Reasonable (The End of the Empire 4)

“Come now, and let us debate your case,” says the Lord, “though your sins are as scarlet, they shall become as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be like wool. Isaiah 1:18  NASB

Debate – You are probably most familiar with the King James version, “Come, let us reason together.”  The Hebrew verb is yākaḥ (decide, judge, prove, rebuke, reprove, correct).^[1]  The NASB captures the idea more accurately.  God is not asking us to enter into a rational/logical conversation.  He is inviting us to a debate, a legal engagement in His courtroom, so that we can present our case of mercy (if there is such a case).  But the technical exegesis isn’t the focus of this particular investigation.  What I want to highlight is the underlying assumption of rational dialogue.  God isn’t asking for an emotional plea, nor does He expect some mystical incantation or placating ritual.  He’s interested in logical persuasion, in a conversation where both parties understand what it means to present evidence and draw conclusions.

Why is this important?  Toward the end of the Roman Empire there was a shift in this expectation; a shift that reflected a considerable change in the intention of public discourse.  This shift didn’t come about by accident.  Behind the move away from rational dialogue was a religious/political agenda.  Understanding why this happened sheds light on what we are experiencing today.  As the saying goes, “There’s nothing new under the sun.”

Richard Lim’s analysis of the steps that led to the collapse of rational dialogue are instructive.  First, intellectuals posed difficult questions for the authorities and the general public; questions that were intended to upset the convictions of the listeners, but not necessarily with the intention of determining the truth. The reason such disturbance was even tolerated was because “The early success of the religion owed much to a fluid cultural landscape and porous group boundaries, notably among urban intelligentsia, yet this environment of easygoing exchanges threatened the communal solidarity of local groups . . .”[2]  In other words, the fact that rigid orthodoxy did not yet exist allowed the free exchange of ideas and this provided the opportunity for those who wished to upset the status quo to voice their opinions without serious reprisal.  The double-edged sword of dialogue opened the way for the next step.

That step occurred when the questioners began to undermine the basic assumptions of the civilization.  Since the Roman Empire was by then a Christian Empire, we see the consequences in the Christian reaction to Manichaean challenges.  “The ensuing crystallization of a Christian Adversus Manichaeos literature rigidified group boundaries, fixed normative orthodox and heretical identities, and consequently precluded spontaneous disputation between ordinary orthodox Christian and Manichaean challengers.”[3]  In other words, the threat produced orthodoxy and orthodoxy produced heresy, justifying the exclusion of all who did not conform.

What happened to rational dialogue?  It devolved into dogmatic assertion.  Now it was no longer necessary to convince the other of your logical conclusion.  It was only necessary to force him to submit.  Persuasion replaced truth.  Success was determined by the number of convinced subscribers.  The masses ruled.

“Asked to characterize a public debate, a Greek might have used an analogy, an antithesis, or both.  He might liken a debate to a wrestling match, or a gymnastic contest such as the pankration, with its strict rules (nomoi).  Or he might contrast the debate with a brawl or street fight, the latter resembling ritual contention in traditional villages in which each person takes a point of position and repeats it endlessly, either one after another, or both alone or several at once’ . . . because ‘points of view are rarely developed, merely asserted . . . [E]ach keeps yelling his point full voice until, usually, certain voices seem to prevail and the others fade.’”[4]

In the end, what mattered was dominating authority, not based on truth but on force.  This collapse of rationality led to the Dark Ages.  The Church reigned supreme with the power of the sword for a thousand years.  Today we have exiled the Church from the public arena, but human society cannot survive without authority so we have substituted politics for religion.  The pattern is the same.  Domination by force.  No need to provide evidence.  Evidence doesn’t matter.  All that matters is power under the guise of keeping us all “safe.”

Topical Index: rational dialogue, persuasion, debate, power, religion, politics, Isaiah 1:18

^[1] Gilchrist, P. R. (1999). 865 יָכַח. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 376). Chicago: Moody Press.

[2] Richard Lim, Public Disputation, Power, and Social Order in Late Antiquity (University of California Press, 1995), pp. x-xi.

[3] Richard Lim, Public Disputation, Power, and Social Order in Late Antiquity (University of California Press, 1995), p. xi.

[4] Richard Lim, Public Disputation, Power, and Social Order in Late Antiquity (University of California Press, 1995), p. xiii.