Christians need to be consequent

Consequent and consistent are terms that are related, and have specific meanings in terms of philosophy. But, it would be easier to say that our conclusions must logically follow from our premises. There are many examples of how this works. More important, there are also many examples of making a mistake in this area. It is called “affirming the consequent.” This is an error that is easy to make. One example of this would be:

If taxes are lowered, I will have more money to spend.
I have more money to spend.
Therefore, taxes must have been lowered.

As you can tell, there are many reasons why someone has more money to spend. One could have received a raise, etc. To be consequent is to ensure that all of your conclusions are valid. Among the most egregious failure in this area, is the following:

• Jihadists are Muslim.
• Jimmy is a Muslim.
• Therefore, Jimmy is a Jihadist.

The above is a clear example of the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. Recently, it has been used against the 14-year-old boy who brought a homemade clock to school. Because the 14-year-old was of Arabic descent, he was either faking building a clock, making a practice run to see if he could sneak a bomb in, or an attention-seeker. These are rather sickening examples of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

But, there is also the issue of being consistent. What does it mean to be consistent? “Always acting or behaving in the same way; of the same quality; especially; good each time; continuing to happen or develop in the same way.” None of us can always act or behave in the same way. However, it is expected of Christians that they be consistent. That is, that they behave most often in the same way, in the quality expected of a Christian, etc.

Sadly, over the last few years, Christians in America have been less consequent and less consistent. As I have pointed out in my posts over the last two days, the consequence and consistency of Christians has sadly decayed. We argue over Islam and those who are oppressed and were slaughtered under Islam, but see no connection to our behavior toward Native Americans. This is inconsistent and not consequent.

We do the same toward political candidates. There we employ similarly inconsequent arguments:

• Socialism espouses the ownership of the means of production by the government.
• Jimmy espouses some government limitations on the owners of the means of production (i.e. safety laws, minimum wage laws, etc.)
• Therefore, Jimmy is a socialist.

Notice that Jimmy is not espousing ownership of the means of production. He is merely espousing a type of capitalism that is not laissez-faire capitalism. But, because Jimmy is espousing a different type of capitalism, he is inappropriately tagged as a socialist. This actually goes beyond affirming the consequent into a type of prevarication. This type of logical fallacy is wrong simply because it involves a serious failure to do the research necessary to understand the different types of capitalism. More than that, it involves a deliberate self-deception that is not only inappropriate but even reaches the point of sinfulness in that it falsely accuses someone of being something that they are not.

We Christians have been all too often guilty of yielding to culture, including the horrors of the Inquisition in the West, the horrors of the pogroms under Eastern Orthodoxy, the forbidding of participation in the political culture under Anglicanism post-Elizabeth, etc. Frankly, I see some of the same attitudes coming out today in the writings of some priests and pastors. And, I see it in the inconsequent and inconsistent statements that they make.

But, the final logical horror is that of the fallacy of the conspiracy theory. What is a conspiracy theory?:

Explaining that your claim cannot be proven or verified because the truth is being hidden and/or evidence destroyed by a group of two or more people.  When that reason is challenged as not being true or accurate, the challenge is often presented as just another attempt to cover up the truth, and presented as further evidence that the original claim is true.

In other words, you have no evidence for your statement.  Therefore, it must be true, because we somehow know that evidence is being destroyed. We know that it is true because we have read one lone person who disagrees with the rest.

The problem is that not only do we turn out to be inconsistent liars, but we damage our standing with the non-Christian community. Is it wrong to make some of the claims I listed above? NO!!! But, if you are going to make some of those claims, you need to do more than simply make the claim. You must do the scholarly work to prove the claim.

Here is a hint. Sharing a Facebook meme is not an argument. Failure to do your research and simply quoting someone else’s argument is not research. Disagreeing with your hierarchs does not mean that you have heard from the Holy Spirit. Claiming that overseas Patriarchs are wrong does not mean that they are wrong. It most probably means that you need to repent, even if you are a priest or deacon.

I fear that as Christians, and especially as Orthodox Christians, we are in danger of falling into sinfulness, and I include myself. We are being inconsequent, inconsistent, and untruthful. May God forgive us.