Trivial Objections
There are many reasons people choose to reject Christianity. They don’t have enough evidence. They don’t trust the Bible, etc., But there is one reason people cite that I hear often which according to the laws of logic don’t hold as much water as one might think at first blush. Objections that revolve around the actions of Christians. People often say, “I don’t believe in Christianity because Christians are hypocrites,” or “because of the bad things Christians have done throughout history,” etc., and fair enough, Christian’s have done awful things in the name of Christianity throughout time which must be apologized for humbly. But what is actually happening when a person refuses to believe in God based on the actions of another person or group?

What is happening is what scholars call a ‘trivial objection.’ In the study of logic, a trivial objection is when one focuses “critical attention on a point less significant than the main point or basic thrust of an argument.”[1] In other words, inconsequential data is brought to bear on a given question or issue. In this case, one’s opinion of past Christian actions is brought to bear on the truth of Christianity.

Evaluating whether Christianity, or any other religion, is true must be based on its theological and historical claims, not whether particular adherents succeed or fail at living it out. What one needs to ask is if Christianity holds up historically, theologically, and practically. Does it answer the questions of Origins, Destiny, Meaning and Morality with coherence? Was Jesus a real person? Did he really claim to be God? Did he actually rise from the dead?

These speak directly to the validity of Christianity. Millions of people in the world however walk away from Christianity, or never believe it in the first place, for experiential reasons: ‘Christians are too judgmental.’ ‘I was wronged by my church.’ ‘My parents shoved faith down my throat, so I rejected it.’ Decisions being based on the mistakes of others. These are real and raw experiences that we must never discount or gloss over, but this is to base the legitimacy of Christianity not on philosophical or historical reasons, but on how one was treated by a particular person or a group. We must realize the two things have very little to do with one another.

Einstein is a Klepto?
Let’s say next month in some science journal, it is revealed that Albert Einstein was a kleptomaniac. Every time he went out about town, he stole things. Coats, shoes, bread, etc., Not only that, but he was mean to his neighbors, his co-workers, and his family. Would any of this impact the truth of his discoveries and work? Would anyone decide to throw out Einstein’s mathematics because he was a jerk? No. That would be a category mistake – a trivial objection. We must be sure not to do the same with Christianity.

C.S. Lewis put it this way: “If there is a God, you are, in a sense, alone with him. You cannot put him off with speculations about your next door neighbors or memories of what you’ve read in books.”[2] In the end, when you are standing before God, the question will be, What did you do about the offer of salvation in and through the finished work of Jesus? The question will not be, What did other people do with it?

Trivial objections. They can be costly.

_________________

[1] T. Edward Damer, Attacking faulty Reasoning, 3rd ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1995), 159-161.

[2] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 170.