ARGUMENTATION IN DEFENSE OF THE GOSPEL:

Yesterday afternoon, a program on a Christian radio station in the Detroit area featured a segment where the host asked listeners if they agree with him that liberals are not as patriotic as conservatives.


The host played a clip of a liberal talk show host complaining about how much he and the American people have had to endure Lee Greenwood’s song, “God Bless the USA”, since 9-11. Using this clip as his springboard, the Christian host stated emphatically that liberals are not as patriotic as conservatives, and asked his listeners to call in with opinions.

I called in with an opinion and waited on hold for my turn.

When just the second caller voiced his opinion, what ensued was not pretty. This caller emphatically, even vehemently, disagreed with the host. What was supposed to be a polite and fair discussion of opinion turned rapidly into a two-way argument. It was ugly. Both threw out slams against the other’s position. Each was angry at the other. Realistically, it accomplished nothing…except for increasing every listener’s blood pressure. The 10-minute banter concluded only because the host was “up against a hard commercial break”.

My turn followed the break. But I changed my mind about what to say.

I told the host that as I listened to the argument, I couldn’t help but think that this was a Christian radio station and the argument did absolutely nothing to advance the cause of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I told him, in fact, that I think he got exactly what he wanted, which was not to persuade anybody of the power and truth of the gospel, but to engage a staunch liberal in a political argument.

Oh, the host won the argument hands down. No doubt about it. The caller didn’t stand a chance. The host knocked it out of the park, factually speaking. But what did he really win? What point did he prove? Instead of Jesus Christ being glorified in a God-honoring conversation hosted by a Christian program and host, another soul was sacrificed on the altar of American politics.

Please don’t misunderstand my point: I am not saying we cannot talk about anything that has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, God, the bible, theology, etc. I simply think – and this has long been my view, and it’s growing more concrete as I pay more attention – that Christians have grown far too dependent on changing the world via political revolution rather than gospel revolution.

I think we can – and should – engage in all sorts of political, economical, and social dialogue, but we have to always be reminded about HOW we argue or express our views. People are paying attention; the world is paying attention. They know who professes the name of Christ and who does not; they know who’s “religious” and who is not. I’m often guilty, but I know I still must be on guard. While 1Peter 3:15 typically applies to answering people who question our faith in Jesus Christ, I think the principle also applies to this kind of conversation: have an answer, but be careful how you do it.

It is my opinion that this kind of staunch, bull-headed argumentation should be primarily reserved for defending the truth of the gospel against false teachers, not for defending political points of view.