The 'Great God' Debate

I can't believe that on our inaugural posting this blog that I am going to disagree with my fellow blogger. But here goes…

We know from reading the Bible and from our own personal experiences that God (through the Holy Spirit) is the only one who can open a man’s heart and eyes to see the truth of who and what God is.

Would having Mark Roberts soundly beat Christopher Hitchens about the head and neck with the ‘God club’ really have changed Hitchens’ or the viewing audience’s hearts? I doubt it and, if anything, I would argue that it would have done greater damage for the sake of Christendom. Our job as Christians is to gently point non-believers to the Savior, not to drag them to Christ after we’ve knocked them unconscious with our superior knowledge of the Bible or our inflated feelings of piety.

As Christians we are called to be salt and light, but we are also called to do it with a spirit of gentleness and long-suffering. So Mark Roberts may have disappointed those of us who enjoy seeing a good fight, but I think he used the right approach. He was gently pointing Hitchens to the Savior.

It is not right to take a back seat to heretical banter. Being courteous is one thing, backing down is another. Jesus, himself, ran the money changers out of the temple. He didn't gently guide them out, He tossed them out forcibly.

If a person agrees to participate in a 'debate' he/she should expect to address the issue in question according to those terms. Is it right that we, being Christians, present our arguments apologetically just because we know the Holy Scriptures better than a lay person? Why was the 'debate' to take place at all, but so there would be two sides, strongly supporting their positions.

Debates are forums that exist so two sides can be presented, unabashedly, for the audience. The audience, after hearing both sides, seeks out answers to questions raised, or finds the ground on which they wish to stand. We, as an audience, like to hear others' perspectives. It strengthens our resolve, and/or causes us to question our reasoning and seek out answers.

The person who weakly supports his arguments in a debate, inadvertently strengthens his opponents stance. Why agree to debate, if what you want is to "gently point non-believers to the Savior", as my colleague has put it. Too many times Christians are thought to be unintelligent fools, who use Christianity as a crutch in life. I argue one of the reasons we have this stigma attached to us is that we refuse to stand up and fight when the opportunity presents itself.

God gave us our intellects, so why not use them? Is it unloving to truly participate in an intellectual debate, to truly take a stand, to back up your arguments and be strong for what you believe? All in the name of TOLERANCE we have let our voices be quieted and silenced. I contend that this kind of 'tolerance' and 'courtesy' is far worse than speaking up during a debate with strength and conviction.

It is not right to take a back seat to heretical banter. Being courteous is one thing, backing down is another. Jesus, himself, ran the money changers out of the temple. He didn't gently guide them out, He tossed them out forcibly.

If a person agrees to participate in a 'debate' he/she should expect to address the issue in question according to those terms. Is it right that we, being Christians, present our arguments apologetically just because we know the Holy Scriptures better than a lay person? Why was the 'debate' to take place at all, but so there would be two sides, strongly supporting their positions.

Debates are forums that exist so two sides can be presented, unabashedly, for the audience. The audience, after hearing both sides, seeks out answers to questions raised, or finds the ground on which they wish to stand. We, as an audience, like to hear others' perspectives. It strengthens our resolve, and/or causes us to question our reasoning and seek out answers.

The person who weakly supports his arguments in a debate, inadvertently strengthens his opponents stance. Why agree to debate, if what you want is to "gently point non-believers to the Savior", as my colleague has put it. Too many times Christians are thought to be unintelligent fools, who use Christianity as a crutch in life. I argue one of the reasons we have this stigma attached to us is that we refuse to stand up and fight when the opportunity presents itself.

God gave us our intellects, so why not use them? Is it unloving to truly participate in an intellectual debate, to truly take a stand, to back up your arguments and be strong for what you believe? All in the name of TOLERANCE we have let our voices be quieted and silenced. I contend that this kind of 'tolerance' and 'courtesy' is far worse than speaking up during a debate with strength and conviction.