I've been thinking about something I'm calling 'issue escalation'. I can't be the first to think of it, so it probably has a different official name, but it is something that I've often seen in church arguments, and it's now being regularly deployed politically 1/n

What I have in mind is when, for example, there is a debate about something contentious and bible verses are deployed in aid of one side or another. (Often happens around issues of sexuality). 2/n

'Issue escalation' comes when one side of the debate, instead of arguing about the right way to understand the particular verse, says instead 'if you reject this you're rejecting Scripture!' 3/n

Suddenly the stakes have become much greater. This is rhetorically effective in certain contexts. Where there is a culture saying that Scripture must be followed, the 'issue escalation' is a nuclear weapon that shuts down debate. 4/n

For who (in such a context) wants to be against Scripture? Or seen to be against Scripture? The argument is no longer about *how* to read Scripture, but Scripture vs no Scripture. The issue has been escalated. 5/n

This is on my mind because of the controversy du jour. The specific argument might be: were rules broken? was the breaking of the rule justified in this case? what is the appropriate penalty? 6/n

However, issue escalation sets in, and then the argument becomes: if the government is no longer believed people will die! The undermining of government communication will mean that the pandemic lasts longer. And so on. 7/n

Now those things are very important questions. In the same way that the status of Scripture is a very important question. Yet I see the same patterns evolving in our contemporary situation as with the hackneyed sexuality debates within the church 8/n

It is no longer possible to have a reasonable discussion about the particular issues at stake. The well has been poisoned. Polarisation and a retreat to existing entrenched positions is all that follows. 9/n