SPEAKER’S CORNER, AND THE NEED
FOR APOLOGETICS – POLEMICS
POST 911 & 7/7
Jay Smith
2008
Omar Sharif
Asif Hanif
(April 30, 2003)
Feb. 2008 = Mohammed Hamid
Introduction
• In the wake of 911 and 7-7, we are finding a more
aggressive and growing radical element within
Islam, especially here in the UK…
A Local problem
i.e. = quote by Maryam Jameelah, a recent convert to Islam,
living in the UK
“We must crush the conspiracies of Zionism,
Freemasonry, Orientalism and foreign
missions both with the pen and with the
sword. We cannot afford peace and
reconciliation with the Ahl al-Kitab until we
can humble them and gain the upper hand”
(Jameelah 1989:412)
In 2001, in the UK, how did Muslims define themselves?
•15% Radical – Follow Scripture,
and the Prophet Muhammad
•70% Nominal – Follow Traditions,
and their cultural adaptations
•15% Liberal – Follow the West,
and assimilate
By 2002: Radicals had risen to 25%
By 2003-2004: No polls were carried out…..
On February 19th, 2006:
over 40% considered themselves radical…*
while 20 % supported Suicide bombers
(source: Peter G. Riddell and Peter Cotterell, Islam In Conflict, Leicester, England: IVP, 2003, chapters 10-12, and page 193.
Also a lecture by Riddell on the theme, “Muslim Views on the World” held at the London Institute for Contemporary
Christianity, and sponsored by the London Lectures Trust, October 23, 2003)
* Sunday Telegraph, Feb. 19, 2006
A Global Problem:
Poll on radicalisation
by Pew International (March 2004)
• Turkey = 31%
• Morocco = 45%
• Jordan = 55%
• Pakistan = 65%
• (80 million out of 140 million!)
The dilemma today:
• Post 911 and 7-7, there is one faith which stands
against all others (compromising ‘Multi-culturalism’)
• An aggressive and growing ‘radical Islam’
• It is a ‘scriptured religion’
– i.e. ‘Dispatches’ Undercover Mosque: views sourced in
the Qur’an
• Creating a ‘Clash of Civilizations’
– (Huntington’s thesis: 1996, reiterated by Lord Carey the
autumn of 2006)
• Riddell: “There is an international network of radical
Muslims, committed to terrorism that must be stopped.
They pose a legitimate threat which cannot be ignored,
but confronted, and immediately” (Riddell 2004:172).
WHO MUST CONFRONT THEM?
The STATE!
• It has the might and ‘where-with-all’
• Its function is to protect
• Its function is to police
STATE CANNOT CONFRONT THEM
• The state cannot deal with religious ideology.
– i.e. Danish Cartoons
– ‘flushed’ Qur’an-Guantanamo
• It’s not their remit
• Due to the separation of the church and state
– They don’t understand the ideology, or its authority
– They don’t have the tools to confront it
• So, politicians may not criticize Islam’s Foundations
• i.e. Tony Blair and his ‘peaceful’ Qur’an
• State seeks unanimity…inclusivity
WHO CAN CONFRONT RADICAL MUSLIMS?
RADICAL CHRISTIANS!
• We can understand them
– we start from the same ideological paradigm (scripture
& model)
• We have the tools to confront them
– MSS evidence
– Historical Criticism
– Jesus Christ = Relevant for 21st c.
– SWAD
• We have the best, and only alternative
Examples:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bible vs. Qur’an
Jesus vs. Muhammad
‘Yahweh’ vs. ‘Allah’
Kingdom of God vs. ‘Khilafah’
Women in the Bible vs. Women in the Qur’an
Peace in Christianity vs. Violence in Islam
Relevancy of Christianity vs. Islam
1st Problem: We have no models
• Missiology = ‘church planting’ & conversion alone
(i.e. ‘unless it brings in converts, it isn’t worth our while’)
• ‘eirenic’ models = more converts
• No room for confrontation
• No room for the conflicts between Islam and
Christianity globally
(i.e. Samuel Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’)
2nd Problem: We have no Schools
• We don’t teach Christian ‘apologetics’
• We don’t teach Christian ‘polemics’
– Nowhere in the UK
– Only limited examples in the US
3rd Problem: We have no ‘Confrontation Theology’
Our Theology is dictated by our experience:
• Most Christian contacts with Islam = Arab world
– (i.e. Palestine & Iraq)
• But Arabs only make up 15% of Muslims (260 m.)
• Most Western research = Arab speaking world
– Most of our missiology is written for an Arab environment
– 50% of Phds. offered in US since 1948 have been on the Palestinian issue
(only 2% of Muslims!)
• Yet, theological and ideological challenges are from the
85% non-Arab speakers (i.e. 800-900 million Asians)
– [‘Youtube’ = 43,000 attacks vs. 5-6 responses]
• We need a new public method to deal with these more
radical and public theological challenges…
One possibility = DIALOGUE:
Four Principles of Dialogue (British Council of Churches)
• Dialogue begins when people meet each other, pointing out that
each person needs to be approached as individuals, and not simply
representing a system of beliefs.
• Dialogue depends upon mutual understanding and mutual trust,
suggesting that each person should be permitted to define
themselves concerning what they believed.
• Dialogue makes it possible to share in service to the community,
alluding to the fact that dialogue can be a vehicle to bring about
harmony between those of separate faiths.
• Dialogue becomes the medium of authentic witness, suggesting that
because it begins in a context of trust, dialogue allows not only a
witness of one’s own faith, but “assumes the freedom of a person of
any faith, including the Christian, to be convinced by the faith of
another” (Riddell 2004:111)
• Inclusive Principles
Problems with Dialogue
1. Impractical:
•
•
In 1966 Victor Hayward identified a real problem:
“If dialogue is used to break down barriers of prejudice,
indifference, suspicion and fear, and practical steps are
taken to promote understanding, co-operation, and
relationships favourable to genuine dialogue and witness,
no such agreement was possible [with the Muslim] in the
realm of theology” (Hayward 1977:13)
The Irenical form of dialogue can rarely engage publicly
with, in any deep and meaningful way, that which is
foundational to each faith, yet likewise separates them,
namely, their conflicting and often contradictory belief
statements.
2.
•
•
Unequal
i.e. WCC sponsored dialogue 1976, Chambésy, Switzerland.
-Khurshid Ahmad -Islamic Foundation (Leicester, England) = slung invective and
vitriol in the direction of Christian missions, pinpointing four criticisms of
Christian missions: 1) misrepresentation of the teachings of Islam, and the
message of the prophet, 2) concentrated on the weak and helpless, 3) missions
aim was to subvert the faith and culture of Islam, and 4) that it subjected
Muslims to covert discrimination and repression), summarized as an exercise
which “failed to commend itself as something noble and holy” (‘Christians Meeting
Muslims’[Chambésy] 1977:131-132)
•
•
•
-Dr. Kerr apologized, accepting that Muslims were justified to feel “incensed to
the point of outrage by certain aspects of Christian action in the name of
mission” (‘Christians Meeting Muslims’[Chambésy] 1977:134)
Thanked the Muslim participants for attending, despite the fact that they had,
“personal experiences of western Christian missionaries which had left him
suspicious of Christian motives” (‘Christians Meeting Muslims’[Chambésy] 1977:135)
Nowhere did he seek reciprocity, asking why so few Muslim countries even
permitted, let alone encouraged Christian missions in their respective
jurisdictions, nor why so many freedoms demanded and afforded by Muslims
living in the West are simply not permitted by Christians in their own lands.
3.
Un-trustworthy
• Muslims suspect dialogue, as it leads to religious
syncretism
– Or compromises the faith (Glasser 1981)
– Seen as a subtle ploy towards proselytism
• Dialogue is a Western Christian construct
– Perceived as an adjunct of colonialism
– Covert form of evangelism (‘Christians Meeting Muslims’[Chambésy] 1977:131-132)
• Invariably Muslims are invited as guests, not able to set
the agenda, so they feel they have little to gain (Zebiri 1997:36)
• Siddiqui = “It is an extension of a whole Western Christian
domination” (Sidiqqui 1994:59)
4. Unpopular
•
•
•
Dialogues simply do not attract Muslims who represent their
communities, and therefore have little impact on those same
communities.
i.e. = ‘Faith and Power’ conferences, convened in 1997, all had
majority Christians to Muslims, so that the final Faith and Society
conference, convened in June 2003, at the London Central
Mosque and Islamic Cultural Centre, of the 47 people who took
part, only seven were Muslims, five of whom had to be there as
they were presenters on the day (Riddell 2004:157)
As Riddell says,
“there was virtually no participation of the rank and file from the
Muslim community. The reasons are unclear...though there seems
to have been no attempt to promote the event in the British
Muslim community” (Riddell 2004:158)
CONCLUSION:
• Dialogues do bring Christians and non-Christians together
• Dialogues ‘get the ball going’, start the agenda
• They offer a wide range of models
BUT:
• They are usually promoted by Christians only
• They attract Liberal-Western & elite Muslims
• They tend not to be robust, more acquiescent on the part of the
Christian participants.
• And most importantly, they don’t reach the ones causing most of
the problems today (i.e. the radical Muslims)
So, what’s the solution?
One Possible Solution
• Confront the problem publicly
• A possible approach = ‘discursive dialogues’ (Zebiri
1997:38), more popularly known as open and public
theological debates
Types of Debate:
[1] University Debates:
–Most common formal
style of debate
–Muslim student groups:
•FOSIS/ISOC (UK), or MSA-(US)
(Ayattolah Sayed Fadhel Milani)
–Christian student groups:
•UCCF (UK) or Campus Crusade, IVP, RZIM (US)
–Use usually two adversaries, debating a theological
issue
–Primarily against Christianity. Rarely reciprocity
used.
–Two Models: Parliamentary & Populer
The ‘Parliamentary’ model:
• Oxford, Cambridge, Durham Unions
• Proposition vs.
Opposition
• 2-4 people each
• Controlled…protocol
• ‘Points of Information’
• Benefits:
– Wider representation, and multiplicity of styles
• Weaknesses:
– Students use it for entertainment, sophistry,
trivializing serious positions.
• Less time leads to simplification
The ‘Populist’ model:
• 2 Speakers, experts
• 30 - 40 mins. = paper
• Rebuttals,
– followed by summation, then by Q & A
• Benefits: Easier to schedule, fewer people involved,
permitting better known academics, more flexible, more
time given to topics, better contact with speakers, Q & A
forces speakers to meet audiences needs.
• Weaknesses: Tend to be more ‘gladitorial’, can lead to
tension, thus shunned by Christians, the secular world and
university administrations.
[2] Radio Debates:
•
•
•
•
2 Speakers
10-20 min. positions
‘vetted’ phone in Q & A
Benefits:
-Cheap, Quick, Easy to prepare, largest audiences,
Largest reach, Most impact, in inaccessible areas.
• Weaknesses:
-Distant, impersonal, no Face-to-face contact, thus
no relationship, with little follow-up, and easy to
censure.
[3] Internet - Online debating:
• Online Forums, Bulletin Boards, Blogging, & ‘Youtube’
(Pfanderfilms)
• Benefits:
– Variety of topics, 24/7,
– Universal, for everyone
– ‘Arm-chair Evangelists’
– Good training,
– Topical, & creates ownership
– Great preparation for ministry
• Weaknesses:
– Distant, impersonal, no Face-to-face contact, thus little
relationship, with little follow-up, and problem with
vitriol.
[4] Impromptu Debates:
(‘Extemporaneous debates’)
•
•
•
•
•
•
‘high street’ (book tables)
University classrooms
Social gatherings (tea shops)
‘Speaker’s Corner’
5 - 2 - 1 = Time allotments
Benefits: Quick, easy, topical, ‘impromptu’,
accessibility of speaker, ‘vote with their feet’,
Crowds facial response
• Weaknesses: Heckling, Crowd control,
Interruptions, violence.
Why Debates are so Popular?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
They get to the ‘nub’ of the problem
They are culturally relevant (especially w/ Muslims)
They are a passionate form of communication!
They attract large numbers of non Christians
They are neutral and central
They are non-threatening
They are cheap
They are Conducive to students
EXAMPLES OF RECENT CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM DEBATES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Date
Debaters
Venue
Title
Aug 1981
Dec 1985
Aug 1986
Aug 1988
Jan 1993
___ 1993
___ 1994
Jun 1994
Aug 1995
Jul 1996
Nov 1996
Feb 1997
Feb 1997
Apr 1997
Nov 1997
Feb 1998
Apr 1998
May 1998
Oct 1999
Jan 2000
Feb 2000
Mar 2000
Mar 2000
Apr 2000
Oct 2000
Oct 2000
Feb 2002
Josh McDowell vs. A. Deedat
Anis Shorrosh vs. A. Deedat
Jimmy Swaggart vs. A. Deedat
Anis Shorrosh vs. A. Deedat
Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally
Callum Beck vs. Hamza Malik
Ernest Hahn vs. Jamal Badawi
Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally
Jay Smith vs. Jamal Badawi
Robert Morey vs. Shabir Ally
Dr. R. Morey vs. Jamal Badawi
Dr. W. Craig vs. Jamal Badawi
Jay Smith vs. Dr. Musa Pidcock
Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally
Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally
Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally
Jay Smith vs. Shk. Abdul Green
Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally
Jay Smith vs. Sh. Omar Bakri
Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally
Jay Smith vs. Benazir Bhutto
Peter Saunders vs. Shabbir Ally
Keith Small vs. Shabbir Ally
William Campbell vs. Zakir Naik
Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally
David Shenk vs. Shabir Ally
Jay Smith vs. Zaki Badawi
Durban, S. Africa
London
Louisiana Univ.
Birmingham
Univ. of Toronto
Toronto
U. of Waterloo
Univ. of Toronto
Cambridge Univ.
Toronto
Columbia Univ.
?
Tynneside Univ.
Univ. of Manchester
Univ. of Waterloo
Birmingham Univ.
South Bank Univ.
Leicester Univ.
London
Ryerson University
Oxford Union
Glasgow
Bradford
Skokie, Ill.
Ga.Tech., Atlanta
London
Oxford Union
“Was Christ Crucified?”
“Is Jesus God?”
“Is the Bible God’s Word?”
“Bible vs. the Qur’an”
“Is Jesus the Divine Son of God?”
“Salvation in the Bible & Qur’ an”
“Bible according to the Qur’ an”
“Is the Qur'an the Word of God?”
“Is The Qur’an the Word of God?”
“Source & God of Islam”
“Veracity of Allah & the Qur’an”
“What is God Like?”
“Bible vs. Qur’an”
“Xtian vs. Isl. Relevancy & Sin”
“Who is God?”
“Historicity of the Qur’an”
“Is the Qur’an the Word of God?”
“Bible vs. the Qur’an”
“Khilafa vs. Kingdom of God”
“Who is the Historical Jesus?”
“Is Islam Relevant to the UK?”
“Was Jesus a Muslim?”
“Scriptures-Jesus-Trinity”
“Bible, Qur’an, & Science”
“Who is the Historical Jesus?”
“God in the Scriptures”
“Is Islam Compatible w the West?”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Date
Debaters
Venue
Title
Mar 04/02
(Mar 05)
(Mar 06)
(Mar 07)
Apr 2002
Oct 2002
Jan 2003
Mar 2003
Oct 2003
Feb 2004
Feb 2004
Nov 2004
Oct 2005
Jan 2006
Jan 2006
Feb 2006
Feb 17/06
(Feb 18)
(Feb 19)
Apr 2006
May 2006
May 2006
July 2006
W. Craig vs. Shabbir Ally
W. Craig vs. Shabbir Ally
W. Craig vs. Shabbir Ally
W. Craig vs. Shabbir Ally
Jay Smith vs. Imam Sahib
Jay Smith vs. Minister Ishmael Muh.
Jay Smith vs. Tamimi & Winters
Mike Licona vs. Shabir Ally
Peter Saunders vs. Shabbir Ally
Keith Small vs. Sohaib Saeed
Jay Smith vs. Dr. McElwain
Mike Licona vs. Shabir Ally
Jay Smith vs. Abdul Hakim Quick
Jay Smith vs. Iqbal Siddiqui
Jay Smith vs. Abdul Rahman
Jay Smith vs. Ayatollah Milani
Peter Barnes vs. Diaa Mohamed
Peter Barnes vs. Diaa Mohamed
Peter Barnes vs. Diaa Mohamed
Jay Smith vs. Muh. Bahmanpour
James White vs. Shabir Ally
Jay Smith vs. Tajik Da’ists
Peter Barnes vs. Yusuf Estes
Univ. of Toronto
York Univ.
McMaster Univ.
Univ. of W.Ontario
Kingston Univ.
Trinity Univ., Dublin
Cambridge Union
Regent Univ.
Nottingham Univ.
Univ. of Edinburgh
Oxford Univ.
‘Faith Under Fire’
Jo-Burg, So. Africa
Durham Union
London
St.Georges Med. Sch.
Bankstown, Australia
Bankstown, Aust.
Bankstown, Aust.
London
Biola University
Kazan, Russia
Hurstville, Australia
“Did Jesus rise from the dead?”
“What Must I do to be Saved?”
“God in X-tianity & Islam”
“Who is the True Jesus?”
“Bible vs. Qur’an”
“Is Islamic Law Relevant today?”
“Islam a threat to the West?”
“Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?”
“Who is the real Jesus?”
“Who is the real Jesus?”
“Was Jesus a Muslim?”
“Was Jesus: Divine or Prophet?”
“Peace in Islam & Christianity”
“Is Islam compatible to the West?”
“Islam vs. Christian compatibility”
“Peace in Islam vs. Christianity”
“Bible vs. Qur’an”
“Is Jesus Lord?”
“Way of Salvation?”
“Was Jesus Crucified?”
“Is the New Testament Inspired?”
“Islam vs. Christianity”
“Way to God’s Salvation”
Note:
Yellows employ subjects calling Christianity solely into account
Greens employs subjects where both Islam and Christianity are questioned
PROBLEM WITH DEBATES
• Christians don’t like Confrontation
• It goes against our Western cultural proclivities
• Religion is a private affair
• Confrontation is not ‘Christ-like’
• We prefer eirenic ‘dialogues’
Thus:
• No schools to train apologetics/polemics
• Dearth of strategies, books & videos
• Dearth of models
Early Christians Supportive of Confrontation:
JESUS:
• Irenic:
– Nicodemus, a Pharisee who came to Jesus at night (John 3)
• Mild Opposition:
–
–
–
–
rich young ruler (Matthew 19:16)
Pharisees and Herodians (Mark 12:13)
Pharisee host at a dinner party (Luke 7:36-50)
Samaritan woman (John 4)
• Confrontation:
– Moneychangers at the temple (Matthew 21:12-13; Luke
19:45)
– Confrontational Pharisees (Matthew 23:13-33)
Paul
• Irenic:
– Diaspora Jews: Read Scriptures with them on their
territory (Acts 13:13-15)
– Areopagus of Athens: Dialogued with the Stoics and
Epicureans (Acts 17:22-31)
• Mild Opposition:
– Reasoned with the Greeks, from within their traditions
(Acts 17:1-2, 17)
But, did he use confrontation?
Certainly!
Read Acts 17-19
•
•
•
•
•
•
From Berea, Capadocia, Laodaecia, Ephesus
Went to the Synagogues
Confronted the Jews there
Was despised, disregarded, & thrown out…
Was jailed, beaten, stoned
And was finally killed!
We must remember that before he was Paul, he was
first Saul, a ‘Shamaite’…on his way to Damascus to
arrest & even KILL Christians!
Then God met him in a dynamic way, and made him
Paul
Yet he retained all his qualities as Saul…his passion,
his intellect, and his knowledge of the Scriptures!
Samuel Zwemer:
“Paul disputed in the synagogues (Acts 17:17) in the
school of one Tyrannus, daily (Acts 19:9) for two years. In
Jerusalem he disputed against the Grecians until they
sought to slay him (Acts 9:29)...II Corinthians, Galatians
and Colossians could be classified as controversial
literature of the first century...His military vocabulary is
proof enough that he was no spiritual pacifist but fought
a good fight against the enemies of the Cross of Christ and
all those who preached ‘another gospel’” (Zwemer 1941:225)
• Catholic creeds, such as the Nicene and the
Athanasian Creeds, came out of Polemics.
• The Reformation = a religious controversy.
• The Gospel of John = Nearly all the
discourses were begun by controversy
PROBLEMS WITH POLEMICS:
• Losing Friends:
It’s a risk, but with gentleness & respect (1 Pet.3:15-16)
they will stay.
• Don’t know the answers to the questions (FAQs):
Learn them!! (Why are Muslims so much more adept than we at FAQs?)
• It can create Tension
– The gospel, by definition, is confrontational, and will cause
tension
– It didn’t seem to stop Paul, why should it stop us?
– We need the same commission given the disciples in Matt.10
• We should expect to be ‘Hated, Persecuted, Jailed, & Killed’!
• If we don’t experience these, perhaps we aren’t preaching
the Gospel.
So, where can we confront today?
SPEAKER’S CORNER
• It’s a laboratory for us
• We can try out our newest materials
• We can hear their newest materials
• We can find out what communicates best
• We can model for others
• It is every week
• It is free!
SPEAKER’S CORNER:
Four Areas of Emphasis:
• -Discussions on the ground (most important for an
exchange of ideas ‘one-to-one’, & learning
apologetics/polemics)
• -Speaking from the ladder (important for creating a
crowd, ‘getting the ball going’ - confronting ideas
publically)
• -Heckling Muslim speakers (important whenever the
Lord’s name or our scriptures are vilified - confronting
heresies)
• -Praying (important for eradicating all evil influences,
‘gaining the ground’, and creating a favourable ambiance)
THE PROBLEMS WITH SPEAKER’S
CORNER
1)
Speaker's Corner is not that important
• It only functions one day a week, on Sundays
• It does not represent what most of us who go there
do during the rest of the week
• Though, it’s the only part of our ministry people see
– Because it is very public
– Because it is accessible and easy to view
• We must remind ourselves, therefore, that in the
larger scope of Christian missiology, it is just a small
part of the whole picture
2)
•
•
•
•
•
Speaker's Corner is artificial:
It is a place to debate and dispute on any subject
Unlike any other venue in the world
It cannot be reproduced anywhere else
Certainly not in a Muslim context
Therefore, it should not be reproduced anywhere
else
• Thus, "What happens at SC, stays at SC" (i.e. the
tactics used there are only for that environment,
and nowhere else, though the material learned is
easily transferrable)
3)
Speaker's Corner is primarily for radicals:
• Those who come to SC are not representative of
Muslims as a whole
• The majority of Muslims at SC are the more radical
kind
• With a definite agenda to harass, harangue and
hoodwink anyone they can
• Moderate and Liberal Muslims would not feel
comfortable in such an atmosphere
4)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Speaker's Corner is only a laboratory:
It is a place to try out our newest material
It is a place to hear their newest material
It is a venue to practice our apologetics
And practice our polemics
It forces you to be 'quick on our feet‘
It is a place to make our mistakes, and learn from
them, so that we won't make them later on
• So, it is not a ministry ‘in and of itself’.
• But it will prepare you and give you tools to use in
your future ministries elsewhere
5)
Speaker's Corner is just 'pre-evangelistic':
• Due to its hostile environment, we don't expect
people to be converted at SC
• It as primarily a place to 'get the ball going‘
• A place to ask the hard questions
• Which then leads into the gospel
• It's a 'rough and tough' battlefield, abusive, vitriolic
(and that's even before we climb the ladder)
• Despite this atmosphere, some do get saved
6)
S.C. creates 'hatred‘ by Muslims!
• Muslims say they ‘hate us’
• We do create a threat, which engenders a good bit
of doubt, confusion, and disillusionment
• But do these sentiments generate hate?
• Is it us they hate, or what we say, & how we say it?
• Could it be they are hoping we will react, possibly stop, or bring
about dis-unity in our ranks?
• The Gospel is confrontational, and all of the New
Testament apostles were hated (i.e. Matthew 10
promises the 12 that they will be hated, flogged,
persecuted, jailed and even killed)
7)
•
•
•
•
S.C. shows 'hatred‘ by Christians!
Christians and Muslims say we hate Muslims!
They say our ‘aggressive’ stance is ‘Not Christ-Like’
They say it borders on ‘hate speech’
They say it merely creates walls between
Christianity and Islam, rather than bringing about
peace and tranquillity
– We need to define hate
– We need to define aggression vs. passion
– We need to ask whether we are there to find peace and
tranquillity
8)
S.C. uses the wrong paradigm!
• One goes to SC to argue, yet “I’ve never seen anyone won
over by an argument”
– Perhaps their arguments aren’t good enough
• It is the Holy Spirit who persuades and convicts, not human
wisdom
– Then why are we asked to be as wise as serpents?
• Christianity is too complex and sophisticated to be
explained quickly and easily
– Then learn how to be simple and concise
• Christianity is a private faith which is not conducive to
public scrutiny, especially derisive scrutiny
– Then make it public, and able to stand up to vitriol
So, if all the above are true, what then
is the purpose for Speaker's Corner?
9)
Speaker's Corner follows a New
Testament model:
• Jesus and the disciples also found themselves in
hostile settings
• They confronted those who challenged them
– Jesus expelling the money changers in Luke 19:45
– Jesus confronting the Pharisees in Matthew 23:13-33
– Paul's confrontational ministry in Acts 17-19
– Peter's in Acts 2 and Stephen's in Acts 7
• The entire gospel of John is written as a polemic
against the challenges to the early church
• We carry on that same legacy every week at SC
10)
Speaker's Corner is more conducive for
MBB’s than for Westerners:
• Most weeks we find people come to SC to simply
watch us
• Western Christians tend to feel uncomfortable with
what they see
• Eastern Christians, primarily from Muslim countries,
love it
• Rarely do we get any criticism from MBB’s for what
we say, or the way we say it
• Almost all our criticism comes from Westerners
(usually Europeans, sometimes Americans)
11) Speaker's Corner is more conducive for
Extrovert Personalities:
• SC is a magnet for those who are more extrovert
– Those at ease with a public and robust expression of
their faith
• Western Christians tend to be more introverted and
timid in their faith
• Muslims are rarely at a loss for words for what they
believe, or their dislike for what we believe.
• Introvert and Extroverts take on different roles
– The extroverts go on the ladder, or heckle the Muslims
– The introverts take others aside and engage in face-toface dialogue/debates
12)
Speaker's Corner is conducive to Oral
Cultures:
• We in the West learn by reading books
– Thus, the propensity for ministries dedicated to tracts
and literature within Western missions
• Muslims come from mostly Oral based cultures
– Where oratory is highly prized, trusted, and practiced
• SC is conducive to such an oral environment
• Thus, probably the reason that Muslims outnumber
us, out-talk us, and over-intimidate us, even though
we outnumber them in the larger society
13)
Speaker's Corner creates the best
apologetics:
• Many of the newest challenges to Christianity find
their way to SC two to three months before they go
to print
• We are, therefore, able to hear these challenges
and come up with rebuttals long before they are
disseminated to the mosques and madrassas
around the Muslim world
14)
Speaker's Corner employs the best
polemics:
• SC is one of the only places on earth where one is
free to publicly ask any question, on any subject
• It is thus an ideal place to throw the most difficult
questions at the Muslims
– There are no 'taboo' subjects, which allows us to 'push
their buttons' and expose their 'underbelly‘
– We see how they react
– Giving us clues to where their greatest weaknesses lie
• Christians are not used to this form of challenge,
and feel uncomfortable with it, and so voice their
concerns often
15)
Speaker's Corner models for others:
• Most weeks Christians from around the world come
to SC to watch those of us on the ladder and on the
ground 'perform'
• Because of its unique style, we find ourselves
modeling for them the possibilities of what can be
done in other locales as well
• Obviously they must contextualize what we do for
their own situation
• It emboldens and encourages them, with the hope
that some day they too can see and do the same in
their own countries
16) Speaker's Corner creates a Public
Presence:
• Western Christianity is almost invisible to the public
– Tending to look inwards, creating a 'remnant mentality‘
• Islam is quite visible
– Claiming the 'public sphere' wherever it can
– We find it in the news, in our schools, hospitals, prisons,
neighbourhoods, and even in our families
• SC helps us claim that public ground back
– An ideal environment to train the next generation to go
public with their faith in a hostile environment
• If one can hold their ground against the angry, and
vitriolic Muslims at SC, they can do it anywhere.
17)
Speaker's Corner teaches us PASSION:
• People in the crowd say they admire our Passion
– Muslims exude passion
– Christians exude humility
• While both are necessary, it is passion which tends
to persuade, especially Muslims
• Unfortunately, passion cannot always be taught
– It can, however, be modeled, and grows with experience
and confidence
• SC is ideal to learn & model such a passion for what
we believe
– Often, 'how you say it is almost more important than
what you say'
Specific Purposes for SC:
1) Public:
Purpose is to Define what you believe, Defend it, then
Reverse the challenge publicly.
• You are in one of the most hostile arenas on earth (new
arrivals, professionals hecklers, radicals, etc...)
• You are in one of the most public arenas on earth (unique,
the epitome of Freedom of Speech, putting ‘head above the
parapet’)
• See this as an opportunity to learn your
apologetics/polemics adequately, before applying it
elsewhere.
• “If you can do it here, you can do it anywhere”
2)
Laboratory:
Remember this is a place for trial and error.
-A place to practice what you have learned in class, in your research, in
your discussions, etc...
-Expect to make mistakes.
-Don’t be upset when you do.
-Simply learn from them, then ‘get back up on the horse’, and try again,
or move on.
-You are a ‘sojourner’ here, thus you won’t be held accountable for the
mistakes you make here.
-Learn from those mistakes, and make sure you don’t repeat them.
-This is ideal preparation for your chosen field.
3)
Mosaic:
Muslims are not monolithic, but multi-faceted.
• Every sort of Muslim can be found at Speaker’s
Corner.
• Allows you to ‘dovetail’ (apply) responses for
each culture, and/or personality.
• Forces you to meet the need of whoever is
standing in front of you.
• “What is good for Abdul may not be good for
Ahmed”
4)
Focus:
The Audience is your primary goal, not necessarily the one you’re
speaking to
• So, concentrate on them, and not on the
detractors.
• By focusing on them, you neutralize the detractors,
some of whom are professionals.
• Use the crowd to substantiate your view.
• Look at them when you talk, speak to them,
question them, involve them, and employ their
support.
• Your larger audience are the ones you are trying to
convince.
METHODOLOGY:
1) Pray:
•
•
•
Always have a prayer covering.
Remember this is a battle you are in, and thus
requires ‘weapons not of this world’.
Prayer is to be employed: before, during, and
after the time you are ‘in battle’.
2)
Pairs:
• Try always to go in twos, or more.
• One person to speak, the other to pray.
• Preferably, one should be a veteran, with
experience.
• Roles can be flipped, depending on the need, or
time.
3)
•
•
•
•
•
Rule of Thumb # 1
‘Scratch where they itch’
To know them, you will need to first listen to them.
Yet, maintain control at all times.
Don’t let them set the agenda.
Stay away from ‘shopping list questions’
4)
Rule of Thumb # 2:
• ‘Scratch where they don’t itch’
• You must go beyond friendship, to introduce the
Gospel, which will confront!
• Assume a heated response.
• The Person-hood of Jesus will confront, a worthy
battleground.
5)
Response:
• ‘3 C’s’ = ‘Quick’, ‘Concise’, yet ‘Comprehensive’
• We tend to take our time, so learn to give ‘2 minute
sound-bites’ (usual attention time)
• We tend to be verbose, so be succinct.
• We seek erudition, so seek simplicity (remember
‘8th grade educational level’)
• We tend to be ‘fuzzy thinkers’, so learn to be
logical.
6)
Praxis:
There is a need to be multi-faceted in your response.
• We must use both Apologetics and Polemics.
• We must be both Irenical and Confrontational
• So that the onus is not always on us, but back
where it belongs…on them.
• Not ‘either’ - ‘or’; but ‘both’ - ‘and’
7)
Mannerism:
• Be Gentle, yet Passionate, Be Considerate, yet
Forthright.
• How you say it is almost as important as what you
say.
• Show confidence in your material, and in your
decisions.
• Do not employ ‘Character Assassination’.
• Our material is too good, and our testimony too
precious.
• Don’t waste time on innocuous argumentation
(i.e.“Don’t throw pearls before swine”)
8)
End-game:
• Bring discussions around to the Gospel
• (i.e. ‘How could God have a Son’, ‘Is Islam or
Christianity peaceful and tolerant’)
• Remind yourself who is in charge, and for whom
you are there [the Lord]!
EXTERNAL LOGICAL FALLACIES:
-typical arguments afforded by Muslims
(with help from Robert Morey)
1. “B B” Paradigm:
Make any claim, without sourcing it in scripture.
• You become your own highest authority
• (i.e. Benazir Bhutto: ‘Islam is relevant to 20th c.’)
2. Imposition Paradigm:
Take your premise and impose it on another
• (i.e. ‘Tanzil’ revelation, Where does Jesus claim ‘I
am God’, Jesus’ seeming inferiority, Paradigm of a
‘dualistic’ God)
3. Smokescreen/Red Herring:
Tactic to divert attention from the weakness of one’s
own premise, with the intention of putting us on
the defensive
• (i.e. trinity, Crusades)
4. Historical Precedent:
The new may test the old, and takes precedent over
it
• applying ‘law of abrogation’ [S.2:106; 16:101] to
scripture
• (i.e. Scriptural corruption, Jesus of faith vs. Jesus of
history)
5. Cyclical Argument:
Assume in your premise what you are going to state
in your conclusion
• (i.e. Muhammad gives authority to the Qur’an, and
vice versa)
6. False Analogy/Equivocation:
Comparing two things as if they are parallel when
they are not
• (i.e. revelation, Jesus, Allah)
7. The Fallacy of Irrelevance:
Introducing issues with no logical bearing on the
subject, as a proof of credibility
• (i.e. ‘Sura like it’, Qur’anic science, Celebrity
conversions, Islamic growth)
8. Phonic Fallacies:
The phonetic sound of a word should not be used to
twist its meaning
• (i.e. Allah = Allelujah, Muhammad = Machmad,
Mecca = Bacca)
9. Straw Man Arguments:
Put false arguments into mouth of your opponent,
then knock them down
• (i.e. S. 5:116, Catholicism)
10. ‘Might is Right’ Fallacy:
Loudest and most long-winded supposedly wins the
argument…having the last say…
• (i.e. ‘Poke, Punch & Pinch’)
INTERNAL LOGICAL FALLACIES: (typical arguments
afforded by Christians)
1. Losing Friends:
•
It’s a risk, but with gentleness & respect
(1 Pet.3:15-16) they will stay
2. Appearing judgmental:
• Being Good = Being Christian, thus non-Christians
are not good?
3. We must use only Dialogue, never stoop to
confrontation:
• Dialogue: We cannot talk to non-Christians about the
Gospel unless we first talk with them, & so earn the right
to be heard.
• Confronting: >demolishing arguments and taking captive
every thought to make it obedient to Christ’ (2 Cor.10:4-5).
• showing the holes in peoples thinking (in Lk.20:20-39; Acts
17:28-29)
• i.e. lead out on a current topic, and go on into >deeper
things = (news, sports etc...)
• Start with their ideas & lead them ‘to their logical
conclusions’
A PUBLIC APPROACH:
HPCF (Hyde Park Christian Fellowship)
“A boat in the harbour is safe, but that is not what boats were made for”
• SPEAKER’S CORNER
• PUBLIC DEBATES
HPCF in Action
Speaker’s
Corner
Ladder Speaking
Even Women can preach!!
Impromptu Debates
Discussions on the Ground
Heckling (‘Triangulization’)
Wrap-Up & Prayer (‘Tumnus’ Lightpost)
Public Debates
Conclusion – Things we MUST do:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
Accept the need for a Public Confrontation of Islam
Realise that we are the only ones capable of engaging it
Move beyond our fear of Confrontation
Move beyond our fear of Repercussions
Move beyond our desire for Security
Move beyond our opponent’s Sensibilities
Move beyond dialogue → to debate
Begin to teach Christian Apologetics & Polemics
Begin to publicly confront their auth. (Qur’an)
Begin to publicly confront their models (Muhammad)
Some leaders must model it (i.e. ‘ol Codgers’)
Others can begin to practice it:
&
We must ‘Stand in the Gap’
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
It’s the best way to get their attention
Forces our antagonists to respond
May be the 1st time they have heard criticism
Gets the agenda moving
‘Pre-Evangelistic’
We don’t have a choice
-Muslims tend to initiate the confrontation
-Fits their cultural paradigm
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
Creates a Christian Public Presence
Does that which the state may/can not do
Upgrades and strengthens the church
We have the only alternative!
We have the Best Material!
WE HAVE THE TRUTH…and his name is JESUS!
What weapons will we use?
• “For though we live in the world, we do not wage
war as the world does. The weapons we fight with
are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary,
they are divine power to demolish strongholds.
We demolish arguments and every pretension that
sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we
take captive every thought to make it obedient to
Christ”
(II Corinthians 10:3-5)