{"id":38631,"date":"2022-04-10T18:35:44","date_gmt":"2022-04-10T16:35:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kernbeisser.ch\/whataboutism-in-theological-disputes\/"},"modified":"2023-09-07T08:06:17","modified_gmt":"2023-09-07T06:06:17","slug":"whataboutism-in-theological-disputes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kernbeisser.ch\/en\/whataboutism-in-theological-disputes\/","title":{"rendered":"Whataboutism in theological disputes."},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row][vc_column width=”1\/1″][vc_column_text text_lead=”yes” uncode_shortcode_id=”564365″]In conversations about biblical topics, I regularly experience a certain reaction. The reaction occurs especially with controversial topics. These include, for example, all-reconciliation, descriptions of hell, the Trinity, free will, and the like. Today I can better classify this kind of reaction as a form of “whataboutism.”[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”137803”]<\/p>\n

What is Whataboutism?<\/h3>\n

Whataboutism is a reaction. The term corresponds to the English phrase “What about …?” (“What about …?”). Whataboutism occurs when someone makes a critical statement and the interlocutor does not respond to what has been said, but retorts with a counter-reproach. Sometimes it’s not a direct counter-accusation, but another assertion or a rhetorical question (“What about …?”). Typical here is that the original statement is not answered and the topic is placed in a completely different context that has nothing to do with the original remark.<\/p>\n

On Wikipedia you can find the description:<\/p>\n

“Whataboutism (from English What about …?<\/span> “What about …?”, and -ism<\/span> “-ism”) is classified from a logical and argumentative point of view as a variant of the tu quoque pattern (Latin ‘you too’, name for a counter-accusation), which is a subspecies of the ad hominem argument. Whataboutism pejoratively refers to a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or debated, but is retorted with a critical counter-question.”<\/em>
\nWikipedia “Whataboutism”<\/a><\/p>\n

Whataboutism is a tactic to distract from a critical aspect. It’s an evasive maneuver. Whataboutism can be highly manipulative, and regularly manifests itself in behavior of perceived superiority, to which one responds to the original questioner. In Christian terminology, this is called “self-righteousness.” In transactional analysis, this corresponds to a parent-child divide. This avoids an equal discussion based on mutual acceptance and a mutual adult ego.<\/p>\n

Whataboutism can manifest itself in many areas of life, but specifically ideological views seem to me to be affected. These often include religious views. Whataboutism is then a possible diversionary tactic to dodge uncomfortable questions.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”161450″]<\/p>\n

Whataboutism in the Christian environment<\/h3>\n

Whataboutism is an interpersonal reaction. It should not be surprising, therefore, that we find the phenomenon among Christians as well. In two typical situations in particular, I have experienced this kind of arrogance and refusal to talk:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. For cultural issues<\/li>\n
  2. On theological issues.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    1. cultural aspects<\/h4>\n

    If one asks critical questions in the community about one’s own community culture, this can lead to avoidance strategies mentioned above. Critical questions are evaded, avoided and the questioner can be deliberately discredited and denounced. “Whataboutism can also be used to ignore or relativize criticism of one’s own viewpoints or behavior”<\/em>(Wikipedia<\/a>).<\/p>\n

    One example is the ideas on “sex before marriage.” In evangelical circles, this is often presented as a “sin,” often with far-reaching consequences for anyone who deviates from the “correct opinion.” If, for example, one asks for a biblical justification, so that one first gets to know the arguments, I have often experienced the answer: “but then we end up in Sodom and Gomorrah! Two things happen here: First, the question is not addressed, and second, the context is changed as if that were the answer to the question. In reality, this is clearly recognizable as an evasive maneuver. The tactic is a form of “whataboutism.”<\/p>\n

    2. theological aspects<\/h4>\n

    However, I have seen whataboutism most often in theological discussions. Without exception, they dealt with controversial topics, such as all-reconciliation, the Trinity, free will, the doctrine of hell, and the like. These are ideologically and dogmatically charged topics that regularly lead to evasive maneuvers on the part of proponents when critical questions are raised.<\/p>\n

    The process is typical: take a doctrine for which a particular Bible verse is invoked. If one examines this Bible verse in context and according to the basic text, the argument for the doctrine often vanishes into thin air. If one now asks a justified critical question about the usual interpretation of this verse, the question is regularly not answered, but countered with another Bible verse. In this case, it is not a counter-question, but a counter-statement. The counterstatement aims to distract from the actual question and quotes another biblical passage as “proof” of the doctrine.<\/p>\n

    This reaction can lead to a curious development of the argument, which I call “island hopping.” In doing so, the proponent of the doctrine does not address any of the arguments, but jumps from one passage to the next in a rebuttal. Even if you go into every Bible passage, it doesn’t solve anything because critical questions are not allowed to have a place. The fact that someone shakes a certain doctrinal framework often seems unbearable. If no way out to a new position is found, the tactic is changed again and the questioner is portrayed as a “heretic”. This is the ultimate escape from an argument.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”199016″]<\/p>\n

    Dealing with whataboutism<\/h3>\n

    If you notice that the other person does not respond to the actual question, but tends to whataboutism, you can try to return to the actual question. If this succeeds, you can try to gain clarity step by step. This does not mean persuasion for this or that point of view, but rather a joint, investigative and open-ended discussion on the topic. However, if this does not succeed, it is usually pointless to discuss further.<\/p>\n

    The problem with whataboutism as a reaction is never in the topic itself, but in the feeling of the interlocutors. People who do not want to question their assumptions often feel particularly triggered when someone critically questions these assumptions and can also explain this in a comprehensible way. This then leads to an answer that does not address the question, but attempts to discredit the questioner through a wild cross-reference. Anyone who reacts with whataboutism to a question that is meant quite seriously is expressing devaluation. It is the flight into conversation avoidance, although a response is given. The answer is intended to silence the questioner. However, feeling triggered is a sure sign that the topic has relevance.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”863155″]<\/p>\n

    Deepening<\/h4>\n