I personally try to model a legitimate “both/and” to my congregation. As a pastor and as a nationalist of the Christian variety, I lead the congregation in prayer each Lord’s Day, and consistently ask that  God would grant reformation to His Church and revival to this nation. It’s a sort of foil towards those who make the illegitimate “either/or” regarding my stated position.

I am not the shy, retiring sort, in real life or online. I believe and practice according to the old adage  “men speak directly,” which endears me to some, but is absolutely unacceptable to others. So when  issues arise, whether they be related to the family, our civil society or are more more ecclesial in  nature, I have but one voice, tempered (it is hoped) by the character of Christ, especially that  characteristic which is referenced in Matthew 12:20, “a bruised reed he will not break, and a  smoldering wick he will not quench…” Some folks are genuinely trying to ascertain what’s true or not, and can engage in good-faith conversations.

However, some folks are so very entrenched in their unproven assumptions that it’s hard for me not to go for their logical jugular at times.  In the best of situations, it can still be difficult in application, especially during these days where pandering to feminine sensibilities in our modern evangelical churches is just the cost of doing business. That is, if you want to keep some families in attendance. One man’s direct speech is  another man’s “you’re just being uncharitable.” Some men get used to operating within that environment—it’s the very air they breathe—and have adapted themselves to it. I’m aware of  Churches that seem otherwise vibrant and believing, but are still cranking out emotive liberal women of both sexes, and doing so in the name of having a big tent. I would love to sit in on one of their staff meetings, and what a rollicking great 10 minutes that would be! “Security—you’re needed in the pastor’s study.”

Either/Or Fallacy

“Do not answer a fool according to his folly,  

Or you will also be like him.  

Answer a fool as his folly deserves,  

That he not be wise in his own eyes.”

–Proverbs 26:4-5  

Recently, I’ve used a certain handy old phrase in quite a few conversations—“you can walk and chew gum at the same time, you know.” It’s a verbal meme of sorts, and conveys the idea that the person you’re addressing is making a kind of excluded middle fallacy, commonly known as an  “either/or.” So we’re not confusing things, there are most definitely genuine either/or issues we grapple with and proclaim as gospel truth—as in, it’s either Christ or chaos; one is either in Christ, or in Adam; either spiritually alive or spiritually dead; you are either for Jesus or against Him—those are real binaries. The Bible uncompromisingly presents a real either life/or death framework when it comes to the gospel and the nature of God’s character. The fallacy of the either/or comes in when there are genuinely more options than just the two being presented.  

For example, a common either/or fallacy is often cited when discussing the Lord’s Supper, that is,  communion. One man will say it’s a means of grace. Another responds and says no, it’s a memorial.  That’s an either/or fallacy because we can respond with “it’s actually both—no less than a memorial,  but also used by God as a means of grace, strengthening and encouraging His people.” It isn’t either a memorial or a means of grace—it combines both of those aspects into the one observance, and this isn’t all that controversial.

Here’s one that has popped up in more recent conversations: Imagine you say something along the  lines of “Christians should prioritize taking care of their own families first, then their Church, and  only then the rest of the human community.” Sounds perfectly reasonable, right? But right on time,  someone’s bound to pipe up and claim Christ’s words as a stand-alone statement: “…stretching out  

His hand toward His disciples, He said, ‘Behold My mother and My brothers!” (Matt. 12:49). Well,  there you go. Or, if someone makes a statement like, “the Church should really be about discipling its own members,” someone else is required to immediately ask, “What about evangelism?” The reductionist gladly played his only hand. 

One more fun and glaring example: Christian Nationalism. If you say, “I don’t want 150-ft. pagan Hindu demon-god statues cluttering up the view,” invariably, here it comes: “Don’t want those statues in America? Preach the gospel. Our weapons are spiritual, not carnal.” 

In all of those examples, there is a tendency to reduce everything down to a strategic binary and commit the either/or fallacy. Of course, it’s not illegitimate for a man to care for his own people and also care for others; for a Church to teach and preach in such a way that Christians mature in the faith and reach the lost; to lobby zoning boards to forbid erecting blasphemous idols and pray for and proclaim the gospel to Hindus and Muslims and other idolaters. Sometimes these answers are a form of “Jesus-juke” (pietistic virtue-signaling), and sometimes they result from years of sub-biblical teaching. Or both—either way, it’s still fallacious and wrong. 

These false binaries are so common now that I prepared my own little meme that says “walk and chew gum as the tag.” When ICE recently rounded up a group of illegal  immigrants working at a food processing plant near Omaha, one man piped up, “I thought the focus was on gang bangers, murderers, and rapists?” Respond accordingly: “ICE can do both—walk and chew gum.” One man said that the fact that I like heavy metal was a disqualifying trait for the pastorate, and that he likes “Americana.” I like both—walk and chew gum. (Reminds me of the classic Blues Brothers line: “Here at Bob’s Country Bunker we have both kinds of music—country and western.”) 

More importantly, however, are discussions surrounding a prospective Christian nation and being a  Baptist, with some still conflating categories of Church membership with citizenship in a nation, and the resultant quandary question as to whether a nation can be considered “Christian” even without every citizen being personally justified.

Read More