BECOMING A PERSUASIVE PERSON: PRINTER AND HANDICAP-FRIENDLY VERSION

becoming a persuasive person

If you don't read this, your PC will crash! Just kidding! But almost every second of every day, someone is trying to convince us of something.

"This [Christian] life is so great--I just love it, whether it's true or not," TV evangelist's wife.

"I find that theologians believe that unborn children and infants . . . are populating heaven. Therefore, didn't abortions put more souls in heaven than Billy Graham?" a Letter to the Editor in a national magazine.

"Here is proof that the King James Version is THE Word of God. Take the word 'Holy Bible.' It has nine letters; also 'King James' has nine letters. Why? GOD. GOD ordered it so," a letter to Wesley Press concerning the New International Version.

Some people do have trouble with logic! But God urges us to "Come now, let us reason together." St. Paul took this command seriously as he reasoned, explained, and proved the gospel of Christ. But how can we avoid what the apostle called "foolish and stupid arguments?"

1. Make a distinction between "valid" and "acceptable" arguments

(1) Valid arguments

These present an unavoidable conclusion based on the premise. If you agree with the evidence, you must accept the conclusion if you are a rational, intelligent thinker. The classic case argues:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal

If you agree that all humans are mortal and that Socrates is indeed a human, there is no other choice. Sooner or later, the famous philosopher was going to need a tombstone.

(2) Acceptable arguments

This conclusion is not unavoidable, but there's a very good change that it is true. Acceptable arguments are based on statistics, laws of averages, precedents, habit, testimony, or scientific observation. Yes, Virginia, science has few "valid" premises that are 100 percent conclusive. In fact, for something to be "probable" it only needs to be true a little more than half the time.

The following chart is used in scientific study to express "truthfulness."

1.0 Absolutely certain
.999- .901 Beyond reasonable doubt
.9 Highly probable
.899- .501 Probable
.5 Indifferent
.499-.101 Improbable
.1-.02 Highly improbable
.019-.001 False beyond reasonable doubt
0. Absolutely false

Most Christian doctrine fits into the "acceptable" category. (Wait, before you organize a book burning, let me explain!)

The arguments for the truthfulness of the Christian faith are based on very, very reliable evidence and observation. There are excellent, rational arguments. If the arguments were based on "valid" arguments, however, there would be no need for faith. Every rational human being would be forced by the absolutely, indisputable evidence to know there is a God who must be worshiped.

In fact, almost all our assumptions in earthly living are based on acceptable, not valid arguments. We act as if the law of averages will prevail and that scientific observation is reputable and reliable. We assume we will wake up in the same bed we fell asleep in, the kitchen will still be down the hall, our clothes will still be in the closet, safe drinking water will still come out of the faucet, our workplace will still be in the same location as yesterday at 5 p.m., and air will still contain adequate oxygen. Virtually everything we do is based on acceptable, but not valid, premises.

An earthquake or tornado could change everything we assumed would be true. Even the classic "Socrates is mortal" breaks down when we take Elijah, who was taken up to eternity in the fiery chariot, into account. Only 99.99999 percent of people have been mortal, so this is not strictly a valid argument.

This is where faith comes into play. Scientists exercise faith in their instruments and their own powers of observation. There is always the very slight chance that their readings and observations are inaccurate. As long as any premise is less than 100 percent, faith is required to act upon it. But as long as the observations or testimony are reliable, it is rational and reasonable to have faith--in science and in God.

But once we claim Christian doctrines are valid, unbelievers can tear our reasoning apart by reducto ad absurdum. This strategy disproves an argument by showing that at just one point, at just one time, it is contradictory or inconsistent. This distinction between valid and acceptable arguments, however, can work to the Christian's advantage. Haughty humanists need to realize that, by faith, they have determined, "there is absolutely no absolute truth." Evolutionists need to be reminded that their "theory" requires faith to accept!

2. Define the terms of debate

Evolutionists and creationists have a difficult debating evolution versus creation. Each side is certain their viewpoint is correct and that their opponent is wrong. To argue effectively, they must begin at a point where they both agree (or are at least open to the opposite view.) Archaeological evidence of fossil records might be common ground to begin discussion. There must be common terms, words, and authority. Without common definitions, there can be no debate.

For instance, in ninth-grade debate class the issue was "Do UFO's exist?" Unfortunately, I ended up on the affirmative side. There were lots of books and theories, but nothing we felt would hold up in a debate. Finally we devised a plan. In just fifteen seconds we would prove the existence of unidentified flying objects.

I stood up to begin our presentation. Suddenly, from the back of the room, a friend lobbed a wad of aluminum foil at the panel. My partner quickly grabbed it and stuffed it under his coat.

"Do you know what that was?" I asked in my best prosecuting attorney voice. The negative team shrugged their shoulders in unison.

"Then you will agree that you could not identify it?" They nodded their heads.

"And will you agree that it did fly through the air?" Scowling, they nodded in agreement.

"And will you agree that it indeed was an object?" Heads reluctantly nodded a third time.

"Then you have just agreed that unidentified flying objects do exist."

Despite the high-pitched whining of "unfair," the debate was over because we had not previously defined terms or narrowly focused the subject. The debate topic should have read, "Proposed, that UFO's are intelligent life forms from another planet." Defining our terms is essential for effective persuasion.

3. Use sources both you and your audience accept as authority

There are hundred of examples of Christ, Peter, Paul, and the author of Hebrews appealing to the Old Testament. The Pharisees, Sudducees, and Temple leaders, while opposed to the teaching of Jesus and his disciples, did view the Old Testament as the final authority. The ancient Scriptures were the common ground to begin a persuasive presentation.

In evangelical and fundamentalist churches, sermon begin with Scripture because the majority of the congregation views it as an authority. However, in many churches and the vast majority of society, the Bible is simply a book of good teachings at best and fairy tales at worst. The Bible is not viewed as an acceptable authority.

Our culture rejects the concept of absolute truth, but evaluates truth by it's relevancy. That's why, as someone who speaks at youth camps and conventions, I've had to change my approach. I can't simply say, "The Bible says . . . ." I have to build a case with anecdotes and examples--and occasionally throw in a major university study--of the various consequences of a particular action and then say, "That's why this biblical principle still works today." And, because the Bible is true, the benefits of following its moral principles are proven in university study after university study.

So, while we can't always use Scripture in our persuasion, we can use scientific studies, popular authors, music lyrics, philosophers, etc. in our presentation. St. Paul even quoted ancient poets.

4. Use reliable evidence

Not only must the authorities be accepted by both parties, but the evidence must be agreed upon as well. The conclusion (what the evidence means) is what is being argued. But the "link" is the crucial piece that takes your reader or listener from the evidence to the conclusion. Here's how it works.

1. The claim 2. The evidence to support the claim 3. The link between the two

Here's an example of Christ used this approach when He was accused of casting out demons by the power of Satan:

1. "I am not of Satan" (the claim) 2. "A nation divided falls; a house divided falls." (the evidence that everyone would agree is true) 3. "Satan wouldn't work against himself." (the link that also is agreeable to both parties)

The link is the hingepin which needs to firmly connect the evidence and claim together. There are many forms of evidence such as:

(1) Statistics

Numbers can be persuasive, but they can be numbing. What is a trillion anyway? But there are effective ways to make numbers meaningful. For instance, there have not been one trillion seconds since Christ was born! Or, how do you make the point that only 30 percent of teens will be retained by a local church? A creative youth sponsor lined up ten teens along the front of the church and begin reciting some recent studies. One by one, as the reasons for leaving the church were cited, teens began sitting down until only three were left. Those statistics made an impact--because the figures could be seen as real people, not just numbers. If you're going to figures, put some flesh on them.

Statistics, however, have become suspect in recent years. The attitude seems to be summed up with "Figures don't lie, but liars figure." Perhaps this point was best made by one of the President's own budget men: "Nobody really knows what these figures mean.". (He is no longer with the administration.)

Here's another example. A chewing gum ad claimed that three out of four dentists surveyed recommended the brand for their patients who chewed gum. The ad gives the impression that all over America dentists are recommending this gum. I would like to know how many dentists were surveyed. All we can be sure of is four. Plus, the dentists aren't recommending you chew that particular gum, only to use it if you chew gum. And, let's be serious, how many patients go into the dentist's office and ask, "What gum would you recommend?"

(2) Narratives, anecdotes

(We've devoted an entire chapter to this subject)

(3) Visuals

Again, the audience needs to be able to visualize the problem or solution. Graphs, photos, charts, cartoons, skits, demonstrations, role plays, or any way to show the solution will increase effectiveness and retention. (Psychologists claim we remember only 10 percent of what we hear, but 60 percent of what we see!)

(4) Testimonies

Testimonies must be one of TV advertising's most effective methods. Every other commercial, we catch women sniffing laundry, tasting peanut butter or sipping decaffeinated coffee "on our hidden camera in San Jose."

To be credible, the person needs to be some kind of "expert" on the subject--whether a homemaker or a two-pot-a-day coffee drinker--and must have honestly tasted the product. Lucy Ricardo was not a credible spokesperson for the classic sitcom's fictitious &qyot;Vitameatavegamin.quot;

Remember, though, the most reliable testimonies come from your opposition. (They have nothing to gain in arguments.) It was Christ's enemies that called Him "a man of integrity.quot;

And, use only quotes that can be verified!

(5) Compare/contrast

Right behind testimonials follow ads that claim products have 30 percent less fat, more active ingredients, are faster, cleaner, more powerful, less abusive, sharper, less filling, lower in calories, better or tastier.

Unfortunately, most ads only tell that "Brand X cleans better." Better than what?! Better than plain water? It never claims to be better than "Brand Z"--just "better." "Brand Y" hot dogs may have 30 percent less fat than what--a pound of lard?

Make sure you're comparing apples with apples, or oranges, or at least come member of the fruit family. Comparison/contrast evidence must compare/contrast with something!

Remember that the link that connects the evidence and the claim together is the key.

5. Question your opponent's evidence or link.

Christ and Paul certainly used this technique. "Jesus replied, 'You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God'" (Matthew 22:29).

So we have divine precedent to question our opponent's logic. Paul was glad to report, "We have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God" (2 Corinthians 4:2-3).

Paul warns against "foolish and stupid arguments." I've included some examples I have heard or read . . .

(1) Either/Or

"You're either witnessing or you're not a Christian!"

Some things are black or white. One is either pregnant or not pregnant. We are "saved" or "lost." But in many areas more options than just two exist. We need to point out other options that exist if our opponents are incorrectly using the either/or argument.

(2) Limiting the consequences

"If we don't create a second worship service, our church won't grow.

The argument goes, "If A happens, then B and only B will occur." This cousin to the either/or argument denies that other consequences are possible.

(3) Faulty generalizations

"All those people at St. Marks are liberals."

There is no evidence to support the claim. (Prejudice and bias, maybe, but no evidence.) First, "all" should be avoided at all (okay, at most) costs. And "liberal" is such a general word that it has no meaning except for emotional connotations.

(4) Illustrations as proof

"Birds do not sow or reap or store away in barns, so why should Christians invest in Individual Retirement Accounts?"

Examples and illustrations do not prove anything. They are only illustrate. And they can only depict one very narrow principle. If the writer is consistent, he must also move of his house, build a nest, and eat worms!

Christ was not saying we should copy birds' behavior. They don't sow or reap because farmers do the work for them. The don't store in barns because most fly to warmer climents in the winter months. Christ was saying, "If I can take care of the birds, I can take care of you."

Examples are powerful, but they don't prove anything. (We'll devote an entire chapter to the persuasive power of illustrations.)

(5) Begging the question

"God exists; His Word says so."

"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

This argument only goes in circles. It tries to use the conclusion as the evidence. (If this book is outlawed, only outlaws will have this book.)

(6) "Red herring"

Opposing teams in fox hunts would often drag a dead fish across, and then away from, the fox trail to confuse the dogs. Thus, "red herring" arguments attempt to avoid the real issue and get off on a tangetn.

St. Paul uses this to his advantage when appearing before the Jewish leaders.

"Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, 'My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead.' When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all)" (Acts 23:6-8).

(7) Leading questions

These questions assume the answers. For instance, salespeople often ask, "Would you like the Rugs-R-Us Model Z-28 delivered Monday or Tuesday?", but never "Do you want this vacuum cleaner?"

(8) Mis-use of labels

Some labels are so powerful that we can only see the name attached to that person. For instance: abortionist, atheist, liberal, right-winged radical, etc. Each of these words conjures up a stereotype that may not apply to the person at all. Be careful of labels that discredit individuals.

Labels can also disguise the truth. Viet Nam was never a declared war, but a "police action." Nuclear missles are known as "Peace Keepers." Supporter of abortion on demand are "pro choice."

Spiritual-sounding labels can also be abused. Have you noticed that the righteous don't worry, but are "burdened." Anger becomes "righteous indignation." Sin is a "mistake" or "genetic disposition."

And "legalese" can intimidate and make the wisest people feel foolish as they read their loan contract. My will states that the executor must "dispose of remaining residue." Does that refer to taking out the trash or to disposing of me?

(9) One individual does not represent the whole

One danger is to assume that my experience should be everyone else's experience. "This is what God did in my life, so He must want to do that same thing in yours too." This is a real danger in a personal experience story.

Secondly, many times we assume guilt by association. If someone in an organization or group is proven to be unethical or immoral, that does not prove that everyone in that organization is unethical or immoral

(10) The whole does not reflect the individual members

For instance many organizations are split several ways on key issues. To say one is a Republican or Democrat, United Methodist or Baptist, doesn't indicate his or her position on a specific issue.

And, finally . . .

6. VERIFY. VERIFY. VERIFY.

Well-meaning Christians have spread some misinformed information, such as the petitions that keep circulating warning that the FCC is planning to ban all religious broadcasting and the well-circulated rumor that Procter and Gamble is run by Satanists. As one of the profs at the Ball State School of Journalism was always saying, "If your mother says she loves you, verify it!" We will lose any possibility of being persuasive if we're ill-informed or worse, misinformed.