Analogies have many uses. Done properly, they provide insights into complicated subjects, making it easier to relate to an analogous scenario. But if done poorly, a tortured analogy will undermine a listener’s understanding, resulting in a worse interpretation than before. As far as logic is concerned, it is best to use only the most apt analogies if we are to avoid false equivalencies. After all, a false analogy is a fallacious analogy.
Ethicists, bound by the laws of logic, often find themselves in a similar situation. A person may attempt to prove a moral claim by offering an analogy. If the analogous scenario is only weakly related or widely dissimilar from the original scenario, the person may find themselves accused of (false) moral equivalence. There are many ways it could happen. The man accused of moral equivalence may be taking a reductionistic approach to the situation while simultaneously adding unnecessary complications to other areas of the analogy. Or he could be doing the opposite. Or he could be using an apt analogy, and it is the accuser who is wrong. Without an example, there is no way of knowing. Luckily for us, moral equivalence is constantly being discussed in the news, offering a plethora of examples to analyze at any given time. From a quick Google search, we find that — in almost every case — the ethics of moral equivalence is primarily discussed within the context of global politics. Every nation gets discussed at some point, but even a cursory search tells us that the majority of these conversations tend to concern Israel. Clearly, the doctrine of moral equivalence was powered by some unwritten narrative, making a proper definition much harder to come by.
Justifying War
In October 2023, the Middle East found itself descending into another conflict. Though Israeli-Palestinian relations had always been tense, this particular conflict became a catalyst for outrage, sparking civilian protests even in unrelated countries. Unfortunately, the narrative surrounding this conflict became so polarizing that even now, I find myself unable to describe the events without being accused of partisanship. On one hand, our own Whitehouse insists that Hamas’ attack on October 7th was unprovoked.1“Statement from NSC Spokesperson Adrienne Watson Condemning Terrorist Attacks Against Israel” – https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/10/07/statement-from-nsc-spokesperson-adrienne-watson-condemning-terrorist-attacks-against-israel/ On the other hand, we have HAMAS leaders communicating that this was a retaliatory attack for the October 4th desecration of a sacred mosque.2“Zionist Provocation Prompted Hamas Reaction” – https://arktos.com/2023/10/15/zionist-provocation-prompted-hamas-reaction An unwitting historian, interested only in the facts, will quickly find themselves wrapped up in a propaganda battle before they can even list a simple timeline of events. The battle for the moral high ground became a battle for control over every part of the narrative. Even fabricated rumors played a part as readers desperately tried to keep up with the news cycle.3“Despite refutations from Israeli military, headlines that Hamas ‘beheaded babies’ persist” – https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/despite-refutations-from-israeli-military-headlines-that-hamas-beheaded-babies-persist/3016167
With both sides clamoring for control of the narrative, some evangelicals felt the need to weigh in. While “third-way” politics is certainly popular among the evangelical elites, taking such an unbiased stance in this Middle Eastern conflict would undoubtedly result in charges of moral equivalence. Given their penchant for Zionism, Big Eva’s choice was obvious: Israel must be morally superior to Hamas.
Dubbed “Israel’s 9/11,” articles began to pour out of evangelical institutions, contributing to the outrage against modern terrorism. Over 2000 Christian leaders joined the ERLC statement that supported the nation-state of Israel, along with the unequivocal condemnation of Hamas’ actions against the vulnerable.4https://erlc.com/policy-content/israel/ It wasn’t enough to be neutral; one had to support the Israeli’s actions unequivocally to avoid the sin of moral equivalence. This doctrine, framed as a question of “moral clarity,” became the rallying cry for neoconservatives as they relished in their unquestionable casus belli. It was a principle that transcended all other discussions of Christian ethics and war crimes, reducing complicated geopolitical issues to “right” or “wrong.”
But the inevitable existence of wrongdoing on both sides doesn’t always produce a moral fog. Sometimes the fog lifts. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for instance, can be condemned by Christians without hesitation. Hamas’s attack on Israel is a similarly clear example of wrongdoing that can be firmly condemned without equivocation.
Bernard N. Howard & Ivan Mesa, Israel’s 9/11: The Need for Moral Clarity – October 10, 20235https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/israel-hamas-moral-clarity/
According to an article published on The Gospel Coalition, the Israeli-Hamas violence was a clear-cut instance of moral clarity. In short, Howard and Mesa claim that Christians can universally and unequivocally discern this clarity by identifying how each party conducted its operations, quickly concluding that Hamas’ operations intentionally targeted civilians, while the IDF’s did not.
Here, the Christian versed in just war theory will undoubtedly recall this creed. “Moral distinction,” a modern development of wartime principles, argues that combatants in war ought to differentiate between soldiers and civilians for their targets. This ethical articulation became codified into international law at the Geneva Convention, solidifying its place amongst postwar dogma. The concept of moral equivalence, therefore, is hardly a matter of universal Christian ethics but rather a subject of international officiating. It’s not that moral clarity doesn’t exist; it’s that such a discussion is always political. This much becomes obvious as the ignorant but curious-minded Christian quickly runs into the cold shoulder of his evangelical peers: moral equivalence only applies to things like Israeli interests or World War II, not former presidents and drone strikes. As Tucker Carlson and his recent guest found out, anyone who dares to question the Second World War mythos will find themselves the target of a modern morality crusade.6“White House condemns Tucker Carlson’s ‘Nazi propaganda’ interview as ‘disgusting and sadistic insult’” – https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/05/media/white-house-condemns-tucker-carlson-nazi-propaganda-interview/index.html By all accounts, moral equivalence was not a matter of Christian doctrine, but rather a more contemporary orthodoxy.
What About The 9th?
Historical issues aside, there are some who continue to insist that the sin of moral equivalence is a Christian conception. Admittedly, such a view does have some merit despite the fact that the term has only been popular in recent years due to its political connotations.7UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, leaned into the phrase during Reagan’s administration. Her article, “The Myth of Moral Equivalence,” responded to claims that the Soviet Union and the United States could be considered moral equivalents. https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-myth-of-moral-equivalence/ Nevertheless, I think the Christian understanding of equivocation is worth a brief address, even though most people leave the term buried beneath false assumptions and overly dogmatic timelines.
To correct these errors, any discussion ought to start by categorizing the sin of false equivalence correctly. Given our understanding of logic and its relation to truth-telling, we can safely place the sin of false equivocation under sins condemned by the ninth commandment. In fact, the Westminster divines specifically mention this issue in the larger catechism, expanding upon things forbidden by the commandment.
“…speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice…”
Westminster Larger Catechism, Question 1458https://reformedconfessions.com/westminster-daily/08/23/
With this in mind, any discussion of moral equivalence ought to be understood as a ninth commandment matter. Doubtful and equivocal expressions, even if they are technically not a lie, ought not to be propagated if using them would misrepresent the truth. Honesty is a wholly Christian virtue. Yet even with the ninth commandment as a backdrop, it is not immediately apparent that all forms of equivocation are sinful. Richard Baxter, for example, argued that some equivocations function as a necessary part of the human language.
“There is an equivocating which is really lying: as when we forsake the usual or just sense of a word, and use it in an alien, unusual sense, which we know will not be understood, and this to deceive such as we are bound not to deceive.
But there is a use of equivocal words which is lawful and necessary: (for human language hath few words which are not of diverse significations.)”Richard Baxter, A Christian Directory – Part 1
Communication can be complicated. It’s not that it’s difficult to convey the truth with our somewhat limited speech; it’s that even if you communicate the message perfectly, the listener can always mess it up. Sometimes, a weak but relatable analogy is a bad thing, but sometimes, an imperfect equivocation does a better job of relaying the truth than the opposite approach. Without context, there is no way of knowing. Language, our primary method of communication, is chock full of double entendres, puns, and idiomatic expressions. Every student of the English language will find that even the most well-trod paths will have bushes to beat around and courses to change. If it were always wrong to equivocate, then it would be a sin to write.
Perhaps this diversity of definitions is part of the reason that theologians have difficulty applying this principle. The story of Rahab, for example, brings out a number of opinions on the sinfulness of her actions. John Calvin, in his commentary on Joshua 2, believes that Rahab clearly sinned in her act of misdirection, even though her faith counted her among the saints. Matthew Henry takes a less convinced approach, examining a number of different perspectives in his commentary. “None are bound to accuse themselves, or their friends, of that which, though enquired after as a crime, they know to be a virtue,” he writes. “Some suggest that what she said might possibly be true of some other men.”9Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on The Whole Bible, Joshua 2 Indeed, Rahab’s equivocation is the very charge that continues to puzzle theologians even today. She certainly knew who the soldiers were asking about, yet she also knew that compliance with an unlawful order meant certain death for the two spies. So Rahab offered an equivocal story, one that — in all likelihood — was not technically false but was certainly devoid of a few pertinent details that the pursuers would have wanted.
Communication is a two-way street. Anyone who asks a question must be prepared to deal with the listener who inevitably misunderstands the inquiry. Sometimes, an equivocation is only false in the sense that it responds to the wrong context. It is possible that a firefighter walking around asking about a “crash” is simply requesting information on the status of the stock market, but the context would make that scenario highly improbable. Then again, if he wasn’t in uniform, how would the average person be able to know?
Bringing It All Together
In an immediate situation, identifying the context is usually fairly simple. In a global scenario, the surrounding context is incredibly complex, filled with layers of history and international issues. As we zoom in and out, we find ourselves viewing different layers of complexity. Narratives also play a large part in how we perceive context, allowing us to simplify timelines by turning an entire nation’s history into a battle between protagonists and villains. But narratives are far from perfect. The details are not set in stone, and sometimes, the heroes are hotly debated. Christians are more than capable of affirming an objective moral standard without needing to affirm certain popular narratives as a sort of “objective moral context.” Still, we continue to see evangelical elites attempting to force the narrative, turning morality itself into a test of adherence. Such hypocrisy is painfully evident when an article about moral equivocation tries ham-fisting the principles of general equity theonomy into universal Christian support for the Israeli nation-state.
Equivocation is often difficult to spot. Unlike blatant lies, equivocating statements are technically true yet inaptly spoken to the wrong end. Without knowing a person’s motives, it can often be hard to tell. Yet, in recent years, some of the most obvious examples of equivocation come from the men who subvert the truths of Christianity to bolster regime theology. All Christians, including the theologians, ought to know what time it is. The hypocrisy of calling false equivocation a sin is that equivocating every act equivocation is also a false equivocation. This can be easily avoided if you apply wisdom to your words and read the room before speaking. Yet, for some in the evangelical world, such advice seems to fall on deaf ears.
If you are going to learn anything from the story of Rahab, you should at least be able to tell which party was the enemy of God’s people and which one was the hero. If you can’t see any moral difference between the one who subverts a godless regime and the one who enforces it, then perhaps you are the one guilty of equivocation.
Sources:
- 1“Statement from NSC Spokesperson Adrienne Watson Condemning Terrorist Attacks Against Israel” – https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/10/07/statement-from-nsc-spokesperson-adrienne-watson-condemning-terrorist-attacks-against-israel/
- 2“Zionist Provocation Prompted Hamas Reaction” – https://arktos.com/2023/10/15/zionist-provocation-prompted-hamas-reaction
- 3“Despite refutations from Israeli military, headlines that Hamas ‘beheaded babies’ persist” – https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/despite-refutations-from-israeli-military-headlines-that-hamas-beheaded-babies-persist/3016167
- 4
- 5
- 6“White House condemns Tucker Carlson’s ‘Nazi propaganda’ interview as ‘disgusting and sadistic insult’” – https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/05/media/white-house-condemns-tucker-carlson-nazi-propaganda-interview/index.html
- 7UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, leaned into the phrase during Reagan’s administration. Her article, “The Myth of Moral Equivalence,” responded to claims that the Soviet Union and the United States could be considered moral equivalents. https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-myth-of-moral-equivalence/
- 8
- 9Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on The Whole Bible, Joshua 2
Leave a Reply