By Sam Frescoe
#SamFrescoe #Trump #refugees #Christians
Late last week I was gathered around a lunch table of
friends and acquaintances. We were cussing and discussing current events and
the discourse of the day. Most gatherings stay light and cover several topics
before concluding with handshakes and well wishes. However, this gathering was
distinctly different. It began in the normal way, and concluded as before; but,
the points between were neither light nor meandering. For whatever the reason,
the “refugee crisis” became a hot topic. To be sure, the group discussed this
subject many times before, and seemed to have relatively aligned views (we
agreed on the “why” but differed on the “how”), but this time the “why” was
sharply divided.
Opinion-1: The United States is morally obligated to protect
(meaning accept) refugees. The People, because we are so well off by
comparison, must aid those “poor people.” The American government would be in
the right to obligate The People outside of their consent. “It’s the right
thing to do.”
Opinion-2: The United States is morally obligated to protect its
institutions (individual rights, the Constitutional Republic, consent of the
governed). The People, because they are free to exercise liberty, may choose to
aid those “poor people” as they see fit. The American government would be in
the right to protect the rights of The People. “It’s the right thing to do.”
Shortly afterwards I received two messages: one from a youth
pastor,[1]
one from a minister.[2] Both asked me to read their article and
consider that my opinion was “falsely grounded” (meaning switch from Opinion-2
to Opinion-1). I agreed…I read…I considered…we discussed further…we remained
firm in our opinions…we scheduled lunch for next week (per usual)…and now I am
writing this article.
Getting Started
In my view, I regard my associates to be upstanding
Americans that strive to “do what is good” before “doing what feels good.” Therefore,
I will not be quoting their views. However, I do intend to express my views
about the articles presented and their authors. To that end, this article is
arranged in sections: review of the articles, review of the authors, and the
expression of my views.
Article-1 [3]
In my view, the stand-out issue addressed in this article
was whether or not to provide aid to those that are poor, oppressed, maligned,
mistreated, sick, and most in need. While I agree that the issue is important,
and that addressing the issue can “do what is good,” I disagree with the
author’s primary claim; westernized Christians, “particularly white
evangelicals,” fail to help those that are poor, oppressed, maligned,
mistreated, sick, and most in need. The author supports his claim with a the
following statement: “Christians in America have largely supported measures
that have rejected refugees, refused aid to immigrants, cut social services to
the poor, diminished help for the sick, fueled xenophobia, reinforced misogyny,
ignored racism, stoked hatred, reinforced corruption, and largely increased
inequality, prejudice, and fear.” The
author warrants his argument with the following:
- “Because in America, it appears that the sole purpose of Christianity is to selfishly protect people’s own self-interests instead of sacrificially serving others.”
- “The election of President Donald Trump has proven that numerous Christians are more worried about power, influence, and control than the gospel messages of humility, generosity, ministering to others, and love.”
- “These presidential orders, which will refuse help to many of the world’s most vulnerable individuals, are what many Christians voted for. This is the fruit of their political labor, but it’s not the Fruit of the Spirit. In fact, love, joy, peace, happiness, and self-control are notably absent from the current administration.”
When taken in total, the article presents an emotional
argument expressed in a pathos rhetorical style.
The author, Stephen Mattson, seems to believe in “social
justice” by way of the Theory of Intersectionality. His writings provide a
voice for the brokerage of opinions and organizing ideas. Mattson claims to be a
graduate of the Moody Bible Institute with a degree in youth ministry, and he
regularly writes in a pathos rhetorical style. [4],[5]
Additionally, the publisher of this work, Sojourners
Magazine, seems to believe in “social justice” by way of the Theory of
Intersectionality. The publisher provides a means to broker opinions and
organizing ideas. Sojourners Magazine is a publication of a political action
group. The Magazine has a conspiratorial nature dating back to the 1970’s. [6],[7],[8]
Article-2 [9]
In my view, the primary issue addressed in this article was
to make clear that those who voted for Trump have condoned hatred in the forms
of racism, bigotry, homophobia, misogyny, Islamophopbia, anti-Semitism,
violence, discrimination, and bullying. The author’s claim was that the
election of Trump was an act of hatred; therefore, those that voted for him are
equally hateful. The claim is supported by painting Trump as a morally
unacceptable choice due to interactions with, and descriptions of, women, protestors,
Muslims, disabled persons, Black Lives Matter, VP selection, and those that
choose to endorse him. “…regardless of why you voted for him, you did vote for
him. Your affirmation of him and your elevation of him to this position, came
with what you knew about him…” The author warrants his argument with the
following:
- “These were all things you had to weigh to cast your vote, and by whatever method you used, you declared these things within your morally acceptable parameters.”
- “I want to believe that you do value equality and diversity and in the inherent value of every person as much as I do. I want to believe that people are precious to you, no matter their color or gender or faith tradition or sexual orientation. But if you refuse to speak into the events of these days, if you choose to stay silent, whether out of fear or shame or buyer’s remorse or ambivalence—I will have no choice but to believe that you are okay with all of this.”
When taken in total, the article presents an emotional
argument expressed in a pathos rhetorical style that appeals to prejudices:
race, sex, ability, class, religion, orientation, origin, and stereotypes.
The author, John Pavlovitz, seems to believe in the primacy
of emotions, spirituality, and a variable truth (somewhere between his and
yours). He desires to provide a way for a teen-community to embrace “simplicity
and beauty of communal spirituality.” Pavlovitz is the head of the North
Raleigh Community Church (NRCC) teen ministry, and an 18-year ministry veteran.
Pavlovitz writes in a self-virtuous style. [10],[11],[12]
Pavlovitz publishes his work on a self titled blog that is affiliated
with the NRCC. The NRCC seems to believe spiritual growth (meaning, cultivating
hearts) is more valuable than Christian tradition, practice, or doctrine (which,
in their view, has lost its moral authority). The Church desires to provide a
way for a community to embrace “simplicity and beauty of communal spirituality.”
The NRCC claims to be a Christian church that recognizes many ways to be
Christian. The NRCC desires to assist others in seeking self-awareness and
encourages self-disclosure. This desire is focused on leveraging single,
afflictive-emotional episodes on a person-by-person basis.[13],[14],[15],[16]
My Take…
Both authors are masters of their craft. They clearly
understand what they are doing, and (judging by their following) do it very
well. Additionally, both understand how to leverage a pathos rhetorical style
to forward emotional arguments ahead of logical arguments. In other words,
concerning their skill, I wish to tip my hat to each of them.
In each of their pieces, there is
evidence logical pattern interruption, the creation of comfort, leading of the
imagination, and an attempt to satisfy critical minds; and then, they offer an
invitation to their readers to shift feelings, change associations, and take
action to “prove” worth. – This represents a deliberate attempt to present the
value of emotional argument above that of logical argument.
To my mind, the leading issue in both cases is arrogance. My
claim is that neither author is sufficiently qualified (in terms of
intelligence, character, and goodwill of the issues raised) to speak as an
authority.
Both authors acknowledge the
complexity of the world at large, and then invite the reader to find it hard to
believe that others could honestly and intelligently come to a different
conclusion.
In support of my claim, I offer the following:
- “Because in America, it appears that the sole purpose of Christianity is to selfishly protect people’s own self-interests instead of sacrificially serving others.” [17] – This is a general (blanket) statement condemning America as nation in general and Christians specifically. The author is not in a position to have this knowledge (even if it were true).
- “The election of President Donald Trump has proven that numerous Christians are more worried about power, influence, and control than the gospel messages of humility, generosity, ministering to others, and love.” [18] – An election of any President proves nothing more than a President was elected. “Mandates” and “messages” are deduced or implied. Again, the author is not in a position to have this knowledge.
- “I want to believe that you do value equality and diversity and in the inherent value of every person as much as I do. I want to believe that people are precious to you, no matter their color or gender or faith tradition or sexual orientation. But if you refuse to speak into the events of these days, if you choose to stay silent, whether out of fear or shame or buyer’s remorse or ambivalence—I will have no choice but to believe that you are okay with all of this.” [19] – The author is not in a position to know or understand the views or values of the Trump voting population at large. Nor is he, as a Christian pastor, in a position to be a moral giver of any sort.
In short, neither author is creditable; therefore, not
persuasive. Both authors lack sufficient intelligence, character, and goodwill
on the issues raised. Therefore, neither is trustworthy or has sufficient
expertise.
Ethos – Character Argument
For the authors to be intelligent
on the issues, they must have having knowledge of their subjects, and argue in
a clear and logical fashion. Given the “at large” nature of their declarations,
it seems reasonable to me that neither author could possibly possess such
knowledge. Additionally, neither author presented a logical argument, nor are
they known for logos rhetoric.
For the authors to be of sufficient
character, they must display traits admired by their audience – like honesty,
sincerity, integrity, and moral commitment. While I cannot speak for the
entirety of their audience, I can conclude for myself that (at this time) I do
not believe either author is honest or (by extension) moral. However, given the
consistency of their work, it’s plausible that they possess a measure of
sincerity and integrity.
For the authors to display goodwill,
they must treat their audience with respect, putting their case in terms that
are understood, and acknowledge other points of view. In my view, both authors
clearly fail the goodwill test.
Taken together, the objective and
subjective components of believability (trustworthiness and expertise) are not
present.
So What!?
In my view, the primary purpose of the authors, each in
their own way, was to create a form of “false flag” in order to identify an
“enemy” and create a cry for protection. The authors want you to believe that
the election of Trump to the Office of President of the United States is an event
or act of brute force by an “enemy.” In this case, the “enemy” is represented
by all Trump voters. Those invited to provide protection against this
aggression are voters already aligned with the authors, and Trump voters that
redeem themselves in the view of the authors. Obedience is solicited by shame
and fear. Psychological manipulations include at least one of the following:
- Condemnation according to several biblical passages.
- Avoidance of condemnation by behaving to please the author
In other words, the authors are advocating for a kind of redemptive
social movement focused on radically changing the views of specific people.
Additionally, just because a voter could be motivated by something,
does not mean that the voter, or any other voter, actually voted according to
that something. Let’s not forget that the Presidential election came down to
four candidates: one was a public loud-mouth with no experience, one was a
public loud-mouth with criminal experience, one was a public loud-mouth without
a clue, and one was a public loud-mouth with a favorite color. All other
candidates that ran on long track records of public service, virtuous outreach,
and executive success failed to make the Primary cut. – All of this to say, for
those seeking to vote for a virtuous person were completely out of luck.
Mr. Mattson, I acknowledge that you are a political
commentator and a seminary graduate. However, do you really expect me to
believe that that you are an expert in politics because your commentary should
be biblically sound? – Really!?
Mr. Pavlovitz, I acknowledge that you are a social-political
blogger (an observer of outcomes) and a spiritual leader. However, do you
really expect me to believe that you are an expert in social-political outcomes
because your observations should be righteous? – Really!?
Given the facts presented by the authors, just how do their
conclusions follow by necessity? – Non Sequitur
Stacked Evidence – Read the articles and decide for
yourself.
Going Forward
You are responsible for mastering your thoughts, feelings,
actions, and the circumstances you create. This is a singular responsibility
that can be aided by others, but cannot be delegated to others. All of these
masteries can be cultivated for the sake of what is good, true, and beautiful
by your judicious development of your God-given intellect.
Your View
Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you
to tell me what you believe with the comment section below.
© 2017 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com
– All Rights Reserved
[1] Stephen
Mattson. “American Christianity Has Failed”. Sojourners. 25 Jan 2017. https://sojo.net/articles/american-christianity-has-failed
(accessed 170129)
[2] John
Pavlovitz. “If You Voted for Him”. Reprinted by Voices4Hillary. http://www.voices4hillary.com/if-you-voted-for-himby-john-pavlovitz-2107856844.html
(accessed 170129)
[3] Stephen
Mattson. “American Christianity Has Failed”. Sojourners. 25 Jan 2017. https://sojo.net/articles/american-christianity-has-failed
(accessed 170129)
[4] Stephen
Mattson. “Biography”. Sojourners. https://sojo.net/biography/stephen-mattson 1/
(accessed 170129)
[5] Stephen
Mattson. The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/sjmattson-647
(accessed 170129)
[6] About
Us. Sojourners. https://sojo.net/about-us (accessed 170129)
[7] What We
Cover. Sojourners. https://sojo.net/about-us/what-we-cover (accessed 170129)
[8] Who We
Are. Sojourners. https://sojo.net/about-us/who-we-are (accessed 170129)
[9] John
Pavlovitz. “If You Voted for Him”. Reprinted by Voices4Hillary. http://www.voices4hillary.com/if-you-voted-for-himby-john-pavlovitz-2107856844.html
(accessed 170129)
[11] John
Pavlovitz | The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/john-pavlovitz
(accessed 170129)
[12] John
Pavlovitz | NRCC Downtown. http://www.northraleighcommunitychurch.org/?staff=john-pavlovitz
(accessed 170129)
[13]
CONFESSION: SELF-AWARENESS, SELF-DISCLOSURE WORKSHEET; APPENDIX: FEELING WORDS
(downloaded from NRCC website 170129)
[14] What We
Believe | NRCC Downtown. http://www.northraleighcommunitychurch.org/what-we-believe/
(accessed 170129)
[15] Our
Story | NRCC Downtown. http://www.northraleighcommunitychurch.org/our-story/
(accessed 170129)
[16] Our
Minister | NRCC Downtown. http://www.northraleighcommunitychurch.org/our-minister/
(accessed 170129)
[17] Stephen
Mattson. “American Christianity Has Failed”. Sojourners. 25 Jan 2017. https://sojo.net/articles/american-christianity-has-failed
(accessed 170129)
[18] Stephen
Mattson. “American Christianity Has Failed”. Sojourners. 25 Jan 2017. https://sojo.net/articles/american-christianity-has-failed
(accessed 170129)
[19] John
Pavlovitz. “If You Voted for Him”. Reprinted by Voices4Hillary. http://www.voices4hillary.com/if-you-voted-for-himby-john-pavlovitz-2107856844.html
(accessed 170129)
