A New Emphasis in Critique

What is the proper means of critiquing someone else’s beliefs? Recently I have been pondering this issue as I have been engaged in some interesting conversations on blogs , through reading and listening to lectures. One of my biggest concerns has to do with what logicians and philosophers call “The Straw Man Argument”. Wikipedia defines it as follows:

A straw man argument is a rhetorical technique based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, since the argument actually presented by the opponent has not been refuted.

I see this happening all the time when the person who if being critiqued is not able to respond in “real time”. The typical way this is played out in a scholarly ways is that the one person with a certain set of beliefs will write a book that outlines his position and then someone who holds a different position will respond critiquing that position. This can be seen all over evangelicalism with debates concerning Open Theism vs. Orthodox Reformed Theology or Calvinism and Arminianism, etc. A great example can be found in Norman Geisler’s “Chosen But Free” and then the response of James R. White with “The Potter’s Freedom”. This issue is not new to the life of the church and all the great debates throughout the course of church history usually were structured in this way all the way from Augustine and Pelagius through Luther and Erasmus.

My great draw back with this structure for critique is that there is no place for person-to- person response and listening. It is too easy (whether intentional or not) to set up a “straw man” argument or over simplify and misrepresent a belief that one holds so that it seems very black and white when the incorrect belief is crushed. For example, one author may say, “My difference with person x has to do with his belief that…” then goes to articulate his take on the beliefs of the person he is critiquing. He may or may not be correct in his articulation of the other person’s belief.

Thus I would suggest that for greater health in this sort of thing that we attempt to move toward “real time” critique, that is not necessarily a debate structure, (although it could easily turn into that) but a means by which a real conversation would take place with give and take and clarification and correction with an audience listening in to judge for themselves what they take to be of value and what should be discarded.

This fall I am looking forward to hopefully attending the Desiring God Ministries national conference (watch the trailer here) which will no doubt deal with the issue of the Emergent Church. On the roster of speakers there is not one person who is in favor theologically with the positions of the Emergent church. I am totally fine with this, because I am not a big fan of their theology, but wouldn’t there be a great strength in inviting one of these guys to carefully articulate what it is that they really believe and then watch them interact with a D.A. Carson or a John Piper? I think is would be wonderfully more powerful than simply having D.A. or Pastor John give us quick sound bites on what it is they believe and then critique it or warn us of the dangers from there.

Another strength of this position is that it enables a relationship between persons to take place. Writing books, or blogs, or emails back and forth is very impersonal and I feel it is much easier to the “ethic of love” shine through in face-to-face contact and could decrease much of the feelings of personal attack that can creep in though the written forms.

Some might say that this is not very practical. Why not? If one has time to write a whole book about a person’s beliefs, why couldn’t they hold a public conversation that deals with the issues? At least in Christian circles I would hope that we could move toward more of this type of thing.

Thoughts?