Is Argument The Best Way Forward?
I’ve observed that when the church engaged in political debate, it ended up creating an even greater barrier for people to receive the gospel. As a Canadian church leader, I follow politics. I have my theologically formed convictions. I preach Jesus and call people to surrender to the Lordship of Christ. I have also been active in serving the common good in our society. However, I tend to remain on the fringe of political debate. I haven’t viewed it as fruitful.
Yet in Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture, Matthew Petrusek posits that rational engagement in political ideology opens the way for evangelism. Petrusek is a Catholic academic who focuses on Christian ethics and moral theology. He states, “…the hyper-politicization of society constitutes an opportunity for evangelism rather than an obstacle…the church has a unique opening to re-enter the sociopolitical fray, re-engage the secular mind, and call the culture back to Christ – provided we can effectively understand and respond to the contemporary ideological battlefield.”[1]
Another book we read this semester, The Identity Trap by Yascha Mounk, alerted us to “identity synthesis”. He believes that this phenomenon has occurred as the result of a confluence of thought streams that include postmodernism, post-colonialism, and critical race theory. By “identity synthesis” he means the “role that identity categories like race, gender and sexual orientation play in the world.” Mounk’s solution to this issue is to attempt to build a more just world. He appeals, “To build a just world, societies should strive to live up to their universalist aspirations instead of abandoning them.”[2] Petrusek on the other hand believes that people should be engaged in healthy debate using moral arguments based on Catholic social thought traditions without an outright appeal to faith.[3]
Thinking In Circles
Petrusek provides a map of concentric circles that help the reader locate the source of political disagreements. He believes, “Most political conflicts have little to do with politics. They are rooted in more fundamental disputes about moral knowledge, the definition of the human being, and even metaphysics.”[4] At the centre of the map, he places applied morality, which is how a moral concept is applied in a particular domain of life. Moving outward we have morality, epistemology, anthropology, ontology, and theology. The circles are interrelated and interdependent. Remove one circle and everything above it collapses. I found this conceptual map to be the most compelling part of the book. Most of us find ourselves in these confusing conversations regularly and having a map to locate and navigate an argument using the Socratic method is incredibly helpful.
Is Argument The Best Way Forward?
However, I do have some hesitancy with this book. At the end of the book, he tells us that his sole goal is to help people encounter Jesus and his Church. He writes, “The dominant political ideologies of today are blocking wide swaths of the culture from receiving this invitation and all its blessings. Evangelizing the political culture is thus ultimately not about ideology and even less about politics. It’s about opening the widest and straightest path possible for making the pilgrimage to the Lord.”[5] I completely align with his desired end, but I want to challenge his primary means to get there. He believes that we must have rational arguments about these issues. I am not opposed to a good debate, but I’m not convinced that it is the primary means to accomplish the desired end of helping most people in our culture encounter Jesus.
First, I wonder if we are past this point as a society. If you’ve been tracking with the Canadian academic, Jordan Peterson, you would have noted how he has been treated for his rational engagement in this arena.[6] The evidence suggests that our society has thrown rationality out of the window and prefers to cancel and crucify those they disagree with rather than engage in rational debate. At the same time, I am also keenly aware of the fact that Peterson has helped crack the door open to faith for many atheists.
Secondly, Jesus’ and the disciple’s primary means to help people encounter the Good News is not through political debate but through a rather counterintuitive means. The Gospel writer, Luke, tells us, “When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.”[7] In short, he told them to proclaim and demonstrate the availability of the Kingdom and then give people the opportunity to respond. If people didn’t respond they were to move on and do this somewhere else.
Thirdly, the other primary issue that Petrusek doesn’t address very well is the work of the Holy Spirit in evangelism. Just to be sure, I checked the subject of indexes and the Holy Spirit is not listed. The book of Acts tells us that the disciples are to be filled with the Holy Spirit and become witnesses to the resurrected Christ.[8] John tells us that the Holy Spirit will, prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment.”[9] A Spirit-empowered follower of Jesus joins in the work that the Holy Spirit is doing in the lives of people and embraces the opportunity to be a co-participant in Jesus’ work of redemption.[10]
Finally, the sacrificial love of God, demonstrated by the church, is instrumental in helping people encounter Jesus.[11] Jesus’ high priestly prayer for his disciples is that they would dwell in the loving one-ness that is experienced between Jesus and the Father. In turn, they would love one another in the same way and this, in turn, would be a sign to the world of God’s unfailing love. Jesus tells his disciples that their very presence in the world would have the effect of salt and light. Noting the importance of being light Jesus says, “In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.”[12] Rodney Stark, a sociologist, wrote about the growth of the early church in a pagan culture in “The Rise of Christianity”. He writes, “I believe that it was the religion’s particular doctrines that permitted Christianity to be among the most sweeping and successful revitalization movements in history. And it was the way these doctrines took on actual flesh, the way they directed organizational actions and individual behavior, that led to the rise of Christianity.”[13] Eugene Peterson puts it this way, in his book “Practice Resurrection”, “So, why church? The short answer is because the Holy Spirit formed it to be a colony of heaven in the country of death. … Church is the core element in the strategy of the Holy Spirit for providing human witness and physical presence to the Jesus-inaugurated kingdom of God in this world. It is not that kingdom complete, but it is a witness to that kingdom.…”[14]
While I wrestle with the premise that rational, sociological debate will open a wide swath for people to encounter Jesus’, I do think this is a really good resource. It is a helpful tool to have in the toolbelt when one engages in sociopolitical debate. It would help someone engage with the major ideologies of the day, provide a means to locate their claims using the map of concentric circles, and the means to offer a different vision of human flourishing.
[1] Matthew R. Petrusek, Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture (Park Ridge, IL: published by the Word on Fire Institute, an imprint of Word on Fire, 2023), 3.
[2] Yascha Mounk, The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time (London: Allen Lane an imprint of Penguin Books, 2023). Kindle. Chapter 14.
[3] Petrusek, Evangelization and Ideology, 11.
[4] Petrusek, 49.
[5] Petrusek, 463.
[6] Elizabeth Whitworth, “Jordan Peterson: Free Speech Is Under Attack,” Shortform Books (blog), February 22, 2024, https://www.shortform.com/blog/jordan-peterson-free-speech/.
[7] Luke 9.1,2
[8] Acts 1.8
[9] John 16.8
[10] John 15.26,27
[11] John 17.21-23
[12] Matthew 5.16
[13] Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries, 1st HarperCollins pbk. ed (San Francisco, Calif.: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997), 208.
[14] Eugene H. Peterson, Practice Resurrection: A Conversation on Growing up in Christ, Paperback edition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013), 12.
About the Author
Graham English
I was born in Cape Town, South Africa 30 minutes from Table Mountain, the Indian Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean. My family immigrated to Vancouver, Canada where I spent my teen years, met Wendy, and got married. We now live on the Canadian prairies in northern Alberta. I think God has a sense of humour. I'm a follower of Jesus, work in leadership and church development, love my family and walk a lot.17 responses to “Is Argument The Best Way Forward?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Graham,
Thanks for the good overview and consideration with Mounk and Peterson. I agree with you that this book as limited in it’s focus on evanglization. I mean, really only the last 20 pages were focused on it with the first 440 pages focused on politics. I agree also that debate is hardly ever going to be an effective means of evangelization.
I do wonder though, do you think that Jesus was political?
Adam, he was absolutely political. A couple of things…When I was in Israel and we were in Capernaum, our guide pointed across the sea of Galilee to Herod’s “palace” where John the Baptist was imprisoned. Our guide asked, “What statement do you think Jesus might have been making when he moved from Nazareth to Capernaum?” His point was that Jesus was signalling to Herod that he was not running scared but rather moving into the political conflict. I didn’t share that piece in my blog but I thought about it as a counterpoint to my argument.
Secondly, I was also considering the proclamation of the Kingdom as a political proclamation “against” the Roman Kingdom. The early church too recognized that declaring Jesus as Lord meant that Caesar was not. Doing so, cost them their lives. However, I thought about the fact that proclaiming and debating/arguing are two very different things.
So, yes, I do believe that Jesus was political. However, his methodology of political engagement seems more about bearing witness through proclaiming and incarnating rather than through debate.
Graham, as Mounk shared, the more we segment ourselves into smaller pockets, the less we see ourselves as part of the whole (the kingdom). However, today, people no longer fit nicely into pockets traditionally labeled as liberal, conservative, and all the other names…
In your community engagement work, how do you build relationships with those you hope to influence but feel isolated or without a political home (i.e. their label of politics no longer represents them). How do you gain trust?
Jen, good question. These days, I do that by building relationships with people. I ask questions, seek to understand and hear their story. I have a hard time suspending my system 1 judgement, honestly. Asking lots of questions and staying curious helps me to remain open-minded.
Wow great post Graham. I appreciate so much the elements you bring in about the witness of the church in a challenging time. Thank you for reminding me about Stark’s work as well. The cruciform life and community, empowered by the Holy Spirit, does seems to be what has shaped the Church’s influence throughout the centuries in the best of ways. How does this text and its concepts impact the ways you are leading pastors and people in your ministry and vocation?
I am tagging on to Ryan’s question, Graham. I, too, am curious how this impacts your leadership?
Ryan (and Kari), this is a great question. I wouldn’t say we’re doing an awesome job. However, one of the ways that we are addressing this is by investing significantly in a leader’s first five years in our district. During these five years we form people theologically, in leadership and provide them with a network of people through peer group. During this time we help them to think about a couple of sociopolitical issues through a missional lens. In our opinion, it’s just the tip of the iceberg. Beyond the “first five” we are developing “resource specialists” that a church can connect with as they grapple with these issues. The specialists function as experts/consultants that help leaders address these issues in their context.
So, we are doing a bit but probably not enough.
Hi Graham, thank you for thinking through this. I agree that the concentric circles approach to identifying the points of disagreement was the most helpful point in the book. If we can identify where we disagree, we’ll just end up talking past each other.
I’ve noticed several of our classmates dislike the suggestion to debate/argue. I wonder if these words have too much baggage and feel too similar to fighting.
In the context of a healthy discussion where both parties are respected and heard, I can see that debate. can be a powerful tool for evangelism. I know this is often not the case in debate today. I’m curious if you’d agree or disagree with the benefit of healthy debate in evangelism.
Christy, thanks for your feedback and insight. I think healthy debate can be good and could be one of the ways that we can engage in evangelism. However, I’m not sure that it works in a Canadian context. The church/Christian voice is not trusted. Most people will not hear you in a debate. The most effective way of engaging our post-secular culture is through relationships and community development. These provide the platform to share the love and the hope of Christ with people.
SO glad to see someone else thinking what I was, Graham. I am a little uncomfortable with the political/spiritual argument premise. “While I wrestle with the premise that rational, sociological debate will open a wide swath for people to encounter Jesus’,” is a perfect way to explain the struggle.
I think the book gives great tools for how to argue in the right way, but I really want to take the church part out of it.
I don’t know a question for you on this, just wanted you to know you weren’t alone in your thinking! nice work.
Thanks, Chris. I appreciate your affirmation. I do think that debate is one of the ways that we can engage but I don’t think that the church/christians have a trusted voice in our culture.
We need to build relational bridges that are strong enough to support the truth.
Hi Graham,
Thank you for your post!
How can believers ensure they are sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit in their evangelistic efforts, particularly in addressing issues of sin, righteousness, and judgment?
Shela, I am so thankful that it’s the Holy Spirit’s job to do this and not mine. My job is the bear witness to Jesus, while the Spirit’s job is to convince people of their need.
Hi Graham, I agree with many of your thoughts, especially the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit. It takes more than a rational argument for someone to become a follower of Jesus. Something I did appreciate about Petrusek is his encouragement to readers to enter an arena where many Christians are afraid to go. Our beliefs have a rationale, and knowing and expressing it is important. Unfortunately, I believe for too long Christians have defaulted to the “I believe it because I believe it” response. Sadly, I include myself in that group. How do you discern whether or not a political argument is “worth it?”
Elysse, good question. Generally, the church needs to build relationships that are strong enough to support the truth.
In the political arena, some Christian leaders like Wilberforce, MLK and Bonhoeffer famously waded into the political arena and made an impact through debate. However, I don’t anticipate that every Christian would do so to the extent that these men did.
There are so many similarities to our posts, Graham. Are we tribally aligned in post-Christian Canada?
I am grateful for your syntopical connection with Stark, and would love to follow up on whether your support for sociopolitical debate and awareness of people’s ideological location is integrated or merely adjacent to the Church’s call for a lived, incarnational and Spirit-empowered counter-cultural faith?
Graham, I appreciate your post especially the questions you raise about Petrusek’s approach. I am curious if you find distinct differences between his approach in the US political context and that of the Canadian political context. I admit that I am not very familiar with the Canadian political climate. Do you find it to be as polarized as Petrusek’s take on US politics?