In a September episode of Q&A, the ABC’s flagship debate program, Sydney Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen was asked to outline why he thought submission had a role to play in marriage. In a couple of minutes he sketched the responsibilities the Bible placed on both men and women. Then host Tony Jones handed the proverbial conch to writer and comedian Catherine Deveney. Her response?

“I would like to congratulate you on your decision to fly the colours of your misogynist and medieval religion.”

Welcome to what passes for debate in 21st century Australia.

Thanks to Twitter, the blogosphere and programs like Q&A, activism is certainly alive and kicking. However “kicking” seems to have filled the space that debate used to occupy. Protest has become the point, rather than getting your point across. Commenting on the violence of the recent Muslim protest in Sydney, Monash University lecturer Waleed Aly worried that his Islamic community was in danger of becoming defined solely by their grievances:

“Then you have an identity that has nothing to say about itself; an identity that holds an entirely impoverished position: that to be defiantly angry is to be.”

His concern is one all Australians should share. Return with me to that September episode of Q&A:

In the 22 minutes that followed the wedding vow discussion host, Tony Jones asked the Archbishop to outline his opinions on same-sex marriage, the evidence for a gay gene, the existence of God and the diminished life expectancy of homosexuals. Jensen met each change of direction with patience and then posed his own question, not for the host but for all Australians:

“When do we get to the point where we can talk about these things without shouting at each other, or hurting each other?”

Deveney answered with a slogan: “Homosexuality is not a health risk, homophobia is.” In a single sentence she divided the world into those who accept homosexuals and the irrational who hate them. Just in case the point was lost, she finished by shouting to the audience, “Hate kills!” Applause erupted. Yet the audience clearly weren’t celebrating the victory of reason but the denigration of an opinion. No one was interested in articulated belief, just vehement disbelief.

Public debate, particularly on television, has become more about airing opposition than airing ideas. Q&A presents itself as “democracy in action” but its structure hardly allows for a considered approach. The rapid fire of tenuously-connected issues leads to little more than a statement of position followed by an opportunity to mock its holder. Jones continues to invite viewers to, “Join the conversation,” via the program’s much-vaunted online media, but the video questions are selected in advance and the host actively ignores the show’s Twitter stream. And who could blame him? The comments are often the electronic equivalent of heckling.

The problem is symptomatic of a much larger issue: our lost desire to articulate what we think. Postmodernism has so flooded the intellectual market with opinions that must be given equal validity, that proving the credibility of your idea seems an impossible task. Instead people have learned to opt for the infinitely easier option of shouting alternatives down—or laughing at every serious objection. C.S. Lewis describes it as “… a manner which implies that they have already found a ridiculous side to it.” Deveney’s insistence that the church is a museum where you can listen to “dinosaurs” like Peter Jensen is just one example of this TV platforms that literally pause to celebrate the quick quip over the reasoned response only encourage this process.

However, that’s not actually the entire reason the Archbishop got handed his hat. A final look at that September episode:

What preceded much of the vitriol was a 20-minute tense but fair discussion about the processing of illegal immigrants during which no one was labelled a dinosaur. The topic was literally offshore; sexual freedom was much closer to home. It’s exactly because Christianity is becoming clearer about what it stands for that the opposition is also crystallising. Amendments to Q&A’s format could encourage more reasoned discussion, but none of them would prevent the opposition that will always accompany the clearly-stated gospel. In a recent interview, the Principal of Moore Theological College, the Rev. Dr. John Woodhouse, suggested that debates like this one are the tremblings of a seismic shift:

“For the first time in my experience Christians are being perceived as evil. Until recently Christians have been dismissed because they are overly self-righteous… [but] our society which was so influenced by Christianity has been losing those roots so that now what we stand for is perceived to be evil.”

The days of expecting that our society will perceive Christians as good, or at least well-intentioned, are actually over.

The days Jesus warned us about, when the sword of the gospel would sever relationships, have dawned. We can insist on Christian ideas being aired fairly but television debates are only the pre-show entertainment. Whatever the arena, we would do well to be ready to take up our cross and follow our Lord.