Isn’t this what cranky old men are supposed to say? “In my day…” “the old way was better!” “Our presidents never used fu****’ in public.” “We walked six miles uphill, each way, in snow, in bare feet… and we liked it!” Ah, the old days.

Okay, now that that’s off my chest, let me reflect on a philosophical turn of one old way where things were better – argument. The whole concept of argument has evolved in interesting ways over time. We can look back at many of Jesus’ encounters with the powers of the day as arguments, even though that term, as we know it today, was fourteen centuries away. συζητώ (suzéteó) occurs in the Greek, but a truly literal translation would be “to reason together” rather than “to dispute, fight, or seek to defeat.” For the Greeks, argument was a pathway to understanding, to a meeting of the minds even when faced with disagreement. Argument was constructive instead of destructive. It was viewed as an essential aspect of learning, growth, personal development, and community building. Those most adept at suzéteó were revered as the most wise, the most coherent, the most reasonable, and the most compassionate in the culture. Why? Because to truly argue well, one must exhibit patience, tolerance, grace, kindness, and mercy, as well as hold firm to truth, evidence, proof, logic, and intelligence. So, what happened?

As with many broad and wonderful concepts, human beings looked for ways to play the system to their advantage. Collaboration devolved to cooperation which further devolved to competition ending in conflict. To argue meant to oppose. An opponent was an adversary then an antagonist then a foe, finally an enemy who must be defeated. Argument devolved into senseless debate, no longer focused on broadening knowledge, understanding, and meaning, but simply on winning or losing.

I remember a time with a cabinet colleague where I lamented that I simply wanted to be able to engage in “reasonable and rational” discussions with other people. He scoffed at me and said, “Just because they don’t agree with you doesn’t make them irrational or unreasonable.” My response was, “But I want to believe that when I say two plus two equals four, it won’t be met with ‘but two plus two equals five.” My colleague’s retort? “But just because they say two plus two equals five doesn’t mean they are wrong; it just means they disagree with you.”

How do you argue with logic like that? I don’t live in a world where two plus two equals anything but four, so I am in trouble in a world where people are ready to challenge such a notion. However, I have learned not to argue in such situations. Suzéteó is essentially impossible in such situations – we cannot reason together because reason has been taken off the table. There is neither a meeting of the minds possible, nor is there any reason to dispute, to contest, to fight, to insult, to incite, to irritate, to discuss any further. Understanding comes not through mutual rationalization, but by a unilateral awakening that there is nothing to be gained, but much to be lost. This is where wisdom, tolerance, kindness, compassion, and mercy come in.

We live in a day and time where it seems that everyone is looking for a fight, but no one is much interested in reasoning together or creating a meeting of the minds. This is where a Greek understanding of suzéteó can be helpful. Argument should never be about winning. Argument should be a pathway to learning, to growing, to awareness and awakening. Our arguments should be filled with reason, with passion, with a hunger for truth, but never with malice, contempt, or animosity. We should not be seeking adversaries but allies. We should not oppose one another around ideas, but we should stand together as we explore differences, seeing each other as teammates and partners.

I will never be persuaded that two plus two doesn’t equal four. Perhaps this makes me unreasonable and irrational, but it does help me understand that it is not my place to judge others who think differently. It is not my job to fix them. It is not my job to prove them wrong. It is my job to provide as compelling, persuasive, and intelligent a case as I possibly can, and to do so with as much grace, kindness, and empathy as the Holy Spirit can instill.