SPEAKER’S CORNER, AND THE NEED FOR APOLOGETICS – POLEMICS

POST 911 & 7/7

Jay Smith2008

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 problemi.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?In 2001, in the UK, how did Muslims define themselves?

•15% Radical15% Radical – Follow Scripture, and the Prophet Muhammad•70% Nominal70% Nominal – Follow Traditions, and their cultural adaptations

•15% Liberal15% 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)

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:One possibility = DIALOGUE:Four Principles of Dialogue (British Council of Churches)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 modelsBUT:• 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 DEBATESDate Debaters Venue Title

• Aug 1981 Josh McDowell vs. A. Deedat Durban, S. Africa “Was Christ Crucified?”• Dec 1985 Anis Shorrosh vs. A. Deedat London “Is Jesus God?”• Aug 1986 Jimmy Swaggart vs. A. Deedat Louisiana Univ. “Is the Bible God’s Word?”• Aug 1988 Anis Shorrosh vs. A. Deedat Birmingham “Bible vs. the Qur’an”• Jan 1993 Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally Univ. of Toronto “Is Jesus the Divine Son of God?”• ___ 1993 Callum Beck vs. Hamza Malik Toronto “Salvation in the Bible & Qur’ an”• ___ 1994 Ernest Hahn vs. Jamal Badawi U. of Waterloo “Bible according to the Qur’ an”• Jun 1994 Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally Univ. of Toronto “Is the Qur'an the Word of God?”• Aug 1995 Jay Smith vs. Jamal Badawi Cambridge Univ. “Is The Qur’an the Word of God?”• Jul 1996 Robert Morey vs. Shabir Ally Toronto “Source & God of Islam”• Nov 1996 Dr. R. Morey vs. Jamal Badawi Columbia Univ. “Veracity of Allah & the Qur’an”• Feb 1997 Dr. W. Craig vs. Jamal Badawi ? “What is God Like?”• Feb 1997 Jay Smith vs. Dr. Musa Pidcock Tynneside Univ. “Bible vs. Qur’an”• Apr 1997 Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally Univ. of Manchester “Xtian vs. Isl. Relevancy & Sin”• Nov 1997 Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally Univ. of Waterloo “Who is God?”• Feb 1998 Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally Birmingham Univ. “Historicity of the Qur’an”• Apr 1998 Jay Smith vs. Shk. Abdul Green South Bank Univ. “Is the Qur’an the Word of God?”• May 1998 Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally Leicester Univ. “Bible vs. the Qur’an”• Oct 1999 Jay Smith vs. Sh. Omar Bakri London “Khilafa vs. Kingdom of God”• Jan 2000 Tony Costa vs. Shabir Ally Ryerson University “Who is the Historical Jesus?”• Feb 2000 Jay Smith vs. Benazir Bhutto Oxford Union “Is Islam Relevant to the UK?”• Mar 2000 Peter Saunders vs. Shabbir Ally Glasgow “Was Jesus a Muslim?”• Mar 2000 Keith Small vs. Shabbir Ally Bradford “Scriptures-Jesus-Trinity”• Apr 2000 William Campbell vs. Zakir Naik Skokie, Ill. “Bible, Qur’an, & Science”• Oct 2000 Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally Ga.Tech., Atlanta “Who is the Historical Jesus?”• Oct 2000 David Shenk vs. Shabir Ally London “God in the Scriptures”• Feb 2002 Jay Smith vs. Zaki Badawi Oxford Union “Is Islam Compatible w the West?”

Date Debaters Venue Title

• Mar 04/02 W. Craig vs. Shabbir Ally Univ. of Toronto “Did Jesus rise from the dead?”• (Mar 05) W. Craig vs. Shabbir Ally York Univ. “What Must I do to be Saved?” • (Mar 06) W. Craig vs. Shabbir Ally McMaster Univ. “God in X-tianity & Islam”• (Mar 07) W. Craig vs. Shabbir Ally Univ. of W.Ontario “Who is the True Jesus?”• Apr 2002 Jay Smith vs. Imam Sahib Kingston Univ. “Bible vs. Qur’an”• Oct 2002 Jay Smith vs. Minister Ishmael Muh. Trinity Univ., Dublin “Is Islamic Law Relevant today?”• Jan 2003 Jay Smith vs. Tamimi & Winters Cambridge Union “Islam a threat to the West?”• Mar 2003 Mike Licona vs. Shabir Ally Regent Univ. “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?”• Oct 2003 Peter Saunders vs. Shabbir Ally Nottingham Univ. “Who is the real Jesus?”• Feb 2004 Keith Small vs. Sohaib Saeed Univ. of Edinburgh “Who is the real Jesus?”• Feb 2004 Jay Smith vs. Dr. McElwain Oxford Univ. “Was Jesus a Muslim?”• Nov 2004 Mike Licona vs. Shabir Ally ‘Faith Under Fire’ “Was Jesus: Divine or Prophet?”• Oct 2005 Jay Smith vs. Abdul Hakim Quick Jo-Burg, So. Africa “Peace in Islam & Christianity”• Jan 2006 Jay Smith vs. Iqbal Siddiqui Durham Union “Is Islam compatible to the West?”• Jan 2006 Jay Smith vs. Abdul Rahman London “Islam vs. Christian compatibility”• Feb 2006 Jay Smith vs. Ayatollah Milani St.Georges Med. Sch. “Peace in Islam vs. Christianity”• Feb 17/06 Peter Barnes vs. Diaa Mohamed Bankstown, Australia “Bible vs. Qur’an”• (Feb 18) Peter Barnes vs. Diaa Mohamed Bankstown, Aust. “Is Jesus Lord?”• (Feb 19) Peter Barnes vs. Diaa Mohamed Bankstown, Aust. “Way of Salvation?”• Apr 2006 Jay Smith vs. Muh. Bahmanpour London “Was Jesus Crucified?”• May 2006 James White vs. Shabir Ally Biola University “Is the New Testament Inspired?”• May 2006 Jay Smith vs. Tajik Da’ists Kazan, Russia “Islam vs. Christianity”• July 2006 Peter Barnes vs. Yusuf Estes Hurstville, Australia “Way to God’s Salvation”

Note: Yellows employ subjects calling Christianity solely into accountGreens 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)

PaulPaul• 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?But, did he use confrontation?Certainly!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-to-

face 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)1) Pray: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’sCorner

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) Accept the need for a Public Confrontation of Islam2) Realise that we are the only ones capable of engaging it3) Move beyond our fear of Confrontation4) Move beyond our fear of Repercussions5) Move beyond our desire for Security6) Move beyond our opponent’s Sensibilities7) Move beyond dialogue → to debate8) Begin to teach Christian Apologetics & Polemics9) Begin to publicly confront their auth. (Qur’an)10) Begin to publicly confront their models (Muhammad)11) Some leaders must model it (i.e. ‘ol Codgers’) 12) Others can begin to practice it: &

We must ‘Stand in the Gap’1) It’s the best way to get their attention2) Forces our antagonists to respond3) May be the 1st time they have heard criticism4) Gets the agenda moving5) ‘Pre-Evangelistic’6) We don’t have a choice

-Muslims tend to initiate the confrontation-Fits their cultural paradigm

7) Creates a Christian Public Presence8) Does that which the state may/can not do9) Upgrades and strengthens the church10) We have the only alternative!11) We have the Best Material!12) WE HAVE THE TRUTH…and his name is JESUS!

What weapons will we use?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)