Why Not Both/And?

In a few days I will be publically debating an atheist on the question, “Does God Exist: Where Do the Facts of Science and History and the Insights of Human Experience Point?”  That event will be held at Everett [Washington] Community College on Monday, December 10 at 7:00pm.  In anticipation of the debate, I was interviewed yesterday (December 7) at 5:00 pm, on “Live in Seattle, With Doug Bursch,” on KGNW Radio 820 am.  The experience of conversing (for 20 minutes) with Doug on my convictions about sharing the Gospel was a lot of fun, and I was very grateful to have been given that opportunity.  However, later in his program, at its conclusion, he expressed concerns about the entire matter of debating.  He was concerned, first of all, about the prospect of one person ending up being humiliated because of the superior arguments of the winning opponent.  And he suggested as a preferred approach to addressing unbelief, that Christians instead convey the message that all are “deeply loved” by God.

To his first concern, I don’t think I ever suggested an intention to humiliate my opponent.  I believe that a debate format, when held at high standards (and that is the wish of us both), presents a body of evidence offered up by both sides of a question (in our case, the one stated above) in order that the audience may come to their own conclusions (in our case, about the existence of God).  I fully intend to keep Jim Corbett (my “opponent”) as my friend, even as we both, at the same time, believe it is important to lay out our respective arguments for the audience to consider.  Of course each of us want to, in some sense, “win” the debate.  This seems to me quite natural.  If absolute purity of motive is to be the standard which either allows or excludes Christians from participating in debate (or any discussion or act of witness at all, for that matter), then we are disqualified from being witnesses at the very outset.  But thank God He mercifully and graciously does use sinners…such as me!  At bottom, the goals of debating that I personally strive for include firstly, to inform the audience of a whole array of evidence (that they may never before have heard) in favor of the existence of the God of the Bible, and secondly, to persuade as many as I can, to move in the direction of faith in Him.

What then, about conveying to others the message that they are “deeply loved?”  Of course this is our mission and our obligation, and, in the name of Christ, it is also our highest privilege!  This is the staggering message founded on the truth that our God gave His only Son for our entire world, including the very person we happen to be speaking to at any given moment.  The Apostle Paul writes, “If God is for us, who can be against us?  He who did not spare His only Son but gave Him up for us all, how will He not give us all things in Him?” (Romans 8:31,2).  The radio host had a valid point on this matter that it is urgent for us to emphasize.  Yet we are not forced into an “either/or” proposition.  We are instead driven to see the importance of the “both/and.”  Unless it is actually true that we are deeply loved, then that very assertion that we are “deeply loved” may sadly be nothing more than a figment of our imagination.  This is indeed the assertion of the atheist.  Thank God for us all (on both sides) that the atheist is wrong.  The actual fact of the matter is, the Bible does not leave us clinging to our imaginations, but instead points us to the robust set of facts which undergird the rock solid foundation of the Christian message.  There indeed is an Almighty God who, in fact sent His only Son for us all in love.