Debates can be funny things

Over the years, I've seen a number of live debates. This past week I was in Kansas City for the annual EMNR (Evangelical Ministries to New Religions) conference, where I delivered a workshop paper on the Qur'an and Islam. On the opening night, there was a debate between a Muslim and a Christian.

Debates are very interesting spectacles. The participants come not to listen to the other side but rather prove their own sides as truth. The audience comes with their presuppositions, internally rooting for their candidate to "smoke" the opponent. What usually happens is that frustration is in store for almost everyone involved.

This debate in front of a packed audience at Midwestern Theological Seminary was no exception. In essence, the Christian from England did indeed smoke the ill-prepared Muslim, a convert who apparently doesn't even know Arabic. (I never heard of a debater for Islam not knowing this vital language; I would think most Muslims would not take such a person very seriously.) This man seemed to concede from his opening statement when he looked back at his opponent and said, "Well stated." He never had a chance. Even though I like the fact that the Christian "won," I'd rather have the very best from the other side and have there be more of a match.

Here are the things that I believe would have made this particular debate a more satisfying experience:

* Choose a different topic: The one here dealt with "America" and the Bible and Qur'an. I felt the topic was much too general, as the Christian picked one aspect and the Muslim a completely different aspect. Why not pick something more specific, like the God or Jesus of Islam/Christianity, the truthfulness of the Qur'an vs. the Bible, or the way of salvation that the two religions have?  This would have kept the debaters on a more unified theme.

* Provide a chance for the two to interact. This particular debate offered no real interaction. The formate was 20 minutes each in opening statements, 10 minutes each in rebuttal, and 40 minutes in taking questions from the audience. Perhaps this question/answer section could have involved the two men sitting in chairs, with the moderator asking questions and letting them talk back and forth.

* Stick to the issue. Tangents were very common in their presentations.

I would never want to be the debater--wow, what pressure!--but there were a number of occasions when I thought, "Ahh, why don't you bring this up?" How rarely that happened. I might be biased, but what I wanted to say seemed to be so much stronger than what the debater offered. The Christian also talked very fast and used some technical terms that I was able to understand, but I'm sure most of the audience could not. My favorite debater is William Lane Craig. The guy is super intelligent, yet I find that he is very clear in his logic and speaking that many informed laypeople would be able to follow.

Overall, I enjoyed the experience. I guess I'll have to be content to realize that there is no such thing as a perfect debate.

Free speech vs. Good Taste

This past week, the US Supreme Court made a decision that caused plenty of controversy. A church in Kansas known for picketing funerals of US soldiers and homosexuals (among others)--saying the souls of these people were bound for hell--had to defend itself months ago in an important First Amendment case.

Now, this church--made up of Pastor Fred Phelps and a few dozen members of his immediate family--doesn't have good taste. Really, picketing nearby a funeral protesting people you don't even know in what appears to be more attention getting for yourselves than trying to proclaim the gospel of Christ? Nowhere in the Bible are we are instructed to needlessly offend. After all, 1 Peter 3:15 says we're supposed to have an answer for everyone and to give it to them when we're asked, but verse 16 adds we're to do it with gentleness and respect. Ephesians 4 says to offer up truth in love. Amazing, some of the very people Phelps pickets are the ones who are defending his very freedom to say they are going to hell. I just don't see a compassionate attitude with Phelps and his followers.

Yet the Supreme Court made the correct decision, voting 8-1 to say that, despite a hateful message, citizens have a right to Free Speech. If the Court had made the opposite decision, then we have to wonder where the line should be drawn. Perhaps someone is offended when I hand them a Christian tract. Should they be able to have me arrested for hate speech? What if I publicly disagreed with an ordinance having to do with abortion or homosexuality and someone said that my opposition was hateful? In fact, let's suppose 95% of the public said I was wrong about whatever it was that I was saying. Does this mean I should be silenced since the majority disagreed? I don't think most Americans would really want it this way.

This country was founded by our Founding Fathers who intended to allow speech that would be considered controversial and might go against the flow. To stifle this freedom because some abuse it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I might not like Rev. Phelps and his fanatics along with the message of hate that they spew. As a matter of fact, I think what they do is unbiblical and produces antagonism against the gospel. But I'll just have to do my best to ignore them if I ever run across their picketing activities. As an American, however, I must defend their right to say what they believe to be true, even if I think their ideas are ludicrous.