False Dichotomy
Edit: Upon further review of this post–and believe me, there’s been a lot of review of this particular post–I have to say that my initial wording below was a lot stronger than it really should have been. I think the point was worth making, but that comments like “if preachers want to be taken seriously by people with critical thinking skills” were out of line.
If I offended anybody with those statements, I apologize. I did not mean to insult or tear down anybody by what I said.
There’s an old cliché, coined by some guy up at The Wilds, that has, like many of the sayings of Dr. Bob Senior and Dr. Bob Junior, attained functional equivalence with Scripture among many fundamentalists. Soon after the preacher has consulted the one verse that is the basis of his argument for the next half-hour, he’ll quote this saying:
Just two choices on the shelf:
Pleasing God or pleasing self
This statement is very catchy. Unfortunately, it’s also completely fallacious. It’s the perfect example of a false dichotomy: There are more options available than just pleasing God and self: You can also please other people, for example.
Think about that Extreme Makeover: Home Edition show: These guys come to some needy family and rebuild their houses for them. Are they doing it as a service to God? No. They’re doing it to help a family in need (and make a little money for Sears and ABC, but that’s beside the point). Is your average school teacher in it for the money? No, they’re trying to help kids reach their full potential.
Besides being a false dichotomy, it also implies a false choice: Pleasing God and pleasing self are not necessarily mutually exclusive options.
For example, the book of Proverbs states “Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.” I should think that the man who finds himself a wife is at least as pleased as the Lord is with the idea.
In short, if preachers want to be taken seriously by people with critical thinking skills, they need to let the cliché go, no matter how catchy it is.
June 15th, 2005 at 3:37 pm
Exactly. I’ve been telling people that for years.
June 15th, 2005 at 5:18 pm
I agree with you wholeheartedly. And aside from the fallaciousness of the statement, I get tired of these cute little statements that preachers/evangelists/speakers/etc. both inside (and outside) fundamentalism coin to get us to try and remember a particular point. If you makes a good, relevant point, people will remember the message regardless of how cute your “wrapping paper” is…
June 15th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
You should have been at my brother’s graduation ceremony; the speaker was a one-man cliche generator. For a good half-hour the man recited saying after saying after saying…
June 15th, 2005 at 9:39 pm
It isn’t always false. It just isn’t always true. Sometimes that is the choice. Pleasing God or pleasing self. Of course, it is not always.
Moreover, when a non-christian wants to please others, he almost always says he wants to do so because he “enjoys it” or “has a good feeling inside.” Still a selfish reason if you ask me; it just has side-benefits tacked on. If they truly wanted to help another person out of purely unselfish reasons, they wouldn’t need to get that good feeling. They’d do it because they know it’s right.
On somewhat different note, there’s nothing wrong with sayings. Just don’t over use them or else you get the backlash from your audience like the comments above.
June 15th, 2005 at 9:54 pm
Ah, but then the cynic would say that people also follow religion in order to please themselves, either for the good feeling that forgiveness of sins gives you, for eternal rewards in heaven, or just for the nice feeling of not being tortured for all eternity.
Virtually all actions that we take are motivated by selfishness; we don’t do things that we think will harm us in the long run. Even suicidal people are seeking relief from whatever life is throwing them.
Re: Sayings–when they’re not overused to the point of cliché, inaccurate, boring, or totally fallacious, then sayings are perfectly fine. Unfortunately, this one hits all four.
June 16th, 2005 at 2:38 am
Like I said. It’s not totally wrong. Just not always right, but it’s not always wrong either. As far as overused, I haven’t heard it all that much. Maybe it’s because I’m from out west, and we don’t follow these movements like everyone else. Sure, we know what’s up, but we don’t get all bent out of shape on the little issues, like how a preacher talks or gestures.
If you want to make a Federal case out of it, go right ahead. I just don’t see it as an issue to send smoke signals of war to other camps.
June 16th, 2005 at 8:52 am
Emphasis on the ‘critical,’ eh?
I know what you mean on the one hand. And in these parts we do hear that statement a [i]lot[/i]. And we do tend to hear a lot of catchy phrases in preaching when it is the clear Word of God that is the only thing that will change us.
Nevertheless, as Raider said, it is not always a false statement, A lot of the Christian life does boil down to essentially those two choices. Will I get up early when my alarm goes off in order to have devotions, or will I sleep in….or read something fun and relaxing instead? Will I resist the “lust of the flesh” to eat another helping of lasagna and chocolate cake in order to better take care of the body God has given me to live in and thereby honor Him, or will I indulge? Sure, there are personal benefits and blessings when I obey God that will, in the end, please me as well (i.e., not eating those second helpings will make me look and feel better, and having devotions will enrich my life and spirit and give me wisdom to live by), but I am not usually thinking of those when making those choices — I am thinking, am I going to do what I want to do at this moment, or what I know God wants me to? The benefits and blessings come after obedience and sometimes may be a motivation, but, for me anyway, they aren’t usually a motvation right at that critical moment. Many, many of those choices in life do come down to whether I am going to please God or myself.
And…..there are probably many statements like that that are true in general principle that could be picked apart……but it is not the type of thing that is going to lead anybody astray by following it. I wouldn’t avoid taking a preacher seriously for using that statement. To use a couple of other catch-phrases we hear around here, I’d ‘pick my battles,’ and ‘this isn’t a hill I’d want to die on.’
There is also the idea of extending grace. Christ wants us to love others as He loved us, and one of the ways He loves us is by being gracious to us in out foibles. This is something I need to remind myself of often, because, being of an analytical mind I can tend to pick apart what others are saying as well.
June 16th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
Barbara H., I think you’re right that this isn’t a big deal: it’s not a “hill I’d want to die on.” However, I disagree when you say that the cliché “is not the type of thing that is going to lead anybody astray by following it.”
The danger is that it’s meant to provide ethical guidance, but in so doing it promotes a kind of asceticism. If pleasing God and pleasing self are mutually exclusive and exhaustive options, then I should be able to please God by displeasing myself–and that’s bad theology.
Raider, a false universal statement is always false even if it can be instantiated truly for a particular case. For example, “all Southerners are lazy” is still false, even if there are lazy Southerners. This cliché makes a universal statement (”just two choices . . . “) that remains false, even if one must make an occasional choice between pleasing God and one’s self.
June 16th, 2005 at 3:29 pm
Allow me to respectfully disagree. It doesn’t say, “There are always just two choices…” It simply says, “Just two choices…” I fint that this implies in this decision, not in all decisions, but just this one. Whereas, your statement is universal. The catch-phrase is question does not make a universal statement, even though it may be interpreted that way.
So again. It’s not always true, but it’s not always false either.
June 16th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
The word “just” implies universality. There are only two choices on the shelf, and no third option.
And I do agree that it’s not a huge deal, comparatively speaking. I wouldn’t leave a church over just this one statement. But personally, I find logical fallacies distracting in a sermon. After all, if the preacher doesn’t catch this minor logical fallacy, who’s to say he hasn’t missed a subtler, more dangerous fallacy somewhere else?
I imagine that most people just don’t think about what they’re saying when they’re reciting this statement, which in some ways is even more damning evidence against them. If they aren’t thinking about what they’re saying, why should I think about it?
Since this phrase adds nothing to the strength of the preacher’s argument–we’ve all heard the cliche dozens of times–and since it does take away from the strength of the argument by being fallacious, preachers ought to not use it.
June 16th, 2005 at 9:45 pm
You’re right, Raider, that the statement is not inherently universal. In that respect, it may be true in some cases and thus not intrinsically bad. However, the problem is that clichés have a tendency to become dictums, especially in Christian circles. Because of their familiarity and “catchiness,” they will come to mind when attempting to resolve issues. I have heard people argue against certain positions, from a nominally biblical basis, using the principal of this cliché as their basis: an action cannot be right because it is self-pleasing. (Note the difference between self-pleasing and self-serving.) As Bog Jones pointed out, that is incorrect. Though the blame for this fallacious thinking cannot be placed entirely on the cliché, it certainly can’t help the situation.
June 18th, 2005 at 11:08 am
I hope that nobody would give a “ditty” any more weight than a mere ditty is worth.
Living in terms of pleasing self is always at odds with living in terms of pleasing God. Always. Of course at times the two appear to dovetail, but the goals, the points, and the focus are always in contradiction with each other.
Yet it is true that God tells man that if man will obey Him and live according to His precepts, man will be the happier for it. That’s the only way it *can* work. Ultimately, the person who lives to please God has a better life than those who live to please themselves. But that’s because living with the goal to please self is a constant illusion, and living to please God is living in terms of unfailing truth.
But a ditty is just a ditty. Would anybody really believe that it covers every situtation or extensive sample testing?
Jeri
June 18th, 2005 at 11:34 pm
My previous comment was probably went too far; I don’t immediately dismiss a preacher if he says the phrase, nor do I really think that he’s lazy/inattentive. But I do tend to roll my eyes a little, and it becomes a little harder for me to get anything out of the message.
It’s just a minor annoyance I hadn’t heard anyone bring up before.
June 19th, 2005 at 4:08 pm
First off, when you quoted Proverbs, if thou speaketh no King James today, why doest thou write
King James?
Concerning about the only two choices, this is typical of fundamentalists. In the fundamentalist thinking, life is just black and white. Usually, it lead to the only one “choice”, theirs. The fundamentalist way is “the” only way. If you do not fit in, you are on the way to destruction. Christ came so we can be free. Christ did not die so that we can live under restriction.
June 19th, 2005 at 11:14 pm
I’m used to the KJV; it’s what I’ve heard ever since I was little. I read a couple of other versions (NASB and NET) too, but I more often think of verses in the KJV.
I think you’re not too far off when it comes to fundamentalists; there is a tendency to be more dogmatic than is justified on a lot of issues.
June 20th, 2005 at 9:20 am
James, I would disagree with that generalization of fundamentalists. I was one before I knew there was a word for it.
Granted there may be some like that — ok, more than there should be — but I don’t think it is true overall.
June 20th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
No, it’s not fallacious. The extreme makeovers are done to make the people that put on the show feel good about themselves, to be esteemed among society, or to obtain salvation by a means of works. If you want to lose the catchy cliche, Have it read, “…the natural self.” Naturally man wants to please himself.
June 21st, 2005 at 12:02 am
So you don’t believe that there is one unsaved altruistic person working on the show? Or in the world, apparently?
And what’s wrong with feeling good after helping someone? Does feeling good somehow invalidate the charity you perform?
In fact, what’s wrong with pleasing yourself so long as you do it within the boundaries of moral conduct? If I were offered the choice between a green bean casserole and a slice of pizza, I’d take the pizza every time, because it pleases me more. I guarantee that you’d choose a food that you like over one that you don’t, every time.
The statement is by nature fallacious because it says that there are two, and only two, choices available. It ignores the possibilities of pleasing both God and self, pleasing neither, or pleasing others. It also fails to take into account situations where one or the other party is neutral, as in food choices (I care, God doesn’t),
Now, as to whether the distinction is really important: No, not really. You know what people mean when they say it. But logically, it’s flawed. If you want to win over logical people, you should at least be aware of the problem with the statement, or better, not use it at all.
June 23rd, 2005 at 10:09 am
Blog Jones, I doubt Bryan is denying that there is such a thing as an altruistic unregenerate person. Altruism is an example of common grace—a God-given barrier apart from redeeming grace and special revelation that keeps a culture from being as depraved as it could be. But altruism in an unbeliever is still an example of pleasing self. It certainly is not an example of pleasing God (even the plowing of the wicked . . . )
As for your false dichotomy: God is not afraid of dichotomies. In Genesis we see a fork in the road: the way of the Seed or the way of the Serpent. In Deuteronomy 30, Moses only gave the people 2 choices in term of the covenant: I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Joshua reiterated Moses’ dichotomy with his choose this day whom you will serve (Jo 24:15). The wisdom literature makes it clear that you can either fear God or not. Jesus claims to be THE way to heaven, naturally inferring that other way leads somewhere else. Other dichotomies: light/dark, natural man/spiritual man, new man/old man
You advanced as an argument that pleasing yourself is not mutually exclusive from pleasing God. Even in the Christian Hedonism schema, pleasing yourself is NEVER the goal in itself. Pursuing joy is the way that you please God. When you delight in the Lord your desires naturally align with his (Ps 37:4). In the end, pleasing God by enjoying Him is still the goal.
Perhaps you need to examine whether you have been influenced more by postmodernism’s abhorrence of absolutes/dichotomies/categories than by Scripture.
(BTW, in case you were wondering, the “C” in my handle does stand for Collier. So, the above post is an apology on my dad’s behalf, though he will probably never hear of it. I could be wrong, but I do not think my post is a case of blind loyalty: I honestly believe that he nailed it and that you need to rethink.)
Grace and peace.
June 23rd, 2005 at 3:59 pm
I don’t have a problem with dichotomies per se. I have a problem with false dichotomies.
As far as Christian Hedonism: Didn’t you just prove my point? You’re pleasing both God and self.
When you lead someone to Christ, do you not rejoice? There is also rejoicing in heaven. You’ve pleased both God and yourself.
June 23rd, 2005 at 5:10 pm
Re: Christian Hedonism. This proves your point not at all. Seeking your joy in God, according to Piper, is an act of supreme obedience. By doing so you are pleasing God, just not in the way traditionally taught (rote obedience).
When I cited all the dichotomies in Scripture perhaps I should have said that God does not have a problem with the dichotomy under discussion.
Try to think about it in kingdom terms. Every action, every choice advances someone’s kingdom. And there are only two.
Grace and peace.
June 24th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
Much of the discussion fits well what one writer calls “mental filibusters.” See http://www.worldmag.com/displayarticle.cfm?id=10628. It comes very close to “sitting in the seat of the scornful.” We preachers need to hold ourselves to a high standard in our sermon preparation and ministry efforts. I think you will find, however, that it is easier to be critical of ministers in the name of “critical thinking” than to minister, and I hope you won’t fall prey to the temptation to do the one in the name of the other.
Even many of the Proverbs, which are inspired, contain pithy statements that can be challenged as “false dichotomy” unless you understand that the writer is using pithy statements (statements that come easily to mind) to train his son to be wise. In the heat of the battle of temptation, you aren’t sitting down trying to remember your worldview; you are looking for the next knot in the rope to keep you from slipping off. This kind of “critical thinking” unties the knot for people who need help by shaming them into thinking they shouldn’t put any stock in pithy statements–not if they want to be known as “critical thinkers.”
Repetition is also a valid teaching tool. The Bible is filled with examples, not the least of which is Peter’s promise that he would continue to repeat himself (I Peter 1:12-15). You will find yourself using it much when you try to disciple your children and others. God used it Himself.
Spurgeon said, “Wise men can go to school anywhere.” I would guess that he thought he could even learn something from someone’s pithy statements. In fact he wrote a whole book of them himself.
A pithy statement from Proverbs–and many like it–applies to blogging, snack shop discussions and resident hall rump session as well. “In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin; but he that refraineth his lips is wise” (10:19). Just because we have the American liberty to say something and the technology to say it, doesn’t mean we should ignore the commands of scripture that regulate our speech.
May God bless you and equip you to effectively serve Him as you consider these things.
June 24th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
OK, point taken. No point in wasting more time splitting hairs.
June 24th, 2005 at 3:27 pm
Now for something completely different: What exactly is a “resident hall rump session”?
The things I miss by being a town student….
June 25th, 2005 at 11:37 pm
Wow. I want Evan Collier and Jim Berg to come comment on my blog too! When I get featured on SharperIron, I may get only one or two comments from it. (I’m assuming that’s how they found you.) Not that I’m jealous or anything.
June 26th, 2005 at 12:29 am
Oh! That’s cool. I didn’t even know I was featured on Sharper Iron until your comment. (Someone needs to register them with Technorati.)
Actually, I’m not a big fan of SI, mainly because I don’t like a steady diet of religious arguments.
Incidentally, this was one reason I didn’t care much for my Bible Doctrines class. In every chapter, on every minor tenet of Christianity, there were at least three different points of view on the subject. Worse, Ryrie would say things like “The liberal view on this topic is ____ …. the biblical view is _____,” as if the conservative view is by definition biblical.
From my brief glances at SI, that seems to be the tone there too. I don’t like that; believe it or not, I’m really not all that argumentative of a person. Even today, speaking in tongues came up at work. I pointed out I Cor 14:19, but I figure, if people get something out of it, let ‘em do it. Who knows, maybe I’m wrong about speaking in tongues.
That’s something I think is missing from Fundamentalism: Any willingness at all to admit that Fundamentalists might be wrong.
Anyways, long tangent. But it was really cool to see Dr. Berg’s name in my comments. Kind of sobering too… I’m going to have to watch what I say around here from now on!
June 28th, 2005 at 7:07 am
Unfortunately, preachers — even good, godly fundamental ones who want to do right and are basically on the right track — can sometimes (or often, in some cases) make a statement that is either a little off or patently untrue. A couple of days ago I heard a radio preacher whose name most fundmantalists would know make the statement that if you don’t have peace and joy in your heart, you’re not saved. I couldn’t believe it. I might agree that if someone [i]never[/i] has peace or joy, that is likely an indicator that they might not be saved. And being a Christian without peace or joy is certainly an indication that something is wrong — but it [i]is[/i] possible to be a Christian and experience a lack of joy and peace if we’re out of fellowship with God. Just this morning I woke up early and turned on the radio, and a preacher who would be well known in the Greenville area was speaking from the verse, “None have I in heaven but Thee.” He said that if we can come to church on Sunday and desire Christ then but not desire Him the rest of the week, then we have a counterfeit Christianity. Now, if he means by that our Christian experience is not what it ought to be, then I’d agree, but if he is saying that a person like that is not a Christian, I’d disagree — as Christians we are often distracted from our first love and need to constantly be sure we are giving Him the preeminence — but if we’re not desiring Him as we ought, though that is sign of a need to refocus, it doesn’t mean we’re not saved.
When preachers make statements that seem to be off to some degree, at best it distracts from the message, because the first response is , “Huh?” and then a thinking through of what was said in light of Scripture, and so I miss the next several things he has to say (and I do have to remind myself to wait and to listen so that as he explains what he means, what seemed at first to be off might make sense.) But if, when searching the Scriptures to see if these things are so (as the Bereans were commended for doing), I come to the conclusion that a certain statement [i]isn’t[/i] a reflection of Biblical truth, then it can undermine my confidence in that preacher.
Of course, no one is perfect and sometimes when a person is speaking in public their thoughts are sometimes running ahead of what they are saying, and they can say some things that don’t make sense. We have to take things in context and not be hypercritical and nitpicky.
And sayings, if they are right on target Scripturally, can have their place in reminding us of Bibilical truth. Just last Sunday a guest preacher had a humorous story that perfectly illustrated the truth he was preaching about, and the “punch line” recalls that truth in just a few words. Since it was a humorous thing and wouldn’t make sense out of context I don’t know if it would qualify as a “pithy” saying, but it is one that I’ll long remember with a smile and a reminder of the truth it reflects.
One of the godliest preachers I have ever known, Dr. Mark Minnick, used to say that when he first began preaching, he would approach a given passage with the question, “What can I say about this passage?” After a while he realized that that was the wrong question, and the right question was, “What does this passage [i]say?[/i]” He also used to say that nothing we say about the Scripture is as effective as giving the very words of God Himself. If you’ve ever heard him preach, you know God has gifted him in bringing out what a passage [i]says.[/i] Unfortunately, the great majoity of the preaching I hear is of the “What can I say about it?” variety, and that grieves me. I was sad when I heard he wasn’t teaching freshmen any more, but glad that he is teaching in the seminary.
I don’t know Mr. Collier and have never heard him preach, though I think I may have read an article or two he has written, but he has the reputation of being a godly man and preacher, and the Lord has used him in great ways. As far as the statement at hand — as I said in a comment above. I think it is for the most part true. I think even the proposed third choice of pleasing others is an outgrowth of pleasing either self or God. Altruistic people are so because they derive pleasure from it, and that is not necessarily wrong, but it is not a pleasing of someone else apart from pleasing self or God. It’s even possible to please someone else to the point of self-sacrifice, but that is still usually because doing so is what self wants to do or what we feel God wants us to do, so I think it still comes down to God or self.
But I do agree that it is possible to please God and self (and even others) at the same time and those choices are not [i]always[/i] mutually exclusive. If a person is walking with God and wanting what He wants, then ultimately pleasing God will please himself too (Psalm 16:11: “At Thy right nad there are pleasures for ever more.”)
But often the everyday choices of life as the flesh lusts against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh do come down to just that — which one am I going to please; which one am I going to yield to?
July 10th, 2005 at 10:05 am
You know BlogJones, they have your number. I’d be quaking in my boots right now, but since you are a townie, you might be ok.
February 10th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Washington State Living Will Laws…
It is your right to make your own healthcare decisions in Washington State. The decisions you make can be as simple as the type of meals you’d like, or as difficult as choosing whether or not to receive life-sustaining treatments….