A Defensive Conversation
Conversation was never just about conversing. One of the joys of watching period television shows or reading historical books is the interplay of conversation. While maintaining an aura of respect, the dialogue was often an interplay of indirect frankness, sarcasm, and truth. Together the elements combined to transform conversation into an art form. Such engagement took skill and attention, which brings an element of joy to those participating. This type of discourse seems to be a way of the past.

Today, exchanges are marked by political discourse. In fact, it seems that there is no other subject matter in which society is conversant. If you aren’t talking about politics, then you aren’t speaking. While I fear that politics has commandeered our conversation, as a Christian, I fear that it has also hijacked our evangelism (and to some degree, our discipleship).

This proves to be true even amongst Christians just as much as anywhere. Why is this the dominant form of our culture these days? Here, we could insert any number of reasons that are likely valid, but I want to narrow it down to the following three:

Devotion: The personal nature of our beliefs initiates a level of dedication that we likely do not have with anything else. Such a deep commitment demands a response when someone threatens those convictions.
Division: The rhetoric so frequently employed is intentionally divisive. Filled with exaggerated premises and inflammatory words, it sows discord automatically.
Defense: The combination of devotion and division almost obligates a response, generating a reactionary defense.

The result is that most of our conversations these days are more defensive in nature.

A Defense of Conversation
As Christians, we must look at conversations redemptively. Even those that may fixate on the theme of politics must be centralized around the theme of redemption. A defense without a deity is meaningless. Absent of a knowledge of God, the general public will reject many of our premises. Therefore, we must rethink our conversational engagement.

Redemptive conversation means that while politics may be a topic, every conversation's theme is our Lord Jesus Christ. After the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President in 2016, I wrote an article titled, "The Blessing of a Trump Presidency." It actually had nothing to do with Donald Trump or the presidency. As a missionary living overseas, the blessing was that everyone wanted to talk about his election, and within a few short phrases, I was able to transition the conversation away from the presidency and towards the gospel.

This is how we need to structure our conversations so that when the topic of politics comes up, we transition from hate to hope. This expectation is valid both in exchanges with believers and even unbelievers. Instead of focusing on the division of anger, we should use this as an opportunity to point people back to our Lord. Consider the following options to transfer attention from politics to God:

Note God's sovereignty and how that brings stability.
Go to Romans 13 and focus on the Lord’s orchestration of government.
Fixate on a future, eternal hope that supersedes the temporality of this world.
Draw attention to the ineffectiveness of politics to save humanity or solve its problems. Explain a biblical worldview and how it is a better hope.
Help others to see depravity and sin, and thus the need for a permanent Savior.

There are many directions to steer a political conversation towards the gospel; these simply provide some foundational points to act as a guide.

How each of us spends our conversational time is a matter of personal conviction. Yet, I would urge caution against letting politics hijack it. Already, I lament the amount of time conversing about politics rather than used as an opportunity for edifying conversation that may honor God. We are called to make the most of every opportunity, and our time conversing with others is one of those opportunities. While the world is arguing over this world, how will you guide them towards the next?