Watching the Gavin Ortlund/Jonathan Pageau debate got me thinking about people I've encountered in ministry many times. Gavin is a logical thinker but Jonathan is an emotional thinker, and it was frustrating for me, as a logical thinker, to get through this debate because I think the topic itself is a ridiculous one to debate simply because its a matter of historical fact that both EO and the RCC absolutely condemned anyone who was purposely outside of the physical body of their communions. But if you're a modern EO or RC and have been heavily influenced by pluralism then you have to somehow syncretize your two commitments, and thus, we get this debate.
The problem is, as always, eisegesis. When one has an emotional commitment to something, he wants it to be true and then looks for ways that he can interpret the data in order for it to be true. This means making arguments that don't stem from the texts looked at.
Logical reasoning is exegetical in nature because its ultimate commitment is to whatever the truth might be as it is concluded from the text alone. Hence, it does not begin with the idea as a foregone conclusion. Instead, in this case, I am perfectly willing to let the pluralist EO be the victor here if that's what the texts bear out. I am also perfectly willing to let the exclusivist EO be the victor. I really don't have skin the game which makes me capable of evaluating the texts correctly. It is abundantly clear that the exclusivism of traditional EO and modern pluralist EO visions are not in continuity with one another in the same way that Trent is not in continuity with Vatican II.
However, I want to look at another claim, which is the one where these particular EO's argue that people outside EO are just missing the fulness of what it means to be a Christian. I find this fascinating in view of logical and emotional reasoning.
As I said, I've met many people who argue emotionally, and it always ends up in frustration because who can argue with bad arguments when the emotional thinker refuses to let logic correct them?
But first I want to say that by "emotional thinker" I don't mean someone who gets animated when they argue. I get animated. Frankly, I've met very emotional thinkers who are extremely calm when they argue. It has nothing to do with getting animated. It has everything to do with how one argues, whether exegetically/logically or eisegetically/illogically. Emotional thinkers tend to be high on rhetoric devoid of logic rather than concentrating on the logic part due to emotional commitments to a proposition.
And this leads me to my main point. Logic is a characteristic of God. God is logic. Worshiping God means to be devoted in one's mind to logic and logical argumentation because one is seeking God through, not only the truth but the way one comes to it.
Worshiping God also means to be devoted to God in one's heart. Devoting one's emotions to God is to devote a part of one's being to Him.
But here is the issue. Only the logical thinker can be fully devoted to God in both mind and heart, in both logic and emotion.
I'm not saying that every logical thinker is. I am only saying that every logical thinker can be. But this is not true of the emotional thinker. Because the emotional thinker uses eisegetical and illogical arguments because his emotional commitments govern his arguments rather than logic, he can only be devoted to God in his feelings, not in his mind.
Hence, the emotional thinker cannot be fully devoted to God by loving Him with his whole being. Yet, we think the emotional thinker is more devoted to God than the logical thinker because we associate feelings with spirituality and logical thinking with cold, unbelieving self-reliance. It's almost as though we think logic is natural and devoid of the Spirit and feelings are something supernatural.
The irony, therefore, is that the fullness is being missed by Jonathan in this debate, and frankly, when I've seen him discuss anything. This doesn't mean that all EO's argue this way. Some EO's are very logical. This isn't an EO, RC, Prot thing.
If you think I'm being unfair to Jonathan, go through and count how many false dichotomies and non sequiturs are made throughout this debate. It's incredibly frustrating because these types of arguments don't say anything, and yet, like most emotional thinkers, he says a lot of words to say nothing when he does this.
And that is what emotional thinkers do. Their minds are chaos because feeling rather than logic governs their thought processes. It's like stopping to get directions from a talker and three hours later you still don't know where you're supposed to go. But these people think they've built their cases because they feel emotionally satisfied with their positions, and that's all that matters.
But God uses language which is rooted in logic both to communicate to His people and to have them worship Him in return. Logic is a means of worship and emotions should be led by it, not the other way around. This gives us the fullness of devotion to God that Scripture pushes us toward. Anyone who argues emotionally, and I have known many, are the ones who are missing it.
