Make Steel Men, Not Straw Men

The following post is part of a series of learnings from reading
Jaroslav Pelikan’s Five-volume The Christian Tradition: A Development of Doctrine.

Growing up Baptist, I was of course taught the Bible from a Baptist perspective, learning doctrines like eternal security, priesthood of the believer, and congregational polity. Makes sense, right? Go to a Baptist church and you’ll learn how Baptists interpret the Bible. This holds true for any church in the Christian tradition be it Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodist, etc. Each teaches the Scripture in light of their specific Christian tradition.

What can be challenging is when those traditions, in seeking to protect their understanding of the Scripture and sound doctrine, create “straw men” of the other groups. A straw man is a fallacy of arguing that refutes an imaginary, easier position which is different from the opponent’s actual position. Straw men arguments are appealing because they are easy to win but are disingenuous because they don’t faithfully represent what the other side is saying. These kind of arguments go unrecognized by the masses because folks often don’t know either side well enough. See our current political climate as an example par excellence. Candidates claim opponents hold certain positions when fact-checkers expose both sides to be misrepresenting each other. This is the temptation of straw men. They are easy to burn down. Unfortunately, you don’t learn anything about others in doing so. The goal becomes winning, not understanding, which, in the end, is losing. In fact, I’d argue straw-manning runs us dangerously close to the sin of slander (Prov. 12:22, Eph. 4:25, Col. 3:9).

I’ve come to the conclusion that, in my experience, the evangelical church has done some serious straw-manning. This became clearer to me as I read Jaroslav Pelikan’s five-volume opus The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. What struck me was not only how certain beliefs developed in different Christian traditions, but how most arose from a sincere desire to obey the Scripture. The last 2,000 years of church history doesn’t vindicate Baptists (who appear late on the scene in the 17^th century) as being the only ones who trusted the Bible but shows how they are merely one of many Christian traditions who developed their respective doctrines because of the shared conviction that God’s Word is inerrantly true. The reality is other denominations have worked very hard to ensure their beliefs flow from the Scripture. We don’t have to agree with them, but we should do them the service of letting them speak for themselves instead of setting up straw men that misrepresent their views.

For example, growing up I was repeatedly given the straw man argument that Catholics didn’t believe in grace at all concerning salvation. When I debated Catholics, many of whom weren’t well-versed in the Bible or official Catholic teaching, I could dominate the argument using the works-righteousness angle.¹ However, in studying the development of the doctrine of salvation in the history of the church, I question if my approach with my Catholic friends was accurate. Indeed, I fear I was straw-manning.

Listen to official doctrinal statement of the Catholic church on justification. It says:

Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life (cf. Jn 1:12-18; 17:3; Rom 8:14-17; 2 Pet 1:3-4.)…The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel.

As to the merit of our good works:

With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man…The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.  “Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due…. Our merits are God’s gifts.”

While I know there are honest disagreements between both Catholic and Protestant Christians, reading the doctrinal statements of the Catholic church like the ones above have prompted some rethinking (and repenting) for me. Frankly, these citations sounds pretty Protestant to me. And yet, this is the Catholic church speaking for itself. As Pelikan’s work looked at the original sources of Catholic, Othodox, and Protestant streams, I was coming to the somewhat disorienting conclusion that in many ways, there may be more agreement than disagreement we have with those of other Christian traditions.

Again, this isn’t to make light of genuine disparities. There are certainly real differences between Baptists and Catholics (including the doctrine of salvation). But having differences is one thing, saying one tradition believes something they don’t is another. The truth is, the Catholic Church affirms that salvation is totally by grace in Christ alone.² Catholics believe sanctification (growing in faith) is included in justification (which is defined a little differently), whereas Protestants, at least Baptists, make more of a distinction between the two. Yet don’t most Baptists believe that good works flow from true regeneration? I sure do. Therefore, while Catholics and Baptists have legitimate conflicts in the particulars of salvation, some disagreements may be less a disagreement and more the confusion which arises from holding different perspectives and definitions. Frankly, there is enough common ground in salvation for Lutherans and Catholics that in 1999 they signed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification which proclaimed:

“Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.”³

Let me repeat, don’t take this as an apology for Catholic theology in toto. I disagree with all kinds of Catholic teachings (e.g., Marianism, indulgences, papal infallibility). However, misrepresenting other traditions doesn’t help us learn from each other or show love toward our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ revealing that we’re unwilling to listen to what they’re actually saying, preferring to set up easy targets to burn down. In other words, it’s easy to build a straw man that says X-tradition doesn’t care about what the Bible teaches, until you actually listen to them and realize they really do care about what the Bible says. The former posture can make you dismissive, the latter can make you discerning.

Reading and studying the history of doctrinal development has encouraged me to stop building straw men and start constructing steel men when it comes to engaging different Christian traditions. Steelmanning “is the practice of applying the rhetorical principle of charity through addressing the strongest form of the other person’s argument, even if it is not the one they explicitly presented.” In short, give those from different Christian traditions the benefit of the doubt as to their devotion to Jesus and respect for the Scriptures. As you hear their biblical support for their different views, don’t immediately fire back with your own proof texts but engage their thinking in a good-faith manner believing they want to get at the truth as much as you do. Ask yourself: What are the strengths of their reasoning? How could they come to their conclusions? What are the merits of their arguments? This is what it is to steel man. Doing so gives you a greater chance not only to earn the respect of your opponent but maybe their friendship as well. It will also have the aroma of charity that communicates both “gentleness and respect” for our fellow believers in Christ (1 Pt. 3:15).

May we be done with straw men in favor of those made of steel.

1. Needless to say, there are a lot of biblically ignorant Baptists as well.
2. Part of the challenge (and tension) is what each group means by “alone” in faith and salvation. Also, see the response from Catholic Answers to its understanding. It sounds similar in many respects to the Protestant view.
3. Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, cl. 15