Why steel-manning an argument is a good habit
Christians should always seek to be charitable in disagreement, especially with other Christians.
Over at Christianity Today, Russell More is fighting his own fantasies regarding the use of force by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other law enforcement agencies:
What some Christians draw from this, then, is that whatever the state does in using lethal force is morally legitimate and those who question it are wrong.
This is what is called a “straw man.” Instead of addressing the argument you oppose, you fabricate something your opponent never said, or you greatly exaggerate what he did say, in order to make refuting the “argument” much easier. The problem is that the “argument” Moore is refuting exists only in his own fantasies.
Is there one single conservative Christian (or Christian nationalist) who is saying that lethal force is always justified and must never be opposed? I seem to recall a number of conservatives who were outraged by President Biden sending heavily armed agents of the state to arrest anti-abortion activist Mark Houck with overwhelming force. Houck never presented a threat of violent resistance, so this was meant to intimidate people opposed to abortion.
If there are Christians who support unlimited use of force by the state, Moore needs to name names. Tell us who these authoritarians are, especially if they are pastors. Their congregations need to know if they support unlimited use of force by the state, because many in those congregations would then decide that their pastor cannot be trusted and would start looking for a new church. Do not hide behind the term “some Christians.” Tell us who these people are, and link to their arguments, so we can address it directly.
Romans 13 does say that government “bears the sword.” This is important both to punish the wicked and to protect the innocent from predators. But justifying this or that specific use of lethal force does not mean that you support every use of lethal force. That is just absurd, and Moore’s argument is shamefully dishonest. Some uses of lethal force are justified, while others (such as the vicious murder of Daniel Shaver while he cried and begged for his life) are clearly not justified.
What this shows is the importance of two things: First, we should assume someone is arguing in good faith unless we are presented with arguments to the contrary. This is especially important when we are dealing with fellow Christians. Second, we should endeavor to understand the opposing argument and respond as directly and accurately as possible. We should frame the opposing argument as positively as possible. This accomplishes two things: It creates goodwill and it prevents you from making a weak argument based on a position never actually taken.
Obviously, this is the Internet, where hyperbole is the native language of most people. It is easy to dismiss the need for charity when the other person is far away, behind a computer screen, and represented by a screen name rather than a real name. I do not expect this advice to be taken widely. But for those who are willing to be both charitable and honest, it will improve our own arguments and the overall tone of the debate.