A Public Challenge to Mike Austin

Mike Austin is a well-known professor who describes himself as a "philosopher focused on spiritual formation, cultivating character, and contributing to the common good." He also publicly stated that he would be voting for Harris and Walz on social media.

These two things seem contradictory to me (as well as many others who are either philosophers or theologians). So, on Facebook, I publicly invited Dr. Austin to have a moderated discussion with me about this topic.  

My post received much attention with both likes and comments quickly shooting well into the triple digits. As many philosophically inclined Christian thinkers were engaged in fantastic conversation, the thought police intervened. Facebook, as is their custom, saw fit to delete my post. Because of Facebook's censorship, I have decided to offer this challenge on my own website as well as X (the platform formerly known as Twitter).

The following is what Facebook deleted:

I publicly challenge my friend Dr. Mike Austin (PhD) to a respectful debate about theology and politics. As the president of the Evangelical Philosophical Society (of which I am an active member), Austin has recently tweeted that he will be voting for Harris and Walz. Given their policies, I have argued that it is impossible for a *consistent* Christ follower to cast a vote for Harris and Walz.

This would make a great debate. It would also be extremely helpful to so many Christians who are wrestling with how we ought to use our God-given voting powers.

I would want to make this as easy as possible to prepare for and to be as precise as possible so that nothing falls through the cracks. So, I am open to crafting our speeches in advance or not. I don't care. I also don't care who goes first or has the last word. I just think we should do this and do it before the election. We can even do this over YouTube so no travel has to be involved.

I'd also be open to a 1 on 1 or a 2 on 2 if he prefers. Josh Klein would be my debate partner if Mike chooses the latter.

What do you say, Mike? 

EDIT (9/20/24) 

Mike Austin's Response

For many this will be TLDR, but I want to get it all out in one shot and move on with life, focusing on my particular call and vocation in my community, rather than extended social media interactions that are pretty draining and frustrating for me, as well as counterproductive:

After prayer and counsel from wise and trusted friends, some unprompted advice from others who watched this unfold, and thinking through the pros and cons myself, I have decided to reject Tim Stratton’s “public challenge” to debate the question: Can a consistent Christ-follower cast a vote for Harris and Walz in 2024? I offer some reasons for my affirmative answer to this question in the second half of this post.

Here is my reasoning for declining the debate challenge, from least to most important:

1. I think it was manipulative behavior of Tim to simply give this public challenge, rather than asking me privately (at least initially). If I rejected the private invitation, which I would have, he would of course be free to post about it on Facebook or his website. My guess is he’ll do a write up about my decision to decline. I prefer that he just move on, but obviously that’s up to him. If he does, I hold out hope it is fair and measured. The bottom line is I don’t respond to manipulative tactics.

2. I have had a policy for many years, one I’ve shared about publicly, that I will not accept invitations to debate people. My reasons for this come from Dallas Willard, who believed that debates these days aren’t conducive to truth. People tend to try to win, rather than discover the truth. Those goals can come apart, given the nature of contemporary rhetoric. Others disagree about this, and that’s fine. But it is my view, and I think many of the debates that happen in the apologetics world exemplify this problem. They too often like some weird form of entertainment or spectacle, rather than a mutual quest for truth.

3. While I considered making an exception to my policy here, I have decided there are additional reasons not to engage in this particular debate. I am convinced that it will *not* be fruitful. I am convinced that it would in fact be divisive in the body of Christ. It’s gone now, but if you read the discussion on Tim’s initial post with the challenge to debate, division was present. There was not a loving and mutual quest for truth using reason in union with Christ and one another. It wasn’t unity in the midst of disagreement. People misrepresented (intentionally or not) certain things. There was trolling. People mimicked the online behavior of Trump, rather than imitating the Way of Christ. This is tragically becoming more common in the apologetics and Christian philosophy community. I have absolutely zero interest in participating in such a spectacle, or feeding such behavior. I also don’t want to give the necessary time to prepare for it.

Three other things (the fallout, the EPS, and some reasons for a Democratic vote):

First, I would guess Tim and many others won’t be happy with my decision, or satisfied with my reasons. I expect some people (some of whom I can predict with a high level of confidence) to respond in ways that misrepresent, misunderstand, mock, troll, and that are intentionally dishonest related to my decision. I won’t be engaging any of it. In fact, I’ll be ignoring it. I will only say care for your souls, and guard your hearts.

Second, Tim claims that I am a danger to the church. If he really believes this, and other members of the Evangelical Philosophical Society agree, I am more than happy to step down before my term ends in November. I wouldn’t want to be the president if a majority of the members agree with Tim. And it seems to me that Tim and others have a moral responsibility to do so, if they think I pose such danger. The EPS president should be a help to the church, not a danger to it. As I told him, I think the claim is ridiculous, and encouraged him to contact my pastors and the other elders at my church, where I’m an elder. They are good men. They know me, and would provide many defeaters for his claim about my character and the alleged danger he thinks I pose to the body of Christ. He should also talk to EPS leadership and members who know me well, they will provide more defeaters.

Finally, for those interested, there is a lot of stuff out there from Christians and others making the case for a vote for Trump, a vote for Harris, or a vote for a 3rd party. Some of this is from people of sound mind and good heart who know more about these things than Tim or I do. It isn’t hard to find. Read, think, pray, discuss it with people you trust, and then vote your conscience. That’s what I plan to do. And doing so doesn’t make me (or you) ignorant, evil, or a danger to the Church. It makes me someone doing my best to follow the Way of Christ in a fallen world. I recognize I could be wrong. I wish others would do the same, rather than insisting that *their way* = *The Way* on issues that are penultimate at best. I could be wrong here. So could Tim.

For those interested in my reasons related to voting, here is a summary. There are objections to what I say, responses to those objections, etc. The issues are difficult and messy. I’m not arguing that one should vote for Harris, but that Christians can do so for reasons that are consistent with their faith. First, I’ve been “never Trump” from the start, for a long list of reasons I’ve offered online and in print. No need to recount them here. Others have done a good job on this as well. (See first comment for a good compilation of such reasons). He is fundamentally unfit for office as far as I am concerned and has done harm to our nation and the church. The remaining options are a 3rd party vote, a vote for Harris, or abstaining. I had said I’d vote for Harris, but now I haven’t made a final decision about which of these I’m options going to choose.

Here are some reasons why I think a vote for Harris is at least consistent with Christian commitments, when there is no ideal candidate or platform, or anything close to that ideal:

1. I am pro-life, which I’ve stated numerous times on social media, in online forums, and in print. I want there to in fact be fewer abortions. Given the historical correlation between lower abortion rates with Democrats being in the White House, there are pro-life reasons to vote for Harris. I’m not saying one should or must vote for her based on this, only that one *can* do so. Moreover, Trump and the Republicans are no longer a pro-life party, by their own admission and platform. Given the reasons women have for seeking an abortion, I favor policies that address those reasons related to economics, affordable child care, health care, housing, and the like. Check out data from the Guttmacher Institute for more on the predominant reasons women give for making such a choice. Moreover, we have some data since Roe v. Wade was overturned – abortions actually increased, and they increased during the Trump presidency. Given that Trump wants to leave it to the states, I don’t see abortion levels changing if he wins. If Harris wins, she has pledged to sign into law a restoration of Roe v. Wade, if such a bill is passed by Congress. I can’t predict such things, but given the empirical data and the nature of abortion and the reasons most women have one, the more fundamental task either way is the moral and spiritual task – winning hearts and minds – and meeting the needs of pregnant women (and of children after they are born) in love and mercy. In the long run, I suspect that this will save more lives, both born and unborn.

2. Many politically and theologically conservative evangelicals state that issues related to LGBTQ+ persons and policies are important to them. All I can say here is that such persons are fully human, made in God’s image, and should have the same fundamental legal rights that other human beings possess. I’m more confident that the Democrats will protect these rights, and the rights of other marginalized persons, than the Republicans. For those who hold that same-sex marriage should be abolished, or that cis-women need protected exclusive spaces, the cost for binding those views to a movement whose moral commitments all too often seem like a thin veneer for oppression and dehumanization have been and will continue to be high. Consult the wisdom to be found on the margins. It is eye-opening.

3. The economic opportunities in the USA are great, and our level of wealth so high, that we have more than enough resources to continue to provide a place of refuge, health, and prosperity not only for citizens, but also for many immigrants and refugees. We don’t need mass deportations, lies about Haitian immigrants, racist tropes, and the like (For more on recent false claims and these issues in general re. Trump/Vance, see NY Times links in comments). We need compassion and justice. There are limits to what we can do, and we have some bad policies. We need better border policies. Trump’s proposals are wrong. They are too radical. They involve separating parents and children, are often inhumane, and are usually predicated on racist stereotypes and fear. We need less time untangling Trump and Vance’s lies and having to protect the people and populations they target, and more on finding actual solutions. I favor the more compassionate and justice-based approach of the Democrats here.

4. We need a stronger and more effective social safety net. This is more of a priority for the Democrats than the Republicans.

I won’t be replying to comments here. Tim and others can have the last word if they want it. I’m not interested in spending my time interacting about these issues ad nauseum. Think. Pray. Talk. Vote your conscience. Then do the vital things: love God, love your friends, love those in your homes, churches, workplace, and communities. Be with and serve the poor and the marginalized. Love people you disagree with. Love people you don’t like. Love your enemies. This is the Way.

My Reply

Dear Dr. Austin,

As you know I couldn't disagree more. I was hoping we could hash this out in open dialogue. Manipulation was not my intent but we have both been vocal publicly about our positions which is why I made the challenge public. Indeed, you made public statements noting that you were cutting your break from social media short so that you could engage the exact statements I was advancing. While I am deeply disappointed that you have decided not to debate on this issue it is heartening for me to see you walk back your commitment to Harris/Walz and be open to a 3rd party vote instead.

As you know, I possess a justified belief that it is impossible for a consistent Christ follower to use his or her power to help advance the great objective evil advanced by Harris and Walz. While I would love to dissect the points you make in this post, all of which I feel are deeply flawed and based on misleading and manipulated data curated by leftist news outlets, I will respect your decision to avoid this debate. While I maintain my concerns I believe that many within the EPS will see this post alone and recognize the danger that comes with it (which is why I believe that your support on these issues is a danger to church, not you as an individual person), especially in regards to your comments on LGBTQ+ policies.

I hope to someday have a less emotionally freighted discussion on these and more issues with you. I still consider you a friend and colleague and I respect you very much which is why I was so forceful in my responses and challenges regarding this issue. I know that some might not like the tenor or tone of how I responded -- and perhaps I can sometimes fall on the side abrasiveness in that regard -- it is something I am *continuously* working on, but my commitment to honesty with my opinions, a desire to hash things out logically in regard to positions and defeaters remains unchanged. I will pray for you brother and hope you do the same for me.

I do believe that one thing is true, we both want what is right and true to prevail (which is exactly why I offered to debate) and while I believe your positions are either deeply misguided or based in ignorance of certain factors, I do not believe you come from a place of evil intent. As it stands I will continue speaking about these issues but will respect your decision to bow out of these conversations.

I look forward to seeing you at the EPS. If you have time, I'll buy you a meal.

In truth and love,

- Tim

PS: After reading Austin's claim to be "Pro-Life," philosopher Paul Manata posted the following:

"One of Mike’s points in favor of voting Harris-Walz struck me as interesting. The point: abortion rates decline at a slower clip under R presidents than under D presidents, so a “pro-life Christian” has a reason to vote Harris-Walz.

There’s a whole bunch out there on this, but that’s not the stuff I want to get into. Rather, I want to highlight the fact that gun sales rise (often soaring to record heights) under D presidents. In fact, the kinds of guns that start selling like hotcakes are precisely those Austin and others want to see banned or at least highly regulated. Now, given Mike Austin’s published work on guns, or given the views of your standard anti-gun advocate (anti- especially in the above sense, ARs, etc), do these Christians now have a reason to vote Trump?

I don’t think Austin, and other like-minded folk, would say “yes”. They’d likely argue that it’s the stance the party takes towards guns that matters, not the de facto situation that more guns are sold. Well, mutatis mutandis for abortion, right?"