Skip to content

Course 19 · Lesson 8.3

Conceding what is true in the critic’s case

10 minute read

Lessons in this course

Course 19 outline

Module 1: The Secular Age: Humanism and Naturalism

  1. What secular, secularism and secularization mean
  2. Secular humanism: its claims and its moral vision
  3. Philosophical naturalism and its alternatives
  4. Christian responses to naturalism and humanism

Module 2: Science, Evolution and Faith

  1. Models of science and religion: conflict, independence, dialogue, integration
  2. What the theory of evolution claims and what it does not
  3. Christian positions on creation and evolution
  4. The history of the conflict story and its critics

Module 3: Criticism of the Bible

  1. The rise of historical and literary criticism
  2. What critics claim about authorship, sources and development
  3. Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant responses to criticism

Module 4: Truth, Relativism and Postmodernism

  1. What postmodernism is, and why the term is hard to define
  2. Truth, language and interpretation
  3. Moral relativism: descriptive, cultural and philosophical forms
  4. Christian responses to relativism and postmodern thought

Module 5: The Masters of Suspicion

  1. Marx on religion, ideology and economic life
  2. Nietzsche on Christianity, morality and the death of God
  3. Freud on religion as illusion
  4. The genetic fallacy, and when explaining the origin of a belief matters

Module 6: Power, Corruption and Morality

  1. Church, state and political power in history
  2. Institutional failure and abuse
  3. Critiques of Christian morality and how Christians reply
  4. Judging a faith by its failures: what follows and what does not

Module 7: Mind, Meaning and Nihilism

  1. Consciousness and the limits of materialism
  2. Meaning and purpose in secular and Christian thought
  3. Nihilism, despair and Christian hope

Module 8: Writing a Response

  1. Stating a challenge in its strongest form
  2. Building a structured response
  3. Conceding what is true in the critic’s case

All courses

Program / Course 19: Modern Challenges / Lesson 8.3

What you will learn

  • Explain why honest concession strengthens a response and does not weaken it.
  • Identify kinds of concession: of fact, of argument, of failure and of limit.
  • Distinguish a proper concession from surrender and from false modesty.
  • Draft concessions for challenges studied in this course.

The big idea

To concede is to grant that an opponent is right about something. In a debate it feels like losing. In honest inquiry it is a sign of seriousness, because almost every serious criticism of Christianity contains something true. Christians who concede such points show that they care about truth more than victory, and they remove the critic’s most effective charge, that believers will not face facts. A proper concession is specific and limited. It does not give up the faith. It gives up what was never essential to it.

Key terms

Concession of fact
Granting that a historical or empirical claim is true, such as that churches blessed slavery.
Concession of argument
Granting that a particular argument has force, or that one’s own side’s argument is weak.
Concession of failure
Admitting that Christians or churches have failed to live by their teaching.
Concession of limit
Admitting that one does not know or cannot answer a question.
Essential and peripheral
A distinction between teachings that define the faith, such as the resurrection of Christ, and matters that Christians have held but that are not central, such as particular theories of Genesis or of the state.
Intellectual humility
A willingness to recognize the limits of one’s knowledge and the possibility of error, without giving up conviction.
Apologia
Greek for a defense. The word in 1 Peter 3:15 does not mean an apology in the modern sense, but a reasoned answer.

Background

Christian history contains notable concessions. The church came to accept that Galileo had been wrongly condemned, and Pope John Paul II said so in 1992. Many churches have condemned their former support of slavery and their treatment of Jews. In 2000, Pope John Paul II led a day of pardon for the sins of Christians over the centuries. Evangelical scholars have conceded errors in old arguments for a young earth, and critics of Christianity have conceded that the moral progress of the West owes something to Christian ideas. Each case had costs, and in each the faith survived.

Augustine advised Christians against defending a false view of nature in the name of Scripture, since this exposes Scripture to ridicule. The point applies to all concession. Defending too much puts the essential at risk. A skilled writer knows the difference between what must be held and what may be released.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: Find what is true

For each challenge, ask what the critic has seen correctly. Marx saw that religion can serve the powerful. Nietzsche saw that morality and belief are linked and that pity can be demeaning. Freud saw that wish can shape belief. Postmodern thinkers saw that human knowledge is limited and interested. Higher critics saw that the Bible has a human history. Critics of the church saw real abuse. These points are not trivial, and the student should state them precisely.

It helps to write the concession in the critic’s own terms first, then to restate it in the writer’s. If the concession cannot be made in terms the critic would accept, it is not yet honest.

Step 2: Choose the kind of concession

A concession of fact accepts what happened. A concession of argument accepts that a line of reasoning has force, as when a Christian grants that an argument from design does not by itself prove the Christian God. A concession of failure accepts the church’s guilt. A concession of limit admits ignorance, as with the problem of evil or the nature of consciousness.

Each has a different tone. Concessions of failure should be plain and unqualified, with no but attached. A concession of limit can say, here is what is known and here is where it stops.

Step 3: Say what the concession does not give up

After conceding, the writer can state what follows and what does not. If a church has been corrupt, the truth of the resurrection remains a separate question. If an argument for God is weak, other arguments may remain, and faith need not depend on arguments alone. If a reading of Genesis is mistaken, the doctrine of creation is not thereby lost.

This step must not be used to cancel the concession. A writer who concedes a failure and then spends three paragraphs on the good the church has done has not conceded. The proper order is to concede, pause, and then to draw the distinction.

Step 4: Avoid the false forms

There are false forms of concession. One is surrender, in which the writer gives up what is essential in order to seem reasonable, as when he treats the resurrection as a symbol to avoid challenge. Another is false modesty, in which he concedes things he does not believe in order to please. A third is the apology that blames the listener, such as a statement that the speaker is sorry the listener was offended. A fourth is the concession that is only a rhetorical step on the way to a rebuttal.

Each fails the test of honesty. A true concession is made because it is true, and the writer should be willing to accept the consequence.

  1. What exactly does the critic see correctly?
  2. Can I state that point in terms he would accept?
  3. Is the concession of fact, argument, failure or limit?
  4. What follows from the concession, and what does not?
  5. Am I conceding something essential, or something peripheral?
  6. Is this concession made because it is true, or because it is convenient?

Examples

A concession of failure

A writer says: the churches in many places defended slavery with the Bible, and some did so until it ended. This was wrong, and it was a failure to read Scripture and the gospel faithfully. The writer then notes, in a separate paragraph, that the claims about Christ do not depend on these failures. (A constructed example.)

A concession of limit

A writer says: the problem of suffering has no complete answer here. The free will defense answers one form of the problem. It does not obviously explain the suffering of animals or of infants, and thoughtful Christians admit this. (A constructed example.)

A false concession

A speaker says: some people may have been hurt by the church, but let us move on to the real issue. The words concede nothing and signal that the harm does not matter. (A constructed example.)

Different perspectives

Catholic

The Catholic Church has formalized concession in public acts of repentance, such as the day of pardon in 2000, and the document of the International Theological Commission on memory and reconciliation. Catholic teaching holds that the Church is holy and also in need of purification, so that confessing the sins of members does not deny her holiness.

Orthodox

Orthodox worship is full of confession. In the liturgy the people pray for forgiveness of sins voluntary and involuntary, and the prayer before communion calls the worshiper the chief of sinners. This habit of confession supports an Orthodox ease with admitting failure, though Orthodox writers also warn against public displays of guilt that serve pride.

Protestant

The Reformation began with a call to confession and repentance, and the Protestant principle that the church is always to be reformed supports concession. Many Protestant bodies have issued statements of repentance, for example on slavery and on their treatment of Jews. Some fear that concession gives ground to liberal drift, and so insist on distinguishing it from surrender.

Secular and scholarly views

Philosophers of many views hold that willingness to concede is a mark of good reasoning. Scientists value the practice of retracting claims when evidence changes. Critics of religion often say that they would listen more readily to believers who conceded plain facts, and some believers say that they would be more ready to speak to critics who did the same.

Why it matters

A student who can concede well can talk to anyone. He no longer needs to win every point, and the listener learns that his reasons are given in good faith. Concession also leads to growth, since the points conceded often show where reform of belief or practice is needed.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: To concede is to lose.

Correction: In honest inquiry, a concession is a gain in truth. The argument is judged on its whole, and a writer who is honest about weak points is more credible.

Misunderstanding: A Christian must defend everything Christians have ever done or said.

Correction: The faith is defined by its creeds and the person of Christ, not by every action of its members. The tradition itself condemns many past acts.

Misunderstanding: Conceding a point means giving up faith.

Correction: It means giving up an error. Faith can grow stronger when it is separated from what it never required.

Misunderstanding: Concession and conviction cannot go together.

Correction: A person can hold strong convictions and be honest about what he does not know or what his side has done wrong. The best thinkers in the tradition did both.

Knowledge check

Name the four kinds of concession and give an example of each.

A concession of fact accepts a historical claim, such as that some churches defended slavery. A concession of argument grants that a reasoning has force, such as that an argument from design does not prove the Christian God alone. A concession of failure admits the church’s guilt. A concession of limit admits ignorance, as with the suffering of animals.

What is the difference between a concession and a surrender?

A concession gives up an error or an unsupported claim, such as a mistaken reading or a wrong act of the church. Surrender gives up what is essential, such as the resurrection of Christ, in order to avoid challenge. The test is whether the point is central to the faith as the creeds and the tradition define it.

Why is it a mistake to follow a concession of failure with a long list of the church’s good works?

Because it cancels the concession and suggests that the harm does not matter. A plain admission should stand alone. The good that the church has done can be mentioned in another place, as part of a fair comparison, but it does not answer the charge of the harm done, and victims in particular will not hear it as an answer.

What did Augustine say that bears on concession?

He warned Christians not to insist on false claims about the natural world in the name of Scripture, because unbelievers who know better will mock and will be turned away from the faith. The principle is that defending too much endangers the essential. A wise writer distinguishes what must be held from what may be released.

Think it through

  1. What is the hardest concession for you to make, and why?
  2. Is there a teaching you have defended that you now think is peripheral?
  3. How does a plain admission of fault change the way a listener hears the rest of an argument?
  4. What would the church gain from public concessions, and what might it risk?

Independent assignment

Conceding and holding

In your notebook, choose a challenge from this course and write four concessions, one of each kind: fact, argument, failure and limit. For each, add one sentence saying what the concession does not give up. Then write 200 words on which concession was hardest and why. This should be 500 to 700 words in all. Do not send it.

Further study