Compelling Argument

Recently we had a very lively discussion on my post, "Truth by Vote". I warned that "compelling argument" did not necessarily equate to truth. It produced some conversation, sometimes friendly, sometimes contentious, about what I meant and whether it was true. It appears true, for instance, that the public is finding the "marriage equity" argument to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex people more compelling than the logical, historical, practical, and biblical argument to limit it to male and female. I indicated that the public opinion does not accurately reflect what is or isn't true. Some disagreed.

There is a component of the discussion that is important to consider and hasn't yet been touched. What compels? We speak of people being "compelled" to agree or disagree with an argument. What is it that compels people to one or the other?

Most people think of it as if we live in a vacuum, so to speak. We are balanced beings without any attraction in any direction and, when the force sufficient to move us comes along, we follow that force. In terms of physics, a body at rest tends to stay at rest. In order to move it, you have to apply an external force. In this case, it would be the most forceful argument.

Of course, that's a naive perception of the human being. We are not balanced beings without any attractions. We are full of internal forces at work impelling us in various directions at any given moment. We might curse or we might bless. We might help or we might hinder. We might be heroic or pusillanimous. (Sorry, I had to work that word in somewhere.) And tomorrow, it might be reversed. Because no human being is actually in a vacuum and all human beings are biased. All that humans do include bias. You know that grand news channel (if one exists) that insists they're reporting without bias (the one near me claims "without the spin")? Doesn't happen. Ever. There are always a variety of forces at work.

So, here comes our everyday public who will listen to two arguments and decide which was more "compelling". The suggestion -- the mistaken idea -- is that the best argument will win. This, unfortunately, fails to consider what forces are at work. Argue, for instance, that the smartest thing you can do is to run into traffic, and they'll laugh you off the stage. Throw a bag of money in the street, and they'll be stopping cars and risking their lives to run into traffic. Was it the most coherent argument? No, of course not. But it was the most compelling. That is, it properly engaged the forces already at work in the audience to obtain the desired outcome.

What forces are already at work in the public today that must be considered in questions like these? What existing forces might influence the outcome of a public debate on matters of Scripture, morality, and a biblical worldview? Humans suffer from a deceitful heart (Jer 17:9), so that's one issue. Appeal to the heart, not the mind, and you've got a winner ... that is often a lie. God declared that "the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen 8:21), so moral issues examined by the unregenerate man will be dubious at best. Paul declared that "the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God" (Rom 8:7), so arguments that favor God are not likely to be viewed favorably by unrepentant sinners. Indeed, the Bible tells us that those who are not in Christ walk "according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience", living "in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind" (Eph 2:2-3), so the mere suggestion that humans are free agents without influence fails to take into account the prince of the power of the air. About them Scripture says, "the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving" (2 Cor 4:4). So we're expecting a clear thinking, unbiased, reasonable response from the blinded, depraved (Rom 1:27) mind? That's not reasonable.

Look, I could go on. If you're conversant at all in Scripture, you must know that human beings are sinners at their core. They do not want what God wants and do want whatever they want for themselves. They are self-declared enemies of God, incapable of understanding the things of God (1 Cor 2:14). So we come along and offer arguments that do not feed the natural forces already at work in the general public. We should not be surprised that they don't find our arguments "compelling". Our arguments go against the forces already at work. Indeed, Jesus predicted that the world would hate us and Paul assured us that they would find our "good news" to be foolishness and offensive. Indeed, the only thing we can reasonably hope for is that God will work in the hearts of hearers, because things are not otherwise going to go our way.

So don't buy into that "compelling argument" concept. Humans are not unbiased. The discussion is not taking place in front of folk ready to be convinced to love God and His truth if you just give them the best argument. The deck is stacked, and not in your favor. This is why "the compelling argument" concept doesn't help determine what the truth is. Be prepared to make a defense for the hope that is in you. Contend for the faith once given to the saints. Put your trust in the Almighty. Don't cause problems for the truth with poor arguments, but don't expect the world to like you for good ones.