Why Debate is Healthy

Our recently held MacDonald Lectures Series featured Dr. Rodney Decker, a NT professor from Baptist Bible Seminary in Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania. Rod gave four lectures on “Crucial Issues in the Book of Hebrews.” The presentations were certainly stimulating, and we all benefited from the opportunity to hear from this very able scholar. If you were unable to attend, the lectures are available on our website.We provided a wrinkle in this year’s lectures series by asking our OT professor, Dr. Roy Beacham, to offer a response to Rod’s lecture on the New Covenant in Hebrews. After the response, Rod was given the opportunity to offer a rejoinder. While this type of give-and-take occurs regularly at academic conferences and in post-graduate courses, we do not typically hear of debates like this in the public venue we recently held here. But I believe everyone who attended found the exchange to be very healthy and helpful. Though Rod and Roy disagreed on the issue they discussed (each holding strongly to his view), no unkind words were said; no straw men were erected; no broad generalizations were raised; and an irenic spirit of discourse was demonstrated. These men offered a wonderful example of how academic debate ought to be enjoined.

So how was this event healthy? First, our students were allowed to hear two viewpoints on a crucial subject in Hebrews without either side offering weak or unfair arguments. This was a good lesson in knowing and defending one’s own position well while acknowledging the strengths and realities of the opposing view. Second, we learned that disagreement can be expressed without name-calling and without emotionally-driven pleading. Third, our attendees learned that it is okay to disagree on issues that are not central to the gospel. While this does not mean that either of the debaters did not strongly hold to his position, it does mean that each realized the significance of what was being discussed. Even on an issue like the New Covenant, our audience learned that dispensationalists can disagree agreeably about this doctrine without labeling one another as heretical or liberal. Of course, much more would have been at stake had we chosen to offer a debate on complementarianism or open theism, issues which clearly separate conservative evangelicals from leftward-leaning evangelicals. But within the bounds of Central Seminary’s doctrinal commitments (specified clearly in our doctrinal statement), this presentation of opposing viewpoints provided all attendees with a good model for how disagreement and debate can be executed. I hope to see more lectures series and conferences like the one we just held.