Is God really "Love?"

"God is love, therefore love is God." A friend recently disputed this syllogism (actually only 2/3 of a proper syllogism), and rightly so. "Macaroni is pasta, therefore pasta is macaroni" illustrates this logical fallacy; pasta can be penne, linguini, spaghetti, etc. It's not necessarily macaroni even though all macaroni is pasta.

      The discussion arose as part of a more general foray into the question of the church's polity regarding same-sex unions. If the assumption is that God is love, therefore love is God, it follows for some that acceptance, inclusion and equality of same-sex-united persons would be a foregone conclusion. How can Love (God) deny anyone an intimate relationship (love) with another person? If God = Love, than love is the whole point of everything and the total meaning of everything God is and desires. So there is no space among God's followers for judgment, for division, because inclusion, equality, forbearance are expressions of love (God).

      But like not all pasta is macaroni, God is not only love. God is judgment, God is forgiveness, God is creation, God is omniscience, God is omnipresence, God is omnipotence—I’m sure you could add to the list. I think this was my friend’s argument, and his conclusion regarding same-sex-united persons was that our approach as a church to the “issue” must include reference to other attributes of God—like judgment.

      Invoking of Aristotelian logic to clarify a theological question might not sit well with some people, but the difference between sound logic and faulty logic is often the difference between truth and half-truth, between truth and a lie. For instance, if the major premise of a syllogism is that A = B, and the minor premise that B = C, it follows that A = C, leads to a conclusion that is logical truth. (Many of us learned to use such proofs in high school geometry.) At the same time, consider the following syllogism: If men are generally stronger than women; and John is a man, and Mary is a woman, it follows that John is stronger than Mary. This is a logical fallacy with a name: non sequitur, (the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises). The word, generally in the major (first) premise leaves room for exceptions; Mary might well be able to throw and pin John in a wrestling match—with ease.

      I’m not saying that logical principles can lead to answers to our burning theological questions; what I’m saying is that without it, we are constantly facing the futility of debating endlessly employing half-truths and non sequiturs.

      Consider this syllogism: God is all-knowing, humans are not God, therefore humans are not all-knowing. Did you spot the logical fallacy? If you noticed that the major premise (God is all-knowing) doesn’t exclude the possibility that others beside God might be all-knowing, and that that makes the conclusion a non sequitur, you’re on the right track to applying logic to an argument.      
     What about this one: Only God is all-knowing, humans are not God, therefore humans cannot be all-knowing. The only in the major premise renders the conclusion a logical truth, assuming that the major premise is factual, of course.
      A valid syllogism assumes, of course, that the major and minor premises are factual. The debate about what the churches’ position on same-sex marriages ought to be always bogs down logically because we don’t agree on the validity of the premises. For instance: The Bible favours “one man and one woman for life” as the definition of marriage; and, the Bible inerrantly reflects the will of God; therefore same-sex marriage is outside the will of God. The premises for this supposed logical argument are replete with problems of fact. The question of inerrancy, for instance, is stated as a fact here and is certainly far from settled. The assumption that the mind of God is completely knowable through our scriptures neglects large questions of interpretation like “what would the Bible have said about marriage if written today instead of 2000 years ago?” and “how did the context of the time in which scriptures were composed influence the message?” The major premise is written as a factual statement although it’s truth is assumed from references that suggest that the scriptures generally see marriage as the union of a man and a woman for life.
      We have long since conceded that the “for life” part is negotiable, signaling that we’re not certain that the statement “marriage is the union of a man and a woman for life” is unequivocally factual. The fallacy of assuming as fact that which is a debatable conclusion renders the invalid syllogism worse than useless. And yet, it sounds logical and can be seductive. It becomes an answer to people crying for certainty.
      Consider this syllogism: Since all living things owe their attributes to genetic DNA coding, and since humans are living things, therefore, humans share a genetic kinship with all other living things.
      Would you consider this conclusion sound? Logically, that is.
Or:
      Anabaptists all believe that violence is not an answer to violence, and since Mennonites are Anabaptists, therefore Mennonites believe that violence is not an answer to violence.
      Would you consider this argument to be valid? If not, have you spotted a non sequitur? Is there a problem with the factuality of the premises?
Or:
      Most Anabaptists believe that violence is not an answer to violence, and since Mennonites are Anabaptists, it’s reasonable to assume that some Mennonites believe that violence is not an answer to violence.
      Is that better or worse? Logically, I mean. Don’t judge it on your previously-held opinions.
    
     Remaining united and focused as churches has always been difficult, not because we don’t read our Bibles enough, but more because most Christians have never been offered a firm grounding in logic.
      To begin to get a handle on what Aristotle was about, Click HERE.