Israel Centeno

We live in an era where debate has become a spectacle. On social media and platforms like YouTube, it is easy to find people who have built their identity—and even their personal brand—around discussions on faith, reason, and the existence of God. But this raises an important question: Is this truly the path we are called to as Christians? Is it really fruitful to seek out debates with those who have no intention of being convinced? Do we not risk falling into the same vanity and self-justification as the skeptic who needs believers to sustain his unbelief?

Even more concerning is how many Christian thinkers in the digital sphere remain fixated on what certain intellectuals say, generating anticipation about their possible conversion. “So-and-so is almost converting.” “So-and-so has accepted the historical Jesus, but he still does not accept Jesus as God.” We find ourselves caught in a game that bears no real fruit, a game that only benefits those who control it.

Apologetics: A Service, Not a Spectacle

Defending the faith is a legitimate and necessary task. Saint Peter exhorts us:

“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15-16).

Apologetics is an act of intellectual charity, a service to those seeking the truth. However, when it becomes an obsession or a form of intellectual exhibitionism, it loses its true purpose and becomes a distraction.

The real danger lies in making debates an end in themselves, in constantly seeking confrontation with people who are not genuinely open to honest dialogue. There are skeptics who, rather than seeking the truth, seek only to reaffirm their unbelief in every discussion. They need believers as an opposing force against which to define themselves. But what happens if we, as Christians, fall into the same trap?

It is not hard to see how some debates resemble more a vanity fair than a sincere search for truth. The debate “27 Christians and One Atheist” hosted by O’Connor is not a genuine space for dialogue but a spectacle designed to grow his personal brand. Like many other high-profile skeptics, O’Connor does not seek conversion or mutual understanding. He desperately needs believers to maintain his business and fame, but he would never allow himself to be transformed, as that would mean destroying the very thing he values most: his image and influence in the world of skepticism.

This pattern is not unique to O’Connor. Many skeptics have turned religious debate into a means of gaining recognition, trapped in an ego-driven cycle where truth is the least important factor. Worse still, some Christians fall into the trap of engaging in these debates, believing they are evangelizing, when in reality, they are merely fueling an unproductive cycle of endless confrontations.

Even more troubling is seeing Catholics, Protestants, and even some Orthodox—though to a lesser extent—circling around Jordan Peterson and other skeptics who appear to be on the “borderline” of faith, thinking they are providing the final missing piece. Here, I address them directly: Do you truly believe that Jordan Peterson needs just one more argument, one more rational element to embrace the faith and acknowledge Jesus as God?

The reality is that Peterson already has all the necessary elements. He has explored Christian tradition in depth, reflected on the role of Jesus in history and culture, studied Scripture, and has even witnessed a real miracle in his wife’s healing. And yet, he continues to walk the line between belief and unbelief.

At this point, and I say this not with malice but with reason, his strength lies precisely in his ambiguity. His public identity is built upon the expectation of his possible conversion. Many Christian intellectuals have fallen into the fantasy that they will be the ones to convert Peterson, that they will witness his faith journey thanks to their efforts. They gather in endless roundtables with him, always offering one more argument, as if faith were merely a puzzle missing one last piece. But Peterson does not convert because he does not want to convert. Not because he lacks an argument or a religious experience, but because his continued presence at the boundary between faith and doubt is precisely what makes him relevant.

So what is the point of continuing to play this game?

We Do Not Reject Debate, But Debate Must Serve a Purpose

Let us be clear: we do not reject debate. Debate has its place when its goal is to clarify and defend the faith, when both parties engage in good faith, genuinely willing to listen and be challenged. A debate is fruitful only when the participants understand that they are not debating simply for the sake of debating but to arrive at a conclusion.

However, turning debate into a constant practice—an ongoing exercise of rhetoric, logic, and argumentation—shifts the focus away from Christ. It places debate itself at the center, displacing Jesus from the discussion. Instead of seeking truth, we become absorbed in the mechanics of constructing syllogisms, establishing logical frameworks, and proving or disproving abstract concepts.

You know exactly what I mean.

When apologetics becomes a self-serving intellectual sport, it ceases to be about God and becomes about us—our ability to argue, our ability to refute, our ability to “win.” But faith is not about winning an argument. It is about encountering Christ, living in His presence, and witnessing His truth through our lives.

When Debate Displaces the Center

If we make defending the faith a constant battle for intellectual victory, our relationship with God can suffer. Instead of living our faith with humility and joy, we may end up relying on our argumentative skills to feel secure in our beliefs. Faith ceases to be a lived encounter with God and becomes a dialectical contest.

At this point, our faith is no longer rooted in God but in our ability to argue and “win” intellectually. But as the Gospel warns us:

“What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?” (Mark 8:36).

So we must ask ourselves: Would it not be more fruitful to spend that time speaking to people about the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, serving others, and living in a way that is pleasing to God? In the end, what we store up in the Kingdom of Heaven is what truly matters, not the vanity of dialectical victories.

It is far better to focus on what we are truly called to do—to take the faith to places where the soil is fertile, and even where it is not so fertile but is at least willing.

God and His Kingdom Are Enough

Our security does not come from winning arguments but from the certainty that God is the truth. Jesus calls us to seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness (Matthew 6:33), reminding us that our faith does not need human validation.

As Saint Paul clearly states:

“I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who gives the growth” (1 Corinthians 3:6-7).

Conversion is the work of divine grace, not of the apologist’s eloquence. Our task is to witness with humility and love, trusting that God will work in people’s hearts according to His will.

Christians do not need to win debates to justify their faith, because our foundation is not in persuasion but in the truth of the Gospel. Let us not fall into the trap of relying on endless discussions for our sense of security. God and His Kingdom are enough.

Rather than seeking intellectual victories, let us dedicate our time to living our faith with authenticity, humility, and joy. The man of faith must practice his faith. Only God is enough. Only being in His presence. Only the presence of God in the Eucharist. Only the presence of God in our lives. Only the presence of God in the service we do for our neighbor truly matters.

When our lives reflect the love of Christ, we will attract others—not through our eloquence, but through the work of God within us.