Dave Mallinak has been writing an interesting series on what he wishes would change within the Independent Baptist stripe. It is written “from within” and I appreciate that spirit, and found things with which I generally agree.
His most recent article addresses what he perceives to be a problem in how Independent Baptists oppose Calvinism. He writes from a perspective of someone who once found Calvinism intriguing, so it is a personal issue for him, and I find it well-argued to the point to which he takes it. I hope that this is taken not as a refutation, but as a modest redirection, in the gracious spirit in which I intend.
At the risk of being repetitive, my purpose in responding is not to argue that Dave is arguing incorrectly, but that in his scrutiny of his personal experience, he does not fully identify the crucial issue at play. To explain, I will quote two pivotal (and good) portions of his post.
Because when I went to examine Calvinism to prove the slanders true, I found that the slanders were just that. And that nearly caught me. I was surprised to discover that most Calvinists give good Bible reasons for their position. I don’t believe they are applying Scripture rightly in some of their conclusions, but I cannot join with those who claim that this is a man-made system.
Third, deal honestly with what Calvinism actually teaches instead of drawing caricatures to refute. If you want to win the day, this is how to do it. And since you hold the Biblical position, this shouldn’t be hard. In my experience, people only need to slander someone else’s position when they don’t have an answer to it.
In my opinion, these quotes represent the heart of Dave’s argument, and it is very good. The issue (I almost wrote “problem,” but that would be unfair; problem is far too strong of a term) is that it does not go far enough.
Dave is focused on opposition to Calvinism due to his own experience of studying it, so he describes the problem with unfair characterizations of Calvinism and the potential problems that can create. Dave is describing the classic logical fallacy known as the “straw man argument.” In short, a “straw man” is a misrepresentation of an opponent’s position that is developed to make it easy to refute.
This is a real concern, and I am glad that Dave is discussing it. However, his experience with Calvinism causes him to address this in a way that is too narrow.
The crucial issue is not that Independent Baptists harm arguments against Calvinism by using straw man arguments; the crucial issue is that Independent Baptist (in conformity with the worldly nature of many other ideological groups) make widespread use of straw man arguments against many different forms of error, leaving Christians vulnerable not just to Calvinism, as Dave describes, but also to any and all other forms of error.
Poor arguments against theological and practice problems within Christianity and against scientific and political issues outside of Christianity not only prepare Christians poorly to encounter those issues in real life, but make it easier for them to be attracted to those errors. Dave’s description of how he, as a younger man, found that the arguments he was provided against Calvinism were so easily punctured by the actual beliefs held by Calvinists is important. When someone hears that “Position X is stupid and only fools hold it,” and then find that the people who hold Position X are not only not fools but have good arguments for it, that person will question the people that told them Position X is stupid in the first place.
I know, because unlike Dave, I was never intrigued by Calvinism. I grew up first charismatic, then contemporary evangelical, and finally essentially a vaguely religious secularist immersed in the intellectually elitist atmosphere surrounding the University of Michigan. Where he has experienced straw man arguments detonated by encountering actual Calvinistic arguments, I have and continue to see (and cringe) at weak straw man arguments presented against concepts like evolution and modern social movements. Not because I agree with those positions, but because I know, and have seen, and have on occasion experienced in my own life such arguments being easily swept aside by adherents of those positions.
It is tempting to do this because destroying a straw man is easy and makes people think highly of you, and because understanding opposing arguments and countering them is challenging intellectual work. The byproduct is damage to our discipleship, as Dave describes, but just as troubling, damage to our witness as well.
A skeptic of Biblical Christianity will not be persuaded by straw man arguments; indeed, he or she will find such arguments confirmation to their presupposition that Biblical Christianity cannot answer their arguments at all. Such arguments actively damage our ability to witness and proclaim truth.
When we misrepresent opponents in our writing, teaching, and preaching, we will get some cheap “Amens.” But in so doing we abandon our responsibility to persuade those with whom we disagree in favor of boosting the egos of those already on our side. And we leave those seeking truth more vulnerable to persuasion by those opponents by giving the impression that we do not have good arguments against those positions at all, since we so readily resort to bad ones.
It is more than a problem of arguing against Calvinism. It is a problem whenever we argue against all forms of error.