I rarely engage with people online anymore. I’ve learned that internet arguments rarely change anyone’s mind and usually accomplish very little. So for the most part, I’ve stepped away from them. But every once in a while, I can’t help myself.
A while back, a political figure who publicly identifies as a Christian did something both gross and illegal in a public place. In the comments on an article about it, someone wrote that this was exactly why they couldn’t take Christianity seriously.
I was shocked by that comment because this political figure consistently acted in ways contrary to Jesus and the teachings of our faith and even though she used the language of Christianity at times, her behaviors and actions said the opposite. So I guess I just figured (naively) that people wouldn’t take her faith claims seriously.
I replied to the commenter that we shouldn’t take this person’s behavior as representing Christianity because a true follower of Jesus shouldn’t be living that way. And if they did, the Christian response would be repentance, confession, and taking responsibility, not excusing or celebrating it or blowing it off like this person was doing. To base your decision about Christianity off of this person was to make a rather significant error in judgement.
The commenter responded by accusing me of committing the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. If you’re unfamiliar with it, the No True Scotsman fallacy is what happens when someone tries to discredit a critique of a group by saying that their critique is simply an exception. One can do this forever in order to protect one’s views and not have to do the difficult work of change or examination. Philosopher Antony Flew gave this example to illustrate:
Person A: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
Person B: “But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman, and he puts sugar on his porridge!”
Person A: “Ah, but no *true* Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
By adding the word “true”, Person A simply changes the definition to avoid admitting they were wrong. And to be fair to the commenter I was engaging with, I did say: “A true Christian wouldn’t do that.” Sure sounds like the accusation was correct!
But I don’t think it actually was. The Christian life isn’t defined by my personal opinion or by whatever standards I happen to prefer. One can’t keep moving the goalposts about Christian behavior to suit one’s preferences because Scripture actually gives us quite a few criteria and characteristics of what following Jesus looks like.
For example, Paul lists the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. He later calls us to be people of forgiveness (Colossians 3:13). Peter calls believers to clothe themselves with humility (1 Peter 5:5-6). And then there’s Jesus himself in his Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), where he gives his Kingdom manifesto.
None of these standards are arbitrary because we find them in the person and teachings of Jesus Himself.
So when someone claims to follow Jesus while consistently living in ways that directly contradict His teaching, it isn’t a logical fallacy to notice the inconsistency. It’s measuring a person’s life against the standard they themselves claim to accept.
Of course, none of us live up to that standard perfectly. Every Christian sins and falls short. If perfection were the requirement, there would be no Christians at all. But if someone claims Christianity, what are they striving for? If they fall, do they accept responsibility and live with integrity?
So was I committing the No True Scotsman fallacy? I don’t think so. For those who claim to be Christians, there are clear markers for our lives that are laid out in scripture. But the point isn’t to use these markers to judge others. Instead they help us to live more faithfully, and give us guideposts to discern with wisdom the faithfulness of our leaders, whether in politics, business, or even our churches.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.