 |
| (Munson Park) |
(Someone asked me about this, and I thought it was worthy to post about.)
If someone says:
1. The Church has changed positions on things, like the role of women in ministry.
And from that they conclude:
2. Therefore the Church should change positions on same-sex relationships.
The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
E.g. -
- You changed your mind on some things.
- Therefore, you should change your mind on this thing.
Or:
- The Church changed its mind before.
- Therefore, the Church should change its mind on this.
With that kind of reasoning anything can be concluded. E.g.:
- The Church has changed its mind before.
- Therefore, the Church should change its mind on love and affirm hate instead of love.
Rather, I think we should think this way.
What is the biblical position on women in ministry? We should go after and study and affirm whatever that is. In that regard, I believe Scripture affirms egalitarianism (Craig Keener, and others, have written entire books on this).
Throughout history, some portions of the Church got that correct, others did not. And, the Church has not changed its mind about everything. Someone who believes the Church is "always changing its mind on things" is likely someone who is always changing their mind on things and projecting this onto the historical Church.
Re. same-sex sexual relationships, what does the Bible affirm and disaffirm? For the most part, the Church has exegetically got this correct. The real issue is: the authority of Scripture, and what does it teach on this matter?
Note that in all of this "changing your mind" is irrelevant (even if it is historically interesting). This kind of reasoning commits a tu quoque fallacy, a fallacy of irrelevant premises.
Changing your mind on one thing does not justify changing your mind on anything.
