Sep
28
2009
"Some of It Was Scotch"
At the recent Desiring God 2009 National Conference, John Piper interviewed Douglas Wilson about the upcoming film Collision (see the new promo video for it at Amazon).
It is interesting to compare Wilson's embrace of the debate format to D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and his thoughts on "debating or discussing God." What do you think are the merits of each? Is there a third way?
***
[D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on why he refused to debate religion. From Preaching & Preachers, pp. 46-48. This excerpt includes only two of his four arguments, but I think this is sufficient to get the conversation started.]
The first [argument] is...that God is not to be discussed or debated. God is not a subject for debate, because He is Who He is and What He is....Holding the view that we do, believing what we do about God, we cannot in any circumstances allow Him to become a subject for discussion or of debate or investigation. I base my argument at this point on the word addressed by God Himself to Moses at the burning bush (Exod. 3:1-6). Moses had suddenly seen this remarkable phenomenon of the burning bush, and was proposing to turn aside and to examine this astonishing phenomenon. But, immediately, he is rebuked by the voice which came to him saying, "Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground." That seems to me to be the governing principle in this whole matter. Our attitude is more important than anything that we do in detail, and as we are reminded in the Epistle to the Hebrews, God is always to be approached "with reverence and with godly fear: for our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:28-29).
To me this is a very vital matter. To discuss the being of God in a casual manner, lounging in an armchair, smoking a pipe or a cigarette or a cigar, is to me something that we should never allow, because God, as I say, is not a kind of philosophic X or a concept. We believe in the almighty, the glorious, the living God; and whatever may be true of others we must never put ourselves, or allow ourselves to be put, into a position in which we are debating about God as if He were but a philosophical proposition. To me this is an overriding consideration which is enough in and of itself.
The second argument I adduce would be that in discussing these matters we are dealing with the most serious and the most solemn matter in life. We are dealing with something which we believe is not only going to affect the lives of these people with whom we are concerned while they are in this world, but also with their eternal destiny. In other words, the very character and nature of the subject is such that it cannot possibly be placed in any context except that of the most thoughtful and serious atmosphere that we know, or can create. Certainly it should never be approached in a light spirit, or in a mere debating spirit; still less should it ever be regarded as a matter of entertainment.