Are Christian's supposed to argue?

According to Miriam Webster’s online dictionary an argument is “a reason given in proof or rebuttal” or a “discourse intended to persuade.” An argument is “a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion.” Why this topic? Because I’ve become weary with the oft-repeated statement that as believers we aren’t supposed to “argue.” I am convinced that based on the contextual usage of the word argue that people who say such things simply do not know what an argument is and such ignorance, if carried out to its logical conclusion, is really a call to do the very opposite of what the Bible tells us to do. Let’s apply the definition of what an argument really is and see whether sharing Christ carries a built-in necessity to argue. Let’s take a “discourse intended to persuade.” Numerous examples from the Bible can be given, but I’ll offer Acts 2:14-41.

The onlookers had just heard and witnessed something extraordinary taking place. We know this event as Pentecost. I encourage you to read the passage before proceeding to read the rest of this post. The Bible says that the onlookers “were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, ‘What does this mean?’” (Acts 2:12). And in response the Bible says, “Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them” (vs 14). What is this? You guessed it. It is a discourse. Peter explains that what the onlookers were hearing was nothing less than the fulfillment of on Old Testament prophecy. Peter knew that the crowd was not simply going to believe without reason so what does he do? In his discourse he provides a rebuttal to the traditional Jewish understanding of Psalms 16:8-11. He “argues” that the passage did not actually refer to King David as everyone supposed, but that it spoke prophetically of Jesus who had recently been crucified. Peter explains that the passage cannot refer to King David because King David, contrary to what the passage said, did indeed experience physical decomposition (vs 27) because David’s tomb was with them even on that very day. Does the scripture then contradict itself in light of the fact of David’s bones still among them? No. Peter says that the passage refers to Jesus who did not remain in the grave and did not experience decomposition. In other words, Peter provided a rebuttal and gave proof for that rebuttal offering up the resurrection of Jesus as proof. This has all of the elements of an argument. Therefore sharing Christ means that one will eventually have to argue their position and provide reason for why people should believe. Every believer is called to apologetics. The Bible says that we must always be “prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (2 Peter 3:15) yet we are told to do this with “gentleness and respect.” It sounds so spiritual and humble when someone says “I don’t argue,” but in many cases it may simply be a cloak for cowardice and disobedience. I think however in most cases it is just plain ignorance.

If this isn’t convincing then I challenge you to open a red-letter edition Bible and pay attention to the red words. You know what the red words are. You’ll find that in many cases they are nothing less than Jesus’ arguments with the Pharisees.

Having learned this I hope you can appreciate the humor of the Monty Python video. Most people think the argumentation begins at 0:08. People think that the characters are arguing based on the mere fact that they are expressing disagreement, but they are not arguing according to the strict sense of the word. This is what the character on the left tries to point out saying that an argument isn’t simply contradicting someone, but that “an argument is a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition.” A real argument isn’t introduced until 2:15. The character on the right had stated he would not proceed arguing until he received additional payment to which the character on the left grudgingly obliged. The character on the right proceeds in automatic contradicting by denying the reception of payment, but the denial of payment is countered through a well-reasoned rebuttal. The character on left (at 2:15) points out the obvious saying, “If I didn’t pay then why are you arguing…if you are arguing then I must’ve paid.” The character on the right concedes the point by admitting that he is indeed arguing, but denies the reason offered by the character on the left. He reasons that one cannot necessarily infer that he is arguing as a result of payment. In his rebuttal he says, “I could be arguing on my spare time.” This video is truly funny.

So if you want to argue that I am overly analytical and think too much about things then I’ll tell you right now that I’ll concede your point given the condemning evidence of this blog post.