Ambiguities of public debate

This weekend I watched four brave national Christians, plus translators, participate in a public debate to defend the Bible against attack from Muslim preachers.

Brave, I say, because their debate partners were a team of Muslim preachers gathered around a local Muslim political leader with about a million followers. This leader has been speaking and writing against the Bible for decades, and the Christian participants wanted to finally challenge him.

The topic for debate was the question, "Is the Bible the Word of God?" But the Muslim panel provided their answer on a large banner behind them already before the debate began: "BIBLE IS NOT THE GOD'S WORD."

The Muslims argued their case largely on the basis of passages in the Old Testament which they consider "pornographic" or otherwise inappropriate for God, including the Song of Solomon and Ezekiel 23. Such passages, they said, "prove" that the Bible is not God's Word. But they also made arguments about biblical manuscripts, and highlighted what they considered contradictions in the Bible, unfulfilled prophecies, and absurdities.

The Christian debaters led out by challenging the Muslims to explain the favourable references to the Torah and the Gospel in the Qur'an. Their general pattern was to answer as many questions from the Muslims as they could. This often involved not only explaining about the Bible, but also citing similar material in Muslim scripture or tradition and questioning the "double standard" of the Muslims. It sometimes also involved sharply challenging the quality of the Muslim questions, and along with that the scholarly qualifications of the questioner.

I admit to feelings of ambiguity during the debate. Had you been with me, you would have witnessed the open mockery and sometimes cruel intent in the Muslim citation of biblical passages. This kind of attack on the Bible--often clearly blasphemous--needs to be countered, and I give the four national Christians full credit for stepping up to the plate. They are not the best qualified to defend the Bible, but how many of those best qualified in Biblical Studies are willing to step forward to defend it?

At the same time, the Christians were not innocent of mocking the Muslims and their traditions as well, including--recklessly I believe--the messenger of Islam. I saw how this approach can turn the direction of a debate away from Muslim attacks on the Bible. But it saddened me to think that it was the only way to do so. I also felt sad to see the Christians fail to take the opportunity to explain in positive terms why they believe the contents of the Bible to be "from above"--that is, to be the Word of God.

One point really struck me as I was watching and listening to the debate on the final evening. There is a single verse in the Qur'an, 7:157, which Muslims understand to mean that Jews and Christians "will find" a description of Muhammad "written with them in the Torah and the Gospel." The Muslims at this debate said that since this description cannot be found in the Torah and the Gospel which Jews and Christians now possess, these present books cannot be the Word of God! The criterion, in other words, is a bare truth claim based on one verse in the Qur'an.

When I saw how earnest the Muslims were about this point, I experienced a surge of confirmation for my PhD research 10 years ago and the research and writing which I now have the privilege of doing. There is a great need for resourcing local efforts to defend the Bible so that they can be done in a scholarly and respectful way, with a view to the eternal good of the debate partner. 

There is much good that could come out of such public debates, but we should be seriously concerned that they not merely reinforce bad feelings.