In the last few years I have enjoyed listening to Elder James White and I have, through him and others more recently, learned the value of a well organized debate. For instance, last October White debated his Presbyterian friend Bill Shizco on the issue of baptism. Both men consider this a debate among Christians and their intent was not to “poison the well” against what the other believes, or burn straw men, or argue against red herrings, but their intent was to provide meaningful information about the content of their beliefs so as to provide a contrast between the two so the hearers may more accurately define what they believe and why.
This leads to the distinction between dialogue and debate. Much of what is commonly referred to in America today as debate, as far as I am concerned, is actually only dialogue. Take the presidential “debates” for instance; as we approach the beginning of November every fourth year, we can look forward to the candidates answering a predetermined set of questions asked by an “unbiased” media personality. Each candidate answers the question candidly and then usually offers a quick stab at his opponent’s position by saying something like, “…but my opponent will tell you…”. Without cross-examination, what we end up with is little better than the pithy (and often snide) prerequisite monologues with which we are pelted from our TVs in the form of “political ads”. This is symptomatic of the deep rooted problem—commercialism. Even our politicians have been reduced to a product to be consumed by the masses (at least they would hope), and our political system has traded truth for popularity as the chemical agent in the litmus test for a candidate’s legitimacy.
What is so sad is that this type of presentation has been adopted by members of the Church; some, in an attempt to bolster their opinions have employed worldly “debate” tactics such as, “poisoning the well”. What’s worse is that these men will often enlist fallacious argumentation to “prove” their opponents wrong. As Christians we are called to a much higher standard than that—we are called to present that which has set us free from the bonds of our slavery to sin—truth.
There actually are biblical categories for such fallacious argumentation: poisoning the well could be considered slander or gossip, setting up straw men and not fully availing oneself to primary sources or making sure one understands his opponent and thus representing him accurately are paramount to neglecting what Proverbs 18 says: “15 An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.” Verse 17 says, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” And verse 20, “From the fruit of a man's mouth his stomach is satisfied; he is satisfied by the yield of his lips.” Thus the thrust of this entry is to state that: cross-examination turns a dialogue into a debate. There is nothing inherently wrong with dialogue, in fact dialogue is a useful form of communication that allows us to begin to understand one another, but for the sake of truthfulness let us not call it debate unless cross-examination is employed.
Why do I say this; what is the big deal? After a monologue is given (wherein statements are made about one’s own position and about one’s opponent’s position) if the other party is given an opportunity to cross-examine the statements that were made, then many times the Truth can be promoted as illogical arguments and misrepresentation are brought into question. Because we are fallen creatures still (simul justus et peccatore) we sometimes cannot see our own self-contradictions nor how we are misrepresenting an opposing position due to our misunderstanding of it’s sources. There are often times others who couldn’t care less if they have misrepresented another’s position because they simply desire to negatively influence whatever audience they have been afforded and are willing to utilize the most pragmatic tactics to indoctrinate instead of educate and inform. Such tactics and strategies are manifestly sinful, nonetheless we are all guilty of having done it at one time or another, be it in a formal debate setting or with our husbands and wives.
In conclusion I want to reiterate the fact that cross-examination is important; it is a safeguard afforded to us by God’s common grace to help point out sin and protect us from sin while we communicate with one another; this is especially so in the Church. When we confuse a simply, and perhaps preliminary dialogue for debate, we may very well miss out on this very useful form of communication, in fact we may not communicate truthfully at all if this precious safeguard is forsaken. One last thing to remember is that we are all guilty of miscommunication and where it is sinful, this entry should remind me in particular of the long road toward glorification that is yet to be traveled.
This leads to the distinction between dialogue and debate. Much of what is commonly referred to in America today as debate, as far as I am concerned, is actually only dialogue. Take the presidential “debates” for instance; as we approach the beginning of November every fourth year, we can look forward to the candidates answering a predetermined set of questions asked by an “unbiased” media personality. Each candidate answers the question candidly and then usually offers a quick stab at his opponent’s position by saying something like, “…but my opponent will tell you…”. Without cross-examination, what we end up with is little better than the pithy (and often snide) prerequisite monologues with which we are pelted from our TVs in the form of “political ads”. This is symptomatic of the deep rooted problem—commercialism. Even our politicians have been reduced to a product to be consumed by the masses (at least they would hope), and our political system has traded truth for popularity as the chemical agent in the litmus test for a candidate’s legitimacy.
What is so sad is that this type of presentation has been adopted by members of the Church; some, in an attempt to bolster their opinions have employed worldly “debate” tactics such as, “poisoning the well”. What’s worse is that these men will often enlist fallacious argumentation to “prove” their opponents wrong. As Christians we are called to a much higher standard than that—we are called to present that which has set us free from the bonds of our slavery to sin—truth.
There actually are biblical categories for such fallacious argumentation: poisoning the well could be considered slander or gossip, setting up straw men and not fully availing oneself to primary sources or making sure one understands his opponent and thus representing him accurately are paramount to neglecting what Proverbs 18 says: “15 An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.” Verse 17 says, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” And verse 20, “From the fruit of a man's mouth his stomach is satisfied; he is satisfied by the yield of his lips.” Thus the thrust of this entry is to state that: cross-examination turns a dialogue into a debate. There is nothing inherently wrong with dialogue, in fact dialogue is a useful form of communication that allows us to begin to understand one another, but for the sake of truthfulness let us not call it debate unless cross-examination is employed.
Why do I say this; what is the big deal? After a monologue is given (wherein statements are made about one’s own position and about one’s opponent’s position) if the other party is given an opportunity to cross-examine the statements that were made, then many times the Truth can be promoted as illogical arguments and misrepresentation are brought into question. Because we are fallen creatures still (simul justus et peccatore) we sometimes cannot see our own self-contradictions nor how we are misrepresenting an opposing position due to our misunderstanding of it’s sources. There are often times others who couldn’t care less if they have misrepresented another’s position because they simply desire to negatively influence whatever audience they have been afforded and are willing to utilize the most pragmatic tactics to indoctrinate instead of educate and inform. Such tactics and strategies are manifestly sinful, nonetheless we are all guilty of having done it at one time or another, be it in a formal debate setting or with our husbands and wives.
In conclusion I want to reiterate the fact that cross-examination is important; it is a safeguard afforded to us by God’s common grace to help point out sin and protect us from sin while we communicate with one another; this is especially so in the Church. When we confuse a simply, and perhaps preliminary dialogue for debate, we may very well miss out on this very useful form of communication, in fact we may not communicate truthfully at all if this precious safeguard is forsaken. One last thing to remember is that we are all guilty of miscommunication and where it is sinful, this entry should remind me in particular of the long road toward glorification that is yet to be traveled.
No comments:
Post a Comment