Editorial

Family North Carolina Magazine—March/April 2009

by R. Matthew Lytle, Ph.D.

Winning and Being Winsome

by R. Matthew Lytle, Ph.D.

Supporters of the North Carolina Family Policy Council in the Greenville area were recently treated to a keynote address by Marvin Olasky at one of our Major Speaker events. Olasky has a reputation as a leading thinker on public policy issues and has the credentials to back that reputation. He did not discuss specific policy issues, as do most of our keynote speakers, however. Instead, he spoke about how to frame public policy in light of a well-known biblical parable—the so-called parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15.

For those unfamiliar with the parable, Jesus tells the story of a man with two sons. The youngest son asks for his share of the inheritance early (i.e., before his father dies). Once he gets it, the son goes off and lives a thoroughly hedonistic lifestyle. He eventually spends all his money and is forced to return humiliated to his father and the two are ultimately reconciled. Most discussions of the parable end there.

Olasky pointed out that while the popular title of the parable is “The Prodigal Son,” we can learn from the older brother’s reaction. The older brother worked hard for his father’s approval and grew resentful when the father welcomed back with open arms his younger son. Even though the older brother explained that he was better and more responsible than his younger brother, he was never treated with such affection.

From here, Olasky transitioned to the public square and noted how it is populated with “younger brothers” and “older brothers.” The “younger brothers” in the public square are those who focus on licentious lifestyles. Whether they are policy makers, journalists, or activists, these younger brothers promote actions and policies that normalize the self-destructive behavior that typified the younger brother in the parable.

The public square is also made up of “older brothers” who, instead of promoting a licentious lifestyle, condemn all that is wrong with the younger-brother types. More often than not, this condemnation is carried out with a sense of anger and self-righteousness, promoting their own expertise by making others seem small, insignificant, and ignorant.

Unfortunately, people on the pro-life and pro-family side of policy debates are often painted as older-brother types. There are times when this characterization is undeserved, but there are also many times when it is quite deserved. In any event, because people can identify with the struggles of the younger brother, Olasky suggests that many tend to have sympathy for the younger brother over the older brother.

Ultimately, neither the younger-brother nor older-brother types are adequate approaches to engaging the public square. Olasky suggests that there is a third and better way: he calls it the “third-brother approach.”

Although there is no third brother in the parable, Olasky points to Jesus himself as the best example of how one should act. The younger-brother approach professes to have love, by which they mean letting people do what they want. The older-brother approach professes to have truth, by which they mean to tell everyone what to do without paying attention to other considerations. Olasky compared the concepts of “truth” and “love” by themselves to sodium (Na) and chlorine (Cl). Each of these elements on their own is toxic to humans. When combined, however, they form the NaCl molecule (table salt), which is beneficial for humanity. It is interesting that Jesus elsewhere calls his followers to be, among other things, salt.

About 20 years ago, the great Christian apologist Francis Schaeffer wrote a small work about how many in the church were handling disputes. His main point was that if Christians do not show real love when dealing with internal debates, then that sent a message to the world. In a nutshell, that message was, “Don’t listen to us.” Instead, Schaeffer called for Christians to handle these disputes with love—i.e., stand up vigorously for your side of the debate, but do so in a way that demonstrates that you care for those on the other side.

Schaeffer called this loving attitude the “final apologetic.” Put simply, it does not matter how compelling or airtight one’s argument is. If the world does not see the debate carried out in love, it will not listen and will instead marginalize the unloving contingent.

There is also a “final apologetic” in the public square, and it fits hand-in-glove with the third-brother approach. While the truth may be on our side, it ultimately will not matter if we do not share it in a winsome manner.

It falls to each of us to model the third-brother approach whenever we engage the public square so that we speak the truth in love.

R. Matthew Lytle is director of research with the North Carolina Family Policy Council and editor of Family North Carolina.