Jamin Bradley

As I was scrolling through videos one day, I came across a debate between a popular psychologist and a young man. The video’s clickbait caption claimed that the psychologist had destroyed the young man, so I watched to see what this popular figure was like. I listened to the young man’s compelling case and then braced myself for the backlash. After a minute or two, the video was over, and I was left with a raised eyebrow.

Despite the caption, it felt clear to me that the psychologist had lost the debate. With a flustered, angry expression on his face, he focused on deconstructing the young man’s questions and statements with big words rather than addressing anything he actually said. And then, after saying nothing substantial at all, the video ended before the young man could reply.

I was confused. How did anyone think that the psychologist had won in that clip? All I had seen was a masterclass in how to use academics and prestige in a moment of defensiveness to make your opponent look stupid and make you look brilliant.

There are a few tactics you can use to do this, and this is true of theologians, bible scholars, psychologists, philosophers, and so on:

1. You use big words to make your opinion look more secure than it is.
2. You season your reply with direct insults.
3. You frame your opponent as an idiot.
4. Sometimes, you add sweeping statements (ie, 99% of people…; I’ve read everything there is to say on…; etc.)
5. And most importantly, you make everything you’re saying sound so secure and authoritative that your audience is won over by the fact that you are convinced you are right, rather than the actual words you are saying.

While I greatly appreciate Martin Luther’s Reformation and the path it paved for modern Protestants like myself, he would be a good example of this kind of debate. While reading some of his essays a while back, I was startled and troubled by his rhetoric. There were several times when I watched him tear theologians apart when they disagreed with him, making them sound like the dumbest people who ever lived. Sometimes he’d quote doctrines I believed in and make it sound as if those beliefs had no Scriptural grounding whatsoever, despite the fact that I could cite many passages to support my case. With that kind of personality, it’s not too shocking that a movement rose up around him, especially in a world where so many didn’t have the tools necessary to do their own theological investigations. Might as well follow the guy who sounds sure that he’s right. (Again, I appreciate Luther and much of his movement, even though his rhetoric bothers me.)

Indeed, I’d suggest that many of our modern political situations have arisen because the president uses these same kinds of tactics in his rhetoric. People naturally gravitate toward leaders who say what they want to hear in the most absolute way possible, and that fire burns ever hotter when those leaders (be they religious, political, or philosophical) openly insult the same opponents we have.

If we are to lead well in whatever branch we serve in, it must be with the character of Christ. If we are to argue well in whatever field our voice is welcomed, it must be with the conviction of the Holy Spirit. And if we are to do any of this the Kingdom of Heaven way, it must be with humility, and not with pride.