When I was studying philosophy (the first time around) one of the biggest errors one could make was to argue against a philosophical position that no one actually holds. This is called a straw man fallacy. These are really tempting to fall into as everyone wants to sound smart and vanquish an alternative idea but, if no one actually believes the idea you’re knocking down then you may as well king hit a dead dog.
So I’ve been thinking recently about some sermons I’ve heard recently from College students. They weren’t bad talks, in fact some of them were pretty good. Top exposition, informed structure, considered doctrinal implications. But what I noticed was that even though they were speaking to a congregation that they could know a fair bit about, they attacked easy targets in application. It is a fair call to say that prosperity doctrines aren’t really a huge struggle for Moore men. I’m pretty sure the Chappo boys aren’t reading the prayer of Jabez at the moment. The listeners will cheer with you as the stick the boot in but will they be challenged to change the parts of their lives that the passage does uncover as struggles?
What I want to know is how do we prevent ourselves from diving for easy application?