It’s not that we can’t ever generalize, lump people into groups, or argue from specific examples to broader themes, but if we mean to indict a whole group, we must show that the indictment is largely true of the whole group. Otherwise, we are just signaling to our in-group that we are against the correct out-group.

Of all the memorable statements uttered by Charles Spurgeon, this advice from Lectures to My Students has stuck in my head as much as anything the great preacher said or wrote:
The sensible minister will be particularly gentle in argument. He, above all men, should not make the mistake of fancying that there is force in temper, and power in speaking angrily….Try to avoid debating with people. State your opinion and let them state theirs. If you see that a stick is crooked, and you want people to see how crooked it is, lay a straight rod down beside it; that will be quite enough. But if you are drawn into controversy, use very hard arguments and very soft words.
So many wise sentiments in these few sentences. We could talk about how “the Lord’s servant,” even as he rightly contends for the faith, “must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness” (2 Tim. 2:24–25). We could talk about the folly of mistaking forcefulness for true spiritual power. We could talk about the wisdom of avoiding protracted debates, by stating your opinion and then moving on. All of that is pure gold.
But I want to focus on the last sentence in the paragraph above. I want to suggest two ways we can make our arguments harder, which in this case means better, more careful, and more persuasive.
First, we can make our arguments better by focusing on the what instead of the why.
Let’s suppose your church is divided over what kind of new flooring to get in the fellowship hall. One side wants to continue with carpet, but you are on the side that wants hardwood. You might argue that the hardwood costs less, or is easier to clean, or fits with the look and feel of the rest of the church. Those are what arguments. The other side might not agree with your reasons, but they are rational, objective arguments to consider.
But suppose you make the case for hardwood flooring in a different way. You insinuate that the only reason some people want carpet is because their grandparents own a carpet company, and they are hoping to get a financial windfall from the church’s decision. Or you suggest that the pro-carpet side has always tried to control the church, and this is about holding on to their power. Or you insist that non-Christians are repelled by carpet in the fellowship hall and that the pro-carpet side doesn’t care about reaching unbelievers with the gospel. These are all why arguments. In this second scenario, you are arguing that the other side is motivated by greed, by a love for power, and by an indifference toward evangelism.
We can see in this (hopefully) absurd example that why arguments can easily create more heat than light. This is not surprising because why arguments tend to be more personal, more ethically charged, and more difficult to prove. Of course, why arguments are not always wrong. Maybe the pro-carpet folks really are in cahoots with Big Carpet, maybe they really are a cabal of old-time powerbrokers, maybe they really are gospel-less infidels. Sometimes the why arguments are important arguments to make. But—and here’s the key—those things can’t just be asserted or insinuated. Arguments must be made. They can’t just be thrown out there because you’ve decided to connect the dots in one way, when those same dots could be connected in several other ways. If the pro-carpet ringleader has a grandparent in the carpet industry, he could be scheming for a kickback, or he could be trying to care for his aging grandparents, or it could be that he grew up familiar with all the benefits of carpet, or the connection could be a pure coincidence because the man hasn’t talked to his grandparents in years and they sell a different kind of carpet anyway.
Read More
Related Posts:

If we do not accept the symbolic truth of the Exodus account, then the propositional truths in the Bible diminish in potency. If the Bible student does not understand that the Exodus is the redemptive story of the Old Testament, then how can the Bible student understand the significance of redemptive story of Christ in the New Testament? If the Bible student cannot understand the typology of Moses, how can the Bible student appreciate the greater Moses? If the Bible student does not understand the narrative of the Exodus, there is little chance to understanding the Book of Hebrews.

Revelation is generally divided into two categories, general and special. Special revelation is revelation revealed through the writers of the Bible; general being the revealed truth of God through nature.
Within special revelation, a distinction should be made between propositional truth and narrative truth. Propositional truth is akin to the didactic truths written by Paul in his Epistles. Reformed people and evangelicals broadly are drawn to propositional statements in the Bible. They lend themselves to tweets, bumper stickers, catch phrases. John 3:16 is the paradigmatic example. However, large swaths of Scripture are not written propositionally.
RC Sproul called a certain hermeneutic relating to this appeal to catch phrase Christianity “lucky dipping.” In his example of lucky dipping, a Bible student opens the Bible and reads “Then he went off and hanged himself.” (Matthew 27:5) The hypothetical Bible student then flips to another page of Scripture and reads “Go and do likewise.” (Luke 10:37) Adopting a “lucky dipping” hermeneutic is not advisable. To understand Scripture, it is necessary to understand the metanarrative of the Bible.
In the history of special revelation, Paul and his didactic style comes at the end of special revelation as a kind of capstone to Moses, the prophets, and the writers of the New Testament. To be sure, there are didactic texts in the Old Testament and in the Gospels, but the point is that the most distilled didactic teaching is with Paul because he has the benefit of looking back at the Messianic fulfillments of Christ in his death, resurrection, ascension, and Pentecost.
Accordingly, Christians are left with what to do about narrative. For most of the church, the approach appears to be to ignore it. However, ignoring the metanarrative of Scripture comes at a cost of distorting the propositional truth that the church embraces today and reducing the Christian faith to the affirmation of particular propositional truths instead of an embodied reliance on the person of Christ.
In George Sayour’s article Jordan Peterson and Christianity critiquing Peterson, we have examples of both of the failings described above with the loss of narrative truth. He states, “It is Jung’s archetypes that forms the basis for Peterson’s insights (some of them very good) and classes on Genesis and Exodus.  This spiritualizing of the text yet denying its historicity is nothing knew [sic] either.  Furthermore, he has consistently held out that the Bible is true even if it is not true historically.”
Sayour makes several fair observations critiquing Dr. Peterson’s understanding of the Trinity, the natures of Christ, and the historicity of Genesis and Exodus. However, one problem with Sayour’s article is that, while the historicity of Genesis and Exodus should be affirmed as a matter of orthodoxy, it does not then follow that Peterson’s assertions of the symbolic truth of Genesis and Exodus should be denied. Sayour does not say in the article definitively whether he denies the symbolic truth of the Genesis and Exodus account that Dr. Peterson discusses; however, he also does not affirm the truth of the symbology of Genesis and Exodus. Symbology which Dr. Peterson extensively discusses in his Biblical lectures.
Both aspects, the propositional and the symbolic truth, should be affirmed. The reason why millions of viewers watch Peterson in his Genesis and Exodus lectures is because he has gleaned behind where the church has left truth in the field. Peterson takes the Bible seriously and expounds on truths about the Bible in the same way Plato and the ancient Greek philosophers illuminated important truths. Where intellectuals have spoken truthfully, the church should affirm those statements – especially in those areas where the church has failed to maintain a consistent witness.
Perhaps the church is tempered in engagement of the narrative by a desire to avoid the type of modernist liberalism that the forebearers in the faith fought (e.g., Machen). Symbolism in Scripture is subjective. The church today dislikes subjectivism in part because it lives in postmodern subjectivism culture. So for conservative Christians, best to play it safe and say nothing about narrative which is subjective. However, even during the throes of fights with modernists, Reformed theologians did not distance themselves from understanding special revelation symbolically. The best example is Geerhardus Vos in his book Biblical Theology. The discipline of Biblical theology (better styled, the history of special revelation) engages the narrative in Scripture from the ontological perspective and maps the process of God revealing himself to a people he ultimately redeems.
If we do not accept the symbolic truth of the Exodus account, then the propositional truths in the Bible diminish in potency. If the Bible student does not understand that the Exodus is the redemptive story of the Old Testament, then how can the Bible student understand the significance of redemptive story of Christ in the New Testament? If the Bible student cannot understand the typology of Moses, how can the Bible student appreciate the greater Moses? If the Bible student does not understand the narrative of the Exodus, there is little chance to understanding the Book of Hebrews.
Note that the symbolic truth and the propositional truths in Scripture are not conflicting, but rather complimentary. Moses was a real man who lived in history, and simultaneously Moses is a picture of Jesus Christ. These truths are not inconsistent.
As for the second cost of ignoring narrative truth which reduces truth to abstract disembodied affirmations, Sayour states “To the Christian, Jesus Christ is not an example of one who attained the Logos through his suffering and obedience, but rather He IS the Divine Logos from the beginning of all time.” First, it is true that Jesus always existed and was never created; however, Jesus is also perfected through suffering (Hebrews 2:10). Does this perfection mean that he was not morally pure and righteous from before all time? No, it means that in order to fulfill his role as High Priest, Jesus had to suffer to identify with the people which he was saving and also to atone for the people he was saving (Hebrews 2:17).
If the church does not understand the centrality of the suffering obedience of Christ, it will not understand the imitation of Christ. Christians must connect the narrative of their suffering with the ultimate suffering of Christ. If the church fails to comprehend these matters, it will be left as an empty shell-like figure of orthodox shibboleths and catch phrases. The call of the Christian is to suffer for Christ’s sake; not to act as the keeper of dead truths.
Perhaps this misunderstanding explains why today the church in America has diminished influence on culture and politics. The disembodied affirmations lead to perspectives like ‘Christianity is simply the formula of justification and saving souls. When the barbarians make me recite that Jesus is not Lord or affirm a salvation of works, then God is interested in my cultural engagement.’ However, holding to the full truth of Scripture – both narrative and didactic – leads to a life of obedience and ultimately suffering mirroring that of Christ Jesus. Christ’s claim on the Christian life is without limit. By grappling with the narrative of the Bible, Christians will be transformed and will find that their suffering in Christ has meaning. Dr. Peterson frequently observes the relationship between suffering and meaning, and if Dr. Peterson added the words “in Christ” to his comments, he would have a fuller description of that relationship.
All speakers have wheat and chaff in their statements, and Christians should diligently search the Scriptures to discern speakers’ truth claims. That said, Dr. Peterson has recovered the redemptive narrative that the church has forgotten or neglected. This redemptive narrative, when combined with orthodox systematic theology, has the potential for breathing fresh life into enduring truth.
John Westercamp a member of Southside Reformed Presbyterian Church in Indianapolis, Indiana

Written by Bruce A. Little |
Monday, September 27, 2021
While evangelical Christians nervously were wringing their hands, most did little to rise to the spiritual challenge. In fact, their naivete fueled intellectual laziness and biblical illiteracy. Pulpits continued to preach weightless sermons, musicians started writing meaningless feel-good choruses, while business model programs were developed in an attempt to breathe life back into the church. However, little to no time was dedicated to developing the Christian mind in the lives of the faithful to prepare them for the onslaught against truth that was to come.

There was a time in America when Christianity had the presumption, that is to say, Christianity was considered true, and all other religions were measured against it. During that time Christians were happy with religious freedom because they were majority voice. It was assumed that Christianity was the unofficial religion of America and so it would ever be. Arguments for that conclusion were made by claiming those who came to the new country were Christians seeking freedom to practice their religion. It is true that a case can be made that that was at least in part right.
Furthermore, it is also true that America’s primary political documents were heavily influenced by Christian principles. Undoubtedly this explains the presence of the Decalogue on the Supreme Court building.
Furthermore, in reading primary documents of the Founding Fathers the truth of Christianity was clearly on their minds even if all did not subscribe to a personal faith in Christ. So, I think it fair to give the argument that Christianity had a strong presence in the life of America its due.
The question is, however, how did that give Christianity a permanent status as more people immigrated to this country or how could it guarantee that children born of Christian parents would necessarily choose the Christian way?
Unfortunately, over the last 70 years, there has been a thinning out of the Christian voice in American culture and today many young people growing up in the church are choosing to walk away when they become of age. This has led to frantic attempts by evangelicals to court the younger generation by making the church worldly friendly, that is to make the church look and sound much like the world. This is done in spite of courting theological treason. I suppose many Christians who belonged to the greatest generation (Tom Brokaw’s term) evangelical Christians in America thought it would always be religiously as it had been. Even in face of seismic cultural changes signaling the loss of many traditional beliefs, evangelicals held out hope that it was only a cultural ‘phase.’
Read More