Christian Demolition
On the right use of reason to destroy strongholds
“For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” -Paul the Apostle
Many times in our eagerness to lead people to the truth we want to begin with the work of building a positive case, yet it is very often that those who would wish to build must first come to demolish. That which is the proper real estate of truth is regularly found to be currently occupied by falsehood. If the lies are not first knocked down, and the former foundation uprooted, then there is little hope of building truth in its place.
God has so made the minds of mankind that we do not really believe anything which we do not believe to be true. Obviously people believe many falsehoods, but they do not typically willingly and intentionally believe what is false. True, it is possible for people to so allow sin to ravish their souls that they no longer really reason at all. As Jude put it, such people “are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively.” Even so, in God’s common grace to all, many people who are wrong in their thinking have not altogether rejected the gift of reason God implanted in their soul.
Reason, which is not the opposite of faith, is a gift from God meant to be employed as a means of discovering truth. Reason itself, however, is not truth. The laws of logic which guide human reasoning are true, but reason is merely a tool and it requires content upon which to work. One may reason with perfect consistency and still come to false conclusions if one has started with bad first principles. Many men who have embraced folly or even wickedness have done so as a result of consistent reasoning and not contrary to it. They have accepted a presupposition, an axiom, a first principle that was dead wrong and then they drove straight and hard from it to its logical conclusion. It is this fact, above all, which shows that the work of the Christian thinker who wishes to spread the truth must often begin not in construction, but destruction.
In general, it seems to me that there are two paths forward when trying to overthrow error in the thinking of another person. One path is far more pleasant than the other. If a person (or opposing faction) is willing to enter into a discussion with charity, openness, and firm commitment to the truth then it is possible to move forward in a certain way which is not available to us when a person is committed to mere stubbornness. A great example of deconstructing error in a charitable environment is presented to us in Eusebius’ Church History when Dionysius, a third century bishop from Alexandria, wrote about his engaging fellow Christians over a matter of doctrinal error and disagreement.
When I arrived at Arsinoe, where, as you know, this teaching had long been prevalent and caused schisms and separations of whole churches, I convened a meeting of the presbyters and teachers of the village congregations (and any brethren who wished) and urged them to air the issue in public. When they brought me this book as some invincible fortress, I sat with them for three days in a row, from morning until night, criticizing what had been written. In so doing I was greatly impressed by the soundness, sincerity, logic, and intelligence of the brethren as we discussed methodically and with restraint the difficulties and points of agreement. We refused to cling blindly to prior opinions or avoid problems but tried our utmost to grapple with the issues and master them. Nor were we ashamed to alter our opinions, if convinced, but honestly and trusting in God, we accepted whatever was proven by Holy Scriptures. In the end, Coracion, the originator of this teaching, in the presence of all the brethren agreed and promised us that he would no longer adhere to it, debate it, mention it, or teach it, since he was convinced by the counterarguments.1
This particular passage is a really useful guide to healthy conflict resolution among Christians, but its basic principles extend beyond the boundary of intra-Christian relations to any two people or parties who really want to seek the truth. Let’s take specific note of some things.
The disagreeing parties were willing to “air the issue in public.” Being willing to actually openly discuss a point of disagreement (as opposed to just treating the others with contempt and scorn and refusing to come to the table) is obviously super helpful when it comes to getting after the truth of the matter. Truth doesn’t need to be hidden, only lies try to make themself scarce before a crowd. When you are representing truth and in pursuit of truth, you don’t mind an audience.
Dionysius notes that he “sat with them for three days in a row, from morning until night.” In other words, he exercised patience and determination. Oftentimes when we are working to correct an error this is not something that can be handled in a fifteen minute conversation. It requires time and commitment to really talk it through and get to the bottom of the disagreement. Truth seekers should be relentless.
Dionysius admits that he was “greatly impressed by the soundness, sincerity, logic, and intelligence” of those with whom he was debating and trying to correct. In other words, he shows them respect and honors them. They are not mere fools or stupid children in his eyes, but people striving to believe what is true and who have simply gotten off track somewhere along the way. Everyone makes mistakes, that doesn’t make a person a fool. Very intelligent and logical people (as I said at the outset of this article) end in error not because they are dumb, but because they simply affirmed something they shouldn’t have further back in their reasoning. We are all capable of this. Further, the most insidious errors are usually built on top of something that is mostly true.
Dionysius notes that they discussed the matter “methodically.” I cannot overemphasize the importance of this point. One of the biggest reasons people get nowhere when they are conversing with someone with whom they disagree is simply because they are not moving through their disagreement methodically. It does, for instance, no good to talk about whether or not miracles are possible if one does not believe God exists. People will often debate (here pronounced quarell) passionately for hours without progress because they are talking so far downstream of the base issue there is no hope whatsoever of progress. As Dionysius noted, they determined what the “difficulties” and points of “agreement” were. The only hope of progress in a disagreement is finding points of commonality from which to work forward. If one does not do that then one is wasting his time.
The baseline commitment to believe whatever is true is everything when it comes to sincere disagreements. Dionysius made it clear that they refused “to cling blindly to prior opinions” nor were they “ashamed to alter [there] opinions, if convinced.” In the pursuit of truth, truth must be the highest commitment. One who is not willing to submit their beliefs and positions to scrutiny, and not willing to change their mind when reason and evidence are against them, has become the unreasoning animal Jude warned us about. This does not mean being “so open minded that our brains fall out” nor does it mean not having any settled convictions, but it does mean having enough humility to admit we might be wrong and that we would rather change our view than cling to folly when it has been reasonably demonstrated that we are wrong.
Finally, Dionysius affirmed that their final standard, their highest authority in their pursuit of truth on this matter of theology was the sacred Scriptures. They were not debating the best methods of changing the oil in a car or how to program a computer, they were discussing theology and God’s word spoke directly to the matter and they all affirmed that whatever it did in fact teach must be the truth. Because they had this ultimate standard they were able to reach resolution.
I say, again, that these principles follow for a wider audience than just Christians disagreeing with one another. Willingness to speak openly about the disagreement, showing one another patience, being charitable towards the opposition and acknowledging when they make good points, being methodical in discussing the matter, being committed to believing what’s true. It’s true that Christians may disagree with non-Christians about the highest source of authority (i.e. God and his word), but if we can affirm at least the baseline that truth is real and knowable and we can affirm the laws of logic, we can work from there (and even demonstrate that those very things are inexplicable apart from God).
So, that’s the friendly path. It’s really real and really possible. I’ve witnessed it and I’ve walked down it with people. I think we would be surprised how many people are capable and willing of walking that path with us and that social media has convinced us that all reason has left the planet. But God is good and he is good to all and many people still have their innate capacity to think and they want to believe what’s true (even if presently deceived by the father of lies). Very few people, if any, can say “I know that’s not true, but I believe it anyway.” It’s why Nietzsche's philosophy is so hard to swallow, really. I can deceive myself, sure, but I can’t do it quite so blatantly as to intentionally decide to deceive myself. If I know I am believing a lie, I don’t really believe it anymore.
Nevertheless, there is a second path. The path of the stubborn ass. The pack-mule who is loaded down with folly and who is not interested in budging or even looking anywhere else but what he has already chosen to fixate upon. Such a person is not necessarily hopeless, but they are a hard target. If one plays the stubborn ass long enough one becomes what they have been imitating. Jude’s warning is just around the corner from such people and it would take a miracle, literally, at that point to bring brute back to his manishness.
Still, we never know how far gone a person really is in their descent below the line of reason toward embracing nothing but mere animal instinct. I also do not say that man, in this life, ever loses the last tether to imago dei in him. So always work with hope. In these cases, however, a stronger hand is needed. One must roll up his sleeves and get out the jack-hammer to try to break through the sediment which has built up around the mind of the stubborn person. You’ll recognize them instantly because they cannot help braying loudly. Just watch a handful of Charlie Kirk videos and you will quickly see the difference between the first and second kind of person being discussed here. You can, and should, be kind to both sorts, but the latter requires stronger medicine.
One of my favorite turns of phrase I’ve heard, when it comes to helping move someone from their error, comes from Greg Koukl in his book Tactics. Koukl likes to commend us to “put stones in their shoe.” In other words, when talking with someone whom have very little time to get deep into a discussion with or someone with whom you disagree and is little willing to hear you out and discuss the matter in a meaningful fashion, the best thing you can to do is give them something to think about which is not easy to dismiss. One of the best ways to do this is to listen carefully to what they say, make sure you understand their position, and ask them a question that exposes a flaw in their thought process or brings them face to face with an idea or fact that they are hard pressed to deny but which is contrary to their stated position.
This is an art in itself and Koukl’s book will help you on the road to its mastery. That along with some study of formal logic and especially familiarizing yourself with logical fallacies will go a long way. Again, some people are too far gone for reason and require a miracle (and we should always be praying anyway, because salvation is always a miraculous act of God), but many people still have a semblance or more than a semblance of the reason God gave them. Reason is a tool that we should learn to use to prick the consciences of our neighbors who are clinging to error. God made them in his image and God is perfectly reasonable. Something inside each one of us wants to be reasonable and to believe what is true. Use that. Tear down the lies and make space for the construction of truth.
“Fidem, si poteris, rationemque conjunge.”
Translation: “Faith, so far as it is possible, should be joined with reason.”
-Boethius
Eusebius, Church History, Book 7.24. Translated by Paul L. Maier.
Great point. I just published an article “The deep end” on faith where I try to do this. I hope that I succeed to the stubborn readers but I am still gaining my voice on substack.
I hadn’t heard it described this way before, but I do enjoy “putting stones in shoes” when I talk to folks. I’ve often found that people with weird spiritual beliefs have never really been challenged or followed some of the questions logically, so I’ve found it creates fruitful discussions if I can ask questions that make them think more deeply about what they believe.
As an example, someone once told me she worships the Greek gods, and that human worship gives the gods power. I asked her whether the gods existed or were completely powerless before humanity emerged (since she also believed in evolution). She’d never thought of that question, and it really made her sit back and think for a while!