I will argue, but I won’t fight.
“I will dialogue but I won’t fight.” This has been my motto for the past 11 years living as a Christian in a Muslim-majority country. Statistics say my country is 99.9% Muslim. The 0.1% is admittedly expatriates living in the country. To be a citizen of my host country is to be a Muslim. To acquire citizenship, one is required to state the Shahadah, the Muslim statement of faith,[1] thus proclaiming to be a follower of Islam. Many of my Muslim acquaintances will tell me that our two faiths are “the same.” I appreciate this comment because it allows me to share how our faiths are very different, specifically in belief of the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus. This may lead to my Muslim acquaintance telling me that my beliefs are not true because the Bible has been corrupted. I rarely go further in dialogue at this point. It is not out of fear or lack of courage, but because the conversation is becoming unproductive. Thus, I was intrigued by chapter two of Matthew Petrusek’s book, Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture. The title of the chapter is “Stop Fighting—and Start Arguing.” Before I go there, I will try to give a brief synopsis of the book from my perspective.
The book Evangelization and Ideology addresses the issue of modern-day secular politics and worldviews that do not allow space for the divine. He specifically addresses the worldviews of utilitarianism, classical liberalism, “Woke-ism,” and non-theistic conservatism. Petrusek gives his readers ways to respectfully respond to these ideologies and the errors and addresses them from his Catholic perspective. The book is in-depth, heavy, and overall was a challenge to read. It seems to be written for an audience in the Western world, so I struggled to relate the book to my context. I am from a Western culture and can apply the points to my passport country. But what about now? How is this relevant to my current world in North Africa? How can I respectfully and effectively address the errors of the religious politics where I live? What does one do when politics, society, and religion are all inter-meshed into one specific worldview: Islam? Thus, my interest with chapter two. Perhaps this chapter could give insight me how to argue well in my context.
“Stop Fighting—and Start Arguing” starts with philosophical reasoning addressing the issues of scientific knowledge and voluntarism, the idea that there is no universal truth. In my context, these issues are not relevant. Those around me are inundated and embrace religion at all levels of society. In general, they do not feel the need to prove scientifically that there is a God. Muslims believe that Islam is the true religion. One applicable point Petrusek makes is the importance of understanding the opponent’s side. He shares, “[Understanding the opponent’s side] enables you to comprehend the other’s point of view on its own terms while, in the process, spurring you to refine your position in response.”[2]
In the second half of the chapter, Petrusek sets up the “anatomy of an argument.”
- “Isolate the argument being made, break it up into its parts, and then critically evaluate each component both individually and in relation to the other components.”[3]
- Look at the individual components for clarity.[4]
- “Finally, the criterion for assessing argument is validity—that is, determining whether the conclusion resulting from the propositions necessarily follows.”[5]
These components of an argument reminded me of the arguments posed in the book, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus by Nabeel Qureshi. Nabeel Qureshi was a Pakistani-American born into a religious Muslim family. Qureshi’s book walks the reader through his journey of first defending, then questioning his faith, and finally, his choice to follow Jesus. When he was in college, Qureshi met a friend who was a Christian, David. As their relationship grew, they began debating their different faith beliefs including the isolated arguments of Islam and Christianity such as the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the deity of Christ.[6] Throughout the book, the reader can see Qureshi seeking clarity in the arguments of his friend. “I was still fully convinced that the Bible was corrupt, but I had to deal with more advanced arguments than I had previously heard.”[7] Here is where Qureshi’s friend brings clarity on the issue of translating the Bible,
“The words do matter, but they matter because they constitute a message. The message is paramount. That’s why the Bible can be translated. If the inspiration were tied to words themselves as opposed to their message, then we could never translate the Bible, and if we could never translate it, how could it be a book for all people?” I didn’t know if David was challenging my view of Quranic inspiration, but what he said made sense.[8]
In the end, Qureshi did come to the belief that David’s arguments for Christianity were valid. Because of their relationship and the integrity of the arguments, Qureshi’s worldview began to change. He found Jesus and became a renowned Muslim-background Christian apologist.
Quereshi’s story, particularly his friend David’s use of solid arguments, prompts me to trust the Holy Spirit to guide and direct my arguments and their hearts. Petrusek’s book, Evangelization and Ideology, reminded me of the importance of having a sound argument. May God be glorified in how we build relationships and present His Truth to those around us with different worldviews.
________________
[1] This statement of faith is recited in Arabic. The English translation is roughly, “I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”
[2] Matthew R. Petrusek, Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture, Kindle Ed. (Park Ridge, IL: Word on Fire, 2023), 33.
[3] Petrusek, 36.
[4] Ibid, 37.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Nabeel Qureshi, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity, Kindle Ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014).
[7] Qureshi, 125.
[8] Ibid, 129.
About the Author
Kari
Kari is a passionate follower of Jesus. Her journey with Him currently has her living in the Sahara in North Africa. With over a decade of experience as a family nurse practitioner and living cross-culturally, she enjoys being a champion for others. She combines her cross-cultural experience, her health care profession, and her skills in coaching to encourage holistic health and growth. She desires to see each person she encounters walk in fullness of joy, fulfilling their God-designed purpose. “Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer.” Romans 12:12 ESV12 responses to “I will argue, but I won’t fight.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Kari,
I have found similar challenges here. To debate is worthless when discussing faith with a Muslim. They are trained in rhetorical answers to Christianity. I have found that you can just simply go around and around in circles. Yet, to dialogue and to argue a valid point does help. I have also found that asking the right questions causes people to begin questioning their deep seated worldview. I appreciate trying this in the Qureshi’s book.
While living in Africa, have you found any of the political theories as described by Petrusek creep in to challenge the dominant Islamic belief?
Hi Adam,
Yes, I have definitely seen some levels of all of his theories here in my country. The section, “God of my Tribe: Progressivism” when dealing this the woke movement was surprisingly similar to some of the issues we’ve been dealing with here. There is a lot of racial divide in my country and protection of “my people” has caused a lot of political uprising and disturbance particularly in the last 18 months.
Kari,
I so appreciated your post! Your conversations with Muslims reminds me of conversations I have had with Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and Jehovah Witnesses’. At some point you have to cease fire because you won’t get anywhere.
And, I, too, chose Chapter 2 as the focus of this book. It seems there is a point where argument can cross over into fighting. I never thought about it until I read this chapter.
Have you found the three points that Petrusek offered helpful? Do you think they will come in handy in future conversations? If so, why or why not?
HI Nancy, thanks for the questions. Yes, I do think his points will help me in the future remove my emotions from the argument. I can easily become defense when I hear “Your religion corrupted your Bible.” AH! My blood is starting to boil just in writing this.
These will also help me breakdown the differences with my Muslim friends who wish to dialogue and not just fire their guns!
Thanks Kari! Great post! I appreciate you sharing for your context and perspective. You mention that you don’t go further because it would be ‘unproductive’. How do you discern if someone is genuinely interested in dialogue and discussion? How do we model this, even though we are fully confident of what we believe about who God is?
HI Ryan, thanks for the great question. Firstly, I have learned to pray as soon as the conversation goes towards the “tricky” topics. The Holy Spirit is very faithful in giving me the discretion I need to determine how to approach the conversation. Practically, it forms into a similar pattern as all crucial conversations verses fights. If there is accusatory language (“you,” “your,” etc) that is usually my first sign to back away. I am willing to take risks for the sake of the Gospel. I am not willing to exhaust myself for fruitless banter. Experience has helped me be able to discern quicker. Jesus’ humility and response to the Pharisees and religious leaders of His time encourage me to do something similar. There is a lot of power in few words!
Hi Kari, your post gave me a different perspective of Petrusek, so thank you. I also saw wisdom in your comment to not go farther into a dialogue that is bound to be unproductive. Do you have certain clues that you notice when a conversation is bordering on either escalating or just getting to redundancy where further discussion is not useful?
Hi Diane,
Great question. Ryan had a similar question to which I answered above. Another major clue is when conversations become circular. Hamster wheels go nowhere! That’s when I’m ready to jump off. That said, I will try to move the conversation to a different direction before I completely give up on the dialogue. Disrespect such as interruptions and talking over me are also signs that the person is defensive and not interested in hearing my point.
Hi Kari,
Loved your last statement of “May God be glorified in how we build relationships and present His Truth to those around us with different worldviews.” Amen and amen!
Great personal analogy for Petruseks book as well as bringing in Quereshi’s book. Makes me want to read it (in two more years!!).
When Nancy was a missionary in Russia I was able to go one time with her. It was against the law for a non Russian to talk about Jesus. We had to do “serve the city” projects to talk with people and invite them to the Christian church that sponsored us for a barbeque so the Russian pastors could proselytize. Are there any laws where you are that you need to be wary of? I would love to hear your conversations with your Islamic friends!!
Hi Chris, Thanks for your comment. Yes, there are indeed laws here. There is no religious freedom. It is illegal to proselytize. Daily, I walk the line between being respectful of the culture and being bold for the sake of the Truth. This is perhaps the main reason I do not engage in religious or political “fights” with people who do not seem open to dialogue. It could pose risk for me and my friends who are open to hearing the Truth.
Hey Kari! Thanks for this. I know the feeling of sharing faith with many Muslims who are staunch in their belief system with little room for discussion. What would be your key takeaway from Pertrusek that you could implement for your context?
Hi Daren, A key takeaway for me is to stick with the actual argument and remove emotion (taking it personally) from the situation.