We’ve all experienced it. You share biblical views on gender and sexuality, and you get called homophobic or transphobic. If a man speaks on the immorality of abortion, he is shouted down because he doesn’t have a uterus. A woman who speaks against abortion is deceived and self-loathing. Anything a white person says comes from privilege. Anything a person of color says, supposedly comes from entitlement. Anyone defending a position gets categorized by whether they are on the right or left. If the speaker is on the right, he gets called Nazi. If on the left, he gets called “woke.” This frustrating approach to debate is something C. S. Lewis labeled as a Bulverism, after a fictitious character named Ezekiel Bulver.

Bulverism is where the truth or falsehood of an argument is ignored, and the person attacks the source’s intentions instead. It is a form of ad hominem, or genetic fallacy. I don’t have to defend my view if I attack you enough for even having an opinion. If I do this enough, you may even be silenced. If you are silenced, I win without defending my views—even if they are indefensible.

I have experienced this fallacy many times and have learned a valuable lesson. One who uses it is usually unable to defend their views. This could be because the views are indefensible. It could be because they cannot defend well, so they fall back on attacks. In debate, the second you attack, you lose.

When someone makes a claim, it is either true or false. Bulverism ignores the veracity of the argument. It pretends to answer but says nothing useful.

Why do I bring this up? Because I see a form of it in Christian circles, even among pastors and church leaders. Here are some examples:

• Complementarians get called misogynists, or it is claimed, “You just want to hold women down.”
• Egalitarians get called feminists, or it is claimed, “You deny the authority of the Bible.”
• Those who speak for Palestine are called antisemitic.
• Those who defend Israel are accused of supporting atrocities.
• One who speaks for adherence to immigration law is called heartless, racist, graceless.
• One who speaks for mercy and compassion for illegal aliens is considered emotion-driven.
• Speak on some issues and you are called a Trumpist. Speak for the other side, and you are accused of having Trump Derangement Syndrome.

All of these are examples of Bulverism. Instead, we should lay all these aside, and ask, “Is what the other person says true or not true?” After that—but only after—we may want to question why it is being said, or what led the person to believe it. For example, if I say, “A is true,” then we discuss. If you start with, “Ken is only saying that because he is a (insert insult),” you failed. But if we discuss, and you conclude, “Evidence has shown me that A is not true,” it might be appropriate to ask, “What convinced Ken that this error was true?” If you want to go that deep, go ahead. But let’s stop putting our opinion of one who holds an idea ahead of our consideration of the idea itself. Truth is truth, even if it has a bad source. Falsehood is falsehood, no matter how much you would like it to be otherwise. We should stay on topic in discussions: Is this true or false?