First published in the monthly congregational “Notes” , June 2015.
We have probably all been conditioned to think that persistence is generally a good thing. “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try and try again” the saying goes. Experience tells us that much can be gained by doggedly continuing despite initial setbacks. If our parents or teachers had allowed us to give up each time we tearfully complained “It’s too hard,” we would each one have been the poorer. Thankfully those older and wiser pushed us forwards. They persisted so that we might learn the value of persistence, even if in our immaturity we were convinced that a different course of action was warranted. Jesus even told a parable to encourage persistence in prayer, [Lk 18:1-8] though his illustration was more by means of establishing a contrast than by teaching directly. In his story, a persistent widow gets a decision in her favour, simply because she persists. She did not get judgment because the judge agreed with her cause but merely because he was getting tired out by her persistence. Of course Jesus did not intend to teach that a reluctant God is “won over” by our persistence; the story has resonance because we know how easy it can be for us to give way when faced with a constant barrage of demand upon demand. Many a child has learned that noisy persistence will eventually win the lolly from an exasperated mother!
Persistence, of course is only good when the thing persisted in is good. There is no value in persisting in a wrong. Merely alleging a point of view ad nauseam does not make it correct however many times it is repeated. Such persistence must be resisted as simplistic, or if deliberate and informed, even deceitful.
We are seeing something like this in our own day with the persistence of the “same-sex-marriage” lobby. Not content with previous failed attempts to gain approval, we face push after push, aided and abetted by a generally sympathetic media, for the law to change. Again and again, all manner of arguments are presented, all previously rebutted (and many highly emotional or irrelevant) as if somehow mere repetition should automatically lead to winning the cause. Sadly, in some nations this process of “victory by weariness” has already succeeded and if Australia’s parliament does change its legal definition of marriage to incorporate same-sex couples, it will most likely not be because our legislators have been won over by careful reasoning, but because they have simply given way to the pressure exerted by a very noisy minority who have succeeded in reducing the issue to glib sound bites and slogans.
As this minority well knows, rebutting simplistic slogans requires much more than shouting out a counter slogan. The presuppositions behind the slogan have to be set out and shown to be either false or misleading, and this can require hard work, time and intellectual rigor a listener is unwilling to give or does not have. The claim, “people who love each other should be allowed to marry” can seem fair enough at a simplistic level but answering it requires addressing a lot of separate issues and definitions, and highlighting consequences.. When this happens in a culture conditioned to want quick responses and not used to wrestling with hard issues, the force of a reply is often lost, so that the proponents of “same sex marriage” often gain some credibility.
Slogans and catch phrases usually exist when arguments are weak or non-existent and taking a stand against them is often wearying because slogans built on false premises cannot always be rebutted by arguments—they are often matters of the will and no amount of persuasion can suffice until Christ sets the will free. Resist then, but know why, and pray also that Christ set the sloganeer free.