When you meet a different group of people their difference is often marked by speech mannerisms. No one has to explain the situation to you. You pick up loud and clear the message: “You don’t belong.” Whether it is an affectionate term of endearment in reference to Christian brotherhood, a reference to how wonderful someone’s children are, or rhetoric about how no one else in the world cares about grace as much as they do, it is designed to exclude. It may hold the promise that some day you can loose your Eliza Doolittle status, but for the present it keeps you out. Later, of course, it can be the means by which you show that you do belong. There is a positive aspect to all this. Words build communities.

Rationality is supposed to be away around these sorts of linguistic strategies–to either circumvent needless barriers or justify the bond that the distinctive speech reinforces. In the West, at least, Reason (which needs capitalization in this context) is supposed to be a means of communication irrespective of group solidarities.

I actually think there is some factual basis for this idea. But what people often forget is that a speech mannerism that marks out a group solidarity (and excludes others) can easily take the form,

A. If p then q

B. p

C. Therefore, q

This is a perfectly rational structure so it has the appeal of being objective and true. Thus, using this structure is an extremely effective way to enforce a completely irrational community solidarity. Groups often do not actually use these forms as arguments, but as memorized slogans that are accepted on the basis of a desire to belong to the group or a confidence that one’s group is better than others. It is common to find the form above used as the sine qua non of group identity. It is repeated as a proof when, in reality, A is completely false (there is no relationship between p and q) and so is B (q does not obtain).

I suppose thise would all be more convincing if I included some actual examples. But all you have to do is google for Presbyterian arguments against musical instruments in worship, or for exclusive Psalmody, or that it is a sin to celebrate Christmas and or Easter, and you will see this all to easily. The permissability of icon veneration and prayers to the saints I think also demonstrate this idea.

But of course, we may have all fallen for this. The point here for the Church is that trumpeting the importance of doctrine may not be any real help in promoting a culture in which people value truth. It could easily become a culture in which people are more easily misled and rendered incapable of hearing anything outside their own tribe.