How to Make a Good Argument

Jesus made some wild, outlandish, hard-to-believe claims about himself. Whether or not you believe him, you can at least admit (assuming, of course, the Gospel accounts are accurate enough) that Jesus' claims about himself were things we typically hear only from egomaniacs, delusional people off their meds, or presidential candidates.

But how he went about making his case was also off the wall, too. He set himself up to be easily proven wrong. Don't we usually try to avoid that?

He didn't try to win his argument - and there were arguments (chapters 6 and 10 of John, for example) - by means of raising his voice, by dominating the conversation with extra rhetoric, by ad hominem attacks, or by posting myopic memes. In fact, he didn't even keep engaged in the argument until he had "won." He didn't expect to be believed just because he said something, even though of all people, he uniquely has that right. He didn't get mad at people just because they disagreed with him.

What he did do was say, in effect, "Don't believe what I'm saying just because I'm saying it. Watch me. Just do that - watch me. See how I live. See the things that I do and how I do them. Believe me if you see my actions making my argument for me."

Jesus made himself falsifiable. That doesn't mean he was false. Rather, it means that if he was false, it would have been easy to show. This is a term used in scientific research - scientific claims are supposed to be falsifiable, meaning that another scientist is given the means by which to validate or invalidate the claims. If a scientific claim is not falsifiable, it is automatically suspect in the eyes of the scientific community.

In essence, Jesus set himself up. He made wild claims and then put the entire weight of his claims on the end of the tree branch of his works, and dared people to cut off the branch.

And because Jesus made such outlandish claims, he had to do some outlandish acts to match them. It would not have been adequate to back up a claim of being God's only Son by giving a sandwich to a homeless person. Or by being a better debater. No, it had to be big stuff ... which means they would be even easier to falsify if they weren't genuine.

Dear Christian, don't have a greater expectation of what your words can do than Jesus did of his words. For any claim you make about matters of faith, make it falsifiable by your own life.

Don't claim God is full of mercy without making that claim falsifiable by your own life - can the outlandish claim be validated by a life that's been affected by mercy? Don't claim God is forgiving, powerful, good, holy, interested in the affairs of people, or better than money, sex, drugs, and fame without making those claims falsifiable with your life. Put all the weight of your claims on the branch of what you do. Yikes!

You'll never be all those things perfectly. No one expects you to, and it's not necessary. How does a merciful God manifest himself in the life of an imperfect person? How does a forgiving, powerful, good, holy, interested-in-the-affairs-of-people, better-than-money-sex-drugs-and-fame God manifest himself in the life of an imperfect person? Does your life make it hard to deny that God is merciful and better than money? I won't believe your claim unless you make it hard to deny with your life.

Do the works in order to set yourself up like Jesus did. Don't expect people to believe what you say, but make the claims, and then bank the validity of your claims on how you live your life. Say, "look at me and decide whether or not to believe me based on my very imperfect, but impacted-by-Jesus life." Jesus expected no more than this of his own contemporaries.

If you make the claim of who God is, it's already falsifiable by your life. Give the other scientists the means by which to validate or invalidate your claim.

(And lest you be tempted to make no claims at all to get yourself off the hook, the absence of a claim is a claim itself.)

Boycotts, Agendas, and the Public Square

There's been an interesting reversal these last two weeks - rather than a group of Christians rallying to boycott something, a group of folks have called for a boycott of a fast food restaurant because the head of the company publicly shared his personal view on a moral issue.

I don't intend to say who's right or who's wrong on the myriad of related issues here - that's not my point, and I don't intend to stir up the debate. I don't intend to answer the question of whether or not we should boycott at all. My only goal is to offer some ideas for Christians to consider as they exercise their right to engage in the public arena.

Our model, of course, is Jesus. I also see other useful examples in Scripture.

As you engage with friends, neighbors, coworkers, and cyberfriends, please consider:

• Jesus affiliated with the sinners, loved them, and yet never pretended that sin wasn't sin. The only people who felt really uncomfortable with Him were the religious hypocrites and those who wanted to remain in sin. All others, including the "vilest offenders," felt welcome in His presence (even though He would say things like, "Go and sin no more"). Would a sinner have every reason to feel comfortable in my presence by the loving way I stand for God's ways?
• In Acts 4-5, the disciples were unfairly arrested, but did not raise a huge protest over being mistreated, misunderstood, or violated. They did not make their personal rights the main issue, even though they were treated illegally. They did, however, plainly and clearly state the core truth of the Gospel, and then extended an offer for others to believe. Am I speaking to truly advance the Gospel or to advance my personal feelings and agenda?
• Because these disciples were mistreated, they were able to explain the claims of Christ to people they otherwise would never have had a chance to. Do I see opposition to my views as opportunities to share Christ in a winsome way?
• Their deciding factor, it seems, was that they would do whatever they could to give the Gospel its best possible hearing. They let their own rights be denied, they displayed respect, they chose to shut up or speak boldly, everything for the apparent purpose of not interfering with the Gospel. If they had loudly (and legally) demanded their rights, adopted a combative attitude, or spoke out of turn, they would have damaged the appeal of the Gospel. Do I treat my own freedom, safety, and rights as secondary to the Gospel?
• Paul did assert his rights at times, such as appealing to Caesar - which, as a result, put him in the court system in Rome, where he spoke about the Gospel (more than about his own rights) to those in the Roman government. Do I understand the system well enough to negotiate it wisely?
• Joseph and Daniel are two Old Testament characters in captivity to two different pagan kings. They both had their rights and freedoms denied. They were both treated unfairly. And they both used the gifts and talents God gave them to make their immoral kings very successful. Both made a stronger argument for the God of Israel by doing so. Do I bring value to others, or merely arguments and demands, forcing them into a defensive position?

There is a time to make a stand and endure conflict. When justice is systemically denied, when the defenseless are oppressed, when the moneychangers turn a space dedicated to God into a den of thieves.

But always, always, always, our actions in the public square should be dictated by advancing the Gospel, not mere religiosity. And the manner of our engagement must also reflect the nature of the Gospel itself, or we cancel out our own message.

The Crusades are *Great* for Witnessing

You've probably heard it more than once. You're having a conversation with someone, and the dialog moves in the direction of spiritual things. You are (somewhat) prepared to discuss spiritual matters, and you feel like it could be a decent, civil conversation. But then ... they throw out the Crusades. There it is. No matter that it was 800 years ago, and you had nothing to do with it. Now you have to deal with it before the conversation can go anywhere ... if it's going to go anywhere. "How can you believe something that is responsible for that?"

Often, the Crusades "trump card" is a smokescreen. I rarely find that the Crusades really are the sticking point with someone. But, it's a lot more convenient than the real sticking point - which is often fear, guilt, shame, or other uncomfortable thought. It's much easier to talk about dead people who did bad things thousands of miles and hundreds of years removed from my fear, my guilt, and my shame.

But you still have to respond. What are your options? First, you can put down the people of the Crusades, which they deserve, but now you've presented Christian against Christian. Second, you can claim the Protestant-Catholic distinction, but then you've inserted denominationalism, which usually only makes it more complicated. Third, you can virtually ignore it and say, "But I'm talking about you," which really is the point, but leaves the question unanswered, as if Christianity doesn't have all the answers.

Sounds sticky. But actually, this can be an excellent opportunity to really talk about the Gospel! However, rather than trying to provide simple, pat answers to a complex problem, use this legitimate question as an opportunity to ask questions back to the one who asked. Use their question to cause them to ask even better questions.

Try questions like: "Do you think that their actions were in agreement with what Jesus taught?" and "What would have happened back then if these people took the words of Jesus seriously?" In the process, you've got to talk about what Jesus really did teach. Explore the issue with them, but find out what they think, rather than telling them what they ought to think. Let them explore the claims of Christ by comparison. Your point isn't to solve the problem with the Crusades, but to have that person interact with Jesus and His claims. So invite them to explore!

Instead of the Crusade question being a barrier, it's now a springboard. It's really not a bad question for them to ask, and we should reinforce that it's a reasonable question. But rather than trying to answer it, let it be a tool to talk about Christ.

In general, I find that asking questions to explore spiritual truths and respecting the other person enough to listen without arguing is a far more engaging and safe way to talk about spiritual matters, especially with the skeptic. It honors the person, it helps them discover (rather than be spoon-fed), and it moves the agent of change from your words to their internal thoughts.

You really don't have to have all the answers - so don't expect that of yourself. It helps, though, to ask really good questions.