'Agree to disagree' isn’t how Jesus handled false teaching

For over fifteen years, I’ve been a prolific contributor to online theological and church-related discussions and debates. However, the robust nature of such debates is not for the faint-hearted.

For example, there is little room for the widespread modern tendency for reducing disputes to nothing more than a difference of opinion; especially when that tendency results in the well-known "peace at any price" mantra: “Let’s agree to disagree!”

Instead, when logical fallacies are committed, there is a good chance that someone will challenge them.

How did Jesus respond to logical fallacies?

Scripturally, that challenge is more in keeping with the responses of Jesus and the apostles to their detractors than "Let’s agree to disagree".

In fact, in the Gospels and Paul’s letters, there are several instances in which different logical fallacies are identified and exposed.

For example, in Matthew 22, the Sadducees (who were members of the Jewish priestly aristocracy) tested Jesus with a question about a woman who married seven brothers in succession, each of whom died without leaving children. They asked: “In the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”

In so doing, they mistakenly assumed that the afterlife was no more than an endless perpetuation of earthly life. However, instead of falling into their trap, Jesus’ reply exposed that assumption as a category mistake (when you mix up things that don’t belong together, like asking “What colour is the number five?” - because numbers don’t have colours): “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.”

Similarly, Jesus exposed a logical fallacy in the counter-argument that the Pharisees deployed to justify their trivialisation of divorce.

Jesus' reply emphasised the original rule for marriage by pointing to Genesis 1v27 and 2v24: “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matthew 19v4-6).

The Pharisees replied rhetorically and appealed to Moses’ authority: “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus’ ensuing response revealed the strict context of that exception (God’s forbearance of human stubbornness), which the Pharisees sought to abandon: “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.”

A modern-day example: same-sex marriage

Fast forward to the 21st century, and it is unfortunate that this self-same fallacy persists in liberal arguments supporting same-sex marriage.

For example, evangelicals have referred to the mention of procreation in the Book of Common Prayer to demonstrate opposite-sex requirement in the Anglican doctrine of marriage: “The union of husband and wife in heart, body and mind was ordained by God: for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord.”

In response, liberal supporters of same-sex marriage highlight that marriage is open to infertile straight couples who can’t procreate, thereby suggesting that medical infertility is analogous (similar or alike in some way) to same-sex couples’ lack of procreative capacity.

What’s missing from their reasoning is any distinction between the medical infertility of straight couples and the constitutive incapacity (basic inability to procreate) of same-sex couples.

Legally, marriage is open to infertile straight couples because the State has no interest in persistently intruding upon family privacy to ascertain fertility. Apart from privacy considerations, marriage is open to infertile straight couples because, if a cure for their medical infertility is found, there is always a possibility of procreation (however remote). In contrast, that reasoning can’t be extended to same-sex couples, who are constitutively incapable of procreation.

As with Jesus’ interaction with the Pharisees, we should pray that, by exposing these kinds of fallacies, those who propagate them will be prompted to reflect deeply and repent.

My own prayer is that more Christians will abandon the "agree to disagree" mindset and, instead, embrace Jesus’ example of thoughtfully identifying and exposing the logical fallacies of those who propagate false teaching.