All the World's a (Debate) Stage
All the World's a (Debate) Stage
Abandoning the pursuit of truth
With midterm elections nearing, many candidates are engaging in competing sound-bite commercials mislabeled as “debate”. The truth is, most wannabe elected officials would be hopelessly lost in a true debate.
But don’t nod in approval just yet, lest ye earn the label hypocrite. (Fingers pointed back at self here too, for the record.)
If you’ve ever posted to social media, it’s likely that at some point you’ve fallen into the same trap – for at least on this point, Elon Musk is right in his concern that platforms are becoming mindless “far right wing and far left wing echo chambers”.
Speaking of hypocrites, the Pharisees of Jesus’ time acted similarly. Their preferred means of discerning truth from the words of the prophets was to read and debate the prophets’ writings. It is a sound philosophy that can indeed lead to a far greater and more accurate understanding of any topic.
But somewhere along the way, this practice had become less about discerning and sharing truth and more about simply winning the argument. It was far more important to the Pharisees of that time to maintain their social status and power than to devote themselves to truth.
This is clear in their response to Jesus’ challenge to them in Matthew 21 (KJV):
24. And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.
25. The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven, or of men? And they reasoned among themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
26. But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.
27. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.
Obviously not the response of a group interested in truth.
And what of Jesus’ response? Well, just a few verses later he would go on to answer that question about John himself, continuing as he always did to share truth with them, despite their incessant refusal of it. He often made the Pharisees look foolish - but Jesus’ intent was always to reveal and share truth. The Pharisees’ foolishness lay not in his words to them, but in their own refusal to accept those words.
But again – let’s not be too hasty in judging those Pharisees without first being willing to judge ourselves in this area.
We all know at this point that a large number of God’s people (as defined by profession, though not so much by action) have frequently rejected truth in favor of winning an argument – or siding with one they might wish to win an argument (or – ahem – an election).
This is not new to our society, but it has certainly been far more prevalent in recent years – to our shame. Excuse the taking of James’ words out of context (3:10), but My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
Truth should be of near-paramount importance to the believer. In fact, the Gospel message itself is the essence of truth - the Truth of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, and return. We should therefore be diligent in defense of truth and vigilant to fend off any temptation to abandon it.
Should we as believers totally avoid debate? God forbid. Whether the topic be political, theological, or whatever-ical, debate can and should be a useful and welcome means of discerning, revealing, and sharing truth.
IF our purpose in engagement is pure.
If a believer values truth – and shouldn’t we all? – then the only valid purpose for debate is the furtherance of truth. Debating out of pride to show ourselves more knowledgeable or to make an opponent look foolish is misguided at best – and sinful at worst.
Which brings us to the entire point of this missive:
It follows, then, that a bold but humble pursuit of truth must be the guiding force behind our debate. Anything less renders us less than what we were designed by our Creator to be.
Unfortunately, we often sacrifice the pursuit of truth when it benefits our favored political party to do so, or when in our anger we lazily resort to an attempt at proving the opposition a fool. In either case, our abandonment of truth renders us lesser beings.
Shakespeare’s monologue which inspired the title of this viewpoint relates the life of man to a play in seven acts, from birth to death. It is fitting that when we read that monologue in light of the modern tendency toward blind, truth-forsaking partisanship, the Bard’s seven acts of a man’s life seem to melt into one consistently immature scene:
At first, the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms.
Then the whining schoolboy …
Then a soldier …
Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon’s mouth …
Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history.
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.