With All the Mind . . .

FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY

Last time around we indicated that some logicians place all fallacies within two general categories, fallacies of irrelevance, which we studied in the previous installment, and fallacies of ambiguity. One is guilty of irrelevance when the reasons he gives for a conclusion do not relate to that conclusion. They may be good reasons and may support a conclusion, but not the conclusion drawn. The Communists do that! or That’s what the Catholics believe! may be true statements, but they do not necessarily yield the conclusion that we should not do or believe in a certain way. We have pointed out that an awareness of relevance will cause us to ask So? in response to a lot of things that are said. That church isn’t fellowshipped by any congregation in town! may be a true statement, but it is irrelevant to the conclusion implied, if not stated, which is that it is not a faithful (to God) church.

The New Testament says nothing about - - -. You can fill in numerous things, whether Sunday Schools, literature, instrumental music, societies. So? What relevant conclusion can be drawn? To conclude that such and such is therefore sinful is illogical unless one first proves that whatever the New Testament is silent about is sinful. No one will attempt this, for we are all very selective in our arguments from silence.

Fallacies of ambiguity are of a different character, sometimes called fallacies of clearness. These fallacies muddy the water in that the terms used may be understood in different ways, and the writer or speaker shifts the meaning and thus misleads the reader or hearer, even if it is unintentional. These fallacies, while often the ploy of the unscrupulous, are sometimes committed in ignorance. Take, for instance, the proposition that There is only one church, one that the Christian world generally accepts, understanding church in the catholic or universal sense. But I was reared among folk who mean something far different when they say that, for they apply church only to what they call “The Church of Christ,” making it the only church. This the logicians call equivocation, a form of ambiguity, in that a term is shifted to mean something different from the usual meaning.

Ambiguity is so deceptive that it is intriguing. One can play games with it and make sport of its nuances. I will lay this one on you as an example. What does this say?

Woman without her man would be lost.

It all depends on how you accent it. To say Woman, without her man, would be lost, is far different from Woman, without her, man would be lost. My Ouida says the second reading is correct, while I say the first is!

A wartime poster read Save Soap and Waste Paper and a more recent one reads Safe Driving is No Accident. I was amused at the newspaper account of the robbery of a case of expensive whiskey from a package store, which concluded with “The sheriff is working on the case.” The classic example, however, comes out of ancient Greece. Croesus, the king, was to do battle with the Persians, but wanted word from the Oracle of Delphi as to how the battle would go. The oracular reply was “If Croesus went to war with Cyrus, he would destroy a mighty kingdom.” Pleased with the prediction, Croesus went to war but was defeated, only later to complain to the Oracle. But the Oracle insisted that the prediction was correct. Croesus did destroy a mighty kingdom - his own!

When we keep in mind that words are only signs and mean nothing in themselves, we will be alert to make sure the signs are clear. After all, others will understand us only to the degree that our language is clear and unambiguous. If you see a flag at half mast, you have a fairly clear idea of what it means, but if you see a man out in the field waving a flag, it might mean several things or nothing. Words are symbols of ideas; if we confuse the symbols, we confuse the ideas. We are to honor this vital rule of logic: a sign is understood only when it is known what it is that some one is using the sign to signify.

There is the sign “Spirit-filled,” which is admittedly a Biblical concept. But what does it mean? If one studies the relevant passages, she will likely conclude that it means the Holy Spirit dwells in or makes his home in the person, filled in the sense of being infused, or something like that. Church-wide, universally, it would be understood in some such way, with variations of emphasis. But I hear folk talk about “Spirit-filled” only in reference to speaking in tongues, as if, Filled with the Spirit equals Speaking in Tongues, and they never think of being filled with the Spirit except in reference to tongues. This being the case, communication bogs down. The “sign” they use is understood differently. To avoid the fallacy of ambiguity, equivocation in this case, they would need to make it clear what they mean by “Spirit-filled,” and they should recognize that they are using the term in an unusual way.

This fallacy has laid a heavy hand upon Churches of Christ, often causing us to be seen less than favorably by our neighbors. We say we are not a denomination, when we most certainly are a denomination in terms of what that word usually denotes. The world understands that term to refer to a religious body that is separate from others, with its own name, doctrine, organization, publishing houses, colleges, seminaries, etc. How can we have all that denomination denotes and not be a denomination? The world must tolerantly conclude that churches are like that, they say and do strange things. It is game-playing, a hide-and-seek ploy in which we deceive no one but ourselves. It is one of those things that we are suppose to say now and again, We are not a denomination, but it only reveals how bogged down a people can get in their own ambiguities.

Now if we mean we are not a sect, the claim is entirely different, for a sect can be understood to refer to a group that claims to be the church to the exclusion of all others. I would say that we are at best presently moving from a sect to a denomination. And I think in that context my signs are clear.

Another of our claims that may commit a fallacy of ambiguity is that we are neither Protestant nor Catholic. No one of course would suppose us to be Catholic, meaning Roman Catholic in this context, so the claim is reduced to being non-Protestant. This must be confusing to people who suppose, in the light of history, that all Christian churches fall within the two traditions, Catholic or Protestant. It would be interesting to see how some of our more knowledgeable people would argue that we are non-Protestant. What does ‘this mean? Are we to be ahistorical and deny that two thousand years of history have any meaning to our present existence? Our beginnings are traceable to the Protestant reformation whether we are aware of it or not, and we are Protestants, however prone we are to equivocate, a heritage for which we should be thankful. Our claim to a kind of vacuum-like existence, separate from all history, that identifies us as the restored New Testament church is as irresponsible as it is when the Mormons make that claim. Even the Mormons are Protestants, in spite of the protestations! There are of course many different kinds of Protestants, even Protestants that deny being Protestants.

I grant that there may be an idealized goal for the church in being neither Roman or Greek Catholic nor Protestant, a call for the church to be the one, holy, apostolic, catholic Body of Christ, transcending all that has developed thus far in history. I am willing to share that dream and work for its reality, but for any denomination to claim to be the fulfillment of that ideal is both irrational and intolerable. We can work toward the ideal much better if we are unambiguous about who we are, what we are, and where we came from. We have the need to get right with history.

A lot of our doctrinal hangups are the fruit of ambiguity. Fuzzy language is due to fuzzy thinking. Take the old bromide “only through the word,” which is suppose to identify the function of the Holy Spirit in our lives. Not only is the phrase non-Biblical, but it may be nonsensical as well. The Spirit operates only through the word. What is that suppose to mean? If one will allow the scriptures to speak for themselves in reference to what the Spirit does and discard all excess baggage, he will come much nearer to a clear concept of the Spirit’s work.

Take Rom. 8:26 as an example: “The Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groaning too deep for words.” This makes it perfectly clear that the Spirit does something for us: helps us in our weakness, and prays for us. It is both irrelevant and ambiguous to talk about “only through the word” in such a context. It is neither with or without the word. The Spirit simply does it. Why do we have to muddy the water with our lingo?

All my life in the Church of Christ I have heard this hermeneutical rule: the Bible teaches by way of command, approved example, and necessary inference. I have long been convinced, however, that it is of no value as a rule of interpretation. Moreover, it is misleading and fallacious, being grossly ambiguous. There are commands that do not apply to all times and situations. When is an example “approved,” and even so is it universally applicable? “Necessary inference” is ambiguous, suggesting that some inferences are unnecessary. The whole bit is fuzzy. It is better to say that the scriptures teach by communicating facts and ideas, which call for responsible interpretation, such as one would use in interpreting any literature.

This is enough to show that we need to shore up our thinking. The mind does matter. “Be not like a horse or a mule, without understanding,” Ps. 32.9 urges upon us, and Eph. 1:18 tells us that “the eyes of your heart’ are to be enlightened, which shows that both heart and mind are to be attuned to God. Sloppy thinking is no more God-like than sloppy living. If there are rules for living, there are rules ‘for the direction of the mind, and God is the author of both. If right living is grounded in principles, so is right thinking. If we violate principles of living, we have to pay in terms of ill health, economic hardship, and broken relationships. If we violate principles of reason, we have to pay in terms of shallow, unfounded, prejudiced conclusions, which are destructive to the whole of life.

We are not to play our hunches, which is the lifestyle of a lot of people, even in their “study” of the Bible. They resort to such incantations as random finger-poking, supposing that the Spirit leads in such ways. They study by impulse, skipping from verse to verse, ignoring the context. They reach conclusions by feeling their way, supposing that logic, like science, has nothing to do with religion.

Jesus tells us that the prodigal son “came to himself,” which means he came to his senses. He began to think and to think critically, which led to responsible action: “I will arise and go to my father.” He wasn’t playing his hunches or relying on his impulses. His mind was being renewed and he was getting his thinking straight.

God has given us His word. He intends that we apply our minds to it, vigorously and courageously, as well as searchingly. If we love him with all our mind as well as with our heart, we will do that, recognizing that there are principles for right thinking as well as there are principles for anything else, whether economics, biology, or law. --- the Editor