Hyperbole and the Christian Pundit

"Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech" Wikipedia

To Scrutinise Or Not To Scrutinise

Having made the awkward stance of starting a blog and making my thoughts and opinions publicly scrutable then do I have permission to scrutinise other people's public words too? I think this topic has been debated endlessly in one way or another on countless thoughtful Christian blogs, so I am going to quietly skip the debate and just get to the scrutinising, obviously trying to use grace, although perhaps not without some salt for seasoning (Col 4:6)

And here it is: I have a love/hate relationship with the posts published on the Christian Pundit website.
There have been some posts that I have enjoyed and found inspiring and challenging. Here are a few:

Young evangelicals are getting high

Mrs. Reformation

Food at Christmas

And yet with equal frequency, I'll read one which gets me infuriated. Sometimes they are just so full of Hyperbole, Sophism and Christian-Speak that I just start fizzing! I know I am not alone as when someone posts a link on Facebook, it sparks a fierce debate between the fizzers (my types) and the supporters. I'm not sure how transferable this phrase is across the Atlantic but I'll say it anyway: The Christian Pundit is truly a Marmite kind of blog.

And they are surely not the only blog to be worthy of this bizarre 'meat extract' based attribute. So why am I bothering writing about it? Well, I feel it may be useful to attempt to explain my grievance. If only for me, but hopefully for some one else. It may help us to sift the good bits from the bad. In picking out the areas I find problematic, it should help me to focus and enjoy the elements that I find useful.

Hyperbole

I mention this one first, because this was the trigger. Their most recent post (here) specifically referenced the term and it struck me like lightning. "Aha!" I thought " and that's why I don't like this article!". Whilst I can read through and glean the good points being raised, I was having to wade through large amounts of exaggerated emotionally loaded prose. The article is vague about it's background; about the specific pastoral relationship issue the writer is addressing, and yet it is not vague in pointing the finger directly at one person and insinuating that they are immature, biblically ignorant and basically a God-condemned bad husband (and probably a bad potential father). If the piece was written truthfully and for the intentions of passing on to this person, then I am not convinced that this exaggerated accusative approach is going to be that helpful. The only discernible benefit from writing the article in this way, is to make it more exciting for readers - not far off from the tactics that tabloid newspapers employ. As a reasonable reader, however, I want to either have a good reason as to why this writer is being so harsh or I want this writer, who has self-confessed to being a distant third-person in this issue, to back off and stop being so judgemental.

Sophism

Sophism is when you use false logic to prove a point. Sometimes it is intentional and sometimes it isn't, but either way it is not a good way to get your point across. An obvious but crude example would be something along the lines of "Both Hitler and Stalin had moustaches, so can we definitely say that moustaches aren't evil?" Now this statement uses an A+B=C argument which ignores other factors making the conclusion false and misleading. But the statement also does the trick of not making a conclusion, but simply suggesting it. This is a lot more subtle. Both tactics are often used together. Add a bit of Hyperbole and you have a nasty emotional concoction.
Take this, for example, on discussing potential husband choices:

"Will the man you are with care for you sexually? Is he going to honour the marriage bed in physical and mental faithfulness to you or will he flirt, feed his porn addiction, or even leave you for another woman?" (It matters who you marry)

Now what is wrong with this picture? Well, first of all it does the insinuation trick. It doesn't say concretely "This will definitely happen!!" but it puts the thoughts in your head enough that it might as well have. And what thoughts are those? Well It's the ridiculous assertion that a husband only comes in two shades: faithful or adulterous. And the reader is left with only two options: Option A will your man be perfect, or option B, will the man flirt and be a porn addict and then run off with someone? This particular article is riddled with similar logical jumps and false dichotomies. This particular paragraph even ended with the insinuation that a non-perfect husband is going to force you into rough aggressive sexual acts. It's just not true, but the logic and emotion of the paragraph leads you astray until there seems no other option.

Christian-Speak

Now this is not a biggie. I mention only because it is related to the previous two. Within Christian circles, we have access to a specific vocabulary of loaded emotional terms. And we need to use them wisely. Phrases like 'Godly' 'Mature' and 'Biblical' get thrown around as defensive or accusative terms so often that they really have little meaning in them any more. So when a writer mentions that they are surprised that a 'Godly' person would choose to watch Downton Abbey (here), all it means to me is that they probably have a habit of mislabelling people based on traditional religious stereotypes. It definitely doesn't let me know anything about the topic at hand.
And just because one position is apparently 'biblical' does not mean that someone who disagrees with you is not biblical. Both sides in any debate might hold to the authority (and perspicuity!) of scripture, it doesn't mean they are going to agree on every aspect of biblical interpretation and application. So it really doesn't mean a lot when one writes:

"...In fact, you could be keeping her from her very biblical longing to fulfill this very biblical calling. What we usually need is not financial security but a biblical alignment to our thinking in this area." (Dear Young, Christian Husband...)

In conclusion

If I may be permitted to just repeat my original intention, but with defined emphasis. This is not a "Why I don't read the Christian Pundit" post. I can assure you that I will continue to read it. There are bits that go up that I love. Quotes from Spurgeon, Edwards, Owen. Astute observations about the need to radically aspire to holiness in a world that frequently sidelines in. Really good stuff. But, for the record, the Hyperbole, Sophism and Christian-Speak is annoyingly distracting. In the mean time I will continue to wade through it. Just as soon as I have finished watching last week's Downton Abbey.