Winsome Persuasion: Christian Influence in a Post-Christian World

by Tim Muehlhoff, Richard Langer, Quentin J. Schultze (Foreword)

How are Christians viewed in the broader culture? We blush at the possibilities. Brainwashed fanatics? Out-of-touch dogmatists? Buffoons? The task of bearing faithful witness to Jesus is complicated by persistent―and not altogether baseless―cultural stereotypes. In our post-Christian society, thoughtful Christians are considering again how to engage the dominant culture as a minority, a counterpublic, amid varying perceptions and misperceptions. In this timely book, Timothy Muehlhoff and Rick Langer ask what our interactions with the dominant cultural ethos should look like. How might we be persuasive and civil at the same time? How should we respond to those who ridicule and caricature us? How can we challenge the beliefs of other communities with love and respect? Muehlhoff and Langer present a model for cultural engagement that integrates communication theory, theology, and Scripture. Penetrating, wise, and relentlessly practical, it includes test cases and examples from history, such as William Wilberforce and Harriet Beecher Stowe. Now more than ever, Christians need what Winsome Persuasion a compelling vision of public engagement that is both shrewd and gracious.

Genres: Christian, Theology, Faith, Communication, Evangelism, Christianity, Christian Non Fiction

208 pages, Paperback

Published June 13, 2017

About the author

Tim Muehlhoff (PhD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) is a professor of communication at Biola University in La Mirada, California, where he teaches classes in family communication, interpersonal communication, persuasion, and gender. He is the author of I Beg to Differ and Marriage Forecasting, and the coauthor of The God Conversation: Using Stories and Illustrations to Explain Your Faith and Authentic Communication: Christian Speech Engaging Culture. Muehlhoff and his wife, Noreen, are frequent speakers at FamilyLife Marriage Conferences, and he has served with Campus Crusade since 1986. They live in Brea, California, with their three boys.

Reviews

[Bob · Rating 5 out of 5]

Summary: Explores how Christians might effectively engage a dominant public culture by understanding the nature of counterpublics and the elements that go into effective communication and engagement.

It has become almost tedious to talk about how fraught our public discourse is with toxic argument and discord. Furthermore, there are many who would consider Christians a part of, perhaps a substantial part of, the problem. Alternatively, there are times they are utterly invisible, content to tend their own flocks. In Winsome Persuasion Muelhoff and Langer contend that far too often, the only modes by which Christians have sought to engage are the prophetic or the pastoral. While there are times and places where these are necessary and may be effective, they may not be what is needed in our present time. In this work, the authors explore a different mode, that of persuasion, that both recognizes difference, and seeks to overcome this by winning people rather than arguments or political power.

The authors begin by emphasizing the importance of understanding what it means to be a "counterpublic." A dominant public not only holds the prevailing ideas, but has the power to prevail in enacting them. Thus counterpublics are "groups that exclusively engage in opinion formation and lack the ability to make policy decisions." The authors identify three characteristics of such groups: opposition, withdrawal, and engagement. I found the discussion of withdrawal particularly illumining in highlighting the development of hidden transcripts that often may be rhetorically harsh and unflattering (consider Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" or Mitt Romney's "47 percent" who don't pay taxes and are dependent upon the government).

The authors then apply this understanding of counterpublics to Christian counterpublics. They observe how counterpublics often function in an argument culture: consideration equals condoning, monologue is valued over dialogue, disagreement degenerates to demonizing, all of which online disinhibition intensifies. They call instead for Christian counterpublics to lead with compassion that cares for others, goes beyond sympathy to empathy, confronts the uncompassionate, and is unconditional. This leads to establishing credibility as a counterpublic by demonstrating knowledge both of facts supporting one's view and the reasons others would oppose it, practicing the virtues including humility and building goodwill by acknowledge the worth of those with whom we differ. There is a lengthy discussion of the critical value of the ethos of the messenger.

Part Two of the book focuses on how we engage others. It begins with crafting your message. One of the most valuable ideas here was finding an "audience of one," a person with whom you have some relation who represents the public you wish to engage, which often exposes your blind spots, your "in group" language, and your need to find ways to frame your argument in universal terms. The authors cover finding starting points of agreement, using images, and connecting with the plausibility structures of the public to be engaged. 

Messages need to be delivered as well as crafted. A crucial factor is persona, ideally one of humility that is able to laugh at oneself, and can give a fitting and succinct response in public discussion, whether with stories or statistics or a combination of both. Appropriate identification, without misappropriating identities helps in gaining a hearing. "Loose connections" help in conveying a message where we make common cause around limited but shared commitments. The authors helpfully talk about the strengths and pitfalls of such loose connections.

The last part of the book is their attempt to illustrate "winsome persuasion" by each articulating responses to the Supreme Court's decision to uphold same-sex marriage. The two responses are very different, albeit with some common characteristics that reflect principles of winsome engagement. Then the authors engage in a dialogue highlighting both appreciation and differences with each other. Some might find this last section unsatisfying in looking for more far-reaching answers. Yet for me, the responses and discussion reflected thoughtful yet succinct statements such as one might share in a public forum, and a good example of civil dialogue characterized by both goodwill, and real engagement.

The book is enriched by four historical sketches illustrating principles developed in the work: Saint Patrick, Jean Vanier, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and William Wilberforce. As a Wilberforce fan, I loved the four lessons they drew from his "great speech" advocating abolition of the slave trade:

1. Wilberforce left his opponents room to join him without humiliation.
2. Wilberforce refused to make the battle personal.
3. Wilberforce let the facts, not his rhetoric, be the fuel of moral outrage.
4. Wilberforce refused to fall into the all-or-nothing trap.

I found myself thinking how important this work is in our setting for the counterpublic that might be described as the "evangelical resistance" to the current president and to the evangelicals and others who support the president. In particular, Muelhoff and Langer's book is a challenge to move from opposition and withdrawal (complete with hidden transcripts that invariably leak) to substantive engagement.

Winsome Persuasion represents an important extension of the work of Tim Muelhoff and his collaborators into the public arena. His earlier work, I Beg to Differ (review) focused on difficult interpersonal communication. In this work, Muelhoff and Langer move from the personal to the public. They call us to move from hubris to humility,  from combat to compassion, from demonizing to dialogue, and from argument to at least limited forms of agreement. Most of all, they remind us both of the urgency, and the possibility of a better public conversation.

[Ralph Dave Westfall · Rating 1 out of 5]

This review offers information to students and parents who might be considering Biola University. It might also be of interest to the alumni.

The authors teach at Biola, a Christian university in Southern California. Reflecting its evangelical heritage, the institution's name is an acronym of their former one: Bible Institute of Los Angeles.

The initial disclaimer in the Acknowledgments says: "The opinions expressed in this book are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Biola's Center for Christian Thought."(1) On the other hand, there are glowing endorsements in front and back from seven other faculty at Biola University or the associated Talbot School of Theology. (Two of them are quite prominent at the institution: J. P. Moreland(2) and Craig Hazen.(3) The authors mention other Biola colleagues with whom they discussed the book. The book was featured in an article in Biola Magazine.(4) The authors also share anecdotes about things that happened at Biola, providing additional perspective on the institution. Thus it might not be a stretch to say the contents of the book represent more than just the authors' opinions.

The final chapter is quite revealing. It is a simulated transcript of an interview synthesizing many conversations the authors had with each other. It includes the following:

TODD: So is coming to the aid of the LGBTQ community a rhetorical strategy meant to improve public relations or open the door to the gospel?

TIM: No. We do neighbor love because we want to be good neighbors and love people. Period. While open doors to the gospel or improved ethos may be a side benefit, it is not the goal.(5)

Well, OK. However Jesus clearly said the purpose of his neighbor love, good works, was to reach people with his spiritual message. He said:

"Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk?' But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." So he said to the paralyzed man, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home."(6)

Similarly the apostle Paul said, "I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some."(7) They seemed to have had different priorities back in the early days.(8) But times have changed now?

In the first of a number of dubious exemplars, the authors suggest that the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) offers an example Christians could follow. Their survey found only 14 out of 101 films had gay, lesbian or bisexual representation, largely in minor roles. Their goal was to increase their representation.(9)

The authors are starting with the currently prevalent assumption about systematic unfairness. The idea is that every identifiable group must be represented in every specific area at very close to their proportion in the total population (or higher, if it involves favored groups and positive associations). If that isn't the case, it must be a result of (possibly conscious and malicious) discrimination. However that is not necessarily true—there are many reasons why groups are under- or over-represented in various fields.

Did Jesus teach that everything always had to be "fair" all the time? He didn't in the parable of the talents, where the master gave differing amounts to different servants according to their abilities.(10) In the parable of the workmen in the vineyard, the landowner paid everyone the same regardless of how many hours they worked.(11) In other words there was an equality of outcomes, in contrast to the parable of the talents, but a great unfairness in the efforts.

Even if one accepts the assumption that everything is always supposed to be proportional, numerous studies indicate that the proportion of gays and lesbians in the population is much less than the 14 percent representation in GLAAD's sample of films. Also there is substantial evidence that gays are over-represented in the acting profession. What you have here is a special interest group trying to further increase their share of the pie rather than achieve some kind of "fairness" on an overall basis.

They ignore their over-representation on the employment side. If someone points that out, it could always be rationalized as compensation for past discrimination. The motives and ethics of anyone who points it out might be also be harshly criticized. In practice these situations inevitably play out as the familiar "heads they win, tails we lose" aphorism.

Given what the Bible says about homosexual behavior and the way those passages have been interpreted for over 1900 years, why point to a homosexual special interest group as an example to follow? Couldn't the authors have found a Christian ministry to cite instead? But this makes more sense if their goal is to normalize perceptions of homosexual activity.

To illustrate the importance of seeing both sides of issues, they tell the story of Dr. Deandre Poole, an adjunct professor at Florida Atlantic University. He asked his students to perform an exercise from a textbook guide that involved stepping on a piece of paper with the word Jesus written on it. This naturally led to a lot of unfavorable media coverage.

The authors said the instructor was "a self-professed Christian who has taught Sunday school at his local church for twenty years."(12) However he was 32 years old in 2019 and the incident occurred in 2013.(13) That implies that he precociously started teaching Sunday School when he was six years old. Also doesn't the New Testament repeatedly warn about the possibility of false teachers?(14)

The discussion tells us that the issue involves "complex arguments."(15) Well yes, if people do something bizarrely out-of-line, they probably should try to find as many "complex arguments" as they can to obfuscate the issues and protect themselves from the consequences of their questionable actions.

They also discuss how the Satanic Temple wanted to put up a bronze statue at a prominent location in Detroit. The authors say: "Christian counterpublics should be encouraged by the success of these unique counterpublics. The reaction you had to learning of the Satanic Temple and its goal to erect a statue is the same reaction many have to our conservative religious beliefs."(16)

As seen previously, the authors seem unable to find an example of a Christian ministry to illustrate a point. And once again, they imply an equivalence between things that are not. The fact that some people don't like "our conservative religious beliefs" doesn't imply that their beliefs are just as valid as ours. As Jesus said, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first."(17)

The authors also ignore possible underlying motivations. Many people desire to get attention and publicity, their "15 minutes of fame." Then there is the childish pleasure of irritating people with whom they disagree. Last but not least, atheist groups have long been fighting to remove Christian religious symbolism from the public square. They want to force such symbolism out of public view and prevent any more from being added. Trying to get the Satanic statue set up could be just a tactical ploy in this bigger battle. Implying this was a genuine, good faith effort to promote an alternate religion suggests that the authors might be either seriously naive or less than candid.

The authors mention Michelle Obama's public relations stunt of shopping incognito at a Target store. Who knows what the total cost was for security arrangements for this charade? People were informed afterward about what had happened, which was necessary for it to get the desired publicity effect. According to media reports, it made a favorable impression on those who subsequently were told they had actually seen the first lady there.(18)

In offering these cases as examples to follow, the authors seem to be recommending that Christians use dubious tactics to promote veiled agendas.

There are several examples of criticisms from questionable sources. They mention Jonathan Merritt, who is "[o]ften referred to as the voice of young evangelicals."(19) (They don't explained why or by whom Merritt was so designated. However a web search quickly unearthed the revelation he was "outed" in 2012, for his "hypocrisy," by another man with whom he had sex.)(20) Merritt's criticism was that "younger evangelicals" were "not comfortable" with the Manhattan Declaration.(21)

The authors repeat a harsh criticism of evangelicals: "In Media, Culture, and the Religious Right,(22) two social critics select one word to describe conservative Christians: mean. These scholars assert that Christians often rhetorically attack those who have little defense, such as welfare recipients or distraught women seeking abortions."(23)

What is "rhetorically attack" supposed to mean? Are the quoted "social critics" saying conservative Christians are going to social service offices and abortion clinics and berating the clients? And that the people being subject to such purported abuse are incapable of responding?

A little research provides perspective. Linda Kintz, one of the authors of the Media, Culture etc. book, has been significantly involved with Marxism, as shown by eight references in her curriculum vitae.(24) It is not surprising that a Marxist would try to demonize conservative Christians. However some people would have doubts about the objectivity of opinions (as opposed to facts as in the genetic fallacy) from that direction, regardless of how Muehlhoff and Langer might see it.

The authors discuss the decision of the World Vision Christian charitable organization to "no longer discriminate against employees in same-sex marriages."(25) Note how they framed this as discrimination rather than upholding Biblical standards. When the inevitable blow-back occurred with donors canceling their support, World Vision was forced to reinstate their former policy.

The authors then paraphrased comments on this by Rachel Held Evans, saying she accused evangelicals of having "used children as bargaining chips in a Christian war against gays." Was it really necessary to describe this as a "Christian war?" (Evans actually said "culture war.") Is this type of rhetoric consistent with the title of the book: Winsome Persuasion? Shouldn't World Vision receive some blame for this fiasco, because they failed to assess the situation with their supporters in advance before jumping into this?

The authors seem to be obsessed with transgender issues. They don't mention the topic until the latter part of the book,(26) but then make up for lost time with 34 occurrences of the word "transgender" in the text plus three more in the Index (counted using the search capability in a PDF provided by Muehlhoff).

The authors mention a Saturday Night Live skit in which "a somber [Hillary] Clinton confesses … 'I could have supported gay marriage sooner.'"(27) The implications of the words "somber" and confess are," of course, that her not supporting gay marriage earlier was morally wrong.

The authors seem to view homosexual behavior as comparable to being heterosexual, and gay marriages as being essentially equivalent to traditional ones. This raises the issue of sexual morality. Given this perspective, shouldn't Biblical injunctions against sexual promiscuity and for standards of fidelity still apply just as much to gays as straights? Would this idea go over well in youth groups of gay-friendly churches? (One thing this book sorely lacks is any discussion of gay-affirming churches.)

Langer touches on this issue, but just in terms of understanding where people are coming from. He says, "Some (not all) gay marriage advocates are explicit about conceiving of fidelity not as absolute monogamy."(28) They also mention three "well-known advocates of 'nonmonogamous fidelity,'" but don't identify who they are.

This looks rather like a "slippery slope." Once the Christian idea that a marriage is based on a man and woman gets compromised, the next step is to compromise the idea of fidelity. What's after that?(29)

Turning to the campus where they teach, the authors discuss a controversy over a 30-foot high mural of Jesus at Biola University. (Perhaps confusing it with the "touchdown Jesus" mural at Notre Dame, the subheading says: "A TEST CASE: THE SIXTY-FOOT JESUS."(30) However Biola's president said, in a long remorseful apology for not getting rid of it, that it is "a 30-foot Jesus."(31) The latter is much more credible since it is on a building of only two-stories.)

Some students were upset because the image was too white, even though it was based on a "Russian Jewish male model."(32) The authors say the students saw "the mural as a constant reminder that this white Jesus made [them] feel excluded."(33) Do you get the picture? The authors imply that young people's feelings are more important than most other considerations. Biola could have requested the use of a darker-skinned Jew from the Middle East as a model, but even so the image still wouldn't have looked like someone with roots in Africa or eastern Asia like many Biola students.

Further down the page, the authors mention that students "wrote to sociologist and Christian activist Tony Campolo that they were disturbed that a 'white supremacist' was painted on a building."(34) Jesus a white supremacist? Really? Christians should be guided by the feelings of young people who engage in this kind of sophomoric rhetoric?

Muehlhoff and Langer then mention, without any concern about the lack of "winsome persuasion," that "Campolo wrote back and encouraged them to 'tear it down.'"(35) The authors apparently have few qualms about such Antifa-style rhetoric and tactics. They blithely proceed into a discussion of "weak and strong publics,"(36) in which these students are presented as a good example of the former.

One of the ideals of a university is that students should develop maturity while attending. However the authors seem to think that students who are associated with a Christian university for around three to five years should have a substantial say in how it operates, even though the people running it have much more life experience and a more enduring commitment to the institution. What are these students going to do when they get a job and find they have to earn the right to be heard?

Higher education at private universities is extremely expensive. The "sticker price" for tuition, room and board will be $55,513 for the 2021-22 school year at Biola.(37) If someone thinks they will find at Biola an antidote to the direction society is currently heading, they might be seriously disappointed. Perhaps students might be better off at public university with lower tuition demands.(38) At the very least, the public institution wouldn't try to put a Christian facade onto becoming inceasingly conformed to the secular world.(39)

In addition, Biola alumni who are unhappy with current societal trends might seriously consider discussing these issues with the administration before financially contributing to their alma mater in the future.

1 Muehlhoff and Langer, Winsome Persuasion, xv
2 Biola University, "J. P. Moreland: Distinguished Professor of Philosophy," Directory > People, last visited August 1, 2021, https://www.biola.edu/directory/peopl...
3 Biola University, "Craig Hazen: Director, Christian Apologetics Program, Professor of Christian Apologetics," Directory > People, last visited August 1, 2021, https://www.biola.edu/directory/peopl....
4 Biola Magazine Staff, How Should Christian 'Counterpublics' Engage a Post-Christian Culture?, 2017 Summer, June 29, 2017, https://www.biola.edu/blogs/biola-mag...
5 Muehlhoff and Langer, Winsome Persuasion, 175
6 Luke 5:23-24 (NIV)
7 1 Corinthians 9:22b (NIV)
8 Romans 12:2 (NIV)
9 Muehlhoff and Langer, Winsome Persuasion, 18
10 Matthew 25:15 (NIV)
11 Matthew 20:14 (NIV)
12 Muehlhoff and Langer, Winsome Persuasion, 69
13 Caleb Parke, "'Stomp on Jesus' Florida professor now a candidate for Palm Beach elections supervisor," Fox News, June 17, 2019, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/flor...
14 1 Timothy 1:3, 2 Peter 2:1 (NIV)
15 Muehlhoff and Langer, Winsome Persuasion, 70
16 Muehlhoff and Langer, Winsome Persuasion, 101-102
17 John 15:18 (NIV)
18 Muehlhoff and Langer, Winsome Persuasion, 118-119
19 Muehlhoff and Langer, Winsome Persuasion, 35.
20 Azariah Southworth, "Why I outed a Christian star," Salon, August 12, 2012, https://www.salon.com/2012/08/12/why_...
21 Muehlhoff and Langer, Winsome Persuasion, 35. The Manhattan Declaration emphasized abortion, traditional marriage and religious liberty, and was signed by prominent Orthodox, Roman Catholic and evangelical figures.
22 Linda Kintz (author) and Julia Lesage (contributor), Media, Culture, and the Religious Right, Minneapolis, MN: University Of Minnesota Press, 1998
23 Muehlhoff and Langer, Winsome Persuasion, 137
24Linda Kintz, "Curriculum Vitae," September, 2004, last visited July 30, 2021, https://casprofile.uoregon.edu/sites/...
25 Muehlhoff and Langer, Winsome Persuasion, 36
26 Muehlhoff and Langer, Winsome Persuasion, 62. For more information about the transgender issues which are so prominent in this book, see Scott Newgent, "Forget What Gender Activists Tell You. Here's What Medical Transition Looks Like," Quillette, October 6, 2020, https://quillette.com/2020/10/06/forg...
27 Muehlhoff and Langer, Winsome Persuasion, 111
28 Muehlhoff and Langer, Winsome Persuasion, 170.
29 This review's author occasionally attended a discussion group at a gay-friendly church. He subsequently received an email about an entertainment program the church was sponsoring about "throuples"(three-person polyamory).
30 Muehlhoff and Langer, Winsome Persuasion, 26
31 Barry H. Corey, "Contemplations on the Jesus Mural Decision," Messages and Media, March 19, 2013, https://www.biola.edu/president/messa...
32 Muehlhoff and Langer, Winsome Persuasion, 26
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid.
36 Muehlhoff and Langer, Winsome Persuasion, 27
37 Office of Financial Aid, "Undergraduate Tuition and Costs," Biola University, last visited August 1, 2021, https://www.biola.edu/financial-aid/t...
38 Full disclosure: the author of this review taught for 16 years at public universities, after not being hired by Biola when applying for a faculty position in 1998.
39 Contrary to the warning in Romans 12:2.

[Kyle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Applies nuance, civility, and relevant principles from the discipline of communications to bear on the task of bearing witnesses as Christians in a post-christian, pluralistic world.

[Liz Cobo · Rating 5 out of 5]

The art of persuasion has long been studied and admired. Books like Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People have been heralded as must-reads for business executives and entrepreneurs. In a similar way, I think Winsome Persuasion belongs on a short list of must-reads for Christian communicators. Too often we spend most of our time crafting our messages and very little time considering who will receive them. This is especially true when our messages are intended for those who oppose our deeply held Christian beliefs. In an effort to get our point across we forget that on the other end of our transmission is a living, breathing person. A person, who like us has a history of experience, a story to tell, and bears the imago Dei.

Authors Muehlhoff and Langer offer a different way, and I think a better way, of developing as a Christian communicator. It starts with how we think about who we’re talking to and how we’re speaking to them. “How you imagine those who disagree with you greatly establishes the relational aspect of communication and the amount of respect you afford others… In our self-deliberations we must remember the humanity and complexity of those who oppose us.” This of course is easier said than done—but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing.

This style of communication, where we consider not just our messages, but the recipients of our messages, invites if not demands Christians to retreat out of our strongholds. It requires that we, if not permanently but temporarily, step out of safe silos to connect on relational, personal levels to those with whom we find tension, disagreement, and apparent little common ground. “While modern Christians are tempted to retreat from culture and form fortified sanctuaries, our history is filled with followers of Christ who felt an ownership and obligation to the cities in which they lived.”

Winsome Persuasion is an invitation to follow in the footsteps of those believers. It’s an invitation to show your neighbor the love of Jesus through your words and deeds by practicing the “Golden Rule” of communication: respect.

[Colin Walsh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though drawn to this book primarily by its unique cover design, I was pleasantly surprised by the richness of the content and the breadth of considerations the authors put forth. In a culture that may seem “anti-christian” to many members of the church, the tendency of many believers is to fall into one of two extremes: either a full-fledged counterattack guided by truth, but equipped with very little love or a social gospel that fails to make the truth of scripture clear and ultimately condones certain sin. The authors here propose both conceptual and practical suggestions that will allow the reader to see a third option that incorporates both truth and love, but creatively incorporates nuanced ideas. One of my favorites (paraphrased): There is a myth that genuine consideration of opposing ideas is equal to condoning those ideas, but this is a faulty thought process. We must genuinely consider the option that we may be wrong in our beliefs, but once the truth of our beliefs are established we should thoughtfully engage with non-believers knowing that we have an intellectual, emotional, and spiritual reason to believe. (Also, go read the preface to Mere Christianity. It ties in well with the topic of this book)

[Colin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this for class. It’s incredibly practical in guiding principles for conversations with those you disagree with (both personally and corporately). They primarily have conflicts between Christians and the broader culture I mind, but I think their principles work really well in ‘in-house’ conversations. As Christians are fighting over how to think about race (CRT, BLM, anti-racism, wokeness, colorblindness) as well as our relationship with the LGBT community, I can see myself employing these principles in my conversations with my fellow brothers and sisters.

[Samuel Kassing · Rating 5 out of 5]

This might be one of the top three books that I’ve read this year. Muehlhoff and Langer do an excellent job charting a way for a Christian message to be heard in today’s post Christian world. I’d highly recommend it to anyone who is thinking through how they can have a more faithful witness in the public sphere. Convictional civility.

[Grant Hartley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Worth the entire price of the book for the last two chapters (on how Christians with the traditional sexual ethic might respond to the legalization of same-sex marriage) alone. Insightful and timely, with profound insights on every page.

[Michael · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wanted to call this book “terrible”, but i suppose that would be neither winsome nor persuasive. The historical interludes were moderately interesting, but the core of the book is very weak, marred by a rabidity that coddles left, but punches right.

[George P. · Rating 5 out of 5]

The American public square no longer seems to be a safe space. Instead, it is the scene of a riot in the making, where yelling threatens to give way to hitting. And social media stands ever ready to cheer on those throwing the punches.

This incivility stems from what Deborah Tannen calls the “adversary culture,” which “urges us to approach the world — and the people in it — in an adversarial frame of mind.” According to Tim Muehlhoff and Richard Langer, the adversary culture writes a script for our interactions with people we disagree with that has four elements:

1. Thoughtful consideration of the other’s point of view is denounced as “compromise.”

2. Monologue is preferred to dialogue, since the latter might result in “questioning of long-held values and ideological commitments.”

3. People on the other side of a dispute must be demonized, not merely disagreed with.

The widespread use of the Internet enables the fourth element:

4. “Online disinhibition” means that “individuals feel unrestrained by normal social conventions, resulting in unfiltered communication.”

Unfortunately, in my opinion, American Christians seem as likely to read off the adversary-culture script as any other American. Doing so means we help make the public square more dangerous. It also means that our witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ becomes less effective. No one listens to bullies with bullhorns, after all.

In their new book, Winsome Persuasion, Muehlhoff and Langer make the case for Christians adopting a persuasive voice in the public square, as opposed to a prophetic or pastoral one. The persuasive voice “appeals to the common good and general revelation” and “seeks to change viewpoints or practices within the culture.” It acknowledges the fact of deep ideological disagreement, in other words, even as it seeks to change others’ ideas.

The prophetic voice, by contrast, “appeals to the revealed Word of God as final authority” and “calls for acknowledgment of sin and repentance.” It is useful when dealing with other believers who confess the Bible’s authority in their lives. However, it is ineffective when used with unbelievers who don’t have the same starting point.

The pastoral voice “appeals to shared needs and suffering” and “offers healing, nurture, and aid to those in need.” It is effective at comforting those in dire circumstances, but it does not have the power to change people’s minds. It can build bridges of compassion, of course, but it does not give opponents a reason to cross them.

The persuasive voice is especially necessary given the emerging shape of contemporary American culture. For one thing, many Christian ideas and practices are out of step with the spirit of the age. A recent Gallup poll, for example, indicates that a record number of Americans — 64 percent — support same-sex marriage. In 1997, that number was 27 percent. This sea change of opinion is arguably the greatest on a controversial social issue in our lifetime.

For another thing, an increasing number of Americans are disavowing religion entirely. According to Pew data, the percentage of Americans with no religious affiliation — the so-called “Nones” — grew from 16.1 percent in 2007 to 22.8 percent in 2014. The trend is especially pronounced among younger Americans. A recent analysis of the CIRP Freshmen Survey found that 31 percent of college freshmen claim no religious affiliation, a number that has tripled since 1986.

Taken together, these two trend lines should be worrisome to Christians in America. The Christian view of marriage is now a minority opinion, and increasing numbers of people no longer view a Christian affiliation as desirable in the first place. Indeed, a Gallup poll indicates that a third of Americans view religion as “largely old fashioned and out of date.”

This is the cultural context in which American Christians are called to exercise gospel influence. If once upon a time Christians could assume that the public was with us on controversial issues, we can no longer do so. Our opinions on sexual morality and marriage, most obviously, are a minority report. We are what Muehlhoff and Langer call a “counterpublic.”

Counterpublics are characterized by “opposition, withdrawal, and engagement.” Opposition and engagement are easy to understand. The public dislikes our opinions (opposition), and we aim to change its mind (engagement). Withdrawal requires explanation. It is not quietism, the opposition of engagement. Rather, it can be likened to strategic retreat, an opportunity to rest, regroup and rethink before sallying forth again.

Muehlhoff and Langer use Aristotle’s three categories of rhetoric to help Christian counterpublics understand how to persuade the American public on the issues where they disagree. According to them, a persuasive message “is rooted in three factors: the logic of the argument (logos), the speaker’s ability to project a trustworthy persona (ethos), and the speaker’s ability to awaken the emotions of the audience (pathos).” Christian credibility in the public square depends on whether the public views us as credible messengers of a credible message couched in terms they understand and can be persuaded by.

The authors conclude their book with recommendations on how Christian counterpublics can respond to LGBT issues. Christianity’s stance on sexual morality and marriage is arguably the thing that most makes American Christians a counterpublic today. If we’re going to engage the public effectively on LGBT issues — or other hotly contested social issues — we need to think through the kinds of issues Winsome Persuasion so deftly examines.

 

Book Reviewed:
Tim Muehlhoff and Richard Langer, Winsome Persuasion: Christian Influence in a Post-Christian World (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017).

Further Resources:


“Influence Podcast: Winsome Persuasion.”
“Influence Podcast: Discussing Homosexuality with Kindness and Conviction.”

_____
P.S. If you found my review helpful, please vote "Yes" on my Amazon.com review page.

P.P.S. P.S.S. This review was written for InfluenceMagazine.com and appears here by permission.

[Jeff Burket · Rating 3 out of 5]

Deals with an important issue in promoting civil respect and discourse in society, and for that is to be commended. Far too little does Christian literature seek to create dialogue and understanding with those outside the church. This book starts with the premise that the church and Christians within it need to better figure out how to engage and challenge aspects of the dominant culture (and thus act as a 'counter-public'). Some key highlights include:
-emphasizing that relational and societal goals for our communities (and not just utilitarian ends, policy goals, or angry diatribes) are part of our scriptural call;
-the importance of engaging people and communities at the local level;
-the call to be more p­astoral and less judgmental in our interactions;
-a focus on listening, understanding, compassion and dialogue;
-an emphasis on the church needing to be humble, thoughtful and careful in how it crafts its message to demonstrate the most love and compassion to those around it;
-a whole chapter on the importance of partnering with non-Christian organizations to achieve worthwhile societal goals.

Some Drawbacks:
-still somewhat narrow in focusing too much of discussion around issues of abortion and same-sex marriage (thus missing the opportunity to expand the conversation to other scripturally important issues such as immigration, poverty, climate change, fairness in the justice system, racism, etc);
-doesn't discuss what I think is the most important first step in civil discourse should be for the church and its Christians: that is, to apologize for the many sins and disrespectful actions offered over the course of history far and recent;
-doesn't really confront the issue that cultural Christianity is the dominant culture in America now; it is harder to see a clear line for those within and outside the church, and thus much of our conversation as Christians will need to be with those who at least by name identify already as Christians
-doesn't emphasize enough how diverse of views on culture and policy are still well within the framework of a biblically sound faith; also sometimes gives undue acceptance to false equivalencies (sometimes we really do have enough data/information to know that one policy is better than another and Christians should very much care about acting on truth to help the best outcomes occur).

The precepts of civil discourse and crafting a message are valuable, and the book is pretty focused on the technical aspects of persuasion and conversation. These are important things, although they must be built on the foundation of the most important thing we can do to demonstrate the truth of Christ: to radically love our neighbors and live our lives in authentic, continual response to the love that Christ showed us. Without this, all the technique in the world is a gimmick. Overall the book is adequately written; at times a little haphazard in flow and argument; it does reference scripture appropriately given the topic.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Civil conversation is sadly a lost art. Tim Muehlhoff and Richard Langer contend, however, that the more civil we are, the more persuasive we become.

The authors, as an example, point to the fiery abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison who railed against slavery in the most absolute, uncompromising terms—even burning a copy of the Constitution every Fourth of July. He never took time to understand, empathize with, or seek common ground with his opponents. He persuaded few who were not already persuaded.

In contrast, Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote a story to get past the “watchful dragon” of the heart, as C. S. Lewis described how fiction could circumvent our usual defenses. In Uncle Tom’s Cabin, she cast slaves as main characters, not as scenery. She overcame stereotypes going both ways, casting Simon Legree as a northerner and Augustin St. Clare as a southerner opposed to the institution. She sought common ground by appealing to the common humanity of all. The impact was enormous in rallying widespread support for ending slavery.

Muehlhoff and Langer unpack several key ways we can do the same today. First, we can cultivate ethos by presenting ourselves as a trustworthy person who can see both sides of an argument, by showing courage, kindness, justice, and humility, and by exhibiting goodwill in looking for the best (not the worst) in our opponents.

A second strategy is to read the rhetorical situation; that is, finding values and ideals that both sides can agree on and using those to move the discussion forward.

Third, we need to adjust our message and style of presentation to the constraints of our situation. These constraints can be the length of a tweet, time limits given to speakers, the amount of evidence we have, or a sore throat. But constraints can also be matters of decorum or social expectation—we don’t interrupt other speakers who have the platform, or in a Q&A audience members ask questions and don’t give tirades. Bulldozing ahead headless of these constraints will generally not win us supporters.

Fourth, we can form loose connections with outsiders. Francis Schaeffer called this joining with cobelligerents—those we agree with on one issue even if we disagree on many others. Conservative Christians, for example, can form a loose connection with feminists when both seek to keep a college campus safe for women at night.

Muehlhoff and Langer write primarily for Christians who see things in society they would like to change or improve. They exemplify well the virtues they are trying to nurture in their readers. As they give examples, they show both sides of issues with understanding and compassion. They show wisdom in understanding the value of compromise and how to get there. Throughout they emphasize humility, a quality severely lacking in the public square. By following their advice, we will immediately make our society better.

[Aubree · Rating 4 out of 5]

In today’s polarised world, where people often retreat to their ideological corners, it has become increasingly difficult to have productive conversations, especially when disagreements arise. Winsome Persuasion by Tim Muehlhoff and Richard Langer seeks to address this challenge, particularly for Christians striving to engage respectfully with the dominant culture without compromising their faith. The authors explore how to pursue genuine dialogue, even with those who hold deep ideological and theological differences.

Muehlhoff and Langer encourage Christians to act as thoughtful and wise counterpublics, engaging culture with both conviction and civility. One of the more difficult aspects the book addresses is how to navigate the balance between persuasion and respect. Rather than suggesting Christians avoid confrontation in the name of compassion, the book argues that true love for others involves sharing the good news of Jesus' Kingdom, even when it might be unpopular or uncomfortable. However, this must be done thoughtfully. The authors emphasize the importance of first building a relational foundation. By seeking to understand the other side and establishing trust, Christians can create a space where the content of their message will be more likely to be heard.

A key theme in Winsome Persuasion is what the authors call "prophetic civility." Christians are called to both declare truth (be prophetic) and engage with gentleness and respect (be civil). In a world where many advocate for either total relational engagement or avoiding difficult conversations altogether, Muehlhoff and Langer offer a nuanced approach that maintains a commitment to truth while following the example of Jesus, as a "friend of sinners."

The book is not overly idealistic. It acknowledges that engaging culture in this way is not a perfect science, mistakes are inevitable, and discernment must be sought through prayer. This is demonstrated through the dialogue of Langer and Muelhoff in the final chapter. However, the authors argue that to avoid engagement entirely is to neglect the Great Commission.

The quote that stood out to me from Winsome Persuasion is:
"Neighbour love should not be withheld for fear of how that love could be misused." This quote challenged me to think about whether I tend to care more about loving others and showing them Christ, or about what people may think of me by doing this. It has encouraged me to think more about ways in which I can show neighbourly love and to not live in fear.

[Kenneth C · Rating 4 out of 5]

Muehlhofff and Langer's thoughtful contribution to encouraging civil discourse provides Christians and others interested in being able to "disagree without being disagreeable" helpful perspectives and tools to engage in meaningful dialogue.
Central to Muehlhoff and Langer's discussion is the concept of a counter public, which they borrowed from communication scholar Daniel Brouwer. The most significant feature of a counter public for this book is the desire to engage the dominant view. They cite the change in the way we engage in the dominant view today versus the last few centuries. The coffeehouses, pubs and speaker's corners of previous centuries are replaced by a million virtual gathering spots today, all situated in a faceless internet environment governed by algorithms designed to put us into tribes with like-minded people as opposed to face-to-face gatherings where radically different perspectives on a topic can be debated and discussed.
While the book provides an orderly progression of defining the terms and developing strategies for engagement, as well as diverse perspectives on the hot button issue of same-sex marriage, the best attribute of the book is short historical vignettes about people who engaged the dominant cultural narrative in surprisingly different ways and became icons of social change. These four persons, Saint Patrick of Ireland, Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of "Uncle Tom's Cabin," intellectual giant Jean Vanier and the L'Arche movement and William Wilberforce demonstrate by their actions the principles Muehlhoff and Langer write about.
If you are frustrated by the tone of dialogue about social and political issues in the West today reading what Muehlhoff and Langer have to offer is time well spent.

[Chris Slayton · Rating 5 out of 5]

In 1 Peter 3:15, believers are urged to be ready with an answer (truth) for the hope that we have and to give that answer with gentleness and respect. In todays’ argument culture, too many Christians have either given into the argument culture, thinking that he who shouts the loudest wins, or have withdrawn entirely from their obligation to share the truth. In neither instance is the Christian making an impact for the cause of Christ.

In this book, Tim Muehlhoff and Richard Langer provide easy-to-follow and practical advice as to how Christians can effectively engage the culture with both truth and love. For those looking for ways to make a difference in their community and effect real change, or to simply have a civil dialogue with a co-worker or neighbor, this book is a great starting place. Sometimes, authors give great advice about how Christians can engage society, but the advice is too abstract to be put into practice. This book is different. The authors provide real-life examples of how their advice might come into play and also provide examples from history where we’ve seen these strategies play out.

Beginning with a description of what makes a “Christian counterpublic,” the book then moves to how a Christian counterpublic can make connections and influence culture. At the end of the book, the authors demonstrate how their suggested strategies work in a dialogue over the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage. This book is easy to read, and at less than 200 pages, is easily digestible. I would highly recommend this book!

[Jared · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book brings up a lot of interesting points that I have not considered before. I would not agree with a lot of the points on the outset, but when explained in detail by the authors, they seem to make sense. This is something that will take some time to mull over and consider. I would certainly recommend this book to anyone who wishes to engage on controversial topics and to influence another group.

Quote: "As Christian counterpublics our tendency is to limit our inquiry to merely knowing our side of an issue."

For me, this is the main quotation to summarize the book. To persuade someone, we must first have a thorough understanding of their side of the issue. We all too often focus only on our talking points and our opinions. When engaging a counterpublic, we should ask a lot of questions about their position to build our understanding. Not only will this help us determine the best course of conversation, it build a rapport with the other side by showing that we truly care about their opinions and feelings. I think it helps to envision how we want the other side to treat us in a conversation. We would love for them to ask us questions about our positions and for them to truly understand where we are coming from. If this is how we want to be treated why should we not treat them like this?

[Zak Schmoll · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an interesting book. I think the methodology is reasonably accurate, that it is important for Christians to communicate from a position of love of our neighbor and there are challenges that arise from being a minority in culture that do impact how you approach people with who you disagree.

In terms of the practical applications, the authors go further than I would prefer to go. A big emphasis of their approach is loose networks, basically working with people on projects of shared interest for specific projects. I agree with that. I can work with pro-life people of all different ideological backgrounds on pro-life causes, for example. However, this book brings you a little bit closer into these events then I would prefer, especially for churches. I have less of a problem with specific nonprofits doing such things, but there are some points where churches need to be careful how they share their platform.

Another interesting factor is that this book was written in 2017, and I would contend that the public perception of Christians has changed quite a bit as well as the religious landscape at least here in the United States in the past eight years. As a result, while the theory and methodology still hold true, I do wonder how this would be written today.

[Maria Keffler · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a really needful book right now, and I very much enjoyed it. It gives a good overview of communication philosophy and practice, and explains concepts with both academic definitions and appropriate (and engaging) anecdotes. The aim of the book is to provide everyone, but especially Christians, a pathway out of the negative communications spirals into which we have, as a country and as individuals, fallen. While the concepts in the book can be applied, I believe, to any communication experience, they do largely relate to dealing with large social issues in the larger context of public policy. If I had one criticism of the book, it would be that I would've liked to have learned more about one-on-one interpersonal communication, and how to de-escalate conflict as well as be winsomely persuasive in my own small circles. But again, I think that can be extrapolated from the information the book provides.

Definitely recommend it to anyone who has experienced any kind of "us vs. them" communication breakdowns.

[Bryan Graf · Rating 4 out of 5]

Winsome Persuasion: Christian Influence in a Post-Christian World helps Christians understand how to effectively engage with groups outside of the Christian community. The authors provide many helpful tools for the reader to understand the importance of engaging with these communities without compromising yours, or your communities, values. It's easy to sit and pick a part a book, but I enjoyed the practical tools they provided, and I believe if they are actually applied they can be tweaked or refined as you are actively engaging with others. The authors recognized an issue and provided really good insight on how to address the problem. I appreciated that the authors were also honest that there are times when their approach may not work.

With an ever changing world, that continually seems to be dividing rather than uniting, I believe this is a good read for anyone wanting to fight back against the divide.

[Dave Melin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Muehlhoff and Langer offer their collective expertise as educators and communicators. A timely guide for those seeking to improve communication across political differences. A helpful guide to gaining knowledge and posturing the heart for discussions with people who view life and faith differently.

The authors introduce the term counterpublic, a counter-cultural communicator who effectively bridges ideological gaps to build healthy relationships that enable constructive dialog. During this election season, I can think of no other text better suited to our cultural day.

In summary, Winsome Persuasion is a handbook for bridging the political aisle, dialoguing with your neighbor, and engaging in healthy conversation with relatives at your Thanksgiving dinner celebration. Highly recommended!

[Steve Varughese · Rating 5 out of 5]

As Christians, we are trying to convey the message of the gospel through our actions and our words, but not always executing properly. How could we change that? Winsome Persuasion by Tim Muehlhoff and Richard Langer lays out how Christians as counterpublics can live out their faith in a way that can engage and influence society. It’s conveying a message on how Christians can be a positive inspiration to society through behavior, messaging, and how we differ on our response to controversial topics. While End The Stalemate by Sean McDowell and Tim Muehlhoff offer the Christian help in having meaningful conversations with truth and love, Winsome Persuasion helps the Christian engage in a culture that’s living in an age of authenticity.

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

A well-thought-out and sensibly delivered book about how Christians can engage policy, culture, and others who have differing opinions than our own. There is much good correction to our often toxic practices of anger and argument in the public arena and great information that helps to paint an accurate picture of where division exists and how Christians are contributing towards increasing hurtful rhetoric and unhelpful monologues. If you want to stand firm on what you believe while also being loving and kind, possibly someone who is viewed as a “friend of sinners” as Jesus was, this is a great resource.

[Moriah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very digestible. I read it mostly over two or three sittings. I was encouraged at the authors’ desires to see the people of God having good relationships and conversations about any and all of the current discourse in our society. The case studies they reflected on as well as the breakdown of conversation/debate/argument were all very well expressed and easy to see applications for the current culture. I would definitely recommend to those who are looking for some courage and clarity at entering into the milieu.

[Cathy Handy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great book that gives a practical roadmap that challenges us to engage others in a civil, respectful, and productive way. It challenges our current approach, one that seems to be full of frustration, name-calling, and incivility. If you’d like to be able to have meaningful conversations with others about any type of sensitive topic, this book helps give you a foundation to do that. No matter the content of the discussion, the principles in the book will be highly beneficial to the conversation!

[Eric Krajewski · Rating 5 out of 5]

With polarization and division at what seems like an all-time high, this book gently says--stop! There is another way. The authors say “In today’s combative communication climate, securing a public square open to all—even if it means allowing radical views—is the first priority of engagement.” The book was written in 2017 in a pretty hostile culture and only seems more relevant now 7 years later as we enter perhaps the most divisive election cycle ever. I wish everyone would read this book and apply the principles to their public and private conversations. Eric

[Drew Bennett · Rating 4 out of 5]

A surprising book. So timely. Seeking a faithful alternative to combative public rhetoric - what the author’s call a persuasive voice. Basically an extended meditation on Aristotle’s philosophy of communication, but applied to the way Christians should engage culture. The Historical Sketches were particularly helpful.

[Hayden Wilkes · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed the book. My favorite bits were the ones in regards to handling others who are coming at you with a heart of malice. The authors go a little soft on some clear biblical principles towards the end, but all in all, there is a lot of good to learn from this book for those who desire civil conversations about social issues and faith.

[Benjie Shaw · Rating 5 out of 5]

The authors develop the idea of a Christian "counter-public" in a way that is informative, challenging, and practical. Their approach is refreshing in the current outrage culture as a way forward post-culture wars.

[Trevor Atwood]

A moderately helpful book in thinking through how to argue in a civil and loving manner.

My main takeaway is the idea that sometimes taking hard principled stands in issues doesn’t resolve the issue like taking slow measured stands.

It’s a helpful read that I would recommend.

[John Majors · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book on conversing with culture. Love how the alternating chapters provided historical sketches/examples.