Virtues of public debate

In a blog titled "Ambiguities of public debate," I described a few things which can go wrong in a public inter-religious debate where Christians are involved. Indeed, it seemed to me that some of these things had happened during a debate I witnessed on the January 21-22 weekend.

But ambiguity about an action does not mean it should not be done. Why not just do it right? I hinted this at the end of the earlier blog: "There is much good that could come out of such public debates...".

To describe what goes on in debates, people often use the terms "apologetic" and "polemic." "Apologetic" does not mean that speakers apologize for their faith, but rather that they defend their faith when it is attacked by others. "Polemic" means to probe, question or attack the foundations of the faith of others which are false and therefore "sand" (Matthew 7:26).

When the Bible is publicly attacked, surely Christians need to find a way to respond publicly. What does it mean to non-Christians when the Bible is attacked publicly but Christians remain silent? To Muslims it can only mean a lack of commitment to the truth of the Bible or a lack of courage.

Defending the Bible against attack need not include responding in kind. Tough questions need to be answered to the best of the Christians' ability. False accusations should be named as such and corrected. But there is no need to be rude or insulting. No need to mock the Muslim or use bad language. Rather, the answer must be given "with gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:15). The goal cannot be to "win" the debate in the terms of the Muslim antagonist or even of the audience. Christians need not and should not be drawn into the Muslims' agenda. Rather, they should be clear about the biblical agenda and thoroughly rehearsed in it well before the debate begins.

If "apologetic" is out of fashion today among many western Christians, "polemic" is even less popular! Many cannot separate an attack on the false foundations of Islam from an attack on Muslims. But why is this connection so frequently made? In good friendships, when people see their friends making important life choices on the basis of a lie, will they say nothing? On the contrary, good friends will talk about difficult things because they care for each other. There is no reason why love for Muslims would not be the strongest motivation for polemic.

Finally, back to the biblical agenda. Apologetic and polemic--though both are needed in public debate with Muslims--are not enough. In every audience watching a Muslim-Christian debate, there are a good number of attentive and thoughtful Muslims. Christians should not miss the chance to explain clearly and winsomely the contents of the Bible which convince them that it is indeed the Word of God.

Christians are first of all witnesses to Jesus and good news bringers. Christian debaters who leave out this crucial dimension may somehow manage to "win" the debate in the terms of the audience. But if they leave out the only message which can save the listeners, they fail. The goal is not the "success" of the Christian debater, but rather the eternal good of the Muslim debate partner.