Teaching Critical Thinking in Evaluating Analogies and Examples
Critical thinking in evaluating analogies and examples involves a careful examination of their relevance, accuracy, and the extent to which they genuinely support the argument being made. This process is crucial for discerning sound reasoning from flawed argumentation, a skill implicitly encouraged in biblical texts and explicitly developed in theological discourse.
The Apostle Paul, in 2 Timothy 2:15, exhorts believers to "Study—Greek, 'Be earnest,' or 'diligent.'... to show—Greek, 'present,' as in Rom 12:1. thyself—as distinguished from those whom Timothy was to charge (Ti2 2:14). approved—tested by trial: opposed to 'reprobate' (Tit 1:16). workman—alluding to Mat 20:1, &c. not to be ashamed—by his work not being 'approved' (Phi 1:20). Contrast 'deceitful workers' (Co2 11:13). rightly dividing—'rightly handling' [Vulgate]; 'rightly administering' [ALFORD]; literally, cutting 'straight' or 'right': the metaphor being from a father or a steward (Co1 4:1)" [1]. This passage, particularly the phrase "rightly dividing the word of truth," suggests a need for careful discernment and accurate interpretation, which extends to evaluating the illustrative tools used in teaching and persuasion. The imagery of a "workman" who is "approved" and "not to be ashamed" implies a standard of quality and integrity in handling truth, which would naturally include the use of appropriate and effective analogies and examples [1].
Adam Clarke, commenting on Galatians 6:4, emphasizes self-examination and adherence to Christ's example: "Let him examine himself and his conduct by the words and example of Christ; and if he find that they bear this touchstone, then he shall have rejoicing in himself alone, feeling that he resembles his Lord and Master, and not in another - not derive his consolation from comparing himself with another who may be weaker, or less instructed than himself. The only rule for a Christian is the word of Christ; the only pattern for his imitation is the example of Christ. He should not compare himself with others; they are not his standard" [2]. While not directly addressing analogies, this counsel highlights the importance of using a reliable "touchstone" or standard for evaluation, rather than relying on potentially misleading comparisons. When an analogy is presented, critical thinking requires assessing whether it aligns with the ultimate "touchstone" of truth, which for Christians is the word and example of Christ [2].
John Chrysostom, a prominent figure in the Antiochian school of exegesis, is noted for his approach to interpretation that sought to avoid the pitfalls of both excessive allegorizing and rigid dogmatism [5]. The Antiochian school, in contrast to the prevalent allegorizing tendency of the Ante-Nicene period and the later dogmatic tendencies, emphasized a more literal and historical understanding of scripture [5, 6]. This approach inherently fosters critical thinking by demanding that interpretations, and by extension the analogies and examples used to explain them, remain grounded in the text's original context and meaning. Chrysostom's method encouraged a systematic and symmetrical building of discourse, contrasting with earlier styles that were less structured [3]. This systematic approach would naturally lead to a more rigorous evaluation of how analogies and examples contribute to the overall coherence and clarity of an argument.
Chrysostom's homilies demonstrate a practical application of critical thinking in teaching. He advises that "Teachers should speak with certainty... and a little at a time... like builders" [4]. This analogy of a builder suggests a methodical and structured approach to instruction, where each component (including analogies and examples) must be carefully selected and placed to construct a sound understanding. The emphasis on speaking "with certainty" implies that the teacher has thoroughly vetted their material, including the illustrative elements, to ensure their accuracy and appropriateness [4].
The use of analogies and examples is a common rhetorical device in biblical texts and theological discourse. For instance, the metaphor of "rightly dividing" in 2 Timothy 2:15 itself is an analogy, comparing the handling of truth to a craftsman's precise work [1]. Critical thinking involves asking several questions when encountering such devices:
- Relevance: Is the analogy or example truly pertinent to the point being made? Does it illuminate the subject, or does it distract or confuse?
- Accuracy: Is the analogy or example factually correct in its own right? Does it accurately represent the concept it is intended to illustrate?
- Scope and Limitations: Does the analogy or example have limitations? No analogy is perfect, and critical thinking requires understanding where the comparison breaks down or becomes misleading. For instance, comparing God to a human father is illustrative but must acknowledge the infinite qualitative difference between the two.
- Potential for Misinterpretation: Could the analogy or example be easily misunderstood or lead to erroneous conclusions? Chrysostom's caution against allegorizing, for example, highlights the danger of extending an analogy beyond its intended scope, leading to interpretations not supported by the text [5].
- Source and Authority: Where does the analogy or example come from? Is it drawn from a reliable source, or is it based on anecdotal evidence or flawed reasoning?
The historical development of theological thought also illustrates the importance of critical thinking in evaluating analogies. Early Christian thinkers, like Chrysostom, grappled with different interpretive methods. The Antiochian school's emphasis on historical and grammatical interpretation, in contrast to the Alexandrian school's allegorical approach, represents a critical evaluation of how best to understand and communicate biblical truth [5, 6]. The Antiochian method, by focusing on the literal sense, inherently demanded that analogies and examples used in explanation be more directly tied to the text's plain meaning rather than speculative or symbolic interpretations. This historical tension underscores the ongoing need for critical assessment of illustrative methods in theological education.
Furthermore, the concept of "proving one's own work" as mentioned by Adam Clarke on Galatians 6:4, can be extended to the intellectual work of constructing and evaluating arguments [2]. This "proving" involves a rigorous self-assessment of the analogies and examples one uses or encounters, ensuring they stand up to scrutiny against established truths and sound reasoning. It is a call to intellectual integrity, where one's understanding is not based on superficial comparisons but on a deep engagement with the subject matter [2].
Sources
- 2 Timothy (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on 2 Timothy 2:15: Study--Greek, "Be earnest," or "diligent." to show--Greek, "present," as in Rom 12:1. thyself--as distinguished from those whom Timothy was to charge (Ti2 2:14). approved--tested by trial: opposed to "reprobate" (Tit 1:16). workman--alluding to Mat 20:1, &c. not to be ashamed--by his work not being "approved" (Phi 1:20). Contrast "deceitful workers" (Co2 11:13). rightly dividing--"rightly handling" [Vulgate]; "rightly administering" [ALFORD]; literally, cutting "straight" or "right": the metaphor being from a father or a steward (Co1 4:1”
- Galatians (Methodist/Wesleyan) “Adam Clarke on Galatians 6:4: Prove his own work - Let him examine himself and his conduct by the words and example of Christ; and if he find that they bear this touchstone, then he shall have rejoicing in himself alone, feeling that he resembles his Lord and Master, and not in another - not derive his consolation from comparing himself with another who may be weaker, or less instructed than himself. The only rule for a Christian is the word of Christ; the only pattern for his imitation is the example of Christ. He should not compare himself with others; they are not his standard. Christ hath ”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on Galatians–Colossians–Thessalonians: which one after another occurred. Now, modern taste requires much more system and symmetry in building a discourse. The Schoolmen taught their pupils to analyze and arrange, 1 1 How this came about, the editor has sought to explain in his “Lectures on the History of Preaching” (New York, Armstrong), p. 103 f. and modern preaching has taken the corresponding form, for good and for ill. An expository sermon of to-day must be much more systematic in its explanations, and much more regular in its entire construction, than those of th”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on John & Hebrews: 39 . Teachers should speak with certainty, 7 ; and a little at a time, 16 ; like builders, 27 . Temporal blessings given us as we can bear them, 15 . Testimony, facts the best, 49 . "Testimony of two," how applicable to God, 188 ; of man, when credible, 189 . That, expresses the consequence, not the final cause, 227 . Theaters, indecency of, 3 ; to be avoided, 4 ; corrupting tendency of, 66 ; corrupt their inmates more than prisons, 220 . Thomas, St., his fear before, exceeded by his courage after, the Crucifixion, 228 ; condemned for vain curiosity”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew: I. The Place of Chrysostom in the History of Exegesis. The position held by Chrysostom in the history of exegesis is remarkable. Owing to a peculiar combination of circumstances he, more than any of the Fathers, was enabled to avoid the errors alike of the allegorizing and dogmatic tendencies. The former tendency was the prevalent one in the Christian Church in the Ante-Nicene period; the latter, especially in the West, became dominant during the Post-Nicene period, using for its own ends the earlier erroneous theory. Chrysostom represents the Antiochian r”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew: between the Godhead and Manhood in Christ, his opinions respecting the final restoration of mankind, which were almost equivalent to a denial of eternal punishment, were reproduced mainly by Theodore.” 2 2 Stephens St. Chrysostom , p. 31; comp. pp. 27–32, on Diodorus. On the Antiochian School, see Schaff , Church History , III. pp. 935–7; Reuss History of the New Testament , II., pp. 542–6, American edition. While the influence of the Antiochian school seems transient, it has achieved much in stating more clearly the correct principles of interpretation; i”