Guilt By Association

Years ago as a young pastor in Oakland, California, I was preaching a sermon series focusing on the Kingdom of God. I had recently read some books from E. Stanley Jones, the famous Methodist missionary, some exceptional Baptist dispensational writers, as well as some reformed Presbyterian authors. All of these camps, despite being polar opposites on numerous theological subjects, had some fascinating thoughts concerning the Kingdom of God. I decided to dig into the Scripture and determine where I was going to land on this important topic. Anyone who knows me knows how meticulous and precise I can be with such things. After much serious study I shared my findings and my conclusions in this sermon series. It was no “private” interpretation I can assure you. It was not only orthodox Christianity, but it was ruthlessly Scriptural. I would have it no other way.

A lady in my congregation made an appointment with me to discuss her “concerns” over my sermons. She had recently been watching a famous TV evangelist who was instructing people to avoid ministers such as myself who were advocating certain aspects concerning the Kingdom. According to the TV minister, anyone not holding his views on the timing of the Kingdom were “New Agers”. She quizzed me over my terminology (all biblical mind you), my resource books (all orthodox mind you), and my eschatology (while different from hers was still within the mainstream). I was patient as this arm chair theologian quizzed me over an hour on her “concerns” as presented by the television minister. To make a long story short, she became convinced I was a heretic that was subverting the true faith. Her reasoning…I had read some books the television evangelist didn’t like. I was guilty of theological treason because I had some (in her estimation) “questionable” books on my shelf and used similar vocabulary as the New Agers (which were biblical terms).

This was my introduction to what is called in the Latin, argumentum ad hominem, or “guilt by association”. It is also known as: association fallacy, bad company fallacy, company that you keep fallacy, they’re not like us fallacy, or transfer fallacy. It is when the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group who is already viewed negatively.

Simplistically, this is the logic:

Person 1 states that Y is true.
Person 2 also states that Y is true, and person 2 is a moron.
Therefore, person 1 must be a moron too.

Let’s provide some illustrations…

Delores is a big supporter for equal pay for equal work. This is the same policy that all those extreme feminist groups support. Therefore, Delores must be a part of extreme feminism.

-or-

Roger drives a Volkswagen. Volkswagen was originally distributed by the Nazi’s. Therefore, Roger must support Nazi policies.

Are you getting the picture? Guilt by association. It is the simpleton’s way of avoiding the rigors of thinking and critical study. Sadly, it is used far too often in both religious and political discussion and debate. Consider how unfair it would be to say the following:

Many Republicans rely on the Ayn Rand Institute to critique socialist policies. Ayn Rand was a philosophical atheist. Therefore, the Republican Party must be full of atheists.

Guilt by association…

Republicans did it to Obama.

Democrats are doing it to Trump.

Christians do it to each other.

I’ve been sensitized to this whole fallacy again with the founding and creation of The Bonhoeffer Institute. The Institute’s training material is an outgrowth of my syllabus for a graduate school (Masters) level class on cultural reformation. The material was originally for pastors who have some bachelors level training in theology. That means the students are expected to be able to synthesize concepts and generally be able to think critically. As with any graduate course, we cover material that will challenge students to better articulate what they believe and why they believe it, especially in the area of cultural reformation. However, as the manual has been released it has been reviewed (attacked) for rubbing shoulders with people some consider dubious.

It has manifested in several ways for me.

First, I was challenged to the theological orthodoxy of the Institute based on the face of Bonhoeffer who was trained in the schools of higher criticism in 1930’s Germany. Since I used Bonhoeffer’s face and name as the trade mark of the school, I must therefore be a theological liberal or at best a “neo-evangelical”. Really? Perhaps to those who do not know me it might be an innocent oversight, but I can assure you that I am anything but a theological liberal and this Institute is clearly founded on the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Bonhoeffer’s theology was unquestionably morphing to a far more evangelical viewpoint before his death at age 39.

The second area is ostensibly a “heresy” insinuation because I quote certain Reconstructionists in my course outline and provide some of their writings in my course bibliography. If you Internet search the term “reconstructionist” you will find all sorts of critiques concerning their application of biblical law to the civic arena. Some of it is valid, but honestly, most of it is not. Most of the critiques come from people unwilling to take the time to read the whole book or review the whole movement. It’s what I call, “Google” critique. People use search engines to find reviews which already validate their negative presuppositions and they simply “cut and paste” another’s critique…whether it is valid or not. You may disagree theologically with a reconstructionist. You may not like their reformed theology or their predominantly post-millennial eschatology, but to call them “heretics” or “cultic”, well, you have now entered into an alternate universe. You are practicing argumentum ad hominem, guilt by association.

I would not label myself as a “reconstructionist” in the formal definition of the movement. I am not sure they would even embrace me as one. Most tend to be cessationists while I am a continuationist. Most are post-millennial and preterists while I can’t be pinned down exactly on either of those two points. I appreciate their optimism of the effects of the Gospel. I think their hermeneutic is incredibly consistent and honestly, compelling. There are points of application I even think are spot-on. But again, I won’t be invited to speak at any of their conferences anytime soon.

My point in writing this blog is to simply clear the air on what The Bonhoeffer Institute is and is not. In a few days, The Alliance of South Carolina will be hosting an Institute for numerous pastors and Christian leaders. I am grateful that the Executive Director, Pastor Mike Gonzalez, understands both the need for cultural reformation and a new biblical paradigm to effect it. We have been colleagues and friends for years and perhaps demonstrate in our relationship what real unity looks like. We agree on the essentials of the Christian faith and embrace the inerrancy of the Scripture. We have non-essential doctrinal areas of which we disagree and will banter good-naturedly. That being said, he endorses the material completely because he knows me and has done his own homework in this area. The Alliance is committed to a biblical paradigm to change the current political dysfunction. I appreciate his willingness to join me on the tip of that spear.

It is healthy as new paradigms are unveiled to solicit honest reviews and even general critiques. What is not healthy is sophomoric attempts at discrediting a much needed training program through false and erroneous information and fallacies. I am as precise as the next person when it comes to the need for sound doctrine, but let’s be careful as Christians we don’t make our doctrine the only doctrine by which Christ can be honored. The road is narrow yes, but it’s wider than just a personal viewpoint.