In an online world of rampant disinformation, partisan manipulation, and systemic distrust, it’s increasingly difficult—but necessary—for Christians to follow Scripture’s injunctions to discern what’s trustworthy: “do not be deceived” (1 Cor. 6:9), “keep alert” (Eph. 6:18), “try to discern” (Eph. 5:10), “test everything” (1 Thess. 5:21), and “think” (2 Tim. 2:7).
What’s at stake?
First, the peace of the church. After four decades of pastoral ministry, I discovered that pandemics and presidential elections produce passionate opinions! Like many pastors, I received emails from church members with links to “well-researched” articles. I was encouraged to take greater or lesser stands on this or that. I was offered examples of high-profile pastors in other states who were courageous.
But these people I loved sent me articles that contradicted each other. It was logically impossible to agree with all of them. When I didn’t, some treasured friendships were strained. And many of us learned an important lesson: our unity largely depends on our ability to discern the truth.
The second thing at stake is our credibility. If we’re easily persuaded to believe falsehoods, why would unbelievers accept our claim that the gospel is true? Willful gullibility neglects our God-given responsibility to acquire the skills necessary to evaluate truth claims. This doesn’t mean we must be experts in every subject, but it does mean we practice strategic hesitation before accepting a claim as true and publicly endorsing it.
We don’t have to be experts in every subject, but we do have to practice strategic hesitation before accepting a claim as true and publicly endorsing it.
One critical skill for truth evaluation is biblical literacy. Along with our daily intake of news sources, we should be “examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things” are so (Acts 17:11). Scripture doesn’t speak directly to every headline, but when a sitting president defends same-sex marriage by saying, “Marriage is a simple proposition. Who do you love?” scriptural competence guards us from deception.
In addition to developing biblical literacy, we can ask ourselves if we’re falling for fallacies. Here are seven that are common in our public discourse.
1. ‘Hasty Conclusion’ Fallacy
This is accepting a conclusion based on relevant but insufficient evidence. Years ago, a short in a wire caused my car horn to sound off at awkward moments. It almost got me in a couple of fights because drivers in front of me hastily concluded I was looking for one. In our “breaking news” culture, how many families, churches, and nations have been divided by an emotional rush to judgment?
James’s advice remains relevant: “Let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger” (James 1:19). Slow down, cool off, shut up, think it through. Otherwise, we’ll jump to inaccurate conclusions and make bad situations worse. Once we take a public stance, pride inclines us to double down, even as contrary facts begin to emerge.
Resist the hot take and reserve judgment until you know more.
2. ‘Argument by Repetition’ Fallacy
Believing a claim because it’s frequently and confidently repeated is to fall for the fallacy of argument by repetition. Research shows that the more we hear a lie, the more likely we are to believe it. Throughout his ministry, Jesus was frequently and confidently—and falsely—accused (Mark 14:55–59). So many believed these repeated lies that when “the chief priests accused him of many things” (15:3), no one defended him at his trial. But repeating a claim doesn’t make it true.
Adolf Hitler famously used this technique, repeating the charge of a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world. Nazi propaganda amplified the lie, fueling antisemitism in German culture that led to the Holocaust. And lies repeated then feed deadly hatred today.
Think before receiving what’s repeated.
3. ‘Ad Hominem’ Fallacy
This fallacy occurs if a debater attacks the person rather than the argument. When Jesus bested his critics in debate, they called him a demon-possessed Samaritan (John 8:48). Insults are the last resort of a man who has no argument. Politicians skilled at name-calling effectively persuade gullible voters while escaping the hard work of debating an opponent’s positions. Believing that a pastor with a record of gospel faithfulness is a “woke Marxist” just because another pastor called him that is inexcusably naive.
Reputations are damaged and truth is eclipsed when believers fall for ad hominem arguments of the intellectually lazy.
Dismantle arguments, not people.
4. ‘Double Standard’ Fallacy
A double standard means applying a standard differently in some cases to gain an advantage. In leadership, character matters. Church leaders must be “above reproach” before they can be entrusted with authority (1 Tim. 3:2). If they betray that trust, they should be held accountable. No leader is owed special treatment because he’s wealthy, well connected, or well known. The church must “keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality” (1 Tim. 5:21).
No leader is owed special treatment because he’s wealthy, well connected, or well known.
Similarly, when Christians are persuaded to excuse the faults of their political champions while criticizing similar faults in their political opponents, the unbelieving world will perceive inconsistency and partiality as willful gullibility.
Apply the same standard equally to all.
5. ‘Suppressed Evidence’ Fallacy
This is concealing evidence unfavorable to your argument. In a justice system, two parties make their arguments before an impartial third party who attempts to discern the truth. As Solomon wrote, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” (Prov. 18:17). Give both sides a fair hearing.
In 1770, John Adams defended the British soldiers who fired on a crowd in the Boston Massacre. Knowing the jury would be biased against the defendants, who were accused of murder, Adams reminded them, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” After hearing all the facts from both sides, the jury found none of the despised soldiers guilty of murder.
Christians can suppress evidence by failing to take advantage of a free press. Market competition between news sources guaranteed free by the First Amendment is a check and balance, making more facts (and fact-checking) available to truth-lovers. By selecting only sources that present “friendly facts,” we tend to confirm our bias and deceive ourselves. Further, over 80 percent of Americans get their news from a digital device—news that’s being manipulated by algorithms that trap readers in information silos.
Read widely, not just deeply.
6. ‘Appeal to Celebrity’ Fallacy
Accepting a person’s claim because of his or her celebrity status, instead of the soundness of the argument, is known as an “appeal to celebrity” fallacy. Many media personalities possess uncommon rhetorical skills and are able to persuade an audience to accept opinion as settled fact. If called to account, the celebrity has a ready defense: “I am only joking!” (Prov. 26:18–19). In the name of entertaining comedy, satire, or commentary, he escapes accountability for his words.
In 1732, Benjamin Franklin created the pseudonym Richard Saunders, who predicted and published the death day of Titan Leeds, Franklin’s competitor. Leeds didn’t die as predicted, but Franklin-Saunders continued the hoax, sold lots of copies of Poor Richard’s Almanack, and increased his media market share. His false statements were excusable, he could argue, because the audience must have known he was joking. Mixing journalism and entertainment is a long-standing American tradition.
Mixing journalism and entertainment is a long-standing American tradition.
On the left, Rachel Maddow is a media celebrity with an engaging style that’s made her show a ratings success. When sued by another news organization for her on-air defamatory remarks, an appeals court dismissed the case, saying, “No reasonable viewer could conclude that Maddow implied an assertion of objective fact.”
On the right, Tucker Carlson was also sued for defamation. In court, his lawyers didn’t dispute the plaintiff’s claim that Carlson presented fiction as fact. Their defense was that Carlson’s audience should be aware that “he is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal’ commentary.” The judge agreed and dismissed the case.
Both celebrities are perceived by their followers to be reliable news sources, though neither seems to adhere to journalistic ethics. Both courts assume Americans are responsible for acquiring the skills necessary to evaluate truth claims. Unfortunately, all the evidence many Americans need is that Maddow or Carlson said it.
See through the entertainment—entertain the evidence.
7. ‘Appeal to Motive’ Fallacy
This is when someone dismisses a proposition by questioning the proposer’s motives. Paul conceded that some preach with bad motives and others with good motives, but “in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that [he rejoices]” (Phil. 1:18). It’s not that motives don’t matter. Those who preach the gospel for fame or fortune will give an account. The point is that motives don’t affect the argument. The gospel is true, no matter the preacher’s motives.
Malicious motives may drive a person to report real evidence. “Politically motivated” allegations must be supported by evidence, but if the evidence can be verified, the motives of the accuser remain irrelevant.
When Christians summarily dismiss allegations against their favorite preacher or politician because the charges are made by a disgruntled former employee, a jealous denominational rival, a desperate political enemy, or a despised media source, they’ve fallen for the “appeal to motive” fallacy.
Ignore the motive; investigate the message.
Reputation for Reasonableness
Only God knows the whole truth about every matter. More epistemic humility in our public assertions will serve us well, especially if even our fact-checking and critical thinking don’t lead us to the truth about the latest headline.
Paul instructed the Philippian believers to let their “reasonableness be known to everyone” (Phil. 4:5). Building a reputation of reasonableness makes us less gullible, and more persuasive, as we bear witness to the facts of the gospel.
Is there enough evidence for us to believe the Gospels?
In an age of faith deconstruction and skepticism about the Bible’s authority, it’s common to hear claims that the Gospels are unreliable propaganda. And if the Gospels are shown to be historically unreliable, the whole foundation of Christianity begins to crumble.
