VOW
 
 

Home

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

Feminism

Viewpoints

Quote of the Month

Quarterly Newsletter

On-Line Discussion Forum

Letters to the Editor

Mission

The Persecuted Church

Ecumenical Connections

How You Can Help

The VOW Budget

Contact VOW
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Voices of  Orthodox Women

GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT
Faulty Logic Leads To Faulty Conclusions 
in "Families in Transition" Report
by
Deborah Milam Berkley, PhD*

 In late April, a draft of "Families in Transition,"  the report on the family from the PC(USA)'s Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy (ACSWP), was made available.  It has proved to be most disappointing. 

Don't Worry, Everyone Is  Fine Just the Way They Are -- 
Except if They're Too Affected by Traditional Christian Values

Instead of coming out with a solidly Biblical analysis of current family-related issues, as well as concrete proposals for dealing with the various family problems of our day, the document instead basically says "Don't worry, everyone's fine, except if they're too affected by traditional Christian or traditional U.S. values."

The main conclusion of the report is that there are a number of family structures in existence today, including the traditional two-parent (husband and wife) family with children born to that couple, but also single-parent families, blended families, adoptive families where the parents are heterosexual, adoptive families where the parents are homosexual, childless families, unrelated persons functioning like a family, etc.  ACSWP also argues that there were a number of family structures evident in the Bible.

An Unwarranted Leap of Logic

Because of the existence of such variety in family forms, the report concludes, using an unwarranted leap of logic, that all forms of family are good and even beneficial, and should be welcomed and embraced by the church as valuable family structures.

Good Analyses Available 

There have been several good analyses of this document, in particular from the Institute on Religion and Democracy.  This excellent commentary by Alan Wisdom can be found on the IRD Site. 

I am not going to attempt to address all the theological and sociological aspects of FiT here; I recommend that you read Mr. Wisdom's report for that.  Instead, I am going to focus on some of the logical problems found in the report.

Logical Problems In The Report

  • The Straw Man Fallacy 1
Much of "Families in Transition" (henceforth FiT) is spent discussing the family structure supposedly held up as ideal in the 1950s in the U.S.A.  According to ACSWP, this family structure, consisting of two married heterosexual parents plus children, was prevalent in American history only during that decade.  ACSWP spends a great deal of time discussing this family structure and comparing it to family structures that have been emerging in the U.S. since that decade.  In particular, they point out some of the negative social factors of the 1950s.

However, this is a straw man argument.  The evangelical wing of the PC(USA) is not calling for a return to the 1950s.  Instead, evangelical Presbyterians want to see a return to Biblical faithfulness in all areas of life, including the family.  Arguing against the 1950s family is arguing against a straw man: it is irrelevant to the argument.  Typically straw man arguments attack a weaker argument than the opponent's best argument, and that is the case here, too.  In order to convince all Presbyterians that new forms of the family are just as blessed by God as others are, a theological argument based on the Bible needs to be brought forward.  ACSWP has dodged this line of reasoning by arguing instead against the social order of the 1950s.
 

  • The Fallacy of Prejudicial Language
The report has a rather condescending tone from the start.  ACSWP says, "When we think of 'the family,' many of us are likely to think first of the kind of family that characterized the decade of the 1950s."  They go on to describe some of the changes that families have undergone since the 1950s, commenting that they may seem worrisome to people who find 1950s families to be ideal.  They then say, "In response to these concerns, some of us suggest that the ideal family of the ‘50s should be restored and strengthened through religious and social mandates."

Based on their description of the situation, it sounds somewhat silly for anyone to major on a particular decade out of the two millennia since Christ's time on earth.  None of us wants to be dull-minded, unthinking, or old-fashioned.  Do we want to be someone who is stuck in the 1950s?  If not, we are subtly guided to following ACSWP's point of view, that it is unnecessary, and even harmful, to insist on the supposedly 1950s family.

However, although ACSWP cites some research claiming that the 1950s was the only decade in American history when the majority of families had heterosexual married parents, they do not convincingly support this claim.  In addition, they give absolutely no evidence at all that "many of us are likely to think first of the kind of family that characterized the decade of the 1950s."  The prejudicial language used here has more of a "red herring" effect--it distracts us from solid reasoning by inducing a reaction against the appearance of lack of thought.
 

  • The Fallacy of Begging the Question
One of the major assumptions that seems to run throughout FiT is that, if a family type exists, it must be good.  This assumption is evident both in ACSWP's discussions of present-day family types, and also in their discussions of family types found in the Bible.

For example, ACSWP says that "Biblical families also include female-headed extended families, such as Rahab and her household (Josh. 6:17, 25); adoptive families of various configurations (Gen. 15–16); a widow living with her parents, such as Orpah (Ruth 1:8; 14–15); incestuous families (Gen.19:31–38); and cohabitation without marriage, such as Samson and Delilah (Judg.16:4)."

After more detailed descriptions of Hebrew family life, ACSWP remarks that "many of the same family issues found in biblical accounts continue to be faced by families today: infertility and the desire for children, fights over inheritance, sibling rivalry, jealousy between spouses, gender inequality, sexual transgressions, and decisions regarding infidelity, divorce, and commitment. Then, as now, however, God worked out God’s will in human history despite the flaws, sins, and what we might label dysfunction of God’s people."

The descriptions of the various Hebrew family types, as well as God's willingness to work through us despite our sin, leads ACSWP to the following conclusion: "In this overarching theological perspective, family form is less important than the function of the family as a place of faithfully committed right relationship with other adults, with children, with neighbors and strangers, and with God."

In essence, ACSWP is saying that God doesn't care about family type; he just wants us to work with him.  This is an example of the fallacy of begging the question.  In that type of fallacy, the truth of the conclusion has already been assumed in the premises.  Specifically, here ACSWP is saying that all those various family types are good because they are in the Bible.  But in order to accept that claim, one has to agree that all family types mentioned in the Bible are good.  That is by no means an unshakeable assumption.

ACSWP does the same with present-day families in the U.S.  They cite extensive data, including census data, showing what a variety there is to be found in American households.  Again, however, they are begging the question.  Existence of a family type does not imply that such a family type is good. 2

In a third example, FiT states that "Our tradition first confesses the sovereignty of God. Nothing in the created order and nothing that humans construct should command our absolute allegiance. Therefore, no particular form of family that has existed in human history or that exists today should be privileged as the Christian family form."  This, too, is a form of begging the question.  ACSWP's statement that human constructs should not be held above God's sovereignty is one we can all agree with.  But their argument is that, since human constructs should not be held as sacred, no family form should be held as sacred.   They have assumed that all family forms are human constructs, a point with which evangelicals would not agree.

  • The Fallacy of Hasty Generalization
ACSWP cites much research having to do with children in non-traditional families, such as children of divorce.   They discuss research on both sides of the question: whether children are harmed by different family circumstances, or whether it has no effect on them.  Then, interestingly, they interpret the data to mean just what they want it to mean: that the different family types do not have bad effects on most children.  (See the Alan Wisdom report for a fuller discussion of this point.)

Although they admit that the percentage of children in traditional two-parent families who are doing well in life is larger than the percentage of children in other types of families who are doing well, they dismiss this difference between the two groups.  As ACSWP puts it, "The research on families seems to [emphasis mine] suggest that the vast majority of children of intact families and a lesser majority of children of single-parent families, step-or blended-families, and adoptive families are doing just fine.  Consequently, church and social policies should not discriminate among these families, but support all such families equally."  This is a hasty generalization: since some children in non-traditional families are doing fine, ACSWP maintains that all such families should be treated as beneficial.

Moreover, the fact that ACSWP acknowledges that there is indeed a difference, yet dismisses it, seems less than loving toward the children who may be more at risk due to their family circumstances.  The possible threat to those children's well-being will be ignored if their family types are treated as positive.
 

  • The Fallacy of the False Dilemma
ACSWP's interpretation of the data about children in non-traditional families also exemplifies another form of illogic, the false dilemma.  According to that type of reasoning, there are only two possibilities: the church can either accept and bless all family types, or it can "discriminate" against them.3   FiT does not allow for a third possibility, one that evangelicals would advocate.  This third possibility is that, while maintaining that some forms of family structure may be rooted in sin (such as families with unmarried parents), yet all people are welcome at church.  The church can and must help people living in sinful ways to move toward a way of life more pleasing to God, for the well-being of those people, and not as a form of discrimination against them.

There is another example of the false dilemma in FiT.  ACSWP states that "Clearly, a warm, loving family of any form is a better environment for a child than a hostile, conflicted family of any form."  It is the phrase "of any form" that leads to the false dilemma.  Does ACSWP really mean that?  What about a warm, loving family where the adults have sex with the children?  Is that "clearly" better for a child than a hostile, conflicted family where the children are not engaged in sex with the adults?
 

  • The Fallacy of Inconsistency
FiT states that "It is not possible to discern any single model of family structure in the Hebrew Scriptures. Moreover, there are aspects of these cultures that are ethically troubling, including internal envy and competition, traditions of feuds and blood revenge for perceived dishonors, and certainly the predominance of patriarchal interests that shaped gender roles, laws, and customs."  This statement is inconsistent with ACSWP's earlier indications that all family types are just fine.  Because of such statements, it is sometimes difficult to pin down just what FiT means.

Another area in which FiT is inconsistent is in their appeal (or not) to cultural values.  In many ways this report seems to assume that if something exists today, it is good (as in the family type discussion above in the section on Begging the Question.)  FiT contains large sections critiquing the supposedly American values of materialism, consumerism, and individualism.  ACSWP argues that these forces are the most dangerous factors affecting families today.

But ACSWP also says towards the end that "any contemporary description [of the family] must be attentive both to the core teachings of our faith and to changing environments for working, raising children, caring for dependents, and expressing human intimacy."  In other words, according to ACSWP, we need to base our definition of "family" at least partially on current cultural values.
 

  • The Fallacy of Equivocation
FiT gives quite a bit of space to criticizing the supposedly American trait of individualism.  ACSWP's viewpoint appears to be that the group orientation of (some) other cultures is healthier than American individualism.  For example, they say that "When individual rights are primary, communities and families are viewed as providers of services to this autonomous, self-interested individual, rather than as interdependent social units within which an individualized human character is formed."

(Interestingly, FiT does not touch upon the issue of abortion, surely a family issue!  But their statement just quoted is actually an argument against both abortion and sexual license.  If the preferences of one person, both in terms of childbearing and of sexual behavior, are held to be sacrosanct, surely that is a case of self-interest dominating the community and family good.)4

Later, FiT says "The spirit of individualism in U.S. culture (as distinguished from the religious value of individuality and the absolute value of each person) weakens understanding and appreciation of the important ways in which human life, in families and communities, is inevitably interdependent."  ACSWP also states that "When individualism is understood as respect and concern for the well being of each person in all forms of relationships, it reflects the biblical principle of God’s equal love for each."

Presumably it is due to their two meanings for "individualism", or their distinction between "individualism" and "individuality", that they are able to put forth contradictory points of view.  On the one hand, they claim that individualism is bad and community is good.  On the other hand, they advocate for the unrestricted acceptance of family types--whatever any one person might want--while criticizing a group value, the church's historical stance on sexual morality (which leads to families based on the "traditional" heterosexual marriage.)

In other words, ACSWP have given two meanings to the word "individualism."  They use the one meaning when it suits their purpose, and the other when that is the meaning that they want.  This is equivocation.

Conclusion -- FiT is full of logical problems

As can be seen, FiT is full of logical problems.  It is disappointing enough that a group of intelligent people can spend several years on a project without coming up with a solid Biblical analysis of the issues and concrete recommendations for the church's work in addressing those issues.  It is even more disappointing when the report that they do come up with is not even logically consistent.

ACSWP has not supported their conclusions on Biblical grounds (other than by throwing in proof texts here and there when they fit their points.)  In addition, we have seen that the conclusions drawn by ACSWP cannot be supported logically. 

"Families in Transition" should not be adopted.
__________________

1.   Thanks to Stephen Downes. Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies. Brandon, Manitoba, Canada, 1995-2001. http://www.datanation.com/fallacies for a helpful categorization of logical fallacies.

2.   Alan Wisdom also points out that ACSWP further slants the data by dividing the traditional Christian family type into several subcategories, which makes it look like less of a majority.

3.   ACSWP's use of the term "discriminate" is also another example of the fallacy of prejudicial language.  Evangelical Christians want to help people move towards healthy family life; we do not wish to discriminate against anyone.

4.   An additional comment on the abortion issue:  in one of the prayers included in FiT, ACSWP says, "Grant us the courage to place your children and those who are most vulnerable first in our lives as families, as congregations, and as a nation...."  Would those "most vulnerable" include the not-yet-born?

* Dr. Berkley's Ph.D. is in linguistics from Northwestern University in Evanston, IL