Non-Sequitor: An argument in which the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premises. Another way of putting this is: A conclusion drawn from premises that provide no logical connection to it.

On a recent post at CRN Ken expresses his want to gag, and I can’t say that I blame him. He had just quoted some New Age tripe overlaid with a few references to God from a website dedicated to, and supposedly endorsed by, Sylvia Browne. Now, I have no idea who Sylvia Browne is, but a quick perusal of these site shows that she’s no Christian – not in the historical orthodox sense. Not in any sense at all. The site advocates Gnostic beliefs and proposes reincarnation as “the most reasonable concept to explain the inequities of life in light of an all loving God. The alternative, a God of hate, is simply not tenable.” So, I join Ken in his reflex to gag.

Then, in a move that would grind the gears of the most well oiled mind Ken writes; “…this is exactly where many professing Christians are heading by dabbling in forbidden spiritual practices like Contemplative/Centering Prayer and Lectio Divina.”

“Holy leaps of non-sequitur logic, Batman”

In this missive Ken doesn’t bother trying to make any connection. He just states that this [Sylvia’s obvious non-Christian rhetoric] is where many professing [code for “not true”] Christians are heading [such as Foster, Keating, McClaren, Kimball].

This could be sited as the quintessential conclusion drawn from a premise that provides no logical connection. This illogical leap makes the usually “guilt by association” motif look ironclad and sensible – at least in a GBA argument there is, at least, some form of association - whether real or imagined. Not even Ken can associate his target group with Sylvia Browne except to say that some day they will follow her – time will tell, but I’m not put’n any money on Kimball or Foster advocating reincarnation anytime soon. (Although I have yet to read this month’s Renovare newsletter.)

Having made this unsubstantiated prediction based on a non-sequitur, Ken follows up by assigning motives to Dan Kimball – who supposedly hates the reformation – and using a truly repulsive reference that no believer should make against a brother in Christ.