On October 7,2009, The Wartburg Watch took a trip to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to listen to the debate entitled: God and the Problem of Suffering.  This debate was sponsored by the Carolina Apologetics Club, which utilized the Fixed Point Foundation and its resources in order to put on a world-class debate.  It was advertised on campus thusly.
 
 “Dinesh D'Souza is a best-selling American author and speaker who has become a front line defender of Christianity. D'Souza is an accomplished debater and former policy analyst in the Reagan administration. His most recent publication, What's So Great about Christianity, is a defense of the Christian faith.
 
Bart Ehrman is a distinguished professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. A best-selling author, Ehrman holds a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary and is perhaps most famous for his contribution to the study of the "historical Jesus." In many of his best-selling books, Ehrman challenges traditional Christian beliefs about the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, and other aspects of Christian faith. He recently wrote the book God's Problem, addressing the Bible's views on the problem of suffering.
 
The debate will be moderated by Larry Taunton, executive director of Fixed Point Foundation”.
 
It is crucial to realize the importance that Bart Ehrman holds in these circles.  He relishes in demolishing the simplistic arguments that Christian students bring to the classroom.  He claims an evangelical heritage, attending Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College before losing his faith at Princeton.  He has written a number of books highlighting Biblical “errors” and theological missteps.  Many arrogant Christians, including a few pastors, have attempted to “demolish” him and usually end up on the receiving end of a club.  However, Ehrman has his weaknesses, which are becoming evident the more he publishes and debates.
 
Dinesh D’Souza cut his teeth on challenging the entrenched political bureaucracy at Dartmouth College while a student and became a powerhouse within the neo-conservative movement.  However, as a committed Catholic, he has begun to move into the issue of the defense of Christianity in light of the prominence of the New Atheism.
 
What is the bottom line from our perspective?  It was a great beginning and even accomplished something important.  What frustrates us to no end is the instant criticism from local Calvinista, JD Greear as well as Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary which featured JD's remarks on it’s blog.  Here is the criticism:

http://jdgreear.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/10/ehrman-dsouza-debate.html
 
“I have to admit that I was not all that pleased with the outcome of the Bart Ehrman-Dinesh D'Souza debate last night.  I have enjoyed a number of D'Souza's writings, and am much more (obviously) in his camp, but don't feel that he well represented the biblical position on the problem of evil.  Ehrman was at his best, raising all the right questions.  I found D'Souza's answers mostly flat, unsatisfying, and not really representative of the biblical/Christian position.

(Parenthetically, I will note that I am not sure why D'Souza was the one chosen for this debate… there are a number of Christian theologians who have written incredible books on the problem of evil. D. A. Carson, William Lane Craig, NT Wright, Tim Keller, John Piper, and Bruce Little (at SEBTS)… just to name a few. I have never heard D'Souza as a "go to" guy for the problem of evil. Ehrman is one of our nation's leading critics; I'm not sure why he wasn't matched with someone who has written on the topic)”.
 
It is important to remember that this debate was funded by the Fixed Point Foundation.  Greear would do well to figure out a way to organize the sort of debate that he would prefer and then fund it.

Secondly, Greear exhibits some degree of arrogance when he says that HE has never heard of Dinesh as the “go to” guy for the problem of evil.  His list includes some excellent people but some who have alienated fellow Christians due to their hard nosed Calvinism.  His “go to” list also excludes the great Dr. John Lennox and Dr. Francis Collins.

The Fixed Point Foundation has a bigger vision and is reaching out into a very big world (beyond the lower 48) that does not find hard-nosed Calvinism particularly appealing.  D’Souza is quoted on the Fixed Point web site as saying,  “Most of what is counted as ‘apologetics’ is stuck in the Christian subculture.  What makes Fixed Point unique and noteworthy is that they have managed to break free from a traditional model and take a confident Christianity into the world.”
 
Interestingly, William Lane Craig, one of Greear’s “go to” guys, debated Bart Ehrman in March 2006 at the College of the Holy Cross.  Reports on that debate sound similar to the one Greear posted on this debate.
 
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/william-lane-craig-bart-ehrman-debate-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus
 
In other words, many folks will walk away frustrated and absolutely convinced that another man could have done a better job.  The majority will believe that they guy on their side “won” the debate. William Lane Craig DID NOT deliver the hoped for knock out punch.
 
There is something more important, and perhaps overlooked in these debates.  The New Atheism is a relatively recent phenomenon.  As Christians, we are not used to being (as they said in “The Godfather”) “disrespected.”  However, atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins say that teaching our kids about faith is tantamount to child abuse.  We now enter debates on the receiving end of derision.
 
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-dna-of-religious-faith/
 
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48252
 
Secondly, scientific discovery has exploded!  What I (Dee) am about to share will be offensive to some; however, we plan to discuss this topic at length later in the week.  But, it needs to be said. Here goes…  Much of the science that has been espoused by young earth creationists has been discredited.  Now, don’t get me wrong.  There is nothing wrong with believing the earth is young; however, most Christians are totally clueless about the strides that have been made in the scientific field.  We need folks like Dr. John Lennox, who is a world-renowned mathematician, and the great Dr. Francis Collins to face down the likes of Richard Dawkins and others. Collins is a theistic evolutionist and Dr. Lennox is not a young earth creationist. They, at least, can approach these atheists agreeing on many scientific principles.
 
Finally, we need debaters who can put aside their secondary issues like rigid Calvinism and fight for the validity of a belief in a Creator God and His Resurrected Son.  We need to find common ground and focus on the real issues — like our kids falling for Bart Ehrman’s shenanigans.

  Sometimes we wonder if the reason why many churches and pastors spend time fussing about their authority and their fancy salaries is because they are too afraid to deal with the real reasons why Christianity is on the decline.  Fussing about the "role of women" is certainly much easier than trying to understand current science.  Justifying $500,000 pastor salaries is a heckuva lot easier than trying to fight the Bart Ehrman types who are affecting the faith of our kids.
 
Finally, the American culture is all about winning.  Unfortunately, we Christians take this further than sports figures.  We win when our churches are big; we win when a Presidential candidate visits our church; we win when our pastor is interviewed by Larry King.  Funny thing about this winning stuff though, our congregations may be large, but often they are filled with people leached from other churches who are in search of a better "show".  In other words, conversions are limited.  Baptisms are down and are primarily done on kids of the congregation and those who were sprinkled and need to be dunked in order to join.
 
In fact, winning in the New Atheism arena may be very different.  We win when we show that Christianity is a viable alternative.  We win when one or two people actually ask more questions after the debate. We win when we learn more about our opponent — something which we believe happened in this debate.  We win, when instead of criticizing one another, we figure out different ways of accomplishing our goals.  In fact we win when we are united in a common goal of bringing the reasons for our hope to an increasingly jaded world.  We win when a group of students brings an interesting debate to a university known for entrenched hostility toward Christianity.  We win when we are united in a common goal and do not let the likes of Ken Ham tear the foundations of our unity apart.
 
The bottom line is this.  We must not forget that this debate is an eternal one.  It is between good and evil, right and wrong, God and atheism, and so on.  The debate continues because our Lord tarries and gives us time to usher more souls into His presence.  The debate has not changed since the very beginning of time; yet our culture is different, our understanding of science has expanded, and our ways of relating to one another have changed.  We must find innovative ways of bringing the message. However, unlike a sports game, there will rarely be a declared victor in this world.  Points will be made, Christians will improve their tactics, but in the end, success will be seen in the world to come.
 
So, JD, quit your beefing, ante up the money for your type of debate, call in your “go to” boys, and let’s get this show on the road!  Time's a wasting…