On Friday, Allie Beth Stuckey’s “Relatable” podcast featured a debate between her and New York Times columnist David French. What was significant about the debate was French’s willingness to confront one of his sharpest critics head-on. What is doubly significant is why they were even debating to begin with: Over the last several years, French, who bills himself as an evangelical Christian and conservative, has staked out positions at serious odds with the constituency he purports to represent. The pair debated a number of topics, among them “toxic empathy,” gender ideology and pronouns, why David French voted for Kamala Harris, and his praise of progressive Christian James Talarico. While I cannot rehearse every facet of the debate in a single essay, the main takeaway was that all the topics centered on what I will call a “truth-emotion continuum.” By that, I mean Stuckey and French seemed to emphasize different priorities in how they communicate and what they communicate. On virtually every topic, French kept returning to the need to show compassion and kindness and to extend empathy to those across the political aisle. Those are all valuable, noble, and necessary. The question is whether, on their own, they are sufficient to advance Christian witness in the public square. Stuckey, in contrast, questioned French about whether the emphasis on kindness and empathy can lead persons to adopt a posture of inoffensiveness and non-judgmentalism to the point that biblical clarity is forfeited. Stuckey came out ahead in the debate for one main reason that colored every issue: She grounds her understanding of emotion and empathy in a biblical axis, whereas French elevates emotion and empathy to a disproportionate degree, subordinating biblical clarity to assuage the offended. The consequence of this approach leads, in the long run, to untethering emotions from truth. But here’s what needs to be said: Emotions need to be regulated by truth. Emotions are not self-regulating, nor should they be embraced without questioning their veracity. Also clear were the rhetorical differences in their respective approaches to the truth-emotion continuum. In rhetoric, speakers tend to focus on either logos (reason) or pathos (emotion) to make their case. In the debate, Stuckey focuses more on logos; French, on pathos. Stuckey succeeded by bringing in the missing element in rhetorical theory: ethos, the idea of the speaker’s credibility. Credibility refers to the ability to speak with authority on a given subject. In my view, Stuckey offers a more credible witness because her approach is more biblical and just as compassionate, whereas French’s view is all compassion but little clarity. In debates over “toxic empathy,” truth gets pitted against compassion. But Stuckey demonstrated ethos by refusing to play the game of pitting love against truth (1 Cor. 13:6; Eph. 4:15). She’s obviously no less interested in kindness or empathy than French, but she is properly grounded in Scripture. French’s focus on catering to emotional equilibria (and thus hewing to progressive niceties) results in him blurring biblical categories. We saw this, for example, in his unwillingness to call James Talarico a non-Christian despite Talarico abandoning core Christian doctrines. It’s ironic that outspoken atheists who at least know what Christianity teaches (but reject it) are better at assessing whether someone is a Christian than some Christians are. The avowed atheist Friedrich Nietzsche would have no problem calling Talarico a non-Christian because of the orthodox doctrines that Talarico rejects. Why can’t David French? In truth, biblical cultural engagement requires both logos and pathos undergirded by ethos, but our engagement must be ordered and governed with a proper foundation in Scripture. And notably, French’s outsized empathy leads him to extend that empathy more typically in one direction, toward those to his left. While French emphasizes the need for all sides to listen to one another, it struck me how much more empathy was extended to the Left. They deserve the benefit of the doubt, while “MAGA Christianity” deserves only generalization and ridicule. As I scored the debate, Stuckey focused on objectivity, reason, and right and wrong as the grounds of what constitutes love and kindness, whereas French’s instinct was to defer to emotion and the unpleasant aesthetics of culture war. But another element of the debate requires attention, namely, French’s somewhat dismissive relegation of Stuckey’s concerns to matters of triviality. In offering his own commentary on the debate, Baylor sociologist George Yancey (who sided more with French) argued that Stuckey seems unhelpfully preoccupied with topics like homosexuality and transgender issues, whereas French focused on issues of greater global significance, such as foreign policy. He writes that “it became clear to me that these issues are deeply linked to her theological framework and this makes them priority issues.” While I generally appreciate Yancey’s work and perspective, I think he fails to understand what motivates Stuckey and the significance of these issues. There was one key phrase she used in her discussion that demonstrates why she is so concerned about issues of life, gender, and sexuality. She named these “creation order” issues. “Creation order” is Christian parlance for “natural law.” In particular, it speaks to the foundational principles necessary to ground society’s coherence, stability, and flourishing. What Stuckey is concerned about is not only one’s eternal state and biblical fidelity, but also what is true about human nature being reflected in law and upheld by broader society. In her thinking (and mine), if civilization fails to respect human beings at all stages of life, it undermines society as a whole. Human dignity, in principle, is jeopardized. If human civilization cannot lay out definitions and expectations for what it means to be male and female, it robs society of the most basic facet of our existence. And if civilization fails to uphold the sexual arrangements and familial arrangements that optimize human flourishing, we are sawing off the branch that makes society possible. Far from abortion, homosexuality, and transgenderism being niche culture war topics, they are building blocks that speak to the most essential foundations of human civilization. Regardless of how one scores this debate, the fact that figures like Allie Beth Stuckey and David French had this important conversation in person rather than online underscores the importance of individuals in different silos speaking to one another. While French’s and Stuckey’s disagreements remain stark, it was also apparent that they had much in common as they sought mutual understanding and clarity over one another’s views. And in this perpetually online age, we’re all better off for seeing an intense debate modeled with civility and charity. *** Andrew T. Walker is associate professor of Christian Ethics and Public Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and managing editor of WORLD Opinions. He is a fellow at The Ethics and Public Policy Center.