"faith and trust and pixie dust" or "no one was ever argued into the Kingdom"

"No one has ever been argued into the Kingdom." Or, "No one was ever converted by an argument." Or, "An argument will never convert anybody, the Holy Spirit has to do it." I've heard statements like these in numerous Christian circles, most recently from my pastor in a Sunday morning class. I'd almost classify it as a Christian urban legend.

As I questioned my pastor, I got the impression that by the term argument, he really meant fight - as in, being argumentative, in a negative sense. To be sure, there are times when people argue, and it's more of a battle or struggle to "win" rather than an attempt to discover the truth of a matter. (A tell tale sign that this is happening is when a person reflexively switches to a different point when faced with acknowledging a weakness in his position.)

In this case, I'd agree that this is no way to win converts to Christianity... or anything else, for that matter. It's no way, because it's intellectually dishonest.

However, for those who understand disciplines that involve the exercise of logic or reason, the term "argument" can have an altogether different, even positive, meaning. Consideration of the merits of one line of argumentation verses another is a tool used to ascertain truth from fiction. (The fact of the matter is, everyone uses this tool with regularity, whether they realize it or not.) In the cases I've heard Christians make these types of pronouncements about arguments and evangelism, often times they really are referring to this sense of the word.

Is there something in the nature of the message of Christianity that makes it immune to being communicated using compelling arguments?

Obviously some skeptics would say yes. I don't think Christians should see it this way.

Myself, I went from being an agnostic after college to being a Christian, largely due to considering arguments in favor of the Christian worldview, appeals both to reason and to evidence. I had no desire to waste my time (and life) on a false understanding of existence. (And considering the fact that Jesus characterized Himself as "The Truth," I don't think He would necessarily frown on that attitude.)

Jesus Himself used arguments. "Believe Me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves." (John 14:11) Expressed formally, the argument is: Only the Father has the ability to perform miracles. I perform miracles. Therefore the Father is in Me.


The big concern I have regarding the propagation of sentiments like, "arguments don't convert," is they imply Christianity is a worldview that refuses to (or can't) stand up under scrutiny -- that maybe, at its core, it's make-believe, or wishful thinking. The sentiment also dismisses the possibility that a skeptic's challenges might honestly be motivated by a desire to reject falsehood. Is it right for us to presume that, provided reasoned answers, the skeptic will not conclude, as we have, that Jesus is Who He said He was?

There's a sequel movie to Peter Pan that my kids watch called Return to Neverland. It features a song about "faith and trust and pixie dust," promoting the idea that making a blind leap of faith, in spite of evidence, is a virtue. I'll get into this more at a later date, but such a concept of faith is not what the Bible means by the term faith. Biblical faith is putting one's trust in God, just as one would put his faith and trust in a person he had reason to believe was trustworthy.

In my view, rather than an argument being a deterrent to conversion, I actually think many people have rejected the Gospel precisely because no one ever made the effort to argue with them intelligently. Christians should treat reasonable questions seriously. If we are unprepared with an answer, we should graciously acknowledge so, do our homework, and come back later prepared to present our case. There's a whole theological discipline dedicated to this very thing called Christian Apologetics, which means, "making a defense for the faith." There are a lot of good books available on the topic.

Resorting to, "Well, you just have to have faith," is the wrong answer. Not only do we not need to blindly believe, one could argue that it's inappropriate to blindly believe. For doing so makes us defenseless against the faulty arguments of the myriad of false religions and false philosophies out in the world. You and I can "just believe" in any number of false religious claims. The claims that are safe to trust in are the ones we have good reasons to believe are true.

We need to equip Christians to be able to lovingly communicate why it is reasonable and compelling to believe in Christianity. Not because we don't believe in the work of the Holy Spirit, but because we understand that it is through our communication that the Holy Spirit works.

Am I denying the necessity of the Holy Spirit working in the hearts of a people to bring them to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ? Not at all.

But what I am suggesting that not being willing to provide reasons for our beliefs can hinder people from considering repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Peter wrote, "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." (1 Peter 3:15) In doing so, the Holy Spirit will use us.

There's a lot of deceptive messages competing for the hearts and minds of people today. Frankly, I'm not too disrespectful of people who have their guard up.