Skip to content

It ain’t over till it’s over

“The debate is over” – this is an argumentative gambit I’ve noticed quite a few people using recently around the web. It’s a subtle rhetorical device, designed to make people who disagree with you sound petty and ill-informed.

The three debates that I’ve noticed it being used in are as follows:

  1. The debate concerning the place of faith and works in the Christian life, related to the so-called “New Perspective on Paul”
  2. The debate concerning God’s sovereignty and human responsibility in evangelism, related to mission strategy in the Diocese of Sydney
  3. The debate concerning evangelism and good deeds in mission, related to the Lausanne Conference

Here’s how the device is used:

  1. You raise the issue
  2. You declare with authority that “the debate is now over”
  3. You observe that nevertheless, certain people are still debating the issue

When you use this device, you are implying two things:

  1. You belong to a privileged circle of people who are properly qualified to talk about the issue (i.e., in the cases I mentioned above New Testament scholars, a group of Sydney Anglicans, missiologists), and who are no longer interested in talking about the issue.
  2. Those who are still debating the issue don’t belong to the privileged group. They are therefore ill-informed, or petty, and clearly not qualified to talk about the issue, and not worth listening to.

I don’t like this device, and I think it should should stop. Why?

  1. It’s elitist. Just because your own circle claims to have worked out the issue, doesn’t mean that other areas of discussion about this issue are irrelevant.
  2. It’s illogical. If people are still debating the issue, then the debate is not over.
Published inFaithJustificationMinistryPaul

Publications by Lionel Windsor:

  • Lift Your Eyes: Reflections on Ephesians

7 Comments

  1. Reminds me of CS Lewis’s concern about our sinful desire to part the “inner ring”!

    (BTW is it possible to install Google +one button for those of us who have crossed from Facebook to Google?)

    • Hi Luke, good thinking. The Inner Ring is a wonderful little essay, first introduced to me by the very wise Andrew Cameron. I commend it to anyone who hasn’t read it.

      W.r.t. Google+, thanks for the tip; done.

  2. Hi Lionel,

    Well said!

    The person who thinks ‘the debate is over’ seems to have forgotten that the next generation (1) weren’t around when the debate happened previously and (2) haven’t read the books / articles and probably haven’t thought about the issue. If they aren’t prepared to discuss the issues again it seems to me that they either don’t care what the next generation thinks / believes or they don’t have much in the way of an argument to give them.

    Of course, if they are making the statement to their contemporaries they may be saying ‘I don’t want to continue the debate and am proceeding on the basis that I have won’.

  3. Hi Lionel, and a bit late, but I like what you are saying too.

    I’m intrigued of course by who’s doing what in your second and third examples. But that’s just gossipy curiosity.

    I think there is a time when it’s fair to say the debate is over, and it is really only the lazy or stubbornly biased person, or the ostrich, who does not want to see it. For example, what about the historical claim that Jesus did not die by crucifixion. Recently, I discussed this topic on a website encouraging Christian-Muslim dialogue. I showed that there is good evidence reporting this event in a number of early sources in the New Testament, in respected non-Christian historians close to the time (Tacitus and Josephus), and that across the enormous breadth and presuppositions of NT scholarship, it is almost universally accepted as fact (citing examples from atheists like Gerd Ludemann, Jewish scholars like Geza Vermes, sceptical scholars like Bart Erhman, as well as more orthodox Christian scholars.

    On the other hand, it certainly can be a strategy to avoid looking at new evidence, or reconsidering old evidence when a properly thought through new challenge is thrown up to old interpretations.

    Among our friends, I think sometimes complementarians have been lazy on the authentein issue simply relying on what other well known complementarian authors have said in this debate, without checking the evidence for themselves. At best we’ve read Baldwin’s article on the word in the Schreiner/Kostenberger book on 1 Timothy 2 and we say that settles it. But often the un-nuanced way the cite the article shows they did not read it carefully let along check all the occurrences of authentein in the original Greek themselves, let alone sometimes even check the standard Greek lexicon BDAG for the meaning.

    (For the record, I still think 1 Tim 2:12 means a woman should not preach in a mixed congregation or be a congregational elder. I am just not so dogmatically negative about NIV 2011’s translation of the verse!)

    • Hi Sandy – thanks! I think you’ve provided an excellent model of how to do this kind of thing properly. In each case, rather than simply saying, “the debate is over”, you have shown that there are specific people who are still debating the topic, and that there is another group of people who are no longer debating the topic. And you have given suggestions as to why the debate is finished in one area, and still going on in another area. I think this is very constructive, and helps people to be discerning about how to evaluate whatever “debates” are actually going on, and whether the debate is actually worth listening to.

      PS about the claim that “Jesus didn’t die by crucifixion”, you might be very interested in the website of Gunnar Samuelsson, whom I heard recently giving a presentation. I’ve written a post about this for the Briefing; it should be up in the next month or so.

  4. Lionel, as it happens, I was made aware of this research by my Muslim conversation partner, Abudullah, here who cited the CNN article to raise doubt over whether Jesus was crucified.

    So I read the article, and was astonished to discover that the scholar, Samuelsson in now way cast any doubt over the historicity of the death of Jesus by execution at Calvary, and in fact, accepted it was by crucifixion, just pointing out that there was some linguistic doubt over exactly the nature of the suspension and torture device used for the execution by the stauros word group from its wider use in ancient texts.

    There was certainly no support for the late and not-otherwise evidenced claim of the Qu’ran that Jesus only seemed to die on a cross, but in fact, did not die by such execution.

    My replies are here and here.

    Abdullah finally agreed that Samuelsson did not support his case.

    Nevertheless, follow the links and you can see the way the discussion went, although it is interleaved with other people’s contributions and so on.

    SG

    • Precisely – this was Gunnar’s point in the presentation too – his research had been completely misunderstood! It shows the need to check out news stories, and not to rely on headlines. In this case, the headline was utterly misleading (“Gospels don’t say Jesus was crucified, scholar claims”) and the opening paragraph was full of hyperbole (e.g. “attacks on Christianity”, “surprising”).

Comments are closed.

Recent blog posts

  • Walking past a telephone booth in OxfordThis love (Ephesians 2:4–5)
    “God loves you”: if I say just those three words, you may not hear what I want you to hear. This is because of a communication problem that arises whenever Christians try to talk about biblical concept of God’s “love”. When we say “love” we mean one thing—something wonderful and life-changing. But the word means quite different things to many English speakers. For example, the word “love” often means “strong desire”. So if I say “God loves you” then it might sound like I’m saying “God has strong feelings for you”. Another, increasingly common, understanding of “love” is the idea of “unconditional approval”. In this view, the way to “love” somebody is to affirm and approve of everything they do. So if I don’t approve of your actions and actively affirm everything you do, then by definition I’m not “loving” you (in fact, by definition I’m “hating” you). On this common definition of “love”, if I say “God loves you” then it might sound like I’m saying “God affirms everything about you and your actions”. But that’s not what the Bible means by God’s “love” either. Given this communication problem, how can I best explain the idea of God’s “love”? Well, it’s not actually that hard. The best way is to see how the word works when the Bible uses it. In Ephesians 2:4–5, Paul uses the word “love”. But he doesn’t just say “God loves you”. He explains and spells out what that love means. And he helps us to see what God’s love really means, and how amazing it is.
  • Entering a tomb in PompeiiWe too: the offenders (Ephesians 2:3)
    Judgmentalism. It’s a bigger problem than we think. Judgmentalism is certainly a danger for God’s people. That’s because God’s people have God’s word. God’s word helps God’s people to see how wonderful God is, and how terrible humanity is in comparison. But Ephesians 2:3 contains two highly significant, emphatic words: “we too”. We too, says Paul, were the offenders. We, too, were the disobedient. These words aren’t talking about all those horrible people “out there”. They’re talking about God’s people. And it’s something we, too, need to hear. These words tell us something incredibly important—something that we ignore at our peril.
  • Photo by Daniel Lienert on UnsplashThe root of the problem (Ephesians 2:1–2)
    I hadn’t visited the dentist for years. Then I felt a tiny amount of pain in one of my teeth. But I ignored it. I didn’t want to bother with a dentist. Anyway, I had my own solution: I’d always brushed my teeth quite thoroughly, and was proud of it. So I just kept brushing. But after a while, the pain came back. This time, it was worse. So I finally visited the dentist. That was painful, too. The root had become so infected that I needed root canal surgery. That was a while ago. But last year, it flared up again, as these things apparently do. And yet I chose to visit the dentist again, even though I knew it might be painful. Why? Because I’d learnt something. I’ve learnt that if I have a problem that goes to the root, and if I know someone who has the solution to the problem, I shouldn’t ignore it or try to fix it myself. I should face up to the root problem, and get help. So I got help. Now, I don’t have a tooth in that spot at all. In Ephesians 2:1–2, Paul seeks to go deep, to the root of the problem. The problem Paul talks about here is incredibly serious. It can be very painful to admit. But Paul can and does admit it—because he also knows the person with the solution. According to Paul, this isn’t a problem to ignore or try to fix ourselves. It’s not something we can educate ourselves out of. This is a problem to face up to, and get help.
  • Captivated by ScriptureCaptivated by Scripture: A personal reflection on D. W. B. Robinson’s legacy for biblical studies
    What made Donald W. B. Robinson such an inspiring and influential teacher for generations of students? His commitment to being captivated by Scripture. This is a paper given by Lionel Windsor at the legacy day and launch of Donald Robinson Selected Works Volume 3: Biblical and Liturgical Studies & Volume 4: Historical Studies and Series Index. Moore Theological College, Sydney, 16 March 2019.
  • The first thing to say about church (Ephesians 1:22–23)
    Here in Ephesians 1:22–23, for the first time in his letter, the apostle Paul uses the word “church”. He’s taken quite some time to get to this point. That might make you think that the church isn’t very important to Paul. But actually, the reverse is true. This is a climactic statement. So far in Ephesians, Paul has poured out his praise to God for his blessings and plans and purposes. He has told his readers how he is praying for knowledge and hope and strength in God. Now, finally, at the highest peak of this amazing prayer, Paul names “the church”. So what is the first thing Paul has to say about the church? What is the word he associates most closely with the church? What matters most to Paul when it comes to the church? The answer is, in fact, obvious. It’s so obvious that you might think it doesn’t need to be said. You might even wonder why Paul bothers saying it, when there are so many other more practical things he could say about the church. But while it might seem obvious, it needs to be said first. Why? Because it’s so easy to assume it. Yet without it, nothing else about the church makes sense.
  • Grave of John BunyanStrength to live (Ephesians 1:19–21)
    What do we do when we feel weak in the face of the powers that be? One response might be just to shut down, close ranks and find a bitter satisfaction in our identity as victims. Another response might be to try to fight as hard as we can to exert our power and dominance over others, seeking to turn the tables so that we become the conquerors instead of the oppressors. Both of these responses involve seeking strength and power in ourselves. They are often the way that oppressed individuals and groups in our world respond to the powers that are oppressing them. But is that the way God wants his people to respond to our weakness in the face of power? In Ephesians 1:19–21, the apostle Paul gives us a far better way to respond. Paul’s response involves looking for strength. But it’s not a strength that comes from within ourselves. It’s a strength that comes from God himself.
  • Christ, the Cross and Creation Care ConferenceConference: Christ, the Cross and Creation Care
    I'll be speaking at the "Christ, the Cross and Creation Care Conference", Sydney. 8.30am to 3.30pm, Saturday 22 June 2019. A conference run by A Rocha Australia
  • Palatine Hill from Roman Forum with contrails – Black and WhiteWhat’s the point of theology? (Ephesians 1:17–18)
    The full name of the college I teach at is “Moore Theological College”. That word “Theological” says something important about who we are. It reminds us about what we're on about. Yes, the Bible is at the centre of everything we do. Yes, we seek to train people for ministry. Yes, we're driven by the worldwide mission of Jesus Christ. Yes, we're committed to learning together, and having our characters formed in loving Christian community. But our careful study of the Bible, and our pastorally-motivated ministry and mission training, and our encouragement of one another in our community, all matter because of something more basic: theology. Unfortunately, the word "theology" can be misunderstood. It sometimes gets used to mean something like “technical details about spiritual things that experts argue about and isn’t much practical use to regular people”. But that's just a caricature. It's not what theology is. Theology is something far more profound, far more life-changing, and far more fundamental—not just for people at a college, but for everyone. In Ephesians 1:17–18, Paul prays for his readers—people who have come to believe in and live for Jesus Christ. It's a prayer for more theology.
  • Youth praying, Finchale PrioryPrayer: What are we actually doing? (Ephesians 1:15–16)
    “A Muslim, a Jew and an Anglican Minister walk into a classroom”. This was the advertising blurb for a local Community College seminar I participated in a few years ago. I joined a Muslim educator and a Jewish academic (who is also a friend of mine) to give a series of presentations on different aspects of our three religions to interested people from the community. When we came to the topic of ‘prayer’, I was fascinated to hear what my co-presenters had to say. Even though we were all using the same word, ‘prayer’, the word meant very different things in the different religions. As a believer in Jesus Christ, what did I have to say about what prayer is? What would you have said? Christians, too, can often be a bit confused or unclear about what prayer actually is. That’s where the Apostle Paul really helps us. In these verses in Ephesians, Paul starts telling his readers about his own prayers for them.
  • Photo by Danielle Macinnes on UnsplashThe Holy Spirit: Our security (Ephesians 1:14)
    The Stanford Marshmallow Experiments are a favourite illustration of motivational speakers. The lesson is this: If you can learn how to delay gratification early in life, you’ll do better in later life. Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? But unfortunately, like many popular conclusions drawn from famous psychological experiments, it doesn’t stand up to closer scrutiny. The more up-to-date study demonstrates something far more mundane: if you grow up in a secure home where you know there will always be food on the table, you’re more likely to be able to put off eating a marshmallow. This isn’t a particularly useful lesson for motivational speakers. But it’s a great illustration of what it means to be a child of God.

On this site

All content copyright Lionel Windsor