Logic and the ICC

Because thinking logically helps people to more accurately discern reality, logic skills can be crucial to recovery from experience in a cultic or high-demand group. Many former International Churches of Christ (ICC/ICOC) members’ perception of reality has been affected by illogical ideas spread by ICC leadership and drilled home through repetition. These illogical ideas take the form of fallacies, thought-stopping cliches or doctrinal misinterpretations. Learning to recognize these illogical ideas is a big step toward recovery.

Invalid arguments

Formal logic turns reasoning into structured arguments: statements with premises and a conclusion.

To a logician, an argument is invalid if its conclusion does not follow from its premises. When the ICC -- or anyone else -- uses an argument with an invalid form, we can have no confidence in the argument's conclusions.

For example, here is one classic invalid form:

If P, then Q

Q, therefore P.

Here is a real-world example using this form, called the “fallacy of affirming the consequent":

(Note: the \ symbol means “therefore”)

I. In the springtime, it rains.

II. It’s raining outside.

\ It is springtime.

Of course, just because it’s raining does not mean that it is springtime. It can rain in all seasons, not just springtime.

Here’s a possible ICC example using this exact same form:

I. If a group does God’s will, it will face opposition.

II. The ICC is opposed.

\ The ICC is doing God’s will.

Because this argument has an invalid form, its conclusion is suspect. It is not logical for ICC leadership to imply that the ICC is right just because it is opposed -- there may be other reasons why the ICC is opposed that have nothing to do with God’s will.

Examples of ICC arguments with invalid form

I. People will always make mistakes.

II. ICC leaders and disciplers are people.

\ The ICC should not be held accountable for the mistakes of its leaders and disciplers.

This conclusion does not follow logically from the premises, because it assumes that the ICC has no influence on the potential of its leaders and disciplers to make mistakes (see People make mistakes). If the ICC trains leaders and disciplers in a way that causes them to make more mistakes, then it shares blame for these mistakes.

I. Autonomy is not a word found in the Bible.

\ The concept of autonomy is unbiblical.

Just because a word cannot be found in the Bible does not make the concept surrounding the word unbiblical (see Autonomy).

I. The Bible says the church is the body of Christ.

II. The Bible says there is “one body.”

\ There can only be one church organization.

Since the word church in Premise I does not imply a specific church organization, we cannot draw any conclusions about church organizations. There is a subtle twisting of words in this argument, not unlike the following false proof:

I. God is Love.

II. Love is Blind.

III. Ray Charles is Blind.

\ Ray Charles is God.

Similar to the church/body proof before it, this classic false proof changes the meaning of “blind” between Premise II and Premise III (see The Church Study).

I. The Bible says “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…”

\ Only disciples are candidates for baptism.

This conclusion does not follow from Premise I because word order does not necessarily mandate an order of procedure (see The Discipleship Study.

Incorrect premises

We can challenge an argument on the basis of its premises in addition to its form. If an argument has one or more incorrect premises, its conclusion is also suspect.

Examples of ICC arguments with incorrect premises

I. The kingdom of God is the same thing as the church.

II. Jesus said to seek the kingdom first.

\ Therefore, I must seek the church first.

The kingdom is not theologically equal to the church (see The Kingdom Study). Premise I is incorrect.

I. Bearing fruit is the same thing as making disciples.

\ A person who has not made disciples is not “fruitful”.

Premise I is flawed.

I. The Bible says there can only be one true church.

II. There are other churches besides my church.

\ Those other churches are not true churches.

Premise I is incorrect the Bible never says there can only be one true church organization (see The Church Study).

I. If you oppose God’s leaders, you oppose God.

II. We are God’s leaders.

\ By opposing us, you oppose God.

It his highly suspect for ICC leadership to say we are Gods leaders. There is no way to prove this premise true without resorting to a circular argument: "We're Gods leaders. Why? Because we say we’re right.”

Circular arguments are invalid, because in the end they argue their conclusion as a premise. If we accepted circular arguments, we would have to submit to any person who claimed to represent God, no matter how misguided they may be.

Former members can even use logic exercises like calisthenics – as mental “exercises,” regularly repeated to increase the strength and flexibility of the logical mind.

For a terrific logic tutorial at Harry Gensler's Web page, click here.

Also, here is a great list of fallacious methods of argument that is useful for fine-tuning ones "BS detector" -- whether in relation to the ICC or otherwise.