Recovering Logic: Reflections on Critical Thinking Skills in Ministerial Training
Photo by Saad Ahmad on Unsplash
Logic is a science that deals with the formal principles of reason and argument, or, as John Wesley put it, it is “the art of good sense.” It may come as a surprise that Wesley recommended to clergy the study of logic second only to the study of Scripture, a fact all the more interesting because it is missing from the core ministry curriculum of major Wesleyan and Methodist institutions.
The reason for its importance to Wesley had less to do with speculative philosophy (though his parents worried about this) and more to do with a minister’s ability to apprehend ideas (whether from Scripture, theology, or culture), make good judgments about them, and draw the proper conclusions from them. (See John Wesley, An Address to the Clergy, 1756, 7–8 and 19–20.)
Strictly speaking, logic deals with the relationship between propositions, but as Wesley sometimes did, I will use it more colloquially for the sort of critical thinking that also identifies and clarifies the propositions being claimed, such as identifying a proposition’s mood.
My Personal Discovery of Logic as a Ministry Tool
I discovered logic out of necessity as a youth pastor. Having received my first appointment at the age of twenty and with little formal education, I found that my students were returning from college with questions and views about the world that I lacked the skills to understand and evaluate. For instance, I did not know how to evaluate statements like, “Guilt isn’t from God,” or “I don’t have to go to church to be a Christian,” or “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven,” or “I don’t reject Jesus, just the church.” Each claim has something about it that feels right and is therefore difficult to reject, but also something that feels wrong and is therefore difficult to accept.
Eventually, I pursued a degree in philosophical theology, not knowing exactly what philosophical theology was, but knowing that it included skills in understanding and evaluating statements and claims.
In one of my first classes I was fascinated that a claim could be symbolically represented, clarified, examined, and evaluated for its rational worth. When some people see claims represented by symbols of logic, they see unnecessary complications. For me, though, it was the first time that complicated or ambiguous claims were accessible, manageable, and approachable. Claims that began as ambiguous expressions could be reduced to simple propositions that could be assessed.
In learning a few basic skills related to logic, I learned how to guard my mind from the sleight of hand of witty one-liners, what today is commonly found in social media memes. I learned how to force questions and claims out of the safety of darkness and into the honesty of the light by asking a few basic questions as simple as, “What do they mean by that?” This was healthy for my own claims as well as my evaluation of others’.
My Personal Discovery of John Wesley, the Logical Pastor
Studying the different aspects of logic also led me back to my Wesleyan roots.
I had previously distanced myself from Wesleyan circles after a season of feeling that questions were unwelcome among the Wesleyans where I attended Bible college. In a strange twist of providence, however, I was taking a class on John Wesley for my MDiv and was required to read Wesley’s sermons. I remember feverishly underlining section after section in great shock, recognizing that Welsey was employing various aspects of the logic I had previously learned. The theologian I had avoided became the theologian I would come to admire.
What surprised me most was that Wesley’s skill in logic was a practical tool for ministry and theology, a tool that he endlessly utilized but never idolized. For instance, in one of his earliest letters that we have (1725), he used logic to clarify and evaluate Jeremy Taylor’s claim that a person cannot be assured that he or she is saved, an issue still dear to every Christian heart. Additionally, he used logic to clarify and evaluate Taylor’s recommendation to consider oneself the worst in every company as a form of self-abasement and humility. Wesley took Taylor’s claims, reduced them to a set of simple propositions, and then evaluated their consistency to each other and to other unstated propositions that were generally accepted.
John Wesley’s Lifelong Use of Logic
What we see in the 1725 correspondence became a normal methodological approach for Wesley throughout the remainder of his ministry: clarifying definitions, translating complex statements into simple propositional claims, and then evaluating their consistency and hidden assumptions. He used it to evaluate theological issues such as justification and perfection, practical issues such as the assurance of salvation and miracles, and philosophical issues such as the knowability of conscious states like peace and love.
In 1750 Wesley published the first of five editions of his Compendium of Logic, an abridged translation of Henry Aldrich’s Artis Logicae Compendium. He recommended it to his pastors and laypeople and utilized it at the Kingswood School as a core part of early education.
In 1745 he wrote A Dialogue Between an Antinomian and His Friend. The hero of the dialogue insisted, “I would just as soon put out my eyes to secure my faith, as lay aside my reason.” When the antinomian asked whether or not reason is a tool of considerable abuse and ought therefore to be avoided, Wesley’s hero responded: “The fact I deny not. But I deny the inference drawn from it. For if we must lay aside whatever men abuse continually, we must lay aside the Bible; nay, and meat and drink too.” Wesley addressed the problem by producing a reductio ad absurdum; to establish the antinomian’s proposition leads to absurdities such as not eating or drinking.
Importantly, Wesley never idolized logic and reason. It was not a tool for discovering God, producing faith, or ensuring religious certainty. If anything, the failure of logic and reason to produce faith and certainty were reasons for a different epistemological approach, one that Wesley himself developed especially between 1742 and 1767. Though indispensably valuable for ministry, logic and reason cannot produce faith and certainty in God. According to Wesley, that is not its purpose. For more on this, see Wesley’s essay An Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion (1743) and his sermon “The Case of Reason Impartially Considered” (1781).
Logic as a Core Ministry Tool
Logic is as much about helping people clarify their concerns as proving yours, and this is important for counseling, evangelism, and discipleship. Let’s take a look at a statement that has been around for a while and use it as an example: “I don’t have to go to church to be a Christian.” Let us also suppose a pastor is dealing with this question as it comes from a member of the community. How might a pastor critically assess this statement and handle the person who states it?
A good place for the thinking pastor to begin is by asking for clarity regarding key terms. What, precisely, is meant by being a Christian? Or by going to church? The claim, as it stands, is too vague. It could mean certain things that a pastor is unprepared to commit to and that the community member should not commit to. The first step, then, is getting clarity by asking helpful questions.
To demonstrate the problem, let us label the vague proposition x, “I don’t have to go to church to be a Christian.” Now suppose we have two other less vague propositions y and z where y equals “I don’t have to go to church to merit salvation” and z equals “I don’t have to gather with other Christians in order to be a follower of Jesus.” We can see that y and z are different claims and that x might be equal to either of them.
x – I don’t have to go to church to be a Christian.
y – I don’t have to go to church to merit salvation.
z – I don’t have to gather with other Christians to be a follower of Jesus.
If as a pastor I accept x, then am I accepting and promoting y or z? The original claim does not make this clear. Something about x seems both right and not right at the same time and perhaps now we can see why. I myself would agree with y but reject z.
The ambiguity of x allows for a person to defend it with y while quietly justifying z. Because z doesn’t follow from y, sneaking it in the back door of x is inappropriate. Pastors need training to recognize this use of ambiguity to disguise error, which sometimes occurs accidentally and sometimes manipulatively.
We could discuss how the problem of sneaking a conclusion into a claim occurs across many issues. For example, we could discuss the claim that “loving others” is equal to accepting their behavior. We could discuss how the rejection of Critical Race Theory is sometimes collapsed into a rejection of systemic racism. The list goes on and pastors are daily caught in the crossfire.
Logic as a Core Ministry Class
Logic was defended, used, and promoted by Wesley for use in ministry and yet it is absent in the core curriculum of ministry tracks in Wesleyan institutions. The reasons for this are not clear, but I believe it is worth a larger conversation about the value of good reasoning skills for daily ministry endeavors.
What would a core ministry class on logic look like? Consider a few basic examples.
First, students need a basic understanding of what claims and arguments do and how they operate. What sort of evidences makes for appropriate conclusions? How does one assess what is needed for establishing probability versus certainty? Wesley and his mother Susanna both asked what sort of evidences would ease a person’s anxiety that he or she is not “saved.” Susanna landed on probability but Wesley on certainty.
Second, students could be exposed to foundational rules of inference that would help them better recognize when they or others are drawing conclusions that do not follow. Consider the rule of transposition, which states that [if p then q] is equal to [if not q then not p]. For example, the statement, “when Pavlov rings his bell the dogs start salivating” is logically the same as saying, “if the dogs are not salivating, then Pavlov isn’t ringing his bell.” Of course, the dogs might start salivating for a number of reasons other than Pavlov ringing his bell, but if the dogs are not salivating then we can at least rule out Pavlov ringing his bell.
We could also apply the rule to Wesley’s claim that if we do not love God, then we cannot serve God. According to the rule this is the same as saying, if we serve God then we love God.
[If not loving God, then not serving God.] = [If serving God then loving God.]
Some people might confuse this with meaning also that if we love God, then serving God is necessarily the outcome, but this would be a mistake. Love might be necessary for serving God, but it might not be sufficient to get us there on its own. And of course, that is another question to be sorted out, and Wesley does discuss it, but it is not implied by the claim. Knowing this is important for the thinking pastor. The difference is subtle but important and can easily lead to an error.
Third, students could learn basic fallacies of argumentation such the tu quoque fallacy, which states that a person’s hypocrisy is no reason to ignore his or her argument. Or consider ad fontem fallacies, which hold that the reasonableness of an argument cannot be disregarded just because of its source. This is relevant to many areas of pastoral work. A hypocrite can make a great argument regarding the sanctity of marriage and a person with little formal education can tell us something important about the biblical text during a small group. Not only do the above rules confirm good reasoning from unexpected sources, but they also hush undue prejudice.
Conclusion
Having the skills mentioned above would assist pastors in preparing for a world in which competing ideas are challenging their belief systems. The process of clarifying and logically evaluating ideas and actions is one that I suspect many pastors are unfamiliar with in their everyday interactions, but which could be useful in their ministries in a variety of ways. With enough practice, the process becomes natural and unnoticed.
I find it appropriate to close with Wesley’s minimalist exhortation regarding the use of logic in ministry. “It is good for this at least, (wherever it is understood,) to make people talk less; by showing them both what is, and what is not, to the point; and how extremely hard it is to prove anything” (Address, 20).
Kenny R. Johnston is an ordained pastor in The Wesleyan Church and a PhD student at London School of Theology.