“The Argumentative Frame”
I recently learned a new term: “the argumentative frame.” I’ve been researching it further and reflecting on it. Here’s a summary.
Argumentative Frame: A group of people with a toxic, destructive way of thinking and relating to those outside the group. “Group-think” in which a group organizes itself around a warfare mentality.
In my reading and research, the articles have focused not simply on individuals, but on groups of people. Here are eight characteristics of groups with an argumentative mindset.
Characteristics of the Argumentative Group Mindset
Characteristic #1: Proudly Viewing Oneself as Heroic Defenders: In the argumentative frame, people position their group as the virtuous people fighting against a powerful evil enemy. The virtuous people portray themselves as heroic defenders of the only right values and beliefs.
Characteristic #2: Demonizing Others as Enemies: In the argumentative frame, the virtuous group envision themselves as an aggrieved people. They must always have a robust enemy to fight against. They engage in the persistent demonizing of others as enemies. They maintain a deep-seated resentment, and a determination to lash out at enemies.
Characteristic #3: Habitually Creating New Enemies: The need for an enemy is so great that more enemies are constantly created. The boundaries between the virtuous group and the evil group are continually tightened. “We must have an enemy! We need someone to fight—our very existence depends upon having an enemy! We need someone to be less virtuous so we can be the virtuous ones!”
Characteristic #4: Devouring One Another: This is the way of demonization: new enemies are always needed. “We must always have more sacrificial lambs for the fires of our movement to survive.” The tragedy of this enemy-focused, enemy-dependent movement is that it finally turns on its own and becomes a form of relational cannibalism.
Characteristic #5: Crying “Wolf” about Wolves in the Garden: This enemy mindset and argumentative frame lead to apocalyptic confrontation. There’s a constant foreboding sense of an imminent “takeover” by the enemy. “We’re surrounded: enemies to the left of us; enemies to the right of us; secret, hidden enemies inside our group! We’re facing catastrophic disaster unless we weed out the newest invading enemy!” Their self and group identity is, after all, “Argumentative.” “Who are we without our enemies to argue against???”
Characteristic #6: Perceiving Enemies Everywhere: Apocalyptic confrontation is embedded in the very existence of the group. It arises from the archetypal metaphor, “Life is war.” When life is seen as war, everyone is an enemy. But, watch out! The fellow soldier and comrade standing next to you today will surely turn on you tomorrow! You will be the next enemy to be defeated! Remember their relational cannibalism.
Characteristic #7: Silencing Dissenters with Coordinated Group Shaming: Since others are deemed “enemies of the truth,” the argumentative frame group will stop at nothing to shame and silence dissent. They become increasingly nasty, cruel, offensive, and verbally abusive, moving from being uncharitable to mischaracterizing to demeaning and lying. They gather the wagons and coordinate attacks against dissenters on multiple fronts. The backlash for daring to present a counter view is fierce.
Characteristic #8: Developing a Persecution Complex: Their strategy is to brow-beat others into submission and subjection. However, when their shaming and silencing fail, and others stand up to their bullying, the bullies then ironically and hypocritically claim that they are the persecuted and victimized group! The “heroic defenders of truth” now cry and whine, “Unfair!” when anyone dares to call them out.
The Old, Sad Joke…
The argumentative urge and need to divide in order to prove that I alone am right and righteous, is reminiscent of the old joke.
Betty and Cindy meet sitting next to each other on a plane. Getting acquainted, Betty asks, smugly, “Are you a Christian or an unbeliever?” “I’m a Christian,” Cindy replies. Betty says, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” Cindy answers, “Protestant.” Betty says, “Me, too! What denomination?” Cindy says, “Baptist.” Excitedly, Betty responds, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” Cindy answers, “Northern Baptist.” Betty says, “Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?” Cindy says, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” Happy, Betty exclaims, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” Cindy answers, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” Betty continues, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” Cindy responds, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” Betty responds, “Die, heretic!”
The Biblical Category: The Divisive, Angry, Quarrelsome Person
Is there a biblical category for what the world calls the “argumentative frame” or the “toxic argumentative personality”? The divisive, angry, quarrelsome, argumentative person fits this category biblically. Once I learned about the AF concept, it became a catalyst for me to examine what the Scripture has to say about discerning, exposing, and responding wisely to divisive, angry, quarrelsome, argumentative people and groups. Some biblical passages to consider include:
“But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned” (Titus 3:9-11).
“Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful” (2 Timothy 2:23-24).
“I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites” (Romans 16:17-18).
“There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community” Proverbs 6:16-19).
“Where there is strife, there is pride, but wisdom is found in those who take advice” (Proverbs 13:10).
“A hot-tempered person stirs up conflict, but the one who is patient calms a quarrel” (Proverbs 15:18).
“Better a patient person than a warrior, one with self-control than one who takes a city” (Proverbs 16:32).
“It is to one’s honor to avoid strife, but every fool is quick to quarrel” (Proverbs 20:3).
“An angry person stirs up conflict, and a hot-tempered person commits many sins” (Proverbs 29:22).
“For as churning cream produces butter, and as twisting the nose produces blood, so stirring up anger produces strife” (Proverbs 30:33).
“Do not be quickly provoked in your spirit, for anger resides in the lap of fools” (Ecclesiastes 7:9).
The Historical Background
I’ve sought to trace the history of the concept of the argumentative frame (AF). The first source I’ve found is a 2006 article by Michael Lee, which was based upon his earlier MA Thesis. Lee discusses AF in United States politics in the Populist movement (1890s-1960s).
In 2021, Rodney Kennedy, a Southern Baptist pastor, and a professor, applied AF to issues in the Southern Baptist Convention in 2021. It was Kennedy’s article that provoked my thinking about AF, and became a catalyst for me examining the Bible’s teaching on argumentative, angry, divisive people’s and groups.
So What? What Is the Relevance of the Argumentative Frame Today?
AF, when studied through a biblical understanding of angry, divisive, argumentative, warrior peoples and groups, provides the new “spectacles” to “see with new eyes” and discern and expose AF thinking and behavior, and respond to it biblically. For example:
- A biblical understanding of the argumentative frame concept has relevance for understanding, exposing, and responding to any abusive groups, abusive systems, and/or abusive individuals. For example, there are often public discussions among various Christian groups or organizations taking place. Placing a biblical template of the characteristics of argumentative, angry divisiveness on these discussions provides wisdom for discerning whether the conversations are biblical or unbiblical. Then biblical principles of dealing with argumentative, angry, divisive groups (and individuals) can be wisely and appropriately applied.
- Anyone doing Christian mediation could benefit from a biblical theology of AF thinking and behavior. If one party in a dispute is guilty of AF thinking/practicing, unless it is exposed and confronted, we are likely to prolong and even enable abuse. Think of it this way. If one party in a dispute is guilty of AF, then they have log-size sins (Matthew 7:1-5) that must be identified and addressed. AF is not “speck-size” issues, and mediators must discern between log-size abusive sinners and speck-size sinners/sufferers.
- Any biblical counselor dealing with any relational issues, especially marriage counseling and/or family counseling, could benefit from understanding a biblical theology of AF thinking and behavior. For example, if a husband has a pattern of practicing any/many of the 8 characteristics of the argumentative mindset, then these patterns must be discerned, exposed, confronted, and addressed in individual counseling before marital counseling can proceed.
What’s a Better Way?
Anyone who has read anything I’ve written, knows that I like to ask the “Instead Question.” If someone has an issue with something, instead of just critiquing and criticizing, we proposed a “better way.”
“In discussions and interactions, how could we biblically communicate, instead of, or rather, than following the argumentative frame?”
Since this post is getting lengthy already, I’ll simply provide a collation that I’ve done previously. It specifically relates to biblical principles for interacting with fellow biblical counselors. However, these principles apply to all types of interactions.
- 5 Biblical Counseling Principles for Addressing Disagreements Among Biblical Counselors: What biblical principles could guide us as biblical counselors as we interact with other biblical counselors—especially with those with whom we disagree?
- 6 Types of Biblical Self-Examination Questions to Ask Before Criticizing Fellow Biblical Counselors: How should biblical counselors relate to one another when they perceive differences in their biblical counseling views and practices?
- Are We Reasonable or Unreasonable in Our Interactions in the Biblical Counseling Movement?: Reasonableness is the ability to see the point of view of another and is a command in Scripture (Philippians 4:5). It is a crucial characteristic when good people debate complex matters. It is absolutely necessary in charting a discerning truth-in-love path forward in the modern biblical counseling world as we discuss vital issues of counseling theory (theology) and practice (methodology).
- 2 Very Different Ways of Reading People We Disagree With: Which approach do we take when we read someone who differs with us, or is from outside our “camp” or “group”? Reading to Learn: Do we humbly read to learn from them? Reading to Debunk: Do we read only to spot perceived errors and weaknesses that we will expose in them?
- 3 Nouthetic Cautions about Nouthetic Critiques of Others: From John Bettler: In reading Bettler’s 1987 article, we overhear one nouthetic counselor (John Bettler) offering nouthetic confrontation, not just to Jay Adams, but to the entire nouthetic counseling movement—to “the next generation.” That’s good. Those who give nouthetic confrontation ought to humbly receive and learn from such nouthetic confrontation and caution.
- 16 Self-Assessment Questions to Ask Ourselves as We Evaluate Other Counseling Models: In our desire to biblically assess counseling models, have we been unfair to the views of others, inaccurate with the text of Scripture, and insensitive to the pain of our counselees?
