Pardon My Bias

Back during my high school years, I discovered two books that helped shape my adult thinking and fed my interest in words, their meanings, and their impact on people, both positive and negative. One was a book by Darrell Huff called, How to Lie With Statistics. It has proven quite valuable over the years whenever I was bombarded by arguments using statistics to “prove” a point. Not only have I been able to recognize that the writers were using numbers to falsify the truth, but I have often also been able to identify the techniques the authors or speakers were using to “stack the deck” in their favor. Reading that book put me in the 99th percentile of high school students (how’s that for a statistic I just made up?).

The other book I enjoyed reading was S.I. Hayakawa’s Language in Thought and Action. This professor of English (and later President of San Francisco State University and a US senator) wrote his influential book on the role of semantics. His book dealt with how words have both denotations, or “official” dictionary meanings, and connotations, or additional meanings people find in the ways those words are used. Words therefore can have great emotional impact on their users and hearers far beyond the information their definitions provide. For example, in English usage, “man” was often added to a country’s name to designate a person from that country. Thus you had an Englishman, an Irishman, a Welshman, a Scotsman, a Frenchman, a Dutchman, etc. Likewise, a person from China was called a “Chinaman,” but because the term came to be used as an insult akin to the “N” word, that term is now very incorrect politically and therefore no longer used. The connotation has overwhelmed the denotation. Add to that now, the issue of using “man” when both men and women are included in a term, and you switch “fireman” to “fire-fighter,” and “policeman (and police woman)” to “police officer.” Again, connotations are more important than denotations when it comes to the impact of many words.

The reason I am bringing up these books, especially the one on language, is because there are some words and phrases going around today that have developed connotations that can be divisive. In fact, some terms which have legitimate usages have become weapons in our culture wars; people use them to silence their opponents and stifle speech or actions. Often, it is a case where the terms have innocent, or at least neutral, denotations, but their connotations are loaded with meanings that become “hot buttons.”

Why does this matter? It matters because we use words to convey the Word; our faith is a propositional one in which word meanings – both denotations and connotations – proclaim the Gospel message we present and affect the way in which people receive it. It is incumbent upon us to strive for the clearest meaning (even if I use the phrase “incumbent upon” instead of the more common and clearer term,”important”).

One term which has become a victim of bad connotations is the word, “bias.” It has become highly controversial today and I believe, is often used incorrectly in ways which harm our defense of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Oxford Dictionary definition of bias includes the following denotation: “Inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.” It then gives two examples: “there was evidence of bias against foreign applicants” and “the bias towards younger people in recruitment.” The dictionary definition also includes the connotation: it is “considered to be unfair.”

But is it? If you watch or listen to the news or media pundits, bias is a horrible thing we always need to avoid. The pundits charge each other with “media bias” and complain that investigators have operated with preconceived notions and biases, People speak of getting judges or reporters with no biases, so that we can trust their words as being fair and honest rather than slanted to favor one side or slam the other.

Granted, bias can be a huge problem, especially when it comes to administering our laws. We want impartial judges who can consider the facts of a case without prejudice, and render a fair and just judgment. In that realm, we work to strain out bias. If you have ever served on a jury, you know from the attorneys’ questions of the potential jurors that they want people who have not decided ahead of time against their side. (When I was once considered for jury duty, I considered wearing my clerical collar and saying, “Judge not, lest ye be judged” but chickened out. I served on that jury.)

So there are areas where we legitimately try to negate the effects of bias. Unfortunately, we often “throw out the baby with the bathwater” by discrediting legitimate testimonies and arguments by claiming the speaker is biased, and therefore doesn’t need to be listened to.

One of the areas where such charges are made is the testimony of the Apostles regarding Jesus Christ and his resurrection. “Of course,” the argument goes, “you’d expect Jesus’ followers to say good things about him and claim he resurrected; they were his followers, after all, and they were biased in his favor. Only Christians reported the resurrection. Therefore, their testimony is discredited.” Of course, we could reply that only non-believers are biased against the divinity or resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I’ll answer the charge of apostolic bias, but first, I want to state the following proposition: “Bias is not necessarily bad; in fact, it is necessary to human life.” Okay, set aside your bias against bias, and consider the following illustrations:

• You are living in a cave with your family, while outside the wind howls and wild animals growl and roar. You huddle over a fire and eat some roots and berries you gathered during the day. You see your son reach for some white berries he picked, and recognizing they are poisonous, you swat them from his hand and grunt disapprovingly. Why? Because you know they are poisonous and you are biased against them, and in favor of the red berries your spouse picked. Then your toddler daughter walks toward the cave entrance calling “Here, kitty, kitty! Look daddy! Pretty kitty cat!” and just in time you grab your spear and slay the saber-toothed “kitty cat,” saving your daughter and providing a little meat for the family. Again, your love for your family and life experience have created a bias in you for your family and against anything that would harm them.
• In less dire straits, we are biased for favorite sports teams, certain kinds of music, certain foods, the clothing we wear, the cars we drive, certain people we count as friends, and for things that protect our freedom, security, material needs and opportunities. Likewise we are biased against those things we know will harm us, or that just don’t taste good, look good, or smell good. We constantly make decisions based on our experiences and knowledge of what is good and bad, and that ability is absolutely necessary for our survival. We don’t need to put our hand into a fire every day to prove we are not biased toward it being hot; one burn as a kid is enough to bias us for the rest of our life.
• Likewise, when it comes to our social interactions, bias is impossible to avoid. We learn from other people’s experiences that help us shape our understanding and preferences of the world around us. For example, I didn’t have to take up smoking to know from other people’s studies and experiences that smoking would be bad for me. I also have a bias not to take up cage fighting or run for public office, seeing how brutal both those activities can be!

The problem comes in when bias occurs either before one has sufficient facts or experience to base it on, or after learning false or bogus information. An example of the first bias, was my reluctance ahead of time to try sushi because it might contain raw fish; after I tried it I found I could enjoy it after all. (By the way, I’m still biased against trying haggis.) An example of the second one is a bias against certain nationalities or races based on prejudicial “information” given by people who say bad things about the group. This kind of bias always comes out in wartime, when the enemy is demonized in order to make them worthy of hating and killing.

Biases exist, but can we keep them in check so that they serve us, and not have us serve them? Are we willing to change our biases in light of new facts, (Proverbs 18:17) and are we careful to consider those facts in light of the biases which shaped them? Are we wiling to accept that certain biases are absolutely necessary to knowing the truth?

If so, we are ready to consider the matter of apostolic bias. Were the apostolic writers of the New Testament biased? Of course they were! John states near the end of his Gospel the purpose of his writing it: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:30-31). John was not writing a dispassionate, objective, dry chronology of Jesus’ life and death; he was writing a Gospel, that is Good News, about the Son of God and the salvation which his death and resurrection provided him and his readers. He knew Jesus and was a personal witness to both the crucifixion and the resurrection. His bias came from what he knew, heard, and saw, and not from some preconceived notion that Jesus should be the Messiah. Likewise, Peter recounts in 2 Peter 1:16, “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”

I want the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ majesty and work on the cross to be completely, passionately, and factually biased toward our Savior. I want them to be willing to lose family and friends, jobs and social standing, and even their lives because they fervently believed in Jesus Christ and who he was/is and what he accomplished for our sake. Something happened that completely won these men (and the women who followed them) to Christ, and the same thing should change us.

I am biased that the Bible is true. I am biased that the worldview in the Bible is true. I am biased that Jesus Christ is the Savior, that he came, died, and rose again for our deliverance form sin and death, and that believing in him I will have eternal life. I am biased against all claims contrary to these truths, and will contend for the truth. So, I ask you, “pardon my bias,” because it is the most necessary bias of all!

Now may the Lord bless you and keep you, the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you, the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace. Amen.

Read: 2 Peter 1:16-21

P.S. For a good rebuttal of the bias charge against the Apostles, check out Steven Bruecker’s article, “Were the Gospel Writers Biased,” at http://biblical worldview academy.org/were-the-gospel-writers-biased/.