The Slippery Slope

March 23, 2006 - 11:17am

So there you are, you’ve made your case, you’ve taken a position, you’ve let it be known that you believe something or have taken some action in response to a belief. Inevitably, someone says, “Yes, but once you say or do this thing, what’s to stop you from saying or doing THAT thing, or, God forbid, even THIS dreadful thing?”

Ah, the “slippery slope” argument. It’s one of my least favorite arguments, I must say. There are times when it is appropriate, times when human freedom is limited or circumstances will not provide the opportunity to examine every case individually, but most of the time I think it is on the same level as using an analogy to prove a point. Analogies make wonderful illustrations, but they are pitiful proofs.

And I’ve noticed that some people tend to use the slippery slope argument frequently. Apparently, once you start using the this kind of argument, it is hard to know when to stop.

Sorry, I couldn't resist saying that.

Let’s take a look at the idea of the slippery slope. It goes something like this: One person makes a case for doing or thinking something we shall call A. Another person, one who is against A for one reason or another, argues that once you allow A, it is either inevitable or likely that you will also allow B, C, D, and E. And since any or all of B through E are wrong or unwise or dangerous, it is best to avoid A as a precaution. It’s basically the story of Pandora’s Box repackaged and offered to the discussion at hand.

The reason that A leads to B and so on is usually not mentioned, which disappoints me. If you use the slippery slope argument, I feel you should also be ready to explain why it is a valid concern in a given situation.

In some cases, human weakness is the culprit. In this scenario, A might not be so bad, but it will make B through E more tempting and harder to resist. Or perhaps A is some sort of logical Rubicon. Once you cross A, there is no logical reason for not crossing B through E. There is even a rather codependent sociological twist to this argument. If you do A, then other people will follow, and they might do B through E. And you, a right and decent person, obviously should take responsibility for those people as well as for yourself.

I have to tell you that I’m not particularly crazy about ANY of those reasons. Back of each of them is the assumption that we will be unable to deal with every situation individually, as it occurs.

Once I told someone that I did not think the events described in the book of Jonah had actually occurred. The story has great spiritual value, which is why it was included in the Bible, but I felt there was no real history behind it.

An alarmed Christian person said, “Yes, but once you say that Jonah didn’t really happen, what’s to stop you from saying any or all of the Bible didn't happen?”

I’ve heard this same argument with regard to scripture a thousand times over the years. Here is the appropriate response:

“Well, let’s see. I believe that Jonah was not swallowed by a great fish and vomited up on the beach. But I believe Abraham was a real person. Further, I believe that David was a real king of a real Israel. And I believe that Jesus was also a real person, one who worked miracles and died on the cross for our sins. See now, that wasn’t so hard, was it?”

One of the joys we have in being human is in exercising our freedom to choose and to take each case as it comes to us. We are not robots who are forced into behaviors by their programming. We see things; we think about things; and we choose our course of action or beliefs appropriately. And as long as that remains true of us, we will live every day of our lives on one slippery slope or another. There is no reason to fear this.

As a matter of fact, all of the really lovely and interesting things that humans think and do exist on slippery slopes. Love, parenting, sexuality, boundaries (both geographic and emotional), spirituality, morality, legality, economy, consumption and production. Really there is no end to this list. In truth, I am at a loss at this moment to think of ANY human endeavor that does not exist on a slippery slope of some kind.

So relax. Keep your eyes and your heart open. Think and believe and act. Changing your mind is always a respectable option. Hopefully your heart will follow in time. Fear not the slippery slope, for we have been slipping and sliding throughout history.

It’s a part of what makes us human.

rlp
Submitted by Josh on March 23, 2006 - 11:27am.

Cheers! It's good to hear others speak of the opportunities that God has given us as thinking individuals to take each instance of action or discussion individually. To also be able to make your own decisions, no matter what logic may be thrown against you. Sometimes my faith and my heart just say to go with what I know is the right direction, regardless of all the irrefutable logic mounting against me. These tend to be decisions between me and God. I'll be glad to discuss (most times) why I've decided what I do, even enjoy an occasional good debate. But in the end, it's my decision (and possibly my mistake) to make.

Submitted by Rich D on March 23, 2006 - 11:31am.

Hey RLP, I definitely agree with what you're saying.

Just out of interest, what are your reasons behind not believing the story of Jonah to have actually taken place? or at least, the fish part. I know it's a bizzarre, supernatural thing to have happened, but not THE most unlikely thing in scripture. I guess if you believe in the resurrection of the dead, a man being gobbled and regurgitated by a fish isn't so hard to believe ... so I presume it's not a "that's just impossible" reason.

Submitted by rlp on March 23, 2006 - 1:02pm.

I would say that my familiarity with the book leads me to this. There are some things I grant in faith. Others not. Jonah is not essential for my faith in Christ.

And the book seems (as is mentioned by a comment below this) to be a story that tells something.

Submitted by mattman on March 27, 2006 - 11:23am.

I might add that the book of Jonah reads more like a parable than the history narratives of Israel. It is true in a way that is not dependent upon its historic verifiability.

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 23, 2006 - 11:59am.

Great post. I'm guilty of using the 'Slippery Slope' argument all the time. This sentence was a 'lightbulb' moment for me: "As a matter of fact, all of the really lovely and interesting things that humans think and do exist on slippery slopes. Love, parenting, sexuality, boundaries (both geographic and emotional), spirituality, morality, legality, economy, consumption and production." How true. I need to remember that.

Out of curiosity, are you speaking of the 'slippery slope' idea when it comes to a person's personal decisions or on a political/legal/law-making level? Perhaps you don't think there's a difference. I wonder, though, if the 'Rubicon' version of the argument has its place on a political/legal level?

Anyway, keep up the good work.

Marc Vandersluys

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 23, 2006 - 12:19pm.

I'd be interested in RLP's take on Jonah. I found it fascnitating when I learned from Fred Clark (the Slacktivist) that Jonah is "a wicked, over-the-top satire":

The Book of Jonah is included among the "minor prophets," but the prophet here is not the titular character of the story. The real prophet was the ancient satirist who penned this savage ridicule of self-righteous, exclusive, friend-or-foe religiosity.

It still baffles me that parents don't realize how cruel it is to name their children after this buffoon. Might as well call the kid "Tartuffe" or "Catalano."

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 24, 2006 - 2:50am.

People say "Read the Bible," but unassisted reading has led me down a lot of wrong paths in my road to Christianity. We ought to warn people that they need a guide.

Jonah seems like an example where we ought to do something else too.
The fish story is so well known - why isn't the deeper story? Can't we work more into the oral and popular tradition?

Submitted by mattman on March 27, 2006 - 11:26am.

I think your post demonstrates why it is important to read scripture within the community, serving as each other's guides with the resources of scholarship.

Submitted by TheEdge on March 23, 2006 - 12:32pm.

I use the slippery slope argument, especially when it comes to the Bible. However, I have really been working on my witness to others lately and have found that I accomplish nothing with confrontational tactics. So for this entry I will just say that I cannot choose for myself to interpret what is and is not valid in scripture. I am too human, too wroght with sin, error, and foolishness to be able to discern matters in the way that you do. I did try to pick and choose my Biblical beliefs at one point in my life but found myself adapting The Word to fit my lifestyle...rather than using it (The Word) as an accoutability tool. Our belief in Christ as our Savior is what unites us though, not our views of the Bible. I bid each person well with their decisions on this matter and other matters of importance.

Submitted by rlp on March 23, 2006 - 1:07pm.

Hello,

I disagree. You do pick and choose in the Bible. You do because there is no other choice but to do so. I presume you do not advocate slavery as a valid way of having people work for you. And yet the New Testament encourages slaves not to rebel but to be obedient to their masters. I assume (I hope rightly) that you permit the women of your church to cut their hair. Paul forbade this clearly in First Corinthians.

If you worship on Sunday and carry out a normal Saturday for our culture, you are disregarding one of the Ten Commandments. At what point did you decide that commandment was less important than the others?

I could go on and on with this list. I could, for example, go into Leviticus and bring out a couple of doozies.

So you see, the Bible isn't the kind of book that will allow you to make wild claims like, "I used to pick and choose but now I don't."

It's just not possible to avoid picking and choosing, and I feel if you would examine the way you use scripture you will see that interpretation, prioritizing, and choosing are things we cannot avoid.

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 23, 2006 - 1:47pm.

Dear RLP,

I would love to hear from you more on this topic. You've elluded to it a number of times. But, I think more concrete examples like you gave above could be really edifying: particularly for someone who finds herself all too often in need of justifying why she believes this as opposed to that.

Celle T.

Submitted by rlp on March 23, 2006 - 2:08pm.

We'll see. I hadn't thought of an essay like that. I don't plan what I write. But maybe this will come to me.

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 24, 2006 - 5:49pm.

The question of what in Scripture applies to what and how so is one I wrestle with quite frequently. I have, in fact, wondered about some of the very things you mentioned. If you find yourself inclined to write more about this, I would be very interested to read it.

Submitted by rlp on March 25, 2006 - 10:04am.

Here is what most ministers will not admit, but it true for all of us. Reading scripture and applying it to life is an art. It is messy and hard and not at all clear. The best you can do is learn as much as you can about the language, culture, and writing behind each of the 66 books in the Bible. Then study and pray and decide what seems relevent to you and what is possibly just the cultural baggage in which the good news is presented.

I takes a long time to learn this. That's why you want to do it with friends around you. A Christian community - A REAL one, friends whom you know and love - can help you in this process.

Do not listen to people who tell you that they do not engage in this art but "take the scriptures just as they are" or some other nonsense. Of course they don't. No one can read the Bible without interpreting it and applying it.

Shoot, that's what makes it interesting!

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 27, 2006 - 4:38pm.

My late husband grew up a devout Lutheran, but was also an engineer who prized rational thought and logic. When he asked his minister why there were contradictions in the Bible, like the multiple Genesis stories, and why some commands were followed while others were not (including the ones RLP cited), he was basically told to shut up because he wasn't smart enough to understand the word of God. Given that he later graduated from MIT, that answer didn't sit well with him and he eventually lost his faith. I wonder if he'd have stayed with the church if he'd had a preacher like RLP who recognized that there ARE contradictions in the Bible and that it's ok for people of faith to struggle with them.

Oh, and for those looking for additional unenforced "rules" from the Bible, here are a few more: women are forbidden to wear their hair in braids (1 Peter), men are allowed and even encouraged to have multiple wives (Esau, Jacob, Saul, David and numerous others), and you shouldn't help widows who are under the age of 60, or have no children, or have been married to more than one man (1 Timothy v.5).

Karen from Pittsburgh

Submitted by Anonymous User on June 26, 2007 - 1:43pm.

I'd be interested in you stating where it comes from if indeed it comes.

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 23, 2006 - 12:50pm.

"Our belief in Christ as our Savior is what unites us though, not our views of the Bible. I bid each person well with their decisions on this matter and other matters of importance."

What happens if the Christ that is preached is not the Christ of the Bible? What is your point of reference?
I am not worried about the "slippery slope", it's the swamp that you are sliding into.

Psalm 131

1 O LORD, my heart is not lifted up;
my eyes are not raised too high;
I do not occupy myself with things
too great and too marvelous for me.
2 But I have calmed and quieted my soul,
like a weaned child with its mother;
like a weaned child is my soul within me.
3 O Israel, hope in the LORD
from this time forth and forevermore.

Isaiah 55:

7let the wicked forsake his way,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts;
let him return to the LORD, that he may have compassion on him,
and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
8For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
9For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts

I choose to worship with my mind, (Romans 12:1-2). I will not view my mind as an object of worship.

Submitted by TheEdge on March 23, 2006 - 1:56pm.

My point (if I have one) was that I DO use the Bible as my point of reference and DO believe its inerrancy. However, I DO NOT have to convince everyone to have this mindset in order to fellowship with fellow believers. I have come from a place where I needed to convince or change everyones mind to agree with me to a place where I can accept differences if we still unite under the same risen Savior. Conservative, Bible believing Christians like myself make more waves with Liberal Christians and the Unchurched that we rarely do more good than harm. I do not think this mindset condones sin or has me slipping into a swamp as you put it.

Submitted by rlp on March 23, 2006 - 2:11pm.

Thanks, and I deeply respect and appreciate that point of view. The point of view that says, "I must be true to myself without feeling like people must agree in order to fellowship with me."

Yes, I like that. And it's true of me too, at least I hope so. Maybe on my good days.

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 23, 2006 - 12:59pm.

In formal argument, the slippery slope argument falls in the fallacy category.

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 23, 2006 - 2:29pm.

I don't have a problem with the idea that there is only one correct interpretation of scripture, but I consider it high hubris to think that any of us puny, flawed humans could access the totality of that truth. To me, rigid church doctrine borders on idolatry.

The Pharisees constructing a complex and impossible infrastructure of rules to overlay the Law and keep tabs on who was righteous and who wasn't. Everybody wants the comfort of rules even though nobody can follow them. Faith doesn't reside in reason, so why should it follow the rules of logic?

Submitted by Three-Star Dave on March 23, 2006 - 3:33pm.

You're right. The real world is analog, and drawing fine, bright lines around things -- black vs. white, all true vs. all false -- is rarely wise.

I'd go back to a previous commenter, though, who drew a distinction in the slippery slope between personal decisions and beliefs vs. politics and law. Precedent is powerful, as is tradition, and both are used (as a slippery slope) to support policies and make judicial rulings beyond what the original actors may have felt their action would lead to. Sometimes that's good, sometimes that's bad, but it's something to consider, at least in those arenas.

Submitted by Jared Cramer on March 23, 2006 - 3:39pm.

Did the story of the prodigal son really take place? Of course not, it's a parable.

Is the story of the prodigal son true? Yes, definitely yes.

Insisting on historical accuracy in the Bible is misguided. It assumes that all of the books of the bible were attempting historical and scientific accuracy. It's a category mistake. Poetry can be true and not reference an actual event. People already make this distinction with parables. Jonah probably didn't take place, it's probably a parable. Though it seems to have been inspired by the real prejudices of the real Jewish people, the story itself is written as satire. This is especially obvious if you read it in Hebrew.

I recently reflected on the implications of this stuff on my blog (Finding Truth in Contradiction).

Thanks for your thoughts rlp.

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 23, 2006 - 4:58pm.

Most of us- those not delivered by Caesarian, anyway- are brought into this world via irreversible slippery slope. It's a component of humanity, to a certain extent, isn't it?

Slippery slope arguments are dangerous in that they encourage us to feel that an initial doubt or trespass must inevitably lead to further sin. They relieve us of the personal responsibility for our decisions after that initial step into ambiguous territory.

A great deal of time has been spent with my foster son teaching him that every decision and opinion is as important as the last- and failure at one thing doesn't relieve you of responsibility for your next set of choices.

That said, I belief all of the Bible is TRUTH, but not necessarily history, just as Christ's parables were.
Love Marya

Submitted by Steve F on March 23, 2006 - 6:15pm.

Slippery Slopes do exist; they’re just not as dangerous or un-natural as those who fear them believe they are.

Slippery Slopes do not generally come from questions of "what" a person believes as much as "why" they believe. This is why the Slippery Slope argument fails so often: it assumes that people live lives consistent with what they say they believe. The far more relevant question is why they believe what they say they believe.

Those who make the Slippery Slope argument tend to put their efforts into trying to find out “what” a person believes, but then get lazy and just try to guess the rest (and their guess seems to end in some cataclysm). The answer to the “Why” question will give a better indication of where a person is headed then a “What” question ever could. And the beautiful thing is, once you know "why" then you understand that most people's "Slippery Slopes" are just part of their journey and not a quick ride to annihilation.

Steve F

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 23, 2006 - 6:21pm.

As I'm sliding here, I'll admit that I don't believe the events in RLP actually happen, but I include the blog in my reading because it has fair to middlin' to great spiritual value.

I believe that Gordon Atkinson is a real person, at least during my descent on this portion of the slope. Likewise, while on this part of the slope, I believe in God the Father Almighty.

Wheeee!
Greg

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 23, 2006 - 6:25pm.

Slip sliding away
Slip sliding aw-a-a-a-ay
You know the nearer your destination, the more you slip sliding away

Whoah God only knows, God makes his plan
The information’s unavailable to the mortal man
We’re workin’ our jobs, collect our pay
Believe we’re gliding down the highway, when in fact we’re slip sliding away

Slip sliding away
Slip sliding aw-a-a-a-ay
You know the nearer your destination, the more you slip sliding away

rev mommy (that's me! NOT Delores)

Submitted by bigbrotherinlaw on March 24, 2006 - 8:17am.

Indeed! My first thoughts after reading rlp's essay were:

Time keeps on slipin' slippin' slippin' into the future...

Submitted by atticus on March 23, 2006 - 8:02pm.

oh, but i think we should fear the slippery slope...we should be afraid of it and in awe of it.When i change my mind, it is usually a heart thing, overruling my boundaried mind. This was nice...a little cryptic, but nice.

Submitted by Clueless on March 23, 2006 - 9:19pm.

I've slid so far down that slippery slope that the only thing I'm completely sure of in the Bible is the life, death, and ressurection of Jesus Christ. But I'll take what I can get and trust that it works out. Preach it, brother! Tell us more.

Submitted by Alice in Wonderbread on March 24, 2006 - 10:08am.

Thank you, Gordon, for introducing some reason back into spirituality. The two are not mutually exclusive. The depend on each other, rely on each other to be healthy.

Submitted by Jim Sturges on March 24, 2006 - 1:00pm.

I was required to write my own Creed, my personal theology, for the EFM course I'm taking in our church. It's amazing how that crystallized my thinking about what I will and will not say -- out loud -- that I really, honestly believe. No pie-in-the-sky-bye-and-bye allowed. It had to be stuff that I can either intellectually, experientially, or (very strongly) emotionally defend. The slippery-index of the slopes below that position is high, indeed.

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 24, 2006 - 1:08pm.

Jesus considered Jonah significant enough to mention it as an historical event. He compared the 3 days in the belly of the great fish the same as His own impending burial. And in Luke chapter 11 Jesus claims the men of Nineveh will stand at the judgment to condemn the wicked generation He was addressing...

Included in this incident was reference to the Queen of the South. Parable or historical event? Or Jesus mentioning in another incident that at the beginning of creation God created them male & female: allegory or historical fact? When Jesus makes mention of certain events in scripture should additional weight given to them? His own parables were not yet written into New Testament scripture, but He does quote the Old Testament. He could have cleared up any misconception then yet He did not elaborate as to the factual integrity of Jonah's exploits...

Either way I am not going to consider Jonah mere hyperbole. And those who choose to believe it all a moral fable I will not cast off into the chasm of heresy. It can be an interesting topic for ongoing conversation. I suppose there is similar latitude in regrading other controversial topics. The creation story is one of divergent opinion. I am not a proponent of young earth theory or a literal 6 day creation sequence. And I do find it disrespectful of other sincere saints who would dismiss my own ability to reason out other scenarios. Am I then in danger of dismissing the source of said creation? I think not. Unless of course I end up sliding down that slippery slope into the mud pit Adam emerged from...

Submitted by Recovering Christian on March 24, 2006 - 9:24pm.

Not to harp on poor Jonah, but it might be more accurate to say that Jesus, as a first-century Jew, knew the story of Jonah and knew that people would understand the comparison he was making by means of a familiar story.

Speaking before an appropriate group of people today, I might say, "Boromir was tested by the allure of the Ring, and failed because he thought he was strong enough to resist its pull to evil. In the same way, we often are tempted to evil through our greatest strengths." That gets my point across quite well, but it doesn't mean I believe the events of "The Lord of the Rings" were historical.

Elsewhere in the gospels, Jesus tells his disciples that he's not a ghost. Does that mean that he believed in ghosts? Or was he just acknowleding a familiar superstition in assuring his disciples that he was made of flesh and bone?

I'm not personally inclined to worry overmuch about whether the book of Jonah describes an historic event. It's a fantastic story about loving one's enemies, God's forgiveness, racism and hatred, and, well, the ongoing dialogue between humanity and God. It's certainly not beyond God for the events of Jonah to have happened as described. I just don't think it's necessary to say that they did.
David Learn
http://tbyxeg.blogspot.com

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 24, 2006 - 1:12pm.

did'ja ever notice that it's typically somebody else's slide that your "slippery slope" person is afraid of, and not his own? I tend to think that's because the person raising the alarm is afraid of something, mebbe the soundness of his own conviction, thus another person stepping away from his opinion is a threat.
It's not at all the same to say that I hold a strong view pro/anti, take a course of action or refrain from same, because *I* am afraid of the moral or theological consequences. Those would just be my personal moral choices.
no, man, when it's the Slope I'm worried about, I'm laying directions down for *you*.

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 24, 2006 - 3:46pm.

Inertia seems to be an aspect of physics. That is to say, that once someone has set out on a particular mode of thinking, they will likely continue along it. Frankly I don't think there are any slippery slopes for man to be wary of. We are all wallowing in a mudpit, and the only slippery slope we must face is the one up and out and into the cool air.

Submitted by jazzadog on March 25, 2006 - 8:32am.

I so depend on your blog and everyone's comments to keep me sane about my Christian beliefs. Thanks so much.

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 25, 2006 - 9:33am.

This is another area where I disagree with my Pastor. I'm not quick to dismiss the story of Jonah. I believe Jesus died and was resurrected. I believe God spoke to Moses via a burning bush. I believe God is capable of any and all things.
Once I came to believe that...and mine was a long journey being that most of my life I was unchurched...I found the slope to be far less slippery, in fact it's not slippery at all.
I think many of us are guilty of analyzing spirituality rather than living it.
My Pastor, whom I love dearly, and I disagree on many things politically, theologically, and otherwise I suspect - with the only clear exceptions being the Spurs and the Dallas Cowboys. Some would walk away from a church based on disagreement's with the Pastor's beliefs...some in fact have in our case.
I believe God is the foundation of our church, not my theology, or RLP's. As long as that issue isn't "slippery" I have no problem worshiping alongside those whose beliefs vary dramatically from mine on the minutiae of the Bible.

We worship the same God...I am comfortable letting Him sort it out.

"...what is that to thee? follow thou me." - John 21:22

love,

"Pepe"

Michael Main
The Main Point Blog
http://www.MichaelMain.com/blog.htm

Submitted by rlp on March 25, 2006 - 10:06am.

That's one of many things I loved about you, Michael. And knowing that I can also be honest at church is perhaps the only thing that has kept me in the game. I think that in the essentials (And Jonah isn't one of those) we share a passion and commitment.

Submitted by seebs on March 26, 2006 - 1:05pm.

If you don't believe that the events in Peanuts actually happened, why do you believe the front page news?

The Bible is not just a book, it is a collection of books.

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 26, 2006 - 4:15pm.

What are you worried using the 'slippery slope argument' will lead to?

Submitted by rlp on March 26, 2006 - 10:23pm.

I think the slippery slope argument is often a fearful avoidance of responsibility. It's like sticking your head in the sand. With regard to the Bible, it's abdicating your responsibility to study each of the 66 books, treating each in ways appropriate to its character and purpose.

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 27, 2006 - 11:30am.

I think the remark was meant to be ironic. (and quite hilarious)

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 26, 2006 - 4:32pm.

I just love the post, and all the comments too! :->
~ Wandering Willow ~

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 27, 2006 - 5:44am.

So which do you disagree with? Using slippery slope arguments, or avoidance of responsibility?

Submitted by rlp on March 27, 2006 - 6:52am.

I don't like using the slippery slope argument to avoid the burden of considering individual circumstances.

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 27, 2006 - 8:27am.

But you don't mind using the slippery slope argument for other reasons?

Submitted by rlp on March 27, 2006 - 10:41am.

When it is appropriate, as I mentioned in the essay. Sometimes each individual circumstance cannot be taken individually. In a bureaucracy, for example. If you allow one person to do something, you may be obligated to allow everyone to do so. Your goal is to treat everyone the same way.

Also, if you are talking about a person with a weakness, like an alcoholic, it is good to note that one drink will likely lead to other drinks.

So yes, when it seems right this argument is a good one. It's just used too much, I think. Even the slippery slope argument exists on a slippery slope.

Submitted by notarev on March 27, 2006 - 6:59am.

Yay RLP!
Why are so many Christians so afriad of so many things? Don't we sing that the vict'ry is won? Sure the world is messed up. Sure people are going to do stupid things. Sure the government is going to make bad laws. So what's new? Here's a secret: I've skipped ahead to the end of the book, and guess what? God wins!

nota

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 27, 2006 - 7:17am.

so i've been intellectualy honest, allowing myself to slide.
i slid as far as i could...but i wound up somewhere on the slope that simply didn't feel right. i prayed to God about it, more than a couple of times. it still didn't feel right. i started to climb and a lot of folks told me it was easier to slide...."just let the slope be your guide." i climbed back to a place where it felt right and then i prayed again.

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 27, 2006 - 10:44am.

When I hear the slippery slope argument, I always think of the Professor in "The Music Man" singing "Trouble--with a capital T and that rhymes with P and that stands for pool." The slippery slope argument is too often used to convince us that something benign (such as a pool table) is the beginning of our moral demise. In the musical, the Professor gets the townspeople whipped up into a frenzy until they are all too willing to buy into to his "solution" even though it's really a con...

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 27, 2006 - 11:38am.

The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. Matt 12:41

Either there is a resurrection of the dead & accompanying judgment or it’s simply a sobering allegory. Either the men of Nineveh stand & condemn those that did not respond to Jesus or else He was simply declaring a symbolic rebuke. Either those Ninevites believed God, declared a fast & repented at the preaching of Jonah or else Jesus was merely being creative in his condemnation of the stubborn group of Jews He was addressing.

Well, which is it??? This is not a slippery slope consideration. It is simply looking at another story recorded in the scripture that makes mention of Jonah. If it were not a substantial reference, Jesus could have stopped at, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." But He didn’t. Jesus goes on to declare those very Ninevites will stand at the judgment to condemn those rejecting the greater preaching.

I already mentioned that Jesus included a similar reference to the Queen of the South. That entire account of the queen of Sheba visiting Solomon simply another colorful legend inserted into the books of Kings+Chronicles for added pizzazz? So Jesus freely used fictional characters in His scriptural references when speaking to the very learned religious elite as well as the uneducated masses???

I suppose you could excuse Jesus of such journalistic laxness when making such comments. After all, He was only a man of simple means taught from His youth the stories of God’s people. Job, Esther, Haggai & the other minor prophets: also considered poetic & allegorical? How about any character mentioned in the Torah—was there any reason not to consider them make-believe???

Certainly there are stories included in the bible that strain credulity. We can relegate such hard to comprehend events to the back burner of moralistic anecdote much like Aesop’s fables. Nice story, but let’s not be so gullible as to actually believe they could have happened. And why should we? After all, we are capable of recognizing a good biblical illustration for what it is. Hey, if Jesus could do it, why can’t we???

Submitted by rlp on March 27, 2006 - 12:00pm.

I never said the particular Jonah question was a slippery slope in itself. The slippery slope argument is someone saying that not considering the Jonah story to be historical somehow will mean that I MUST count other Biblical stories as less than history as well.

No. Jonah as a book stands on its own. You deal with Jonah. Then you deal with other parts of the Bible.

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 27, 2006 - 1:04pm.

Okay...now I'm a bit confused...

Let's deal with the book of Jonah as it stands alone you say. So, does it matter really if it was historical or allegorical? I would say it doesn't matter. But...

Jesus uses the reference. That's where it gets to be of greater import. Not only does Jesus mention it, He mentions it along with another historical account. Then He proceeds to elaborate on future events.

So if Jesus speaks of it in such a way as to address future events it can still be safely relegated as allegorical? That seems to be convoluted reasoning.

Jesus may have known the facts. Maybe He didn't. Maybe He assumed the story to be factual because of the religious tradition He was raised in. Maybe His reference to future events were simple constructions to contrast the response of His preaching with that of Jonah. Maybe He didn't know what would really happen at the judgment...

Then we must artfully separate other sayings of Jesus from the matrix of illustration vs. those of real theological consequence regarding future events?

I can appreciate the discussion as you presented it. Maybe Jonah was a good example to highlight since it was also used by Jesus to make a different point. But when does the point cease to be illustrative & then becomes prophetic declaration???

If I don't accept Jonah as historical, then I must address what Jesus must have intended in His reference to the story. I think that's what I wanted to draw attention to. I don't really know if the story of Jonah was historical or not. But I do know Jesus mentioned it as though it was. At least I do if I don't slip down the slope of second-guessing everything Jesus said.

Like I mentioned in my first post, I do believe there is greater latitude in such thoughful considerations than most Christian's dare to extend. I do agree there is unfounded fear of dismissing key tenets of the faith simply by asking questions or challenging sacrosanct viewpoints. I like to hear differing opinion, especially if it is presented in such a way as to stimulate further contemplation. Your points are thought-provoking. And they don't strike any fear into the heart of this questioning pilgrim...

Pax

Submitted by mattman on March 27, 2006 - 1:40pm.

I'm not sure it follows that Jesus spoke of Jonah has historical fact. Isn't he making a point using narrative material familiar to his audience?

This is where I come into conflict with literalist interpretation of scripture. Because the words of Jesus change, don't they, depending on which Gospel writer you are quoting. Perhaps this leads believers to elevate one gospel above the others (John, for instance even though it has the latest dating and the most obvious metaphorical content). And that privilaging of a gospel, or even a single verse outside of its context constitutes an interpretation that is often driven by a pre-text not found in the actual words used (say a position on this, or that issue).

What I read in RLP's essay is the exasperation I feel when I raise such questions and receive an answer that amounts to saying if you question this reading of the text, or that variant they you might as well question the whole of the faith, and if that's the case then you really aren't a believer, oh and by the way hope you like it warm because you're obviously headed straight to hell. I live in SBC and Church of Christ country and I can't tell you how many times I've been condemned to the torments of hellfire just because of one little question.

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 27, 2006 - 2:35pm.

I do understand the exasperation you & RLP feel. I consider myself a skeptical sort & attempt to look at a particular issue from various angles. I have always questioned the definitive teachings of the denominational flavors I have emerged from...

That's why I claim allegiance to none. There is something inherently distrustful about a group claiming to have correct orthodoxy, doctrine & a direct line to the Throne...

I am not convinced the self-appointed sheriffs of the church impress Jesus any. I am even convinced He is not all that impressed with my own theology. I am mindful He is concerned about our behavior though. And He has little regard for those who carefully spout off the company line while ignoring their actions. Hypocrisy was a sore subject back then & Jesus had a very short fuse dealing with the religious kind...

[sigh]

I too dislike the pigeon-hole others would relegate me to based on my thoughtful consideration of scripture. My faith has developed over time & I assume it will continue to evolve. I am less rigid in my theological stances & more conscious of how I don't measure up to the little truth I do know. So I grant liberal leeway to other pilgrims pursuing this God we cannot see. Fruit trimuphs over theology. That's my own litmus test. It corresponds to James comment, "Mercy triumphs over judgment!"

Pax

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 27, 2006 - 11:42am.

What if we all got on the slippery slope of the gospel? It occurs to me that we make our arguments and quibble over textual accuracy because the gospel itself is so uncomfortably clear. Jesus said "Follow Me" into a life of self sacrifice, utter surrender. Why because the kingdom of God is at hand. Well 2000 years later it doesn't seem to be here, but then again maybe it is at hand if we would follow. It is right there in our grasp. Think about what could happen if everyone who calls themselves Christian would buy the whole program - total surrender and self sacrifice - the giant sucking sound would be the world as we know it sliding down the slippery slope into the vacuum created by when Christians empty themselves as Christ emptied himself. I think the slope is indeed slippery but the fingernails of self reliance and selfishness cut deep into the surface and the layers of dug in believers make it a bumpy ride for one individual to take. But what if? We all let go - I think we might just be in for one hell of a good ride.

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 27, 2006 - 3:56pm.

Wow so true, and how I can relate....I have gone down the slippery slope, I was so afraid to believe the absolute awesomeness and grace of God, and now that I have embraced grace coming out of a controlling legalistic church background, I have become convinced that not only does God want to save everyone, but that eventually He will. Now how is THAT for a slippery slope? Jesus is the savior of the world...Shalom & Stuff from Nancy in San Antonio

Submitted by Anonymous User on March 28, 2006 - 12:22pm.

Being human is to be on the slippery slope. Whether I believe the Bible this way or that - my choice is a human one not a divine one - subject to error.

Personally, I deal with the slippery slope by holding to a few observations that have served me well. #1 Things are pretty much now as they were then (law of uniformitarianism). #2 Follow the money (or the self interest - what was in it for the author?)

Even the best scientific "truth" can change as new information becomes available.

It seems to me that the folks who claim not to be on the slippery slope are deceiving themselves. The story of "The Emperor's New Clothes" comes to mind.

I unapologetically apply the same standards for discerning what's actually-factually true in the Bible (as opposed to allegorically true) or just plain wrong (the implication that the world is flat, for example) -- the same standards that I would apply when reading a newspaper, listening to TV, or examining a contract.

Submitted by goatmeal on April 2, 2006 - 8:30pm.

I prefer to think of it as a waterslide. It's much more fun that way.

http://scapegoat-mo.livejournal.com/

Submitted by Anonymous User on April 6, 2006 - 11:15am.

It's interesting that Jesus didn't have a problem believing the Jonah account and referred to it in Luke 11, saying that what happened to Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites even as He was to be a sign to them. He also said the Ninevites repented at the preaching of Jonah so He believed the account as written. It always amazes me that those who believe in Christ have difficulty believing his word. They're one and the same.

Submitted by Peatey on April 6, 2006 - 12:08pm.

If Jesus told parables, then why couldn't he cite another's parable?

The book does not bear the least evidence of having been written by the prophet or even during his time ... It becomes necessary to inquire into the purpose and teaching of the book, because of the fact that it is not a historical narrative, but a midrash, and also because of its conclusion. The whole story ends with the lesson received by Jonah, the purpose of the book having thus been accomplished; and as one can not follow the effects of this lesson on Jonah's further career (unlike the story of Elijah in I Kings xix.), the lesson itself is in reality addressed to the reader, i.e., to the Jewish congregation.
...
All the details of the book are subordinated and made subservient to this one purpose; and there is every probability that it was invented only for that purpose, whereby of course appeal to other, well-known motives also is not excluded.
...
In the New Testament Jesus (Luke xi. 29-32) makes use of the book in its original sense, referring to the people of Nineveh as examples of the faith and repentance that he missed among his contemporaries, while refusing them the miracle that they were asking at his hands. The endeavor to find more than this simple reference in the "sign of Jonas," ..., has led in the parallel passage (Matt. xii. 39-41) to the interpolation (verse 40), according to which Jonah's three days in the belly of the fish are a prophecy of the three days that Jesus would spend in the grave. The early Christian Church more correctly elevates Jonah's rescue from the belly of the fish into the standing type of the resurrection from the grave, a type which is found in all the plastic representations that decorate the early Christian sarcophagi and other monuments.

Submitted by rlp on April 7, 2006 - 5:25pm.

Yes and Jude makes a reference to the book of Enoch. Why? Because the angel Gabriel actually fought with Satan for the body of Moses? Or perhaps because it was a popular story at the time.

A good exegetical approach to the Jewish scriptures includes being willing to take them on their own merits and according to their own literary style.

Submitted by Anonymous User on November 6, 2006 - 2:38pm.

RLP,
It seems to me that the slippery slope argument is employed out of a general intellectual slovenliness. I find it is often employed by folks who know full well that it is an informal fallacy, but who employ it nevertheless because coming up with a real argument is too mentally taxing. It's so hard to establish that A actually entails Z, and who's got the time or energy to figure out if it really does? It seems that the same intellectual slovenliness that gives rise to mass usage of the slippery slope argument also tends to produce in folks a tendency to equate all narrative with brute history. It's a lot of tough work to cultivate literary sensibilities and genre sensitivty. Far better to just leave all that to others, adopt a crass literalism for our hermeneutic and then defend our position with the slippery slope argument. Now I've the benefit of a settled opinion, sort of, and a method of defending it that hasn't really required any mental energy of me at all!

Submitted by RevBetsy on April 14, 2007 - 10:54pm.

I'm late and will probably be ignored in this discussion but I need to put my two cents in anyway.

I agree absolutely with you that the slippery slope arguement against something is specious, but I have used it at times in favor of something. Like this: I may believe in the right of a woman to choose and someone may say to me "but if you believe that then you believe in wholesale murder and abortion as birth control. It's a slippery slope." I don't have to believe in any of those other things. I just believe in being caring about the living and examining all the alternatives.

So when I am expounding on one of my non-literalistic imterpretations of scripture, I may say to the group: "Now be careful of the slippery slope. Just because we come through study and prayer to find this particular thing non-literal doesn't give us leave to disagree with other things just because they are uncomfortable or don't suit us." We are all temptable.

But this is not getting tommorrow's sermon written or the taxes done--or even the trash put out. Thanks for this website