On of my problems on the blog is that I often “commit typos.” That is to say, I am lousy at proof reading my own material. A number of you send me little corregida, for which I am grateful. I do read over what I have wrote, but I read right past my errors and don see them at all. Yet this phenomenon is common in that when reading we often adjust see right past some of the most glaring of errors.
Consider the following passage:
I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? Yaeh, and I awlyas thought slpeling was ipmorantt.
Did you get all that? I’ll bet you did, just fine. I don’t think I missed a point, every word made perfect sense to me, grammatical and lexical nightmare that it was. The nonsense makes perfect sense. But allow this little exercise to explain to you that what I write makes perfect sense to me, even if it crosses your eyes.
An interesting computer thing happened when typing this post too, my spell checker just plain gave up. After the first five or so misspelled word, it just stopped underlining in red. Proof that if you tell a lie long enough, even spell checker will believe you.
And yet I want to remind you that for God, nothing unavenged will remain. My only concern, does this include blog edits? Does God permit alternate spellings and doe she grade on a curve? Will I spend time in purgatory for my unforced editing errors? Please consider praying for me when I die. In the meantime, keep those edits coming.
Here is my favorite jibberish (or is it gibberish) interview.
When I was a young man, a teenager really, I did the usual crazy stuff of the early, 70s, long hair, bell bottoms, wide ties, crazy plaids, shirt open at least least three buttons, and of course, rock-n-roll.
But, through it all I had this love for older things. I think it had something to do with my Grandmother, Nana, whom I loved with great affection. Often she lamented the loss of the old things and old ways. She missed the Latin Mass, she missed when manners were better, when people remembered how to dress well, when things were more certain, when, (as Archie and Edith put it, Girls were girls and men were men). She also missed when things were built sturdy and plastic was all but unknown.
Somehow her love for older things, and older ways took hold in me, even as I indulged the silly seventies. My parents’ generation born in the late 20s and 30s, and even more so those born after the War, were something of an iconoclastic generation: “Out with the old, in with the new…New and improved.”
I remember my mother often wanting to get rid of some old thing. I often volunteered to remove it, and would then hide it in the attic. Old silver, silverware, Tiffany lamps, statues, trunks etc, began to fill our attic. In addition, I loved old buildings and hated the glass boxes that were being built in the 70s. I remembered the old churches of my childhood in Chicago that “looked like churches” and lamented the “ugly modern church” of my 70s suburb. And even though I liked rock music, when I went to Church I couldn’t stand the “hippie music” of the 60s that predominated in the 70s parishes: Kum-by-yah, Sons of God. Such dreadful lyrics all on stapled mimeographed papers: Here we are, all together now, gathered round the table of the Lord, Eat his Body! Drink his blood! and we’ll sing a song of love, Allelu, Allelu, Allelu, Allelu-i-a!
My Grandmother often said how she missed the beautiful old songs, the incense, the veils, priests in cassocks, and so many other things. She somehow had my ear. I was sympathetic, hiding antiques from both my parents home and from the church too, as they were cast aside. I looked for a day when the sanity would return, and such cast-offs were once again valued.
And that day has largely come. Much of the iconoclasm of the 50s- through the mid 80s has given way, and many older things are once again appreciated. As I took some things out of the attic in the early 90s, my mother strangely appreciated them again. Other family members took some of the silver, etc. My Chalice, (photo, upper right), was an old cast off I had restored. Statues began to return to church, some of the old hymns have returned, and the Latin Mass, relegated to the cellar, has been dusted off and is now appreciated again by many, mostly younger Catholics. I have also had the good fortune of helping to restore two old Church’s to their former glory, and to undo some of the iconoclasm from which they suffered. I even wear my cassock quite often.
For the record, I do not mind some more modern churches, some of them have a handsome simplicity. But nothing irks me more than to see a beautiful older Church made to look like 1985, all white-washed and stripped bare. Thankfully, I think that terrible era is largely ending.
But we have been through a time of it in the Church to be sure. Perhaps some things had to go “into the attic” for a time, in order that they could be taken down again, and appreciated anew. But whatever the reasons for the iconoclasm, especially of the 1960s, I sense we are now recovering a balance. A balance that does not reject the new, but still appreciates the old; a balance that nods to a hermeneutic of continuity, of which the Pope speaks, rather than a rupture and radical discontinuity with the past; a balance of which Jesus says, Therefore every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a head of a household, who brings out of his treasure things new and old (Matt 13:52).
Many look back and wonder at the great rupture and cultural tsunami we have endured in the West. We wonder how, and why. There are of course countless reasons, but I would like to single out just one: forgetfulness.
Traditions set up and endure for a reason. Fundamentally they simplify life by giving structure, boundaries and expectations. People know more easily how to navigate in the realm of tradition. But one sign that a tradition is in danger, is when people come to forget its purpose, when people forget where it came from or why we observe it, when people forget what it means or symbolizes.
I wonder if I were to get in my time machine and go back to 1940 in this parish and ask people some questions: Why do women wear hats and veils and men do not cover their heads? Why do we kneel to receive communion? Why is the Mass in Latin? Why does the priest face toward the altar? Why are all these things done this way? I suspect I would get an answer something to the effect: “I dunno, we just do it that way. Why don’t you ask the priest?”
In other words, I wonder if the first stage of losing a tradition is when it no longer makes conscious sense to people? That is, when when it is no longer clear to them why we do what we do, other than to say, “That’s just what we do.”
At some point when we are dealing with tradition we run the risk that they become wooden and rote, and we start sifting through the ashes of an old fire that has largely gone out. Unless we fan into flames the gifts of God’s love (cf 2 Tim 1:6) our love and appreciation of these things grows cold, and their beauty tarnishes. And then, some one says of something, “What’s this?” And we say, “What?! that old thing?!” And thus the suggestion to “get rid of it” receives a cursory nod, “Sure, that’s fine, get rid of it”
But the process begins with forgetfulness. And forgetfulness leads to a lack of understanding which then gives way to a lack of appreciation. And all this culminates with an almost gleeful dismissal of things old and now tarnished traditions which once sustained and framed our lives.
To be sure, some things need to fall away and perhaps there is place and time to lose things for a while, only to rediscover them. But what we have experienced in the last 60 years has been more than this sort of natural process. It has been a rupture, and radical discontinuity that has shaken many of our foundations, Church and family especially.
Therefore we do well to “remember” many of our traditions. The word “remember” suggests a process of putting the pieces back together again, a process of collecting some precious things that have been severed from the body and making them once again a “member” of the Body, the Church, and of our families. Remembering many of our lost traditions, even as we establish some new ones, is an important way of ensuring continuity with our past heritage and members.
Tradition is the “democracy of the dead” wherein our ancestors get a say in what we do. Tradition is a way to “re-member” the Church, to honor the ways and practices of the ancients that my grandmother recalled with fondness and a sense of loss. And it was a loss, but a loss I pray we are beginning to remedy, as we remember the best of the past and recover our traditions.
I thought of all of this as I watched this video from Fiddler on the Roof. This was written at a time when the sweeping changes of the last 60 years were already underway. And this song “Tradition!” while it tips a hat at tradition, ultimately ridicules it by implying that tradition is the kind of thing that essentially keeps men in charge, women down, and forces children into arranged and unhappy marriages.
At a key moment in the song Tevye is describing a tradition of the prayer tassels and says, You may ask, how did this tradition Got Started? And then after a pause he says, I don’t know! But it’s a tradition! The first sign that a tradition is in trouble is forgetfulness.
But the musical (written in 1964) pretty well captures the iconoclastic attitudes emerging at the time that were cynical of tradition in a general sort of way. Despite that cynicism Tevye rightly notes what we have come to discover only too well:
“Without our traditions our lives would be as shaky as a Fiddler on the Roof.”
Many Catholics seldom think past their own parish when the consider the Church. And yet the Catholic World is huge and quite vibrant:
1.2 Billion Catholics in the World.
412,236 Priests
721,935 Religious Sisters
221,055 Parishes
92,847 Catholic Elementary Schools with 31 million students.
43,591 Catholic Secondary Schools with 17 Million Students [*]
117,000 health care facilities, including hospitals, clinics, orphanages,” as well as “18,000 pharmacies and 512 centers” for the care of those with leprosy, all comprising 26% of the total of the world’s health care facilities. [*]
There is probably never a moment during the day in which Mass is not being celebrated somewhere on this planet, where the Liturgy of the Hours is not being celebrated. At every moment, Catholic school bells ringing, the poor and sick attended to by the Church, confessions being heard, counsel being given.
I am mindful of the words of an old hymn: The sun that bids us rest is waking, our brethren ‘neath the western sky.
Scripture also comes to mind
Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation (Mk 16:15)
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. (Acts 1:8)
Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. (Rom 10:18)
My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD Almighty. (Mal 1:11)
Like your name, O God, your praise reaches to the ends of the earth; your right hand is filled with righteousness. (Psalm 48:10)
In that day you will say: “Give thanks to the LORD, call on his name; make known among the nations what he has done, and proclaim that his name is exalted. Sing to the LORD, for he has done glorious things; let this be known to all the world. (Is 12:4-5)
I am about to come and gather all nations and tongues, and they will come and see my glory. (Is 66:18)
And many others.
Yes, the Lord has done a glorious thing. It is so common to hear the failings of the Church and of her apparent irrelevancy to the modern Western World. And she remains, by God’s grace, strong, vital and worldwide. What a marvelous thing the Lord has done.
And if perhaps the worldwide picture overwhelms, consider even the life in one diocese in this country. My cousin John Clem alerted me to the video below, from the Archdiocese of St. Louis. It pictures the life of the Church in just one Archdiocese. As the clock in the video ticks by there is not a moment where the Church is not teeming with life, by God’s grace. The video beings in the early hours of the night where religious are praying the hours and shelters and crisis centers are up and running. As the morning dawns Masses are celebrated, parishes and school come to life, hospitals and clinics hum with activity. And as evening comes, more prayer, parish meetings and and the settling in of people in shelters. And in the late hours of the night an Archbishop prays for his people. One day in an Archdiocese.
Here in the Archdiocese of Washington, we did something similar in written form, a document called Catholic Impact. In its forty pages a similar story is told of a local Church, and Archdiocese, that teems with life.
There are surely struggles in the Church about which we must be sober today. But too easily we focus on the negative, on what is wrong, and we look right past a lot of what is right, what is good, life giving, healing, vivid and true. Let this video and book remind us of that.
The Lord continues to do a marvelous work in his mystical Body, the Church.
It occurs that our capacity to converse and to set forth arguments for the truth are often hindered today on account of many factors. One of those factors is a paradoxical relationship between a kind of skepticism and and exaggerated insistence on absolute proof that results. The fact is, absolute certitude in our human condition is rare, and to insist on it is usually unreasonable. This of course does not mean that firm certitude cannot be had in many matters as well as lesser degrees that remain a firm confidence as to the facts in a matter.
On Monday there was posted a reflection on the nature of thinking (Here)and argumentation and there was a promise of a follow-up. Herein is an attempt at that follow-through. First a quick review of Monday’s post:
We can distinguish two types of argumentation: Deductive and inductive.
Deductive arguments are supposed to be water-tight. For a deductive argument to be a valid, it must be impossible for both its premises to be true, and its conclusion to be false. The truth of the premises establishes the truth of the conclusion.
The classic example of deductive argumentation is:
1 All men are mortal.
2 Socrates is a man. Therefore:
3 Socrates is mortal.
It is simply not possible that both 1 and 2 are true, but 3 is false, so this argument is deductively valid.
Any deductive argument must meet this high standard or it commits a logical error, and so, technically, is fallacious.
Now to be sure, not all our arguments can meet this high standard of deductive reasoning since not every premise can be as firm as “all men are mortal.” This includes many arguments that we would usually accept as good arguments, arguments that make their conclusions highly probable, but, they are not absolutely certain. Thus an argument that claims the high standard of deductive reasoning, but cannot meet its high standards is said to commit a “formal fallacy”. This does not mean that the argument is without any merit, only that it claims too much for itself. We often set an impossibly high standard, namely, that all things must be absolutely certain for me, every argument absolutely airtight, and purely deductive.
And that leads us to inductive arguments which do not propose to be as rigorous as deductive argumentation. But note, they are STILL good arguments, and often the only argumentation available to us in many matters. A good inductive argument lends support to its conclusions and sets forth good reasons for them. But it does not assert and cannot claim the 100% certainty of deductive arguments. This is because they often use premises or assert conclusions that are not self evident, but only likely and probable. Thus the terms most often used to distinguish good and bad inductive arguments are “strong” and “weak” rather than certain or “proved.”
The fallacies discussed here in today’s post relate to inductive reasoning and argumentation rather than deductive.
One of the things that make inductive arguments strong or weak are the premises and reasoned conclusions drawn from them. Sometimes premises are weak, or sometimes, even if the premises are strong the conclusion is either erroneous or too strong. Errors in inductive arguments are called informal fallacies.
We do well to review some of the fallacies that commonly come up, especially in modern discourse, since they affect our discussion here on blogs like this, and may at times harm our ability to discuss matters and/or to engage in strong apologetics.
Not let it also be clear, in inductive reasoning and argumentation we are not in the realm of absolute proof and certitude and thus, not every fallacy renders an argument wholly in valid. A fallacy is a conclusion based on unsound argument, a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid or very weak. The conclusion in a given argument may still be valid, but our reasons set forth are weaker than they should be due to some fallacy or weakness in the argument. Thus, before we look at any fallacy we must first set forth the cautionary fallacy meant to warn the skeptic. Namely the:
Fallacist’s Fallacy – The fallacist’s fallacy involves rejecting an idea as false simply because the argument offered for it is fallacious. Having examined the case for a particular point of view, and found it wanting, it can be tempting to conclude that the whole point of view is utterly false. This, however, would be to go beyond the evidence. For it is possible to offer a fallacious argument even for proposals that are true. For example, One could argue that 2+2=4 but do so on the basis of an appeal to authority: “Mathematician Al Jones says so″ But using the argument from authority is weak, unnecessary and it does not follow that 2+2=4 merely because Jones says so. So, Perhaps the argument is bad, but it has a true conclusion. A proposition therefore should not be dismissed because one argument offered in its favor is faulty.
Thus, those who would like to think they can dismiss any claim to truth merely because they can find a fallacy in arguments are themselves committing a fallacy for an error in a premise, or conclusion does not of itself prove the point wrong in an absolute sense. And that leads to:
Argument from Authority – arguing that a point is true merely because some one in authority says so. Strictly speaking this is not a fallacy, at least in inductive reasoning. There are times when the testimony of an authority is an important aspect in inductive arguments. This is especially so when the authority is so beause they have witnessed something, or are highly expert in a complicated matter. But generally the argument from authority is a weaker argument.
Take Scripture for example, or the Magisterium. Arguments form authority can and do hold sway in the realm of faith, but it is also important to remember that something is not merely true because it is said by the Bible or a Sacred Council, but also that the Scriptures say these things because they are true, the Church teaches them because they are true. Hence we do well, especially in apologetics not merely to quote authority, but also to appeal to reason, natural law, human experience, the order of creation and other evidence to build the case.
The argument from authority is ineffectual to those outside the realm of faith and thus the instinct of the Church has usually been to rely on more than internal authority to make her case.
Ad Hominem (Personal Attack) – Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is important to attack arguments, rather than arguers, and this is where arguments that commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down. Now not every personal observation is ipso facto an ad hominem attack. It is not always invalid to question if one was a true witness to an event about which they speak, or even, to a certain extent if they are properly schooled in the matter whereof they speak. Neither is it necessarily an ad hominem attack to note personal mannerisms or tone that indicate something of substance related to the argument, perhaps of hostility to the subject or a lack of seriousness.
But again, generally speaking, ad hominem arguments are rather weak and implicitly suggest that that the interlocutor is not able to assail he argument on a more substantial level. It is not uncommon that Christians today are simply dismissed as backwards, old-fashioned, hateful, bigoted etc., as if that were somehow an argument. We too will often be dismissive of one another using labels such as conservative, liberal, etc as if that were an argument.
Appeal to Popularity – These are arguments that appeal to the mere fact that an idea is fashionable as evidence that the idea is true. This is a fallacy because there are many factors that can contribute to a rapid increase in popularity of an idea. Peer pressure, tangible benefits, or even mass stupidity could lead to a false idea being adopted by lots of people. A rise in the popularity of an idea, then, is no guarantee of its truth.
This is a common fallacy today in the era of opinion polls, focus groups and democratic notions. It is often said the Church must come more into line with the views of her members and the view of moderns Americans. The implication is that what is popular is therefore right. But this does not follow, for what is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular. Further, the Church does not exist to reflect the views of its members, but rather of its founder.
Fallacy of Stereotyping – applying the observed property or characteristic of one part of a group to all the members of that group indiscriminately. Here too this fallacy is commonly exhibited in comments, a great deal of which I have to delete which like to presume that all Catholic priests are pedophiles because a small number were. There are other charges of this nature that fly: all Catholics suffer from guilt, the Catholic Church is just the Republican party at prayer, the Bishop are all a bunch of liberals, etc. All of us must be careful, for it is very easy to sterotype and we often get a lot of support for this behavior. But it too is weak for of argumentation at best and an outright lie at worse.
Appeal to Novelty – Appeals to novelty assume that the newness of an idea is evidence of its truth. That an idea is new certainly doesn’t entail that it is true. Merely being a new idea, of course, is no guarantee of truth. In our modern age this attitude is very pervasive. Old for many equals stuffy, prejudiced, uninformed, nonscientific etc. New is exulted by many as ipso facto better, more accurate, more informed, and some how right just because it is what we think now. Many scold the Church for not embracing modern attitudes about women, sexuality, authority and the like. We are told that we need to listen to the young and follow their lead. But the only real reason it would seem that we should do this is because these things are new and/or their proponents are young. Again, this is not a strong argument since new does not thereby equal right. To be sure there are some new things worth embracing, but that is because they are true for other reasons, rather than merely that they are new.
Appeal to Antiquity – Appeals to antiquity assume that the mere fact that an idea has been around for a while shows that it is true. That is, the only evidence that it offers is age. Age of itself can be a motive for credibility in that it indicates, to some degree, that an idea has stood the test of time. Age is also of value when looking the root meaning or origins of historical realities. Hence ancient sources can be more valuable when studying historical matters.
But of itself, age alone is not proof that something is right, since even some long stand ideas have fallen away based on better evidence. Further, even ancient documents (e.g. Gnostic gospels), contain error. Some years ago Pope Pius XII warned against an antiquarianism that seemed to be impressed with older and often rites and forms in the liturgy simply because they were old.
As an ancient Church we reverence antiquity and uphold the democracy of the dead that tradition is. But things are not good simply because they are old. Every appeal to antiquity is not to be excluded but of itself mere antiquity is not a strong argument since it does not follow that old always equals good or right. Otherwise, if someone can demonstrate something is older than Christianity, (e.g. the Jewish faith) then they would right and we would be wrong.
Appeal to Emotion – An argument that attempts to persuade using emotion, rather than evidence. This type of argument is fallacious because our emotional responses are not always a good guide to truth; emotions can cloud, rather than clarify, issues. Arguments are best based upon reason, rather than on emotion, if we want to demonstrate something as true. This is a common form of argumentation in the popular media and culture today. The “sob story” is a mechanism used to persuade that a particular course of action is right. And if someone cries on national television, it is often implied that what they are saying or proposing is somehow more true or carries more weight.
But something is not true simply because the person expressing it is emotional, whether angry or weeping or enthusiastic. Emotion may indicate some sincerity but as a form of argumentation it is weak.
I sometimes get comments on the blog that assert that a certain teaching of the Church is somehow hurtful to that commenter or offensive. Regrettable though this is, it is not an indicator that that Church teaching is necessarily wrong. Jesus of course offended a lot of people but it does not follow that he was wrong or committed error.
Appeal to Poverty – The appeal to poverty fallacy is committed when it is assumed that a position is correct because it is held by the poor. This is usually rooted in the a priori assumption and tendency to categorize in an unquestioning way and contrast the excesses, greed, and immorality of certain rich with the simplicity, virtue, and humility of certain poor. This can give rise to arguments that commit the appeal to poverty fallacy. The poverty of a person that holds a view, of course, does not establish that the view is true; even the poor can sometimes err in their beliefs.
Some years ago Liberation Theology was popular and many of its proponents argued its veracity since it had emerged from the poor and the experience of poverty. Perhaps there were elements of truth in the theology but it does not follow that merely because it came from the poor or was popular among them that there was truth for that reason.
There is another version of this argument that presumes that something is good or right merely because it seeks to alleviate poverty or address the issue. While that may be a good goal, it does not follow that the action is for that reason alone. In fact it can argued that great harm has been done in the name of do-goodism
Appeal to Wealth – An argument that assumes that someone or something is better simply because they are wealthier or more expensive. It is a thinking that everything that is associated with wealth is good. Rich people can be thought to deserve more respect than poorer people; more expensive goods can be thought to be better than less expensive goods solely because of their price.
There was a notion among some, especially back in the 1980s that the views of American Catholics should be more adopted by the Vatican that Catholics in the third world since we contributed most of the money and, on account of our wealth were more advanced. Arguments such as this makes an association with money a sign of superiority.
It may be of value to consult wealthier and successful people in matters of the business in which they excel, but wealth alone is not an argument of whether a position is right or wrong.
Is/ought Fallacy – An argument whose premises merely describe the way that the world is, but whose conclusion describes the way that the world ought to be. You can’t get an ‘ought’ simply from an ‘is’. For example consider the following: (1) Feeling lust is only natural and common. Therefore: (2) There’s nothing wrong with feeling lust. This argument’s premise simply describes the way that the world is for many people, asserting that it is natural to feel lust. To describe the way that the world is, though, is to say nothing of the way that it ought to be, namely that we ought not condemn lust.
And there are many who argue what ought to be from what is, often pointing to widespread misbehavior then concluding that we ought to therefore approve of it. But this does not follow, it is a fallacy. Now here we must be careful, for the point is not that there is no relationship between what is and the determination of what ought to be, only that merely moving from is to ought is not of itself sufficient.
Post Hoc Fallacy – The Latin phrase “post hoc ergo propter hoc” means, literally, “after this therefore because of this.” The post hoc fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because one thing occurred after another, it must have occurred as a result of it. Mere temporal succession, however, does not entail causal succession. Just because one thing follows another does not mean that it was caused by it. This sort of argumentation is especially weak when it comes to social and cultural phenomenon which are often complex and multivariate.
The most common form of this argument on blogs like this is the Vatican II argument wherein it is observed that things went south after the Council, therefore the Council caused it. Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps things would have been worse without the Council. But like most widespread social phenomena, it is difficult to point to only one thing as the cause for a complex matter. Simple temporal sucession in matters like these does not necessarily argue for cause and the post hoc argument is exceptionally weak in such matters.
Cum Hoc Fallacy – The cum hoc fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because two things occur together, they must be causally related. This, however, does not follow; correlation is possible without causation. Here in DC last year it was noted that whenever the Redskins lost the game closest to the election, that meant that the incumbent president or presidential party lost. But correlation does not equal cause. By the way the incumbent (Mr Obama) did not lose. Another famous example is that there were more pirates back when the planet was cooler and less pirates now that it is warmer. But no one would seriously argue that the solution to global warming (if that even exists) is to recruit more pirates.
An example is the Church regarding this fallacy is widely held notion that celibacy is somehow a cause of pedophilia. Never mind that the vast majority of celibate priests never offended and that Married men offend in greater percentages. Never mind that, many people connected celibacy and pedophilia and assumed that since they were together, in this case, celibacy must be a cause of this criminal behavior. They went on to suggest the elimination of celibacy. But again it does not follow that correlation (in this case a very weak correlation) equals cause.
Equivocation Fallacy – The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a word is used in two or more different senses within a single argument. For an argument to work, words must have the same meaning each time they appear in its premises or conclusion. Arguments that switch between different meanings of words equivocate, and so don’t work. This is because the change in meaning introduces a change in subject. If the words in the premises and the conclusion mean different things, then the premises and the conclusion are about different things, and so the former cannot support the latter.
This sort of error happens a lot in people who read the Bible. Consider this: 1. Salt is a compound of Sodium and Chloride and it often found in salt shakers.
2. Jesus said, you are the Salt of the Earth. 3. You are therefore sodium and chloride and likely live inside a salt shaker. But of course this does not follow since the literal meaning exists in the premise and the metaphorical or allegorical meaning in the conclusion.
Unfortunately today there is also and extended aspect of this problem wherein many miss the subtlety of language and fail to understand that words can be used literally, denotatively, connotatively, metaphorically, allegorically, euphemistically, hyperbolically and so forth. But not every word should be be equivocated to its literal meaning. Language is subtle and creative and care must be taken to examine the context and intention of the speaker or the message may be misunderstood. Offense is often taken when none is intended, error is presumed when in fact the word is used in a way other than the listener or reader understands. There is a tendency today to be crudely literalistic in interpreting many things and makes people quick to snap at what is meant in ways other than the merely literal.
Fallacy of Good intention – This fallacy says that something is good based merely on the good intention of the doer. Consider however if I place a key in a lock, thinking it is the correct key. Thus my intentions are good. But it does not follow that the lock will turn simply because I had good or right intentions. In fact that door will not open with the wrong key. Thus good intentions do not by themselves make an action good or right. Good intentions may speak to culpability, but not rectitude.
In the world as well many insist that things are good or right merely because some one means well. But it does not follow. Moral assessments must reasonably be made on what is actually done and how that act corresponds to what is reasonable, just, and in conformity to the truth.
Well OK, here are just a few fallacies that are common today. Remember, fallacies are a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid, but not always the conclusion. And thus, while noting fallacies like these above, we must also recall that not all of them are as egregious as others, and not all of them as devastating to the right conclusion as others. In inductive reasoning and and argumentation we are on a continuum wherein an argument may be said to be strong or weak. These fallacies obvious weaken an argument but they do not always render its conclusion absolutely wrong.
In the end we would discuss things among ourselves and also engage the world in argumentation ought to become more aware of fallacies such as these and more Here.
On the Day known as New Years Day in the secular world, there is a veritable feast of identities for this day on the Church’s calendar. It is the octave of Christmas, the Feast of Mary Mother God, the Feast that commemorates the Holy Name of Jesus and also of the Circumcision. Quite a lot to ponder actually!
In previous years I have commented on all these liturgical aspects, and even on the mystery of time.
But this year it strikes me to preach out of a text of St. Paul from the 3rd chapter of the Letter to the Philippians. The text recommends itself to a New Year’s theme, because Paul speaks and meditates on “what is behind, and what is before” him. And in his meditation he sets forth a kind of plan for a Christian to follow, a Christian who prayerfully reflects on the year that is passed, and the year that is about to unfold. Here then is the text from St. Paul, and a kind of four-point plan that follows.
But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, …I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. All of us who are mature should take such a view of things….Only let us live up to what we have already attained. (Phil 3:7-16)
I. Consider your Profit–in the text St. Paul says, But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him. …I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.
At the end of one year the beginning of another, we do well to consider what it is that we truly value. Now we need to be careful when we make this consideration. For it often happens that we make answer the question, “What do I most value” in a way that speaks more to how we should answer the question, than what is really true. Most of us who are believers, know that we should value God, the Lord Jesus, above all things. But honestly, that is not always so.
So we ought to reflect, at the end of the year, what, or who, do we really value most. What, or who, is our greatest prize? Perhaps it is the Lord, but often other things compete for this title. Many idolize money, creature comforts, political outcomes, sports victories, career advancement, and many other things more than God, and the things of God.
Why is this consideration so important? Because, frankly, where our treasure is, our heart will also be (cf Luke 12:34). Thus, we do well at the beginning of the new year to ask the Lord to give us hearts that are more sure, more undivided, more single-hearted in our love for him.
But in order for us to receive this gift, we must also ask for new minds that become powerfully aware of just how great it is to know and love the Lord, and how comparatively passing the gifts and trinkets of this world are. Somehow, it has to get through our thick skulls that the things of this world don’t amount to much. They are but passing pleasures, mere trinkets upon which rust, decay and boredom soon descend. They are as St. Paul says, nothing but “rubbish,” compared to the glory of knowing God, and the glories he has waiting for us. Thus St. Paul says that he “wants to know Christ.”
One of the most common New Year’s resolutions is to lose weight. Well I have news for you, we’re all going to lose weight, a lot more than we think. These bodies of ours, when death has had its way, along with decay, will weigh little less than 5 pounds of dust and ashes. All our good looks, our big hair and youthful ruddiness will pass. We get worked up about secondary things. Perhaps losing weight is good, but knowing the Lord and valuing him is far more important. WHy not resolve to pray for a greater love and desire for God instead of just praying for less desire for food?
So, step one in the four-point plan is to get this through our thick skulls: the glories of this world are passing away, they last but a moment. Our only true and lasting treasure is the Lord and the things he helps the store up in heaven. Step one, in our four-point plan is to consider our profit, to consider what is truly valuable, truly lasting in our life.
II. Chase your prize–St. Paul goes on to say, Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect,but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it.
Having considered our true treasure, and asking and experiencing that our heart be supernaturally directed to what we most value, it becomes easier by God’s grace to walk a clear path in the new year ahead. There may be things in our past that we regret, mistakes that have caused us setbacks. But with hearts renewed in what is truly valuable we are enabled increasingly, to forget what is behind and to press forward to what is ahead, the great glory of heaven, union with God, and all the saints.
The Greek word here is διώκω (dioko) which means to aggressively chase, like a hunter pursuing a catch,or a runner seeking a prize. Do you get the picture? The Christian life is not to be a tepid and boring, reluctant slouching towards God and heaven. It is to be a joyful, focused, earnest pursuit of God, and his kingdom. It is to be an eager pursuit of his will, his Word, and his Sacraments, like a starving man who sees food in the distance and runs with joy and zeal to devour with zesty delight every morsel he can claim!
It is clear, that we will only vigorously pursue things which we value highly. That is why step one in the four-point plan is so critical. Consider the kinds of sacrifices that people make for careers, for things like the “American dream.” People spend many years, and vast amounts of money pursuing the dream that lasts less than 80 years, maximum. But they make this pursuit, with zeal, even with joy, because they value the large home, the creature comforts, and the prestige of having “made it.”
To the degree, that we value Jesus and his kingdom this way we too will pursue it with joy, and be willing to make any number of sacrifices. Thus, having considered what truly profits us, would truly is our treasure, we will naturally chase our prize with joy and zeal.
III. Confirm your Priority– the St. Paul says: But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.
Note the expression, “this one thing I do.” When something is truly our passion, and our focus it tends to order everything else in our life. Consider that a runner in a race does not stop to have idle discussions, or go to shopping malls and movie theaters when in the race. Rather, the runner in a race focuses on running, winning the race. Only those things that assist him in that task this year will he do. For example, a distance runner may reach out to receive a cup of cold water that is offered along the path, for that helps his goal.
If, to use another example, a person is driving from Washington DC, North to New York City, they will ignore signs that say South, Atlanta. If it is necessary to pull over and get gas, that makes sense, and they will do so. If directions or other provisions for the trip are necessary, they will do so. But the destination, New York City is the goal that determines everything else. ANd only those things that assist the goal make sense.
And so it must be for us. Our life must be increasingly about one thing, and one thing only: knowing, and loving Jesus Christ and earnestly running to his kingdom. Anything that distracts from that one goal is to be discarded. And things that help us are embraced.
Thus note this, for our life to be ordered, and not confused and chaotic, we must have our one goal, always consciously in mind. Our priority is Jesus Christ and whatever hastens us to his kingdom.
IV. Claim what is promised–St. Paul says, All of us who are mature should take such a view of things….Only let us live up to what we have already attained.
Here St Paul, in speaking about is living up to what we have already attained, is essentially saying that we must live with Hope, that is, with confident expectation that what is promised is ours.
People only strive for what they can reasonably possess. And thus, the Theological Virtue of Hope, which defined is “the confident expectation of God’s help in attaining eternal life,” is an essential virtue for the Christian, both to have an cultivate.
When we know that what is promised is attainable by God’s grace we are all the more encouraged to strive eagerly for it, even if there are temporary setbacks and hardships involved. Thus, St. Paul says to us that we ought to live as those who have already attained, even though we are not yet at our goal.
In Christ our Head, we, the members of the Body, have already attained to the glory that is promised. And if we but run with him the race that is set before us, we will surely meet our goal. Thus as we enter this new year, we must renew our confidence in God’s providence, and in his grace.
The only ultimate obstacle, is our very self. We must neither surrender our confidence, nor conviction. Doubts and discouragement might cause us to veer from the path. Thus Paul counsels that we pray for vigorous Hope, a Hope that will strengthen our wills to endure, no matter the cost knowing that if we remain in Christ we will win.
Here then is a kind of four-point plan for the year ahead. We must consider what is truly our profit, what we value most. Chase our prize with a zeal that comes from that fact that it IS our prize, confirm our Priority by focusing like a laser on our Prize, Claim already what is our and live out of it.
A lot of breakdown in modern communication comes down to logical fallacies and cognitive distortions that have us talking past each other. Perhaps, as the new year draws near, we might spend a little time reflecting and “thinking about our thinking.”
All of us fall into these traps. I have spoken before on the blog of the problem of “all or nothing thinking” and also our tendency today to take everything personally, to be thin-skinned. Perhaps some of the following reflections on the nature of our knowledge and how we both argue and reason, may also be instructive, since, as a group, we tend today to be very polemical, ideological and not always well reasoned in our thinking. Indeed, careful reasoning is NOT an obvious gift that most in these times exhibit.
Neither do most of us properly understand the limits or range of argumentation and so we tend to live in times where many “absolutize” what they argue and/or demand unreasonable “proof” for what others say. Frankly, the kinds of absolute proof many demand today is not possible in most realms of knowledge, including the many aspects of even the physical sciences, as we shall see. But this does not means we therefore know nothing, but only that we know within a range of stronger and weaker certitude based on a number of factors.
What is set forth here and tomorrow, is not intended to be exhaustive. Indeed, anyone who has ever studied the branch of philosophy known as “Logic” will know that some of the structures of logic, and especially of “formal logical fallacies” are mind bending in their complexity and often ask us to hold many things constant (a difficult thing to do) while we discuss in great minutia some specific syllogism or point. There are, frankly, dozens of logical fallacies that can be distinguished, but many are very arcane, sensible only to the very erudite (of whom I am not one). Hence I will spare reader here the deepest distinctions and only discuss a few more common problems.
A logical fallacy is, fundamentally, an error in reasoning. Some logical fallacies are more common than others.
Most broadly we can distinguish between formal and informal fallacies. This is because there are two types of argument: deductive and inductive.
Deductive arguments are supposed to be water-tight. For a deductive argument to be a valid, it must be impossible for both its premises to be true, and its conclusion to be false. The truth of the premises establishes the truth of the conclusion.
The classic example of deductive argumentation is:
1 All men are mortal.
2 Socrates is a man. Therefore:
3 Socrates is mortal.
It is simply not possible that both 1 and 2 are true but 3 is false, so this argument is deductively valid.
Any deductive argument must meet this high standard or it commits a logical error, and so, technically, is fallacious.
Now to be sure, not all our arguments can meet this high standard of deductive reasoning since not every premise can be as firm as “all men are mortal.” This includes many arguments that we would usually accept as good arguments, arguments that make their conclusions highly probable, but, they are not absolutely certain. Thus an argument that claims the high standard of deductive reasoning, but cannot meet its high standards is said to commit a “formal fallacy”. This does not mean that the argument is without any merit, only that it claims too much for itself.
Why is this important? Because, in an age of skepticism we need to rediscover that our demand for pure deductive reasoning is often itself “unreasonable.” We often set an impossibly high standard, namely, that all things must be absolutely certain for me, every argument absolutely airtight, and purely deductive. But the problem with this is that it does not often pertain to us, mere mortals, to have such a command of facts in order to have such certainty. In demanding a certainty or evidence that is absolute, we are usually being unrealistic, for such absolute certainty is rare in our human condition.
Thus we moderns too easily tend to reject all evidence that is not what we consider absolute. Yet, though not absolute, it IS good evidence. And we also tend to invalidity anoint certain types of evidence (especially the physical sciences) with a certainty they do not actually have. For indeed, even the physical sciences make many assumptions and hold theories that are not 100% certain. And scientists DO hold metaphysical assumptions (e.g. that reality is intelligible) which are not unassailable.
Thus in our insistence for “absolute proof” and pure deductive reasoning, we often produce a cynicism in ourselves that closes a great deal of the world of experience off to us. For the fact is, most of what we see and experience admits of mystery and uncertainty.
On account of this attitude, many today reject faith which asks us to walk “by faith and not by sight.” The evidence of faith is supplied in trusting the authority of God who reveals. And yet, to be honest, most of what we know rests on what we learn from trustworthy sources and test in the laboratory of our life.
And so, if we are honest, pure certainty and the rarefied world of deductive reasoning is not the usual human condition. We do well to admit that faith is a valid strategy, as is moving forward without 100% certainty, and that even “pure science” contains a lot of theories, hypotheses, hunches and even guesses, not to mention pure mysteries and a plethora of unknowns.
And that leads us to inductive arguments which do not propose to be as rigorous as deductive argumentation. But note, they are STILL good arguments, and often the only argumentation available to us in many matters. A good inductive argument lends support to its conclusions and sets forth good reasons for them. But even when the premises of an inductive argument are solid and true, it does not necessarily mean with 100% certainty that its conclusions are true. That the argument is a good one and that its premises are true, only establishes that its conclusion is likely or probably true.
Again, let us be clear, inductive arguments, which involve most of the reasoning we must undertake, do not assert and cannot claim the 100% certainty of deductive arguments. This is because they often use premises or assert conclusions that are not self evident, but only likely and probable. Thus the terms most often used to distinguish good and bad inductive arguments are “strong” and “weak” rather than certain or “proved.”
An example of a strong inductive argument would be:
1 Every day until now the law of gravity has held. Therefore:
2 The law of gravity will hold tomorrow.
Note that this argument is very strong but not absolutely certain. Nevertheless most of us would act with confidence on its premise and conclusion and even make plans of a significant nature based on it. And this is case with most knowledge we have, which is not usually pure deduction, but involves a lot of inductive reasoning and argumentation.
Now, that said, we are not thus cast into a world of absolute uncertainty. There ARE standards for inductive arguments that must be met. And arguments that fail to meet the standards required of inductive arguments are said to commit fallacies, technically termed “informal fallacies” (since we are not in the realm of deductive reasoning with its absolute standards).
It is these “informal fallacies” that I would like to turn our attention in tomorrow’s post. As stated above, there are many logical fallacies that exist and have been well described. Some are more common that others, and some are more clear and egregious than others, but all of them have impact on what we may term critical thinking.
For today let this suffice. But tomorrow we can turn our attention to some (not all) of the fallacies that more often occur. As we shall see, since arguments consist of premises, inferences, and conclusions, some arguments fall short since the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion drawn and thus are termed fallacious. The most common fallacies center on matters of relevance, ambiguity, or presumption:
Fallacies regarding relevance rely on premises that aren’t relevant to the truth of the conclusion.
Fallacies regarding ambiguity make use of equivocation, “straw man” arguments, or play around with the plain meaning of words in a way that is erroneous or misleads.
Fallacies regarding presumption rely on false premises, and so fail to establish their conclusion. For example, arguments rooted in false dilemmas, false dichotomies or circular arguments.
Learning a little about the nature of argumentation and reasoning can help us to avoid some of the more common modern pitfalls that shut communication down. Further it can help us avoid the extremes of either insisting on too much certainty or of falling into the other extreme of relativism. Most human knowledge exists on a continuum with absolute and deductive certitude being relatively rare, as is total ignorance and absolute uncertainty at the other end. Most of our knowledge and argumentation may be said to fall in a middle range of things we know strongly or weakly, with great confidence or lesser confidence.
Accepting this middle ground can go a long way to open true discussion and mutual respect, wherein we neither demand unreasonable or absolute proof, but neither do we dismiss necessary standards in setting forth inductive and reasoned arguments.
More on this tomorrow (actually January Wed, 2nd yo be more precise).
Without proper balance a lot of modern argumentation looks and sounds a lot like this song:
Here in the middle of the Christmas Octave, the Church bids us to celebrate the feast of the Holy Family. On the old calendar, the feast of the Holy Family falls on the Sunday after Epiphany, which makes some sense. For it is a bit odd to read a gospel portraying Jesus as 12 years of age, a mere 5 days after his birth. And then, next week, we revert back to a Gospel where he is an infant, on the Feast of Epiphany.
Nevertheless, here we are. Perhaps, it is a good time to reflect on family life. For, at Christmas time family, and extended family, often gather together. In terms of this feast of the Holy Family, let us make a consideration along three lines: Structure, Struggles, and Strategy.
I. Structure–All through the readings for today’s mass we are instructed on the basic form, the basic structure of the family. For example:
God sets a father in honor over his children; a mother’s authority he confirms over her sons. (Sirach 3:2).
May your wife be like a fruitful vine, in the recesses of your home; your children like olive plants, around your table (Psalm 128:3).
Wives, be subordinate to your husbands, as is proper in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and avoid any bitterness toward them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this is pleasing to the Lord. Fathers, do not provoke your children, so that they may not become discouraged. (Colossians 3:20–21).
Each year, Jesus parents went to Jerusalem for the feast of Passover… Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety… (Luke 2:45, 51,).
And he was obedient to them;… And Jesus advanced in age and wisdom and favor before God and man (Luke 2:51–52).
And thus we see the basic structure of family:
A father in honor over his children
A wife and mother, supportive of her husband and his authority.
A mother, having authority over her children, supported loved and encouraged by her husband, and obeyed by her children.
Children who both honor and obey their parents.
Fathers, and by extension mothers, who instruct and admonish their children, but not in the way that badgers and discourages them, but in a way that encourages and builds them up.
A family structure that helps children to advance in wisdom, and age, and favor before God and man.
Here then, is God’s basic teaching on family and marriage. Here is the basic structure for the family, as God sets it forth: a man who loves his wife, a woman, who loves her husband. And in this stable, lasting, and faithful union of mutual support and love, they conceive and raise their children in the holy fear of the Lord.
Add to this, the principal description of the book of Genesis, which describes how God says forth marriage: “A man shall leave his father and mother, cling to his wife, and the two of them shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24). And to this first couple, God gives the mandate, “Be fruitful and multiply.” (Genesis 1:22).
And thus we have set forth biblically the basic structure for the family: a father, a mother, and children, all reverential, and supportive of one another, in their various roles and duties.
Note how the structure of the family, take its basic form in terms of its essential fruit: the procreation and rearing of children. Why should marriage be a stable and lasting union? Why is Adam told to cling to his wife, to form a stable and lasting union with her? Why?
Because, this is what is best for, and just for children! Children both need and deserve a stable and lasting union, of a father and a mother, of a complementary influence of the different sexes. Here is what is best for children to be raised and formed. Hence, the family structure of a father and a mother, a male and female parent, flows from what is best, and just for children. The structure of the family, as set forth by God, is rooted in what is best, and just for children. Here is what is sensible and best, sociologically, and psychologically, in terms of the proper development of Children.
Even before we open the Bible, it makes sense that a child should have a father and a mother, a male and female influence, and teaching. There are things that a male, and a father, can teach a child, that a mother, and a female, cannot best teach. Further, the mother, and a female, can teach, and model for children what only a mother, and a female best teaches.
This much is clear before we even open the Bible. Male and female influence are essential for the proper psychological and sociological development of the child. Clearly then, God’s biblical mandates that marriage should include a father and a mother, is not without basis in simple human reason, and common sense.
To intentionally deprive a child of this context is both unjust to the child, and unwise. Hence, we see that the basic structure for marriage takes its shape from what is best, and what is just for children. Both God, and nature, provide for a father and a mother, a male and a female, to conceive and raise a child.
It also makes sense based on simple human reasoning that that relationship should be stable, something the child can depend on from day-to-day, month-to-month, and year-to-year, through all the formative years.
Here then is the proper structure for marriage. It is set forth both by God, and by human reason.
II. Struggles–And yet, what should be obvious to us as a culture seems to be strangely absent in the minds of many. Let us be clear, sin clouds our judgment, and makes many think that what is sinful and improper is in fact okay and good. It is not. In our current modern culture we gravely sin against God and against our children by consistent misconduct, and by the refusal to accept what is obviously true. The words of St. Paul are fulfilled in our modern times: their senseless minds were darkened, and they became vain and foolish in their reasoning. (Rom 1:21).
It is clear today that the family is in grave crisis. And it is also clear, that it is the children who suffer the most. Our modern age, in the Western world shows forth the mentality that is both deeply flawed, and gravely harmful to children.
Marriage and family are in great crisis do the willful and sinful habits of the vast majority of adults in our culture regarding sexuality, marriage, and family life. The rebellion of adults against the plan and order of God have caused endless grief and hardship, and set forth a culture that is poisonous to the proper raising and blessing of children.
Last week, we commented on this on the blog. Without repeating that whole blog post that the following excerpt stands forth:
Children have much to suffer in this world of our collective making. And while not all of us are equally guilty of contributing to the suffering of children, none of us are wholly innocent either, if for no other reason than our silence.
Consider that most children born today are no longer born into the stable and lasting family units they justly deserve with a father and mother committed to one another till death do them part.
The problems begin with fornication, which is rampant in our culture. And while most do not think of this as a sin of injustice, it is. It is so because of what it does primarily to children.
The fact is many children are conceived of fornication. Tragically most of these children who are thus conceived are outright murdered by abortion. 85% of abortions are performed on unmarried women. And for all the vaunted declarations of how contraception makes every baby a wanted baby, nothing could be further from the truth. Abortion has skyrocketed with the availability of contraception. This is because the problem is not fertility, it is lust, promiscuity, fornication and adultery. And contraception fuels these problems by further enabling them. The promises associated with contraception are lies, it does the opposite of what it promises.
Thus fornication and the contraceptive mentality (founded on lies) cause grave harm to children, beginning with death, in huge numbers. And the children, conceived of fornication who do (thankfully) survive are, nevertheless subjected to the injustice of usually being born into irregular situations. There are single mothers, some single fathers, and many other irregularities.
Add to this picture the large number of divorced families. And make no mistake, these shredded families cause great hardships and pain for children that include: children be shuttled back and forth between different household each week, having to meet “daddy’s new girlfriend” or mommy’s new “live-in boy-friend” and all sorts of other family chaos. Blended families also dramatically increase the likelihood of sexual and emotional abuse, since legal relationships seldom have the built-in protections of natural relationships.
All of this misbehavior, individual and cultural, harms children. Not being raised in a traditional marriage dramatically increases a child’s likelihood of suffering many other social ills, starting with poverty.
The chief cause of poverty in this country, is the single motherhood, absent fatherhood.
71% of poor families are not married.
Children of single parent homes are 2 times more likely to be arrested for juvenile crime,
2 times more likely be treated for emotional and behavioral problems,
Twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school,
33% more likely to drop out of school,
3 times more likely to end up in jail by age 30.
50% more likely to live in poverty as adults,
And twice as likely to have a child outside of marriage themselves. [*]
Add to the burdens children must experience, the new trend of same sex adoption. Never mind that it is best for the psychological development of a child to have a father and mother, a male and female influence. No, what is best and just children must be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Same sex couples must now be given equal consideration under law (in many states) to heterosexual couples. It’s the adults and their rights that seem to matter most here, what is best for children is quite secondary.
Here then are our struggles. Our families are in grave crisis and MOST children in our culture are not raised in the stable and committed homes they deserve. And let us be even more clear, to intentionally deprive children of this sort of home by raising them outside of marriage, or in same sex unions etc., is sinful, wrong and an injustice.
Let us also be clear that it is not possible to personally judge every case of a broken family. The modern world has experienced as cultural tsunami and many have been influenced by lies and other false promises. It may be true that, if you are divorced you tried to save your marriage, but your spouse was unwilling. Perhaps in a moment of weakness, perhaps before your your conversion to Christ, you fell and bore children outside of marriage, but have done your best to raise them well.
But in the end we must say that children have had much to suffer on account of adult misbehavior in our culture. It is a true and sad fact, and we need to repent, and beg God’s grace and mercy to undue our grave sins of commission, omission and silence. We have set forth a bitter world for our children to inherit.
III. Strategy – What are we to do? In phrase, “Preach the Word.” What ever the sins of us, in this present generation (and there are many), we must be prepared to unambiguously re-propose the wisdom of God’s Word to our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Even if many of us in the current generation have fallen short, we cannot hesitate to announce God’s plan for sexuality, marriage, and family.
Our strategic proclamation must include these key elements:
No sex before marriage, ever, or under any circumstances. Sexual intercourse is rooted in the procreation of children and there no legitimate use of it outside of marriage, ever; no exceptions to this.
Children deserve and have the right to expect two parents, a father and mother, committed to each other till death do them part. Anything short of this is a grave injustice to children and a mortal sin before God.
Gay unions, or single mothers and fathers, are NOT an acceptable alternative to biblical marriage, and to intentionally subject children to this for the sake of “political correctness” is a grave injustice to them.
Marriage is about what is best for children, not adults.
Married couples must learn to work out their differences (as was done in the past) and not rush to divorce courts, which offends God (cf Malachi 2:16).
The needs of children far outweigh the preferences and needs of adults.
Whatever the personal failings of any of us in this present evil age (cf Gal 1:4), our strategy must be to preach the undiluted plan of God for sexuality, marriage and family to our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
In a phrase or two: “Back to the Bible! Back to the plan of God! Away with modern experiments and unbiblical schemes.” God has given us a plan. And we, thinking we had better notions, have caused great sorrow and hardship for our descendants. We have acted unjustly, murdered or children through abortion, and, sowing in the wind, have caused those who have survived our misbehavior, to inherit the whirlwind. It is time to repent and help our heirs to rejoice in chastity, marriage and biblical family. Otherwise we are doomed to perish.
God has a plan and it must be our strategy out of our struggles and back to God’s structure for our families.
This song says, So, humbly I come to you and say As I sound aloud the warfare of today Hear me, I pray What about the children?
The video below is a Coca Cola commercial from about five years ago that takes up the Christmas theme of the star of Christmas.
Let us review the impact that Star of Christmas had on the wise men, the Magi.
The star moved them to seek meaning outside themselves. It made them look out and up.
The star called them beyond what was familiar in their own country and world and expanded their horizons toward Christ and His kingdom.
The star summoned them to seek Christ, and when they found him, to worship him.
The Star drew them to be generous to a poor family in Bethlehem, and to make sacrifices, as they lay costly gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh before the Lord.
The star roused them to conversion as they “returned to their country by another route” following the straight and narrow path, rather than the wide and destructive one.
Yes, it is a fact that no one encounters Jesus Christ and goes away unchanged. A blind man went away able to see, the deaf went away able to hear, the lame could walk, the hungry went away satisfied, the ignorant were instructed, the guilty forgiven, and sinners were converted.
And the call of the nations to new life and to change began with a star. And the light of the star opens the way to the Light of World, Jesus. The star of my life is Jesus.
In the commercial below we see Santa (a name which means “Holy One”) send forth a star, a star that touches people and radiates a light that transforms them.
A woman sees the light of that star and is able to forgive her husband and be reconciled with him.
A young soccer player sees the light of that star, surrenders pride and steps aside to let another player share in and get a shot at glory.
A young girl sees the light of that star and forsaking some of her own beauty seeks to beautify a public park for others.
A guard at the local museum sees the light of that star and shows mercy to the guard dog with him (this was a silly one).
A father sees the light of that star and permits his son a moment of growth.
Yes, there is something about that star that changes everyone who looks at it. They become more forgiving, more gracious, aware of others, more connected to others, more loving.The light of the star, and the light of the world is Jesus. And his light is meant to have that same effect and more besides.
In the background of the commercial plays an old Elvis song:Wise men say only fools rush in, But I can’t help falling in love with you. Shall I stay, would it be a sin? If I can’t help falling in love with you.
Here of course the “love” that is portrayed is not the romantic love of the song but the brotherly and agape love that Christ gives. Like the Magi of old who found Christ by the star, no one sees the star of Jesus and encounters him and then goes away unchanged. Indeed if we authentically encounter Christ, we are equipped to love, just as the people in this commercial are. We are equipped to forgive, to bring healing, to help others find strength and glory in the truth and to come to full maturity in Christ. A person who knows Jesus and has encountered him cannot help loving others, not in some merely sentimental way, but with a strong, vigorous love rooted in the truth. The same love Jesus has for us all.
At the end of the commercial there is an admonition in Spanish that translated says, Give the world the best of you. The best of me is Jesus.
On of my problems on the blog is that I often “commit typos.” That is to say, I am lousy at proof reading my own material. A number of you send me little corregida, for which I am grateful. I do read over what I have wrote, but I read right past my errors and don see them at all. Yet this phenomenon is common in that when reading we often adjust see right past some of the most glaring of errors.
