Logical Fallacies in the arguments against women in the church

Adrian links with a comment:

"..if we deny the basic Biblical tenets that we were made equal but distinct as male and female, with differing God-intended roles in the church and home, then homosexuality is the logical conclusion"

 

Driscoll argues that femminism in the church is the battering ram that opens the door to homosexuality

There is fun to be had with this post.

Take this quote from More Salt in the Episcopalian Wound | TheResurgence.

First, there are varying degrees of "Christian" feminism and the more hardened variety is the battering ram on the church door that opens the way for homosexuality. What I mean is this: if we deny the basic Biblical tenets that we were made equal but distinct as male and female, with differing God-intended roles in the church and home, then homosexuality is the logical conclusion. This in part explains why the first woman bishop previously supported the election of the first openly gay bishop.

Now using this page Logical Fallacies the challenge is to identify how many poor arguments are used. Note from wikipedia

In philosophy, the term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal fallacy: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid. However, it is often used more generally in informal discourse to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason, and thus encompasses informal fallacies – valid but unsound claims or bad nondeductive argumentation – as well as formal fallacies.

If you take the whole post it seems to me that we see examples of:

• Ad hominem: Attacks on both Gene Robinson and Katharine Jefferts-Schori
• Slippery slope: Equality for women will lead to homosexuality.
• Package-deal fallacy: Equality for women, Homosexuality, lack of authority for scripture, decline in the church are all grouped together in the minds of Conservative US Evangelicals therefore  they must always be connected.
• Appeal to fear: Give in on women's rights and you will be overtaken by homosexuals.
• Argumentum ad baculum: Something we see throughout the T4G Statement. Accept what we say or the Gospel will be damaged (oh and you will probably go to hell).
• Argumentum ad populum: Lots of Evangelicals do not like equality for women or homosexuality therefore they must be right
• Begging the question: The assumption is that "our" interpretation of scripture is the only correct one (an interpretation by straight men)
• Hasty generalization: Look at these two people (Gene and Katharine), all homosexuals and women must be like these.
• Post hoc ergo propter hoc: The Episcopalian Church is in decline because it supports gender equality

I may not have got all these right, corrections welcomed.

There are others that I was not sure how to categorise. For example the supposed three weaknesses of liberal American Protestantism seem to be very poor arguments.

1. The liberal insistence that all religious beliefs are equally valid is a very white, Western European bias left over from the Enlightenment’s concept of knowledge and values. This bias has no right to be preeminent over other views, including heterosexual black African fundamentalism.

a) All religious beliefs are equally valid. This pushes the argument too far. Taking the extreme do any liberals believe that a religious belief that uses child sacrifice is equally valid to Christianity. No I don't think so.
b) Is that belief from the time of enlightenment. I though it came quite a lot later.
c) Why denigrate an alternative view as a bias. it is not a bias it is a point of view.
d) In what way is this view claimed to be pre-eminent over others? Claiming a right to hold a view and claiming that you believe it to be correct is not claiming it is pre-eminent. If anything the whole post is claiming pre-eminence for the fundamentalist, complementarian view.

I suspect the other two points can be dismissed in similar ways.

Conclusion

Mark Driscoll's post fails as a convincing argument. That does not itself mean that his views are invalid, simply that he has not argued that they are valid.

I would love to see some posts on these issues that do not rely on logical fallacies. probably it would be good if I could write some myself :-)

[Update]

See 42: Did I drop a clanger? which responds to Adrian's comment in Links for June 25, 2006 that I have dropped a clanger in the title of this piece.

Comments

[Pam]

[warning: contains 'graphic word'; read at your own risk]

My 77-year-old mother in Ohio - who is not Episcopalian, but *is* very sharp and intelligent - reports that the newspapers in the States are hinting that the new presiding bishop of ECUSA, Katharine Jefferts-Schori, may be a lesbian. (Where are the eye-roll and vomit icons when you need them?)

I've refrained from commenting on the ECUSA election since I am not an Anglican, but it is hard to not have sympathy with the idea that a denomination that has been ordaining women since 1975 should not elect a female presiding bishop. OK, some may not like the fact that she is 'pro-gay', but that has nothing to do with the fact that she is female.

Dave, you've done well to point out the bad form of the sorts of arguments that are going around. I am afraid that I cannot be so dispassionate at the moment.

[DaveW]

Pam,

So which was the graphic word? I went looking for it and did not find it.

[Pam]

It was in the bit that I edited out! I decided to retain an air of intellectual decorum and edit out my rant about how the concept that people with X body parts have power over people with Y body parts is a completely different thing than actual God-given differences between men and women.

I think the whole complimentarian thing is essentially about "power over" and I think that all the protestations that it isn't only convince those who hold the view. As far as I'm concerned, the sin is quite transparent.

[Sally]

The more this debate goes on the sillier it gets, I am convinced that it is simply fear over a different style of leadership and that funny concept of change in the balance of power thatis causing all the trouble- how crazy are we...
I found it difficult to accept a leadership role against the predjuice of many but I am convinced that feminine styles of leadrship are valid and so I will take a more assertive role if I need too