A while back I was privy to a private debate between two well known theologians from opposite ends of a theological spectrum. The spectrum was dispensationalism verses reformed theology—a long standing discussion that we don’t have time for today. There are good and godly men on both sides. Dispensational thinkers include, Tony Evans, Chuck Swindal, Andy Stanley, Norm Giesler, Frank Turreck, David Jeremiah and many, many more. Some of the reformed would be John Piper, RC Sproul Mark Drisscol and many more. But that’s not what today’s post is about. Today’s post is about the method of debating and how things have changed in regards to the what used to be the trump card in any debate—TRUTH.
As this debate heated up, about 20 people at the private meeting listened on as point after point was made on either side. That’s when it happened…
One of the debaters made a point the other guy apparently had no answer for. He stammered and muttered for a few moments and looked worried and a bit trapped. Then, all of the sudden his eyes lit up and his voice grew loud and passionate as he proclaimed,
“I love Jesus with all of my heart and what I know is this, My Savior died for me and I will live passionately for Him or die trying!”
It was beautiful. Really.
It also had nothing whatsoever to do with what they were debating. It was also something else…
Effective (useful to an end, helpful to the cause). Oh, and one more thing…
Affective (emotional, sentimental, moving, touching)
Which leads me to the point of the post. After this passionate plea was made I watched the tide turn in this debate—not toward who was clearly winning, bit toward who was more passionate and ‘on fire.’ According to the rules and goals of the debate the emotional dude actually got trounced. It wasn’t even close. A little embarrassing to watch, truth be told. But the passionate outburst (the first of many) changed the game by shifting the momentum. As a result most saw the debate as a bit of a tie.
A tie??!!
That’s right—a tie. Or worse, a win by Eddie Emotion over Truthful Teddy. Why? Because Truthful Teddy wasn’t great at grabbing the hearts of the people. Actually, he spoke rather robotically and to the point. The other gentlemen seldom made a point without pounding the table or waving his hands in the air, raising his voice, wiping away an imaginary tear or staring down his opponant—all of which added up to a preceived victory for some.
No harm no foul. Right?
Wrong.
The lesson here is a big one. Why don’t you think about what I’ve said and we’ll pick this back up next week?