Practical Discernment For Beginners.

Today I wish to look at some skills required for discernment. Over the past few sermonettes I have looked at the need for discernment and it's biblical foundations. We have also looked at the need for discernment.

Now it is time to look a little at the practical aspects of it.

To start with we will look at some of the easy options - low intensity flames that will lick away idle speculation and ill conceived notions as well as occasions of the speaker not knowing what they are talking about.

Theology, it can be argued, is the science (body of knowledge) of the study of God. God is consistent and by studying His Word and works we can learn about His nature.

This consistency leads us to the need to study with a similar consistency basing our knowledge not on guesses or speculation but the hard facts of the Bible. This gives us a solid foundation.

While the logic of God confounds the logic of the world it is logical. From here we can move on to expecting the messages of the men of God to be equally logical. This allows us beginners to test teaching on it's own consistency which we can do even if we know very little about the subject being taught.

We test the presented teaching to see if it can stand up to a little critical attention. We look for flaws to see how stable it is. A good and valid teaching will continue to stand even after all weaknesses have been hammered and pushed.

Basic Test:

Does it follow? Is it coherent. The most basic test is if the teacher has even made a coherent point. If you could not even follow the argument then the conclusion is worthless.

Even if the points made are coherent are they supported? Claims made without any evidence should likewise be rejected. "...because it is" and "...because I say so" are not valid arguments.

If the speaker states that John Wesley had a secret meeting with the Pope and they formed a plan to rule the world then the speaker best be willing to provide a good amount of evidence or everything based upon this statement will actually be without foundation.

Straw Man Test:

The "straw man" fallacy is a logical failure were the debater attempts to win not by making any valid points but by destroying the weakest supporting argument for the opposing viewpoint. If the preacher has done this and then gone on to assume a point proven then we have a preacher with no valid supporting evidence for the point. So we reject it as unproven.

Example: we try to prove creation in six days by showing that the theory of trans-thingy-wat-not is impossible and having "smashed" the opposing theory we stand back and claim our point is proven.

In many ways we are going to be doing likewise to the message we have been given - looking for the straw men. However, even if we find and destroy all the straw men a good, well formed, message should still stand. We have no theory to prove and just wish to "kick the tires" a little to see how things stand up.

Non Sequitur:

"It Does Not Follow" is an argument that abandons logic for banging the pulpit and shouting.

For example, if I said "...because Moses was a prophet and so was Samuel therefore Jesus enjoyed eating peanuts" you would rightly dismiss everything I had to say as totally silly. You would, rightly, reject my entire message. The temptation with well hyped preachers is to skip the bad logic but continue to take the speaker seriously. We need to be brave and use the wisdom God gives to disregard foolish and wrong teachings.

The person, not the proof:

Sometimes preachers advocate a point because this or that famous person believes it or they attack and claim to have disproven an idea because some disfavoured person believes it.

Examples include: "use Microsoft, Bill Gates does, and he's very very rich", "don't build high-speed roads, Hitler did that and look where it got him" or "The Pope subscribes to this theory so it must be correct".

With all such flimsy arguments they prove nothing else besides the lack of the ability in preacher to form a good argument.

Assumption:

The speaker starts from an assumption or other unproven stance. Everything that follows is, therefore, a conjecture and nothing is proven. The foundations did not actually exist and so what was built was imaginary.

Unrelated evidence:

A classic among flaws.

Example: "It is vital for every church goer to help wash my car, the Lords prayer says 'forgive us our sins' and likewise I need to forgive those who don't clean my car."

In the above example the speaker used scripture but at no point proved the statement that church goers must clean his car.

Unproven Concept:

This is a little more subtle. Here the speaker introduces a concept that is not widely held to be true or recognised by the group as a foundation truth. In order to be valid the speaker must provide supplementary evidence to prove the concept introduced.

Example: we are debating the validity of the John Huges film "The Breakfast Club" as a good illustration for getting a message across. Bob points out that it is rated 15 and that the youngest member of the audience is only six. (this is a valid point).

However, the group is still unsure as it has some great moment that makes the point well. Bob also points out that the geek espouses a view point that is unnecessary papal and therefore we might expose the group to the "evils of catholisism".

Although Bob is satisfied with his conclusion (about the catholic church) the general understanding within the group (on catholics) is "no opinion" so he has introduced an unproven concept. For the argument to stand he must both establish the connection with catholic dogma but he must also prove that such Dogma is wrong.

Bob's second argument carries no weight as it references a concept alien to the group and to be honest makes him sound just a little like a wacky conspiracy ttheorist which undermines his first point about the audience age range.

Theological Point without theology:

Sometimes a preacher uses a really good illustration but rather than enhancing a message with a great illustration the illustration takes the place of any real evidence. A perfectly reasonable sermon can actually be found to be a little light on the substance side on a second inspection when you notice no scripture backs the theological point being made.

Conclusion:

I have not attempted to conclusivly prove any points and so the purpose of my conclusion is to simply wrap up this introductory article.

We have looked at a number of simple signs of a weak or poorly thought out sermon, teaching or argument which I hope will provide you with some simple tools for testing the consistency and quality of any sermon you hear, read or even write yourself.

If you are interested in finding out more about basic logic and debate this page provides a nice overview.

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=logical%20fallacy