no freedom from sin. We should engage the issues at hand thoughtfully, as would our Lord, recognizing the root of the problem, sin, is in the heart of every man. So we should be wise in how we approach the political realm, recognizing that politics are a huge platform for broadcasting messages of any kind; including the message of true freedom for all mankind.
We should also recognize that politics provide us with a great opportunity to discuss the most important questions of life: What is good? What is a human? What is justice? How should I live? How do we ground human rights? Every time a person discusses politics they are assuming the answer to a deep philosophical question, namely, “what is good.” People do not argue for their political view because they think it is evil and will do harm to mankind. They argue for what they think is good for mankind (or at least for themselves). This opens up a wide door to discuss how that person is grounding their view of good. You can ask, “How do you know what is good?” For a Christian, that goodness is rooted in the essential nature of God. Now you have a conversation on a fundamental understanding of the Christian view of God. This is how politics can play a role in helping to spread the Gospel: politics can help uncover the grounding for an individual’s beliefs (and whether or not they have any grounding).
Christians, grasp the opportunity you’ve been given in this country with freedom of speech to use your words to “destroy the obstacle at its root.” We shouldn’t be silent with regards to political issues, but we should recognize the unique opportunity given by the political realm to speak life to mankind, as much as possible. Remember, we are all experiencing the pain and suffering that comes as a consequence of evil. We have the choice to participate in sin, furthering death and destruction, or we can speak words of truth and light, advancing redemption and restoration. What is one change you can make in your political involvement to help show others freedom in Christ?
_________________________________
[1] For Christians who are of any party affiliation.
[2] Machen quote from J. Gresham Machen, “Christianity and Culture,” Princeton Theological Review
Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: Hasty Generalization
statement aside as ludicrous, there is actually a fallacy represented here by my
hyperbolic enthusiasm for my own writing: a hasty generalization.
Hasty generalization: generalizing about a class based upona small or poor sample.
normally two problems involved:
#1.Too small of a sample
#2. Not a representative sample
generalization because I do not have access to all the posts written on
apologetics in order to know if the post I just wrote is the best post
ever. The sample size for my inference
would be too small.
representative of the broader class which we are referencing. In our political campaign examples, a
Democrat candidate might claim that because Republican Randy Presidential
Hopeful demeans other candidates then all Republicans are demeaning to other
people; therefore a democrat cannot vote for any Republican. But Republican Randy doesn’t represent how
all Republicans would treat Democrats (or other republicans, independents, etc).
The sample size here is too small to
make an accurate judgment. However, I’ve
heard this kind of inference from members of both parties!
sample.
sample size but it may not be a sample that aptly represents the class.
convention and studied 3,000 plumbers there.
They all made over $100,000 a year.[1]
Though 3,000 plumbers sounds like a big enough sample size,
the sample does not aptly represent all plumbers. What about the plumbers who do not make
enough to go to an international plumbers convention? This sample size is probably only taken from
wealthy plumbers (or plumbers able to afford attending the convention) and therefore is a hasty generalization.
generalizations; including throwing around poll percentages, tossing out
figures supporting a view, and attributing ideology to entire classes of
people. When you hear these figures you
should ask: Where are you getting that from?
What is the source of your information?
What were the control factors used in the study (ie. how many people
were surveyed and who were the people surveyed and did the survey have an apt
sample of the representative class)? These
are important questions to answer in order to avoid manipulation through the
logical fallacy of hasty generalization.
The Fallacy Detective: Thirty Six
Lesson on How to Recognize Bad Reasoning.
(Muscatine, IA: Christian Logic, 2002, 2003), 122.
Logic in an Age of Persuasive Imagery: Appeal to Pity
What a Pity! “Mr. Jones lost the last election because his opponent used a smear campaign to discredit him. Mr. Jones lost the election before that because of voter fraud. Mr. Jones lost the election before that because nobody knew who he was. Don’t you think it is about time you voted for Mr. Jones?”[1]
An appeal to pity occurs when a person tries to make us do something out of sympathy for him or because we pity something associated with him. This is a propaganda technique. Propaganda is any strategy used to spread ideas or beliefs.[2] Propaganda is not all bad, even though the term seems to have been stigmatized. The strategic spreading of ideas and beliefs is not necessarily wrong. However, while propaganda itself is not inherently bad, it can be used to manipulate a person’s actions by playing on their emotions. This is referred to as manipulative propaganda. An appeal to pity is an example of such manipulative propaganda. A person utilizing this fallacy will most likely include emotionally charged language in his appeal, in hopes that our emotions concerning an issue will get us to agree with the person’s conclusions. This strategy diverts attention away from the evidence for a position and from reasoning through an issue. An appeal to pity can also fall under the broader category of “an appeal to emotions”[3] due to its reliance on emotions. On a personal note, I find this fallacy to create a false dichotomy in which it is assumed that I must agree with the issue or cause in order to show sympathy or kindness to the affected person. I can offer help and show love to a person without agreeing with his ideology or with his current choices in life. Appeal to pity can aim to create a feeling of guilt and/or the accusation of being divisive if you don’t do as asked. Look at the following two examples: Guilt: “Senator Justice will enact a bill to further fund second-chance facilities for animals that many fat-cat congressmen have overlooked. He will help stop the abuse and neglect of these innocent animals by giving them another chance on life. Don’t you want to help too? Vote for Senator Justice.” In this appeal to pity, the listener is implicitly told that if he does not vote for Senator Justice, then he does not want to help stop the abuse and neglect of innocent animals (creating division). Notice the emotionally charged language utilized in this campaign ad: “fat-cat congressmen,” “abuse and neglect,” and “innocent” Also, the appeal to pity here does not say exactly how the funding will be used to give these animals another chance on life or if the current funding for this endeavor is being utilized well. It assumes the listener won’t ask those questions, because of course they want to help innocent animals and chastise fat-cat congressmen. Sometimes an appeal to pity is a little harder to spot. This can be due to the fact that we are already sympathetic towards the issue or idea. It can also be because the appeal is not as upfront. Here’s an example from The Fallacy Detective book: “After a debate touching on their own four-legged friends, senators [of the California senate] voted to forbid condominiums and mobile home parks from completely banning pets. Supporters said the bill would help many Californians, including older residents, whose lives could be brightened by animals. Arguing for the bill, Senate leader John Burton, D-San Francisco, recalled that his on mother was greatly comforted by her little dog after Burton’s father passed away. ‘That poodle was a companion of my mother, who naturally, after the death of my father, was living at home alone,’ Burton said. – The Sacramento Bee, August 23, 2000.”[4] In this scenario, the senator is using an example of his own mother being comforted by her dog, but fails to mention this particular example’s evidential value to the argument of pets and condominiums/mobile home parks. Did his mother live in a condo or mobile home park? Did she have to fight to keep her pet? What was her line of reasoning that she should keep her pet? Should the government get involved? These are questions the listeners are not supposed to ask. They are supposed to become wrapped up in the sentimentality of the story. While it’s okay to have those sympathetic feelings, we should still be asking good questions about the proposed bill, right? From my own experience with presidential campaigns (the last couple decades), I can almost guarantee we will hear these kind of stories utilized to appeal to our pity, and therefore to try to get us to vote for a candidate. Again, it’s not that the evidential value of individual experiences is not important, but it is how the stories are being relayed that is important. Are they being lined out as actual evidences for a position? Or are they being used to pull on our ‘heart strings’ in place of evidences? The latter is an appeal to pity. Be on the lookout for the fallacy of an appeal to pity. Ask yourself what the candidate or campaign ad is specifically implying about you if you do or do not vote for them.