Sunday, March 20, 2011

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.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, October 01, 2010

Knowing More About the Bible

A recent religious literacy poll done by the Pew research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life shows that Mormon know more about the Bible and religion than Catholics, Jews, and Protestant Christians. (See The Salt Lake Tribune, Sept. 29, 2010, p. A4.)

The finding surprised many who would have thought that “White Evangelical,” “White Mainline,” and “Black Protestant” Christians would have scored better than the Mormons. “We don’t study the Bible as much as evangelical Protestants,” Jim Faulkner, the Richard L. Evans chairman of religious understanding at BYU, told a Salt Lake Tribune reporter. “I would have guessed that evangelicals would do better. They have a lot of Bible study classes, some weekly.”

Let’s be honest, folks, these questions should not have mystified those calling themselves Christian.  How could more than half of the Protestants did not know who Martin Luther (that’s Martin Luther, not Martin Luther, Jr.) was? As my daughter likes to say, “Really?” Other questions that stumped those polled: Where was Jesus born? Who led the Exodus out of Egypt? What religion was Mother Theresa? What day does the Jewish Sabbath begin? (OK, this one is tricky. Answer: Friday evening at sundown—we’ll give a bonus point for that one.)

Out of the 27 questions, Christians averaged 13 correct. If I remember correctly, less than 50% on the test is an F, every time! Atheists averaged thirty percent better with 17 correct questions, for Pete’s sake! And Mormons—most of whom attend one-hour seminary classes every morning for four years of their high school careers—were just a little below that, at 16 correct.

So how can we process this? For one, shame on the Christian churches for not teaching our people better about the Bible and other religions. Instead of our youth groups heading to Disneyland or ski retreats every third weekend, perhaps we ought to be really doing what the BYU professor assumes we’re doing, having “a lot of Bible study classes.”

I don’t believe we do our congregants much of a favor by putting the Bible verses on the PowerPoint screen during sermon time, discouraging them from bringing their Bibles to church. Having moved to Utah recently, we’ve been church shopping, and of the dozen churches we’ve attended, only two or three are places where we saw any Bibles in peoples’ hands. Coffee cups, yes, even in the sanctuary, but Bibles, no. It just amazes me.

We can also know that just having a large knowledge of the Bible is, by itself, not very meaningful. After all, while Mormons averaged 7.9 correct out of the 12 Bible questions, atheists and agnostics were not far behind at 6.7. White Evangelical Protestants averaged 7.3, which is very close to the Mormon total. Catholic (5.4) and White Mainline (5.8) believers were left totally in the dust.

Yet if a Mormon brags that he knows his Bible better than Protestants—honestly, I had one do to me this week—we must gently remind them that those who don’t believe in God did better overall on this test than the Mormons. Does this mean that atheists have more truth than Mormons and Christians? While someone may know how to correctly answer Jeopardy-trivia-like questions, it’s putting the Bible into practice that matters.  Like, believing in one true God, believing that Jesus is God in the flesh, believing that grace, not our works, puts us into a relationship with God, and practicing loving our neighbor as ourselves.

It’s make-up test time. Now let’s get those pencils sharpened and start studying, Christian!  


Labels: