WHEN CHANGE DOES AND DOES NOT HAPPENS 
People rarely change just from hearing better arguments. That fact is true in religion and politics. People change when they feel safe, respected, and emotionally understood. Only then do they relax their defenses and become emotionally ready to consider new information. And then, after they are emotionally ready to entertain new information, how they receive information depends on group identity, sense of belonging, and moral emotions (e.g. guilt, empathy, pride, shame, hope, etc.) These inner factors shape which facts feel believable, and which should be ignored or attacked.

Here are three good rules of thumb about when and how change happens:

• Deep change requires that internal emotional and relational conditions be satisfied first; only then is someone ready to accept intellectual arguments that include facts, logic and reason.
• If a foundation of trust and psychological safety is not established first, worthy, verifiable facts and reasoning may backfire by harden existing views instead of changing hearts and minds.
•  These conditions evolve slowly via shared, lived experience (e.g., personal crisis, empathetic encounters, etc.), not just evangelistic rhetoric.

Most political and religious evangelism practices do not follow these principles. Activists always look for a quick response to their logic and reason because they are convinced of the undeniable irrefutability of their logic and reason. In their prideful, self-righteous minds, anyone who refuses to believe as they do is stupid, ignorant or stubborn. This explains why most political/religious evangelism is so unfruitful.

Even though these efforts yield little movement between religions or political parties, evangelism is a fixture in both religion and politics because it energizes believers, reinforces group identity, and signals loyalty — whether or not evangelism measurably grows the flock or the voter base.

This bi-directional dynamic is especially problematic in America’s politically divided culture. Many journalists and academics have tried to explain why America is divided with facts acquired through interviews, focus, groups and polling. One problem with this strategy for gaining understanding is that these research tools are not able to diagnose deep, complex issues like mental health, psychology and character. The bigger problem is that research cannot expose self-righteous pride. Because pride is an internal issue, it is not easily diagnosed.

Strategies for religious and political change that do not recognize how pride affects the change process will be ineffective. Activists must understand how pride in both the evangelizer and person evangelized are indomitable obstacles to positive change.