Foolishness: “I consider debating to be a total waste of time.”
Wisdom: “The first to state his case seems right, until his opponent begins to cross-examine him.” Proverbs 18:17
If the two-page, surface-level, inaccurate article that Reagan wrote against Pre-wrath recently is any reflection of what his competency would be like in a debate, it is understandable why he refused. As we learned this past week, David Reagan has rebuffed my offer to have meaningful interaction in a public format. He considers this interaction “a total waste of time.” He is wrong, and every truth-lover should be offended by such a claim.
Debate is simply an orderly exchange of ideas in which each person receives the same fair amount of time to present their case. It includes meaningful interaction in cross-examination in which theological positions are held accountable; i.e., assumptions, inconsistencies, and false claims cannot go unchallenged as they often do in print. There is only one conclusion that someone must come to if they think that this meaningful interaction is a waste of time: They want their assertions to be immune from examination. They do not want to be seriously challenged.
The most effective format for two individuals with opposing views is not behind a keyboard or a book, but a public debate each having the same amount of time periods of an opening, rebuttals, cross-examination, and closing. And you cannot have a real debate without cross-examination; it is the soul of the debate. Otherwise, all you will really have is two monologues, not a dialogue. Further, the moderator is very important to a debate in managing and enforcing the protocol. If a debate functions as such, I believe that God’s people are edified by witnessing a genuine engagement and accountability between theological perspectives. And most of all, God is glorified in this effective manner of communication that seeks after Biblical truth.
