In response to a recent reference to the Michael post, I’d like to point out the painfully obvious: what a lousy attitude Burleson has shown to any who call him out on aberrant teachings, and the fallacies they come from.
We begin with the article itself, though the meat of it is in the comments. In the first paragraph we see “appeal to authority”: if all the “orthodox” (read Calvinist) theologians taught something, it must be infallible and unquestionable. By the same token, I could quote other past scholars with opposing views and claim the matter settled. Scholars are not gods, in spite of the way many worship them as such, and are certainly fallible. The apostles of Christ warned of wolves scattering the flock when they would be gone, and battled them while they lived. By what rationale, then, does anyone claim that a “church father” is without error by virtue of having lived near or in the first century? Calvinists have long been in the habit of arguing in circles on this matter: all the great theologians were Calvinists, but a theologian isn’t great unless he was a Calvinist. (And note that this is all the logical outcome of what Burleson said in his appeal to Calvinist theologians; he would surely try to claim I said he wrote all this explicitly. When exposing fallacies, the one committing them is usually unaware of them and takes great offense at being made aware of them.)
In that same paragraph, searches by methods such as Google are smeared simply on the basis of them being on the internet. Has he never been to a library? Is there any “trash” within it? Are we to blindly trust the librarian’s judgment on what our available selections must be? Along with ad hominem, this is an example of red herring or distraction, turning attention away from the real point (that this Michael teaching has long been a hallmark of a cult) toward the presumed inferiority of a Google search. Even in that, the error Burleson makes is to ignore the content or quality of the cited articles and put the blame on the method of finding them. So many fallacies in the opening paragraph!
In the second paragraph it is claimed that the teaching on Michael by the Jehovah’s Witnesses is something they got right, rather than something the Calvinists got wrong. This is another diversion; the question is not “Can we find any true teachings by the JW” but “does scripture teach that Michael was another name for Jesus”. It’s a case of keeping the bathwater but throwing away the baby. The reason others brought up the search results on the JW was not to say “Everything the JW taught was wrong, so if you teach anything in common with them it’s automatically an error”, but to prove that Michael as a name for Jesus is in fact one of the defining characteristics long held up as why JW is a cult. That fact is indisputable, and Burleson does not try to deny it but rather to turn it into an asset.
The section on “Orthodox Theologians” is an elaboration on the aforementioned rabbit trail, apparently to show the claimed air-tight argumentation of said theologians. It centers on the idea that if there is rank among angels, then the highest rank must be Jesus– yet this would make him a mere angel, in contrast to the first chapter of Hebrews. But rather than deal with that here I’ll let the comments speak for themselves.
Burleson’s first comment is condescending: “in your mind”, contrasted with “orthodox scholars”. Again, the questioner of god-like theologians is in error by default, rather than on the strength or weakness of his argument. Further, all who disagree are said to be “modern” and “shallow”. Yet another “authority” is cited instead of Burleson actually presenting his own thoughts or arguments. One begins to question whether anyone since the 1900s at the latest needs to think at all but only parrot the theologians of the past who have been deemed “great”.
His comment on Aug 22 at 4:22pm repeats the error that anything his theologians teach is correct by definition, in spite of having been one of the defining teachings of the JW. In his comment on the same date at 9:48pm he accuses an opponent of burning a straw man due to ignorance– not of scripture but of the writings of the theologians. He then commits the fallacy of equivocation by making the Persons of the Trinity “princes”! This is an excellent illustration of eisegesis, where one contorts scripture to fit a preconceived conclusion. To make Jesus into Michael in spite of scripture referring to the latter as “one of the chief princes”, Burleson must make all three Persons into “princes”. Finally, he tries to burn a straw man of his own in claiming that his opponent has said that he or his theologians denied the deity of Christ; his opponent said no such thing. Burleson is thus projecting his own error on his opponent. He first presumes that Michael is Jesus, and then claims that whoever says Michal can’t be Jesus (because Michael is a created being) is saying that he’s claiming Jesus is a created being! See how that was twisted?
In subsequent comments Burleson tries to argue that since Jesus has many names, adding Michael to the list is not a problem– in spite of the fact that none of those other names is a “one of many”. As the comments continue, Burleson continues to condescend to his opponents and assign to them failure to understand, failure to listen, failure to essentially put his theologians above both scripture and their own arguments, confusion, etc. All scholarly citations disagreeing with those of his own theologians are lightly dismissed, and yet the opponents show that it is Burleson who takes quotes of his own theologians out of context at times.
So rather than deal with any of this in a rational and Christian way, Burleson resorts to mockery. In the comment on Aug. 25 at 8:47am, he writes, “I am afraid you have been deluded in your fears. Laughing.” How can any believer, much less a vaunted “pastor”, write such a thing? He assigns two faults– delusion and fear– and then thinks this is funny. In this outburst alone he has lost the entire debate, being unqualified to grasp and counter other people’s arguments coherently and with civility. His opponents have not done this to him, but even if they had, his caustic attitude is uncalled for and inexcusable.
To add insult to injury, Burleson goes on in that same comment to tell his opponent to “save your prayers”. What?? Seriously, what?? That is just plain arrogant and hateful. And he has the gall to punctuate it with “Take a deep breath, relax”! This is how a Christian pastor reacts to someone’s apparently genuine concern about a serious error? Burleson’s problem is clearly pride, taking offense that he is being questioned, and with scripture-backed argument. I know all too well when someone mockingly offers to pray for me, but I don’t see it here. Regardless, two wrongs don’t make a right.
And the insults continue: his opponent may not have the mental acument [sic-- the word is "acumen"; go to a library and look it up] needed or is deliberately deceptive (can’t allow that the opponent may simply disagree, can we?). Then he returns the same indignation he claimed to have suffered earlier when his opponent offered to pray for him: “I trust… the Lord will see fit to quickly give you wisdom”. Apparently “tit for tat” is what passes for scholarly debate these days.
Another commenter points out that Burleson is making a mountain out of a molehill (Aug. 25 at 9:01pm). What is so important about making Michael into Jesus? Why is this a hill to die on? As this commenter surmises later, is it not a setup for something else, possibly ESS (the Eternal Subordination of the Son)? While at the present time Burleson champions the egalitarian cause, we’ve seen other (internet!) “pastors” give up former beliefs. One such example is John MacArthur, who adoped ESS after having rejected it for many years. Who is to say that Burleson will always be an egalitarian?
But Michael as Jesus isn’t the first off-the-wall teaching Burleson has touted. There is a distinct Universalist bent to many of his comments over the years, though like Rob Bell he vehemently denies it, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. It may be that this “mountain” with Michael is just that and not a setup for something else, but it would behoove his readers to keep their eyes open and remember to watch for “taproots”.
I was happy to see the exposure of some fallacies right there in the comments as well, on Aug. 27 at 10:32am. And though it was equally insulting, the comment by another person on Aug. 27 at 8:12pm about “Don Quixote” actually makes another good point, in reference to something Humpty Dumpty said about words meaning precisely what he wants them to mean. Nonsense or not, if Burleson says something is true (based on what some extra-biblical authority says is true), then it is to be declared true and not questioned.
Near the end, Burleson actually uses the words “disagree with a spirit of gentleness and humility” to apparently include his own words (and those of his defenders), and finally admits that “a couple of my comments” could have been worded better. Understatement at its finest. Yet most of the offenses he committed remain unadmitted and thus not regretted, much less repented of. To wipe it all aside with “blessings” is like putting a little band-aid on an 8-inch cut. It won’t just go away so easily but will fester and bleed until it is admitted and treated.
It’s one thing for the average person to have some less than rigorously-argued views, but when someone with a following (and on the internet!) teaches such things and in a condescending tone, much damage is done to the Body of Christ. Those who stand up and counter such error pay a price, but there will be heavenly rewards to compensate. Those who teach error will likewise be held to account and suffer loss. There will be justice, and there will be truth.
PS: My emphasis on “the internet” has been for a purpose: if the ‘net is bad only when it’s used to expose error but good if it promotes it, this is a double standard and thus another fallacy. The irony of dissing the internet while blogging on the internet seems to escape Burleson.
