A Response to Bryan Fischer regarding J.D. Greear

Earlier this month the Southern Baptist Convention—amidst recent controversies regarding several of its leaders—elected a new president in J.D. Greear. Though the messengers of the SBC overwhelmingly voted for Greear, there is a vocal minority voicing their concern about what Greear’s leadership means for the future of the SBC.

One such voice is that of Bryan Fischer, host of Focal Point on American Family Radio. Fischer—in an article published yesterday (6/21) titled “Southern Baptists May Be in Trouble with J.D. Greear”—seeks to warn Southern Baptists that Greear’s “softer” stance toward homosexuality may eventually lead to SBC churches allowing homosexuals to serve in volunteer or paid ministry positions.

 

Several leaders and key figures within the SBC have called out Fischer on Twitter, claiming that he is slandering and misrepresenting Greear. Fischer, on the other hand, claims that he is warning SBC members of the possible implications of Greear’s stance on homosexuality. Further, he claims that no one is challenging his “assessment of the logical implications of the ‘more than’ statements JD made about homosexuality.”

 

Up to this point, individuals have asserted that Fischer’s work is slanderous, malicious, and divisive, allowing Fischer the higher ground to claim that no one has challenged his argument (and thus he remains unscathed). In what follows, I want to address Fischer’s argument regarding the implications of Greear’s statements. I hope to show that what Fischer believes is a sound argument is nothing more than a fallacious forecast of what can possibly happen.

Fischer uses Greear’s sermon delivered at the 2014 annual meeting of the ERLC as his jumping point. In this sermon, Greear seeks to emphasize the need for Southern Baptists to stand firm in their biblical belief on homosexuality while loving the homosexual. In doing so, though, the believer ought not to push away their gay neighbor, but instead to love them more than they love their position on sexual morality.[1]

We have to love our gay neighbor more than we love our position on sexual morality, which means that our relationship with them must not be contingent upon their agreeing with us about sexuality. It means that when they don’t agree with us we still don’t push them away.

The posture of many Christians in our churches is more characterized by anger than by compassion, by judgment rather than by friendship. I am NOT saying that we would ever compromise our position or fail to state it, just that even when they disagree with it, we do not cut them off – we draw them close. We say yes, this issue is important. I cannot compromise, but I love you more than I love being right. And so even if you don’t see things my way, I’m going to keep bringing you close, and I’m going to remain committed to you.

In the cross of Jesus Christ, he shows us the right way to relate to the gay and the lesbian community – clarity about God’s righteousness, compassion that would give up its own life to draw them close.[2]

The first problematic assertion Fischer makes is: “But Greear is saying, it appears to me, that if it comes down to a choice between loving my neighbor or loving my position on homosexuality, I’m going to have to ditch my position on homosexuality. If my position on sexuality comes between me and my neighbor, then I’ve got to jettison the thing that’s in the way, my position on sexuality.” Fischer claims that the only option for the believer is to stand firm in one’s position on homosexuality or love one’s homosexual neighbor.

What Fischer does here is set up a false dichotomy: it’s choice A or choice B. This is a false dichotomy because Fischer leaves out other options available. For instance, Greear states (in the quote Fischer provides) “We say yes, this issue is important. I cannot compromise, but I love you more than I love being right. The idea here is that the believer does not make the issue one of winning an argument, but one of loving a homosexual individual as a person created in the image of God. It is in the context of relationship that the believer shares the truth of the Gospel and how it speaks to one’s sexuality. In short, the other option neglected by Fischer is that the believer can respect their homosexual neighbor while at the same time standing firm in what Scripture teaches on sexuality.

Fischer illustrates his point with the following analogy:

If we tell our husbands, for example, to love their wives more than they love their golf, there are going to be times when they are going to have to give up a round of golf in order to love their wives. Choosing Option A means that, when the chips are down, you dump Option B.

The problem with this analogy is that it is an irrelevant analogy: the idea of a husband choosing between golf or their wife is not the same (or relevantly similar) to an individual choosing between their belief(s) or an individual (particularly one who holds an opposing belief). Golf is an activity one participates in—an activity that has very little (if any) bearing on one’s belief structure. Granted, it can become an idol in one’s life, but golf is not a belief or part of one’s belief structure.

Further, I believe the analogy between the husband’s wife and one’s homosexual neighbor fails to be relevant. Typically spouses have some level of shared beliefs, but—more importantly—they have a relationship that is unlike any other. Greear’s appeal to love one’s homosexual neighbor is not the same as the love between a married couple. Further, Greear’s appeal implies that there is a fundamental difference in beliefs between the believer and homosexual neighbor—a difference that tends to drive people apart. (Greear’s sermon seeks to exhort believers to go against this tendency.) As such, what Fischer as used is a false analogy.

I believe a proper analogy for Greear’s appeal is how Jesus interacted with sinners. When Jesus spoke with the woman at the well, he did not make it an issue of winning an argument but one of speaking to her as a person—one whom he created and loved. We see that Jesus did not sacrifice truth for loving this adulterous woman; rather, he spoke directly to her sin and offered her his living water! We also see Jesus dining with sinners and tax collectors such that the Pharisees charged Jesus with being a sinner himself. Yet, we know that Jesus is perfect and never sinned; his dining with sinners and tax collectors was to love them as who they are—people created in the image of God. Yet, in no way did Jesus ever compromise his beliefs nor the proclamation of his Gospel. I believe Fischer’s argument would have been better served by addressing Jesus’ interactions with sinners, particularly if he believes Greear’s sermon goes against what we are taught in Scripture.

Finally, I want to point out his use of “logical implications” in the Tweet quoted above. The idea behind the use of this phrase is that Fischer’s assertions logically follow from Greear’s claims. Further, “logical implications” carries with it the idea that Fischer’s assertions either necessarily follow, or are at least highly probable. The problem here is that Fischer’s use of “logical” is more in the idea of forecasting—if A is true, then B is a possible outcome.  But, C, D, E,… are also possible outcomes as well. As such, what Fischer provides is not a logical argument, but a forecasting of possible implications.

Granted, the implications Fischer points out are possible—the are relevant to the point and we have seen examples of conventions, churches, and individuals slide down the slippery slope of compromised beliefs. However, what I believe Fischer ignores (which is fatal to his argument) is the body of Greear’s work. We do have available to us what Greear has taught as well as how his beliefs manifest themselves in action. Though people do change, one’s body of work is a strong indicator of how they will act in the future. If what Fischer claims is likely (that is, Greear is leading us toward a softening stance on homosexuality), then do we see signs in the body of work available to us? Up to this point, we don’t. In fact in one Twitter comment to Fischer, an individual notes how Greear’s ministry helped him when he struggled with sexuality.

The concept of using one’s body of work to identify future outcomes is not novel. Meteorologists, financial brokers, doctors, etc. all use past precedents upon which to base their forecasts, possibilities, and implications. The same should be true of us when we seek to identify possible implications of one’s assertions. The same should have been done by Fischer regarding Greear.

As such, Fischer’s argument is riddled with fallacies and fails to take into account Greear’s body of work. This is why, I believe, that the likes of Jimmy Scroggins and Bruce Ashford have called out Fischer for misrepresenting J.D. Greear.

With this said, it is only fair to note that Fischer couches his assertions in the hope that he is wrong and that people are right about Greear’s fidelity to Scripture. But, this does not reduce the serious error of his argument. I believe, along with Scroggins and Ashford, that Greear’s body of work gives us confidence that Greear will be faithful to the teachings of Scripture as he leads the SBC to be a light of the Gospel in a dark world.

In closing, I want to make it clear that I do not seek to attack Bryan Fischer, nor do I seek to belittle him. Rather, I am seeking to address his argument made in his public article. It is my hope that we can address what he states. Any comments made in a derogatory manner toward Bryan will be deleted.


[1] Fischer quotes Greear’s sermon in his article. I have paraphrased Greear’s wording.

[2] Quoted by Fischer. He links the YouTube recording of Greear’s sermon here.

Advertisements

The Wisdom of Proverbs and Engaging Current Events

If you’ve read any of my blog, you know that I have had the opportunity to teach critical thinking. It has been one of my favorite classes to teach as it takes the most fundamental issues of philosophy and places them in the context of everyday life. How we know (epistemology), what we believe to be really real (metaphysics), what we believe in regard to morality (ethics)—all three divisions of philosophy come to bear on how we think through issues and beliefs, as well as converse with others through conversation or print. Continue reading

Big Data and Philosophy

Big data. We’ve all heard this phrase bantered about in the news and social media. Attitudes vary about what big data is and how it’s used. Some see it as an invasion of privacy (see Mark Zuckerberg before Congress), while others see its potential in making business more efficient and effective. Regardless of one’s attitude, though, we are in a new reality where big data is here to stay. As technology becomes more efficient and powerful, we are going to see an increasing role for data in how businesses are run, governments enforce its policies and laws, and how companies market their wares to consumers.

The field of education is not immune to the growing role of big data. I recently had the opportunity to hear Bernard Bull, PhD (Assistant VP of Academics, Chief Innovation Officer at Concordia University, Wisconsin) present at an online education conference. Though he dislikes the term, Bull identifies his work as that of a futurist—one who analyzes data to detect trends and patterns within higher education.

In his presentation, Bull noted how education institutions are already using big data in the areas of: college search and connection; student retention and success; student learning, progress, and mastery; organizational health; and learner connections with people and organizations.[1] For instance, institutions are using data derived from their students’ activities in their Learning Management Systems (LMS—sites like Blackboard, Canvas, and Moodle where courses are housed and students access the course work, grades, email, etc.) to detect patterns that may indicate risk factors such as attendance, overall GPA, performance within a class, and a host of other information that help administrators know how to better serve their students.[2]

Big data, however, is also influencing another areas of technology that may (according to Bull) soon impact education such as Artificial Intelligence (AI). The concept of AI has long fascinated humankind, and recently it has become a reality in our everyday lives. For instance, Siri and Alexa provide help and even guidance for mundane tasks like scheduling, directions, and even informing. What is not so evident in daily life is the significant strides made in AI. For instance, Bull notes that “we are on the verge of an age when artificial intelligence is inching, or sometimes leaping, toward noticing countless nuances.”[3] For instance, AI has progressed such that it has the ability to identify the various nuances of one’s facial expressions—the combination of muscles and their movements. Soon AI “promises to detect lies, fear and anxiety, interest, confusion, and more.”[4]

It is not too far in the future when AI will make inroads in education. Take an online math course, for instance, facilitated by AI. While a student performs their work in their college’s LMS, the non-human facilitator indicates patterns and trends (positive and negative) that helps direct the student’s learning to emphasize areas of concern. Also at the AI’s disposal is the student’s webcam that is on as the student takes the course, recording facial expressions and tones of voice that clue the AI to potential problem areas in the curriculum for the student.[5] While such a scenario is not reality right now, it is not so far-fetched in light of the progress made in technology and AI.

As higher education costs continue to soar, student debt balloons, and overall dissatisfaction grows regarding the value of one’s college degree for the workplace, higher education institutions are looking for ways to decrease their costs while increasing the value of their services. It is likely that institutions will turn more toward technology increase the value of their work.

How does this discussion apply to philosophy? The concern is not so much with the content of philosophy than it is with how philosophy is delivered. There is a growing trend among colleges and universities of cutting humanities degrees and/or departments in efforts to cut costs and to focus attention on degrees that meet workforce demands. Even if an institution does not completely cut out the humanities, the availability of courses in philosophy (and other humanities areas) are significantly decreased to make room for more “relevant” areas of study. What this means for the future, then, is that one interested in philosophy may find fewer options in where to study. Further, in order to find a viable job, one may have to minor in philosophy while majoring in an area that is marketable.

If big data changes (and it will) the way people choose their college, what institutions provide in terms of degrees, and what counts as relevant education for the workforce, then we need to reconsider how we deliver philosophy education. Here are some questions that come to mind:

  • Does the study of philosophy need to be wed to another discipline of study (as opposed to being a standalone degree)? Rather than doing general philosophy courses, develop philosophy courses within specific degree areas that relate the relevance of philosophy to that area.
  • Can philosophy be incorporated into a company’s training and culture? While this may seem far-fetched, Forbes recently published an article titled “Why Your Board Needs a Chief Philosophy Officer”. Sally Percy interviews French professor Christian Voegtlin regarding a recent trend of companies hiring in-house philosophers who help leaders to see their work in light of life’s big questions, as well as serve as “consultant, life coach, and strategist.”[6] As companies become more conscious of how their decisions have wide-ranging implications, philosophers can play a role in helping them connect the company’s work to the bigger picture.
  • Is philosophy education better served by occurring outside of formal higher education? Personally, I don’t like this question. I received my philosophy education in graduate school, and I am an adjunct professor of philosophy in a local college. However, if we philosophers are honest with ourselves, people’s attitudes toward philosophy and their understanding of what philosophy is is largely based on what philosophers produce. And much of what we have produced appears disconnected and aloof from daily life. If we were to place the education of philosophy in the context of daily life, perhaps philosophy’s value and relevance will be more apparent to non-philosophers (i.e. those who do not have formal education in philosophy).

 

These questions are not exhaustive. Nor does my asking them mean that I have the answers. What I hope my questions do is to get us talking about the changing landscape of higher education  and the workforce, and how it relates to philosophy education. We cannot simply sit by and hope against hope that how we deliver philosophy education will remain as it is.

Bull’s closing assertion in his article on AI is significantly relevant here: “The question is whether we are going to do the good and important work of helping to shape that transformation [i.e. change as a result of AI] in positive ways, or whether we will simply let AI take the lead through lazy thinking, naivety, technological fatalism, or something else.”[7] Likewise, we can watch continue to watch philosophy departments and courses be cut, or we can address how we can meet the challenges of a changing world. If we remain inactive, philosophy will devolve into irrelevance in the eyes of educators, business leaders, and the general public. However, if are proactive, we can demonstrate philosophy’s lasting relevance for all areas of life.

Post Script: I believe that philosophy has much to offer to big data—particularly how one interprets and uses data. As Bull asserted in his presentation, data is not value neutral. It “muzzles” some aspects of reality  while emphasizing other aspects. Further, as I’ve instructed my students, data is not self-evidence; it requires context and interpretation. We need people who see the bigger picture and don’t make data do or say more than it does. Philosophy is a vital tool in promoting a responsible utilization of big data.


[1] These are categories Bull identifies in his online article as well, “The Promise, Peril, and Possibility of Data, Analytics, and AI in Higher Education: A Framework (1 of 7),” June 13, 2018. Accessed June 14, 2018. Available http://etale.org/main/2018/06/13/the-promise-peril-and-possibility-of-data-analytics-and-ai-in-higher-education-a-framework-1-of-7/.

[2]Bull, “The Promise, Peril, and Possibility of Data”. Data is also being used to indicate patterns and trends of an instructor’s activity in an online classroom to ensure they are actively involved in their students’ learning.

[3]Bernard Bull, “How AI Will Transform Education & Why Now is the Time to Start Preparing For It.” May 31, 2018. Accessed June 14, 2018. Available http://etale.org/main/2018/05/31/how-ai-will-transform-education-why-now-is-the-time-to-start-preparing-for-it/.

[4]Ibid.

[5]This example is adapted from an example provided by Bernard Bull during his conference presentation. See also “How AI Will Transform Education & Why Now is the Time to Start Preparing For It.”

[6]Sally Percy, “Why Your Board Needs a Chief Philosophy Officer,” Forbes, March 9, 2018. Accessed June 14, 2018. Available https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypercy/2018/03/09/why-your-board-needs-a-chief-philosophy-officer/.

[7] Bull, “How AI Will Transform Education.”

The Gospel and How We Do Apologetics

One class that I’ve had the opportunity to teach at Boyce College often is Christian apologetics. Interwoven with philosophy and theology, apologetics utilizes the tools provided by philosophers and theologians to provide a defense of the Christian faith. Further, apologists over the centuries have also provided believers reassurance for the beliefs of Christianity. Christians over the ages have rightly taken up Peter’s call in 1 Peter 3:15 to be ready to give an answer for our hope that is in Christ.

While I enjoy going over the various apologetical arguments with my students, I’ve become increasingly aware of the reality that knowing the various arguments is not enough when addressing an unbeliever. Nor is nailing down one apologetical method over another the answer to doing effective apologetics. It seems that lost in the wealth of apologetical resources at our fingertips is the heart of apologetics. That is, the manner in which we are to do apologetics.

Thankfully, Peter helps us here. 1 Peter 3:15 is commonly known as the clarion call to be ready to give an answer for the faith. Yet, Peter does so much more in this passage. Peter’s call to action in verse 15 is couched between three important characteristics that ought to define the Christian when doing apologetics. When we see Peter’s call in light of verses 15 and 16, and in the wider context of the epistle, we see that how we do apologetics matters just as much as the content of our apologetics.

To see how Peter instructs us in the manner of our apologetics, check out my recent article at Southern Equip: “3 Ways the Gospel Changes Apologetics.”

Critical Thinking: Higher Good, Hoax, or…What?

We live in a day of buzz words. Corporate America has bled over into our culture at large with its tendency to wrap complex ideas and methods into neatly packaged, tidy sayings. These buzz words are then to serve as a company’s rallying cry and unifying theme.

In our culture, buzz words serve to encapsulate one’s core values-those ideas by which one structures their life or one seeks to attain. “Tolerance,” “blessed,” and “disruptive” are thrown about in every mode of media with the intention of communicating ideas worth buying into. Unfortunately, buzzwords—without context—are nothing but vague words that allow an individual to shape them into one’s own mold. Continue reading

Logic 101: Addressing the Fallacy in the Room

In this series of Logic 101, I’ve covered three common tendencies in identifying fallacies in an argument. In the first post, I discussed the problem of identifying fallacies willy-nilly. In this instance, one is familiar with fallacies in general, but lacks sufficient knowledge in the finer details. When identifying a fallacy, they more often than not incorrectly identify fallacies, or they identify a fallacy when the argument does not contain one.

In the second post, I addressed the problem of fallacious fallacies – misidentifying fallacies in an argument. And finally, the most recent post discusses the error of the fallacy mic-drop, where someone correctly identifies a fallacy, but does nothing by way of explaining it or correcting it. The three errors I address are easy to make when analyzing or answering an argument, and if not corrected, can discredit or invalidate your own argument. Continue reading

Logic 101: The Error of the Fallacy Mic-Drop

In the previous two posts, I covered two tendencies we make when analyzing arguments for fallacies: 1) identifying fallacies willy-nilly, and 2) incorrectly identifying fallacies. In this post, I discuss one more tendency – identifying (correctly) fallacies without offering a corrective.

The last post of this series will offer some insight on what to do after you identify a fallacy. For now, let’s discuss what I call, fallacy mic-dropping. Continue reading

Logic 101: Fallacious Fallacies, or Misidentifying Fallacies

In my previous post on fallacies, I discussed a common problem in analyzing argument – incorrectly identifying a fallacy. While the reasons why one incorrectly identifies a fallacy can be complex, generally it is a result of intellectual laziness or an emotive reaction to the argument.

In this post, I will discuss another problem encountered in analyzing argument – misdiagnosing fallacies. Continue reading

Logic 101: Identifying Fallacies Willy-Nilly : Part I Redux

*I accidentally combined two sections in my previous post on logical fallacies – sections that were to be stand-alone. Here is the corrected Part I.*

For some, a course in logic is a breath of fresh air. With public education trending away from classic areas of study, most students today lack even a basic working knowledge of logic. In such cases, these students are generally left on their own when it comes to supporting their views and analyzing competing truth claims. When such a person comes across a course devoted to the study of logic, some find the course to be an expression of what previously had been instinctual. Indeed, such a response is healthy; however, there are those who, upon completing an introductory course or two, make no effort to pursue an in-depth study on argumentation. Instead, they view the introductory course in logic as sufficient in itself. Armed with the basics of logic, such people seek to conquer and vanquish fallacious arguments with the gusto and air of a skilled and experienced logician. Upon claiming victory over a fallacious argument, the victor advances forward in search for the next victim, leaving in his wake the destruction of annihilated premises and conclusions with nothing to show by way of rebuilding and advancing better arguments. Continue reading

Jazz and Apologetics: Doug Groothuis on How Jazz Can Inform Apologetics

Portrait of John Coltrane; by Paolo Steffan

In a recent post, I suggested that literature has significant value for Christian apologetics. When I taught an apologetics course this past spring, I sought to demonstrate to students that sharing the Gospel and answering challenges to Christianity does not always take the form of an argument – defending a thesis and rebutting an opponent’s counter-argument. Rather, apologetics can – and should – occur through means more natural to our way of daily interaction. So, for my class, I emphasized the role of literature in communicating the truths of Christianity. Continue reading