The Dilemma of False Dilemmas in the Church
Chip and Joanna Gaines have a new show out on their Magnolia Network titled, “Back to the Frontier.” The show “is facing backlash from conservatives evangelicals because the show features a same-sex couple” and “their 10-year-old twin sons who were born via a surrogate,” according to AL.com and The Daily Beast. Responding to this controversy, Chip Gaines posted the following on X:
“Talk, ask qustns [sic], listen. maybe even learn. Too much to ask of modern American Christian culture. Judge 1st, understand later/never It’s a sad sunday when ‘non believers’ have never been confronted with hate or vitriol until they are introduced to a modern American Christian💔.”
Later, Mr. Gaines told Christians that they should “‘judge not….’ ‘Love one another’ it’s not difficult,” apparently having complete amnesia to the fact that just minutes prior he had unequivocally judged all of modern Christianity as hateful and vitriolic.
The substance of the controversy aside, the response from Gaines illustrates perfectly what I will call the faulty logic of a false dilemma. This faulty logic is prevalent in the public responses and arguments of Christian leaders today, no matter the topic. Understanding the way this faulty logic functions is essential not only to making better arguments but to protecting yourself from succumbing to faulty arguments. Others have sufficiently and effectively confronted the opinions and actions of the Gaines’s. What needs to be further understood, however, is the rhetorical and polemical strategies in play.
Probably without realizing it, what Chip Gaines is doing is presenting a false dilemma when he takes to defending the inclusion in the show of a homosexual couple and their sons born via surrogacy. The false dilemma is this: Either agree that homosexual couples and their surrogate sons should be featured on this show or you are hateful, vitriolic, judgmental, unable to understand, and have less love than those who have not even accepted Jesus into their lives. Essentially, “Either agree with me and how I think we should love and platform others or be against love altogether.” It is a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose.
Notice the framing: Very few want to be labeled as hateful and vitriolic, so presenting a false dilemma like this works very favorably toward Mr. Gaines’ argument so long as no one notices the false dilemma in play. The dilemma unnoticed, most people will likely decide that agreeing with Mr. Gaines’ position is correct, because disagreeing with him will make one a hateful and vitriolic person. What Gaines has done is introduced a moral test based that pits otherwise congruent sentiments against one another.
But, of course, that is a false dilemma. One can object that Mr. Gaines’ show should not have featured a homosexual couple with their surrogate sons and also not be hateful or vitriolic. These are not mutually exclusive positions. One can maintain a biblical standard of love and marriage and also be against the platforming and promotion of views contrary to scripture, especially on a show produced from a couple that are vocally Christian and churchgoers. In abstract this makes sense. In real time, under the pressure of a false dilemma, it may seem less obvious to observers. Hence why the maneuver works so effectively and so often.
The Gaines example is one of many where Christian leaders base arguments on the weak and fallacious foundation of a false dilemma. A few more examples will flesh this out. Again, it is the rhetorical effects of these examples rather than their substance that is primarily in view. It should be briefly noted at the outset that not all dilemmas are false. In some dilemmas, there are indeed only two choices (e.g., salvation through Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven). Dilemmas only become a problem when they are false and especially when false dilemmas are weaponized to artificially control arguments.
Agree or be Misogynist
I once heard of a story where a man interrupted a woman preaching the main sermon at church to say something to the effect that having a woman preach is unbiblical. At a sequential gathering, the senior pastor of the church made a video addressing the incident. He told the congregation that how the woman handled the situation was excellent, and that they were going to keep giving women a voice in this church.
We can probably all agree that the method the man used to confront the church about his beliefs on women preaching was not optimally effective. However, even this is up for debate, as Jesus Himself flipped tables, made a whip, and kicked people out of the temple for selling things like doves (Matthew 21, Mark 11, Luke 19, John 2). In this light, interrupting a sermon is decidedly less extreme. In any case, there may have been a more respectful way for the contemporary man to voice his objection to church leadership.
More to the point, what this senior pastor is doing is presenting a false dilemma when he says that he is going to keep giving women a voice in the church. The false dilemma is this: Either agree that women should be preaching in church or you are against giving women a voice in the church. Essentially, “Either agree with me or be against women having a voice in church.” In any modern context, denying women a “voice” is code for “hating women.” Again, it is a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose argument. The dueling positions are presented in extreme terms. The detractor is a “bad person” who hates women.
Similar to the Gaines’ example, notice what is happening here: If you agree that it is good for women to preach, then you are for giving women a voice in the church (i.e., representation). But if you disagree that women should preach, then you are against giving women a voice in church. Most will want to avoid that accusation. Thus, because church attendees do not want to be accused of what amounts to negating female representation in the church, they will decide that it must be good for women to preach. Church attendees may think: “I do not want to be against women, and I especially do not want to be against giving women a voice. In defense of a woman giving the main sermon at church, my senior pastor claims that the church will continue to give women a voice in church. This must mean that if I am against a woman giving the main sermon, I am against giving women a voice in church. I do not like that. I will agree with the senior pastor.”
The dilemma is false because one could be against women preaching and still be in favor of other means of “giving women a voice” in the church. It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. Perhaps the “voice” given to women is “that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed” (Titus 2:4). Notice that these women in Titus have a voice, but that voice does not include preaching. This false dilemma in our story is often in play in discussions of women’s roles in the church. It confuses and inordinately narrows the analysis. It is as if scripture does not assign women important tasks and positions and as if preaching alone defines participation in the life of the church.
Also, which women is this senior pastor giving voice to in the church? For example, my wife is a woman who goes to church and yet does not believe that women should be preaching. What happens to her voice? Will her voice—and the voice of many other women who agree with her—be heard? Will their voices be taken seriously? Or will those women be silenced? Will their voices be dismissed, disregarded, and degraded? You see, when a church says they want to give women a voice in defense of women preaching, it at least implies—even though not stated—that they only want to give certain women of a certain opinion a voice, specifically those who agree with them.
Agree or be Racist
This problem of presenting arguments through a false dilemma is also found in Christianity Today. I once read a post on X from Christianity Today—linking to an article—that read, “‘Why does it seem that the American church’s racial-unity experiment is no longer fashionable?’ asks @JustinEGiboney. ‘Why do many of us no longer want to be unified?’”
Within the article, Giboney takes a moderate approach, stating that the “bitter reprisal from some on the church’s far right” and the “reaction from some on the far left” were both to blame. He continues, “The race debate in much of the church increasingly became a battle between those who were blind to the sin of racism and those who believed racism and sexism were the only sins.”
Notice the dilemma: On the one hand, you have a positive: “American church’s racial-unity experiment”; on the other hand, you have quite the negative: disunity. If you do not agree with the approach from Giboney—if you reject his argument and the assumptions supporting it, then what is it implied you are against? Unity. Either be for the “racial-unity experiment” as described by Giboney or be for disunity. Again, to be against unity is quite the accusation, so it is a clever rhetorical trick to set up an argument where disagreement with the argument results in you being against unity (i.e., divisive). If you disagree with Giboney, you are basically in violation of all of Galatians, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Corinthians and Colossians, at a minimum.
But, as before, this is a false dilemma because you can be for unity and against both the message and method of particular ideologies. Further, you can believe, as Thomas Sowell did, that “[r]acism is not dead, but it is on life support—kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as ‘racists.’” Sowell is not “blind to the sin of racism” nor is he against unity. Instead, he is saying we must unify around rejecting those that keep racism’s life-support on, and we must unify around rejecting both their messages and their methods. Yet, Sowell’s position is precluded by Giboney’s false dilemma.
When Giboney asks, “Why do many of us no longer want to be unified?”, and then presents an argument where one needs to accept positions from both sides of the political debate in order to unify, he is effectively (although not explicitly) making the case that unity can only come from accepting his position on the matter. But this is not the case. On the one hand, someone is not divisive just because they are partisan.
On the other hand, one can reject the ever-shifting middle and just stand on the truth. People can unify around the truth, which does not move. They can reject both the message and the method of one “side” and still be for unity. “Why do many of us no longer want to be unified?” Because we do not want to be unified if it only comes from accepting the terms you laid out. We want new terms to unify around. We do not want to unify around the middle. There are other places to find unity.
Also, the title of Giboney’s piece—“Racial Unity Is Out of Style”—is off-putting, and I disagree with it. Racial unity may be out of style for Giboney because people have pushed back against the “American church’s racial-unity experiment” after they found it lacking, counterproductive, and even divisive. But this does not mean racial unity is out of style. It depends on what type of style we are unifying around. Are we unifying around a Sowell style, or more of a Giboney style? Are we unifying around the fact that racism is on life-support, or are we unifying around the idea that racism does not need life support to survive? Racial unity may be in style in one case and out of style in another, but this all depends on what type of style we are unifying around.
Agree or Hate Your Neighbor
Another hallmark example exists of a false dilemma being used in the church. In her book, Shepherds for Sale, Megan Basham points out how many stances—on everything from immigration to taking Covid-19 vaccines to transgender issues—are dependent on a love your neighbor principle. As Basham points out, the argument goes something like this: “Why should the United States reward tens of millions of illegal immigrants with citizenship despite the fact they broke our laws, and immigration drives down wages for blue-collar workers? Simple: love your neighbor.”
Here again we see the same false dilemma come up. People do not want to be accused of not loving their neighbor, so a pastor can set up a false dilemma where rejecting the pastor’s argument implies you do not love your neighbor. Using a false dilemma argument like this is insidious because the logical fallacy can be difficult to detect unless you are aware it is taking place. At bottom, the appeal is emotional, not logical.
It may be quite easy for church leaders to make arguments wherein they imply that disagreement with the argument means you are against understanding, women, unity, neighbors, or any other number of things. Yet “easy” is the only positive attribute those types of arguments retain. They are neither logical nor convincing to those who recognize what is going on.
Jesus said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” (Matthew 11:15). Let us hear false dilemmas whenever they present themselves, and let us reject those dilemmas. Let church leaders have ears to hear their own false dilemmas, and fix them. Because the false dilemma strategy “works” and is so deeply imbedded in the rhetorical ecosystem, it easy for well-meaning pastors to adopt the approach. For sake of truth and the care of their flocks, pastors should identify and reject false dilemmas.
When we reject false dilemmas, our thinking and argumentation becomes sounder than it was before and we learn to spot illogical arguments. We should all strive for argument soundness, especially in matters of eternal significance.
Image Credit: Unsplash.
