Faulty Logic Leads to Faulty Conclusions in “Families in Transition” Report
by
Dr. Deborah Milam Berkley
In late April, a draft of ” [1] Families in Transition [2] ,” 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 [3] .
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. 1516); a widow living with
her parents, such as Orpah (Ruth 1:8; 1415); incestuous families
(Gen.19:3138); 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
[1] http://www.pcusa.org/ga215/business/commbooks/comm07.pdf, item 07-02
[2] http://www.pcusa.org/ga215/business/commbooks/comm07.pdf
[3] http://www.ird-renew.org/Presbyterian/Presbyterian.cfm?ID=619&c=6.