The Slippery Slope

Someone attended a conference recently, and it was suggested to this person by the speaker they leave our church. The suggestion (as I understand it) was they join a church that more boldly proclaims the gospel, and is not on a path towards liberalism.

This argument is often called the “slippery slope”. Accepting “this” idea will lead to further compromise. It’s not a new argument - Aristotle addressed the logic of such claims as far back as the 4th century BC.

Consider this: “If we allow students to use calculators in primary school, soon they won’t bother learning any maths. Eventually, no one will know how to count without a machine.”

This is a fallacious slippery slope. It assumes a causal chain without establishing that one step necessarily leads to the next. The use of calculators does not logically prevent learning; in many cases, it enhances it. The argument trades on fear, not reason.

There can be valid versions of slippery slope arguments. For instance: “Unrestricted deforestation in a region will increase soil erosion. That leads to river pollution, which harms marine ecosystems.” Each step follows a plausible causal link based on observation and experience. This argument is sound.

If St Andrew’s has female preachers, are we on an inevitable path towards liberalism? Some evangelicals hold that the NT permits women to prophecy (aka apply biblical truths) in public worship (Acts 2:17-18, 1 Cor 11:5). Believing this does not logically lead to denying other biblical truths.

This kind of argument is used across the theological spectrum. For instance, some assert that if one does not hold to a literal six-day creation, they are on a path to rejecting the trustworthiness of the entire Bible. Yet many faithful, evangelical Christians - committed to biblical authority - understand Genesis 1–2 as theological narrative, not as a scientific account.

Ironically, the conference speaker who questioned our church does not hold to six-day creationism. He would likely reject the slippery slope logic if it were applied to him.

In short, we must be discerning. The use of slippery slope arguments can sometimes mask real issues. Not every difference is a sign of doctrinal compromise. Some are simply matters of faithful Christians interpreting Scripture differently. Christians holding divergent views on disputable matters but remaining in good fellowship is the ideal Paul tells us to aim for (Rom 14).

Divergence and good fellowship is the time-honoured position of the Diocese of Sydney regarding women preaching.