Burning Straw Men

In the spirit of Fall, a house nearby has erected three scarecrow. Dressed in the typical flannel outfits reminiscent of Al Borland on Home Improvement and topped with the traditional pumpkin head eliciting images of Ichabod Crane in Sleepy Hollow, these straw men do their duty: scare unwanted visitors away. Similarly, in both political discourses and theological discussions, straw men are constructed to portray a particular position in a manner that people will be repulsed by its appearance. In these venues, straw men (or man) can be defined as: an improper interpretation of an opposing view for the purpose of destroying an opponents argument. For propaganda purposes this action is quite successful, but for those in the pursuit of truth these lifeless tools can be nothing short of infuriating.

As I muse, a couple of examples of straw men come to mind. First, the political debate between the two presidential candidates this past Friday night displayed a significant amount of effort from both sides in trying to construct and burn straw men. McCain defiantly opposed his accusation of being "just another Bush" by showing his maverick tendencies in challenging President Bush on multiple issues. Similarly, Obama hammered passionately on the drum of military savvy and support for the troops to shuck the persona of democrats being anti-military pansies that just want to tuck their tail and run from military opposition. Both sides, whether the audience acknowledged their attempts or not, were set on burning the "straw men" constructed by their opponents.

Straw men are infuriating to the person being accused of holding a position or supporting a view that they simply do not believe. While in the political realm these "straw men" are constructed intentionally to deter voters from a particular candidate, most of the time, extending the benefit of the doubt, straw men in the church are constructed through good intentions that are led by ignorance of a particular issue or idea.

I will never forget walking through the halls of first floor Boatman Hall at Ozark Christian College talking with a fellow tenant. This well intentioned fellow began belligerently talking about Calvinists--all but calling for a new crusade against them (which he did quip about later). In that moment I remember thinking two things:

1. First of all, this is a complete misrepresentation of the Calvinist perspective.
   
2. 2. Second, if John Calvin makes you this mad, I have to read all of the stuff about him that I can.

So, the following year I read hundreds of pages about John Calvin and from John Calvin that not only confirmed my disagreement with my friend's perspective, but also confirmed my suspicion -- a straw had been erected by the "anti-Calvinist" movement (To be clear: while I do not adhere to the five points of Calvinism, the position was not constructed by bumbling idiots but extremely intelligent and devote men, and the position simply has more biblical evidence than people give it credit for).

The danger in ignorantly villifying another position is simple: it is unfair to the opposing position and it simply makes the one with the false accusations look like a fool. Furthermore, in the body of Christ, we need to consistently function off of a "benefit of the doubt" principle that gives grace before the death sentence for any person or position.

It is for this exact reason why I felt convicted this past summer to read all of the Left Behind series. I had some of my theological friends saying things to me like, "How can you read through that junk?"; "I just can't get myself to read through those things--I simply would get too frustrated."; "I can find other things I would rather spend my time reading than that trash." While I understand their heart, I cannot get my mind around this mentality. For it is precisely because of the reason that I disagree with the Left Behind series that I am compelled to read them. If I think that I do not agree with something or someone, I can at least offer the courtesy of knowing their position (I would even suggest knowing your opponents position correctly better than they know it themselves). Why? There are a couple of reasons:

1. What if you are wrong about the opposing position? What if you spend so much time arguing, destroying, and humiliating a position that is being unjustifiably misconstrued by the straw man character you have portrayed them to be? What an unfortunate thing to have unnecessary quibbles within the body of Christ that could have been avoided with a little more effort and study.
2. Whether they are true or not, straw men caricatures hurt positions on some level. The politicians will attest to this fact. It is simply not true that all PR is good PR; sometimes, it can destroy someone's image or integrity. In the body of Christ, there is no room for people to sling mud before they can clearly see the target, because they may find that the target they were aiming at simply does not exist or is actually an innocent bystander.
3. Oftentimes, we can learn more about our own position through thorough investigation of the opposing position. While we may not always dispel the concerns about the opposing position, we can at least learn more about the validity of our own--and that is a worthy pursuit in and of itself.
4. In addition, if I truly believe that my position is correct, then what do I have to fear by reading the opposing point of view?

In conclusion, I want to simply call all Christians to a straw man burning extravaganza. Do not submit in ignorance to a negative perspective of an opposing view, but have the decency to study it in-depth before offering criticism that may be unguided, untrue, and unchristian. We have a responsibility as voices for the body of Christ to not only proclaim the good news with integrity and boldness but also to combat false news with wisdom and precision.