2020.10 | It's Not Debatable!

I watched the first U.S. Presidential debate last night with growing horror. It was unlike any other I’ve ever watched in over 40 years of paying attention to US politics, more closely resembling a high school brawl or a fight than than the mostly civilized exchanges and the merely-pointed barbs we’ve seen in the past.  

I woke up this morning remembering “debate” as I learned it in high school during the 1970s when competitive debate was almost as popular as football.  Maybe it was the era or maybe it was the fact I lived in Oregon where rain made almost any indoor activity extremely popular in the winter.  For whatever reason, I and several hundred high school students spent many a long Saturday at debate tournaments, trying to best each others’ arguments for and against the annual debate topic, which was typically something like:  “Resolved: The United States should have a national health care system.”

Our debates, whether we debated alone in Lincoln-Douglas or as a team in Cross-Examination, were highly structured.  The first team would speak and lay out all the arguments and evidence in favor of the topic, then the second team would respond, countering those arguments.  Short time periods for clarifying questions were allowed.  In the second round, each team used their time to either rebut arguments made by their opponents or to point out where their opponent had simply failed to respond or had used inadequate information.  Ultimately, a judge or panel of judges would determine which team had “won,” a decision that was usually based on the strength of one’s arguments and one’s skills in rebutting the arguments of the opponents.  

Here’s the kicker:  you never knew whether you were arguing for or against the topic until the coin toss immediately before the start of the debate.  There was a 50-50 chance you would be arguing for (or against) national health care, so you had to be prepared to argue compellingly and with evidence on behalf of the topic you were assigned. Winning, however, was impossible without listening to the opponent’s arguments.

As a result, those who excelled at debate were articulate and impassioned but also excellent researchers, organized cataloguers of information, and astute listeners, capable of hearing and responding to the arguments of their opponents.  Many went on to be lawyers, government officials, and elected leaders. 

In other words, my experience of high school debate was a far cry from the model of communication demonstrated on national television last night.  It’s no wonder my teenage daughter and many others opted out of watching.  Even I had to admit there was nothing to learn last night except what not to do.  

Curious if the Bible had any wisdom for us, I used my handy-dandy NRSV concordance and discovered that the word “debate” is used only in Chapter 15 in the Acts of the Apostles. It seems that non-Jewish (Gentile) converts to Christianity in Antioch were not keen on being circumcised, something that the Jewish Christians, particularly those who remained in Jerusalem, thought was required to be saved.  After a good deal of debate in Antioch, Paul and Barnabas were persuaded to travel to Jerusalem, where yet more debate occurred.  Ultimately, Peter made the argument that the Gentiles, like the Jews themselves, were saved not by any requirement imposed by other humans, but by the grace of God.  HE was followed by Paul and Barnabas making their own careful arguments in favor of the Gentiles. 

Acts tells us:  “The whole assembly kept silent, and listened…”   After which, James, the leader of the Jerusalem Jews, having found their arguments compelling, reached a decision and announced that from then on, consistent with Scripture, Gentiles turning to God would not be required to be circumcised and that the faith would be open to all.  After the debate in Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch and the Christian faith grew by leaps and bounds as the word spread and more and more Gentiles were accepted into the faith.

So, it seems, our Christian faith is built on a stronger model of debate than we saw last night:  the making of arguments, the citing of evidence, the questioning of witnesses, and most importantly, the quiet, concentrated, and focused listening to others. Without those skills, we definitely would not be celebrating World Communion Sunday this week nor would we be engaged in the work we do to address the needs of our neighbors or to ally ourselves with other faith groups. 

Let our prayer for the remaining Presidential debates —  and for the time and events that will unfold after the election — be that God grants each of us, including our leaders, the ability to make thoughtful arguments supported by accurate information and the ability to keep silent so we might hear and understand what others are saying.  Amen.