I read this fascinating article in the Guardian yesterday. Its central thesis amounts to this: arguments rarely convince anybody of anything. Rather, the biggest factor in changing opinions on almost anything is relationships. Arguments from strangers have almost zero impact on our views and opinions; the behaviour and lifestyle of those with whom we have close relationships have the biggest impact.

It is well known, for example (though specific reports and studies are cited as evidence in the linked post), that election debates have almost zero impact on political opinions. One of the key reasons why debates achieve nothing is cognitive dissonance. The article notes:

For example, before Trump was convicted of various charges in 2024, only 17% of Republican voters believed felons should be able to be president; directly after his conviction, that number rose to 58%. To reconcile two contradictory beliefs (that presidents shouldn’t do x, and that Trump should be president), an enormous number of Republican voters simply changed their mind about the former. In fact, Republican voters shifted their views on more or less all the things Trump had been convicted of: fewer felt it was immoral to have sex with a porn star, pay someone to stay silent about an affair, or falsify a business record. Nor is this effect limited to Trump voters: research suggests we all rationalise in this way, in order to hold on to the beliefs that let us keep operating as we have been. Or, ironically, to change some of our beliefs in response to new information, but often only in order to not have to sacrifice other strongly held beliefs.

If cognitive dissonance is a primary driver of the unwillingness to change our mind when presented with facts, argument and logic, the article argues the key driver of changing opinion is the quiet impact of our friends. It notes:

A sea of evidence demonstrates that our friends have the power to change our beliefs and behaviour – not by arguing with us, but simply by being around us or showing us new ways of living. Studies on social contact theory show that when people are set up in conditions to become friends and collaborate, they become less prejudiced against the identity groups their new friends belong to… Our friends broaden our field of concern; they get us involved in the world, and they build the trust that human beings appear to require to open up to new ideas. Their indirect influence achieves more than arguments, especially from strangers, ever could. In other words: when it comes to persuasion, it’s not the conversation, it’s the relationship.

The other key factor is our own actions and experiences. People tend to bring their beliefs towards their actions. There is evidence that even when our actions are compelled, opinions line up with experience. This is all the more true when our actions were not compelled and were matters of personal choice. The article notes, ‘Compared with these influences [cognitive dissonance, relationships and personal experiences], arguments alone have comparatively little power.’

I was struck by the article for two reasons. First, none of what it says is particularly new if you belong to the church and have any interest in apologetics or mission. It has long be recognised in the church that few are converted through modernist approaches to apologetics alone. It was once believed, if you lay out the facts and show people beyond logical doubt that the truth claims of Christianity are true, then its all over for the unconverted. Interestingly, the New Atheists and their ilk operated on a similar presumption. Most Christians paying any attention have moved on from these presumptions, recognising them to be demonstrably untrue.

Of course, the Christians once in thrall to those presumptions would have done well to read the scriptures. It doesn’t take a great deal of digging in the gospels to find groups of people – particularly the Pharisees – acknowledging the facts of the matter, recognising what is true and then outright rejecting it regardless. We don’t have to look outside the pages of scripture to see that simply presenting arguments and offering evidence – logical or otherwise – will win the day on its own.

Second, there has been increased understanding among Christians that what will have a meaningful impact for the gospel is proper relationships. The key finding of the research referenced in the linked article is that people are primarily convinced of anything, not by arguments and logic, but by the quiet example of their friends and the broadening of concerns through social contact.

Interestingly, I wrote a little about the so-called quiet revival the other day. I had various things to say that would tally with the findings of the linked article. But specifically, I had this to say:

It is a strange thing because it cuts against all my evangelistic instincts. But by far and away the best evangelistic conversations I’ve had in recent years have come about when I have not sought people out, have not pushed the gospel with any urgency, but have simply made it known that I am a pastor and been open to people coming to speak with me as they have felt the need to do. Otherwise, it’s just been regular chit-chat, for a few minutes as we drop our kids into school and then go about our day. Usually not particularly meaningful or insightful chat either. Just shooting the breeze. But doing so as a normal person that people know is a pastor who they can speak to about church if they want, but aren’t going to get harangued with a gospel presentation every time I see them. Sometimes, it has to be said, not even through much chat at all; just somebody gingerly approaching me and asking, ‘I understand you’re a pastor [or vicar, or sometimes, priest], is that right?’ before leading into some question or point of curiosity.

What is turning the tide here? On face value, two primary things. First, social contact with Christians. Second, not specifically the arguments that Christians make but the fruit of their Christianity lived out in view of unbelievers. The church would do well to pay attention to this in several respects.

First, it suggests that our primary evangelistic tools right now are visibility and demonstrable fruit. If most people are not convinced primarily by arguments and logic, focusing our time on arguing people into the kingdom isn’t going to work. Rather, being visible with the fruit our faith being seen as a basic good is more likely to draw people towards the Lord Jesus than any arguments we might make.

Second, if visibility and relationship really are that key, we cannot escape the need to live among the people we want to reach. It is not good insisting you want to reach a local council estate, village or set of people if you don’t intend to live among them. People are being drawn to Christ, caused to re-asses and even change their views, based on social contact and relationships. Whilst it is not impossible, good sense suggests living among those you want to reach is most likely to make you both visible to them and is best for building good relationships with them.

Third, it suggests we ought to prioritise those activities that might lead to relationships being built. Attractional stuff is fine if the attraction is a vehicle for building relationships with people. Being missional is absolutely fine if the missional things you do are genuinely vehicles for building relationships. But the key is relationships and ongoing social contact. If relationships are not liable to form, if ongoing social contact is not likely to emerge, it doesn’t really matter how clearly and cogently we present the gospel in a particular meeting, the chances are it will have little to no credible impact on anybody’s view of the gospel.

Fourth, we need to set any ‘good works’ we do into their right context. Some offer CAP job clubs, money services, English Classes, food support, drug rehab and all manner of things. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with doing any of these things. But we need to recognise that, in and of themselves, they have two evangelistic benefits, neither of which are likely to cause anybody to believe on their own. First, they are a demonstration of the good fruit of the gospel that may draw people in as they see it on display. Second, they are potential vehicles for the development of ongoing relationships. But we have to be clear, these works of themselves are vehicles for necessary relationships. If we aren’t getting relationships through them, they might serve a secondary benefit as we demonstrate to others – with whom we have built relationships – that the gospel bears good fruit. But we need to recognise these sorts of things are evangelistically limited in and of themselves.

Finally, there is some real encouragement here for small churches. Historically, the assumption was that we need to attract people to the church. Clearly, the bigger and better resourced your church, the more likely your attractional efforts would be to actually attract anyone. Small churches with few resources had little hope of attracting anybody. However, two big changes have flipped this on its head (and whether they were always the case in reality is up for discussion). First, the search for authenticity. Most are not looking for a ‘big show’ but rather authenticity. Small churches that are evidently unpolished have much greater traction here. Second, the emphasis on relationships that tells in drawing people in does not require any programmes or resources beyond individuals who might develop personal relationships. Not only that, but smaller churches can more easily see people and then develop intimate relationships in a way that is much harder for large churches.