Apologetic Toolbox: Build Credibility by Listening to your Opponent

Lately I have been witnessing the discussion between Christians on both sides of an issue. On one side of the fence is a group of Christians who have taken strong opposition to a dialog between James White and Muslim theologian Yasir Qadhi back in January (the issue they take is also with White's general approach to individuals whom he engages apologetically). On the other side of the fence are those who don't see any issue with White's dialog or approach. Clearly I am on the latter side.

One of the strengths of White's approach is that he does not assume that all Muslims must agree with his understanding of Islam in order to be a true Muslim. White's method is commendable: He researches his debate opponents (or in this case, the individual with whom he would engage in a dialog) before engaging them. This includes reading their books, articles, blogs, and listening to their lectures, past debates, etc. This allows him to understand their thought process in relation to his current knowledge of what Islam is.

When a person assumes that they know what their opponent believes they will make an issue of it when they hear anything that doesn't fit with their preconception. I have witnessed this much over the last few weeks. The Christians on the other side of the fence have been telling Muslims what they should believe. Or in some cases they will dismiss what the Muslim says as deception simply because it doesn't fit in with their understanding of Islam. In either case there is no room to learn.

One tool that these apologists ought to acquire for their frequent use is the ability to listen to the person they engage with (I have called them the "opponent" but that is simply to say that they disagree on one or more issues, not that they are an enemy to be feared or hated). Listening to someone before responding builds credibility. Persuasion is much easier when you have established credibility with your opponent.

On the other hand, when someone tells you what you really believe after rejecting what you just told them, you begin to think thoughts like "Why are you assuming I am lying?" "Who are you to tell me what I believe?" "Weren't you listening to me just now?" People will get distracted by these brand new barriers simply because the nuances of their theology didn't fit into the black-and-white grid of the poor apologist.

Listening does not mean you agree with everything they say. Listening will communicate that you care about what they think enough to hear them out. Even if they know you'll disagree afterward, they will at least know you are disagreeing with their actual beliefs.

Gregg Jackson uncritically dismisses examples of Howse's lies about James White

Recently I came across a challenge for James White supporters to point out one lie Brannon Howse has told about White.

Might be because no one has ever heard of you til this retweet

Ex: his intentional misrepresentation of the nature of the interfaith dialog

— Glenn Hendrickson (@glenn_h) June 26, 2017

This individual may not have been aware of the dividing line from June 8th where White reviewed an episode of Worldview Weekend Radio which was broadcast the day before.

• Link to Brannon Howse audio on 6/7/2017
• Link to Dividing Line on 6/8/2017

A quick review of the Dividing Line produced a list of lies (ranging from inaccurate statements to intentional misrepresentations) about White by Howse.

Enjoy Howse's lies. Just the ones I was able to find anyways... pic.twitter.com/IpjAkM0Qj9

— Glenn Hendrickson (@glenn_h) June 26, 2017

Some of them were from the text description, others from the audio. It seemed my example of Howse's misrepresentation of the nature of the dialog between White and Yasir Qadhi was insufficient. So I made him a list.

The list contained statements 1) made by Brannon Howse, 2) about James White, 3) which were not true. You would think this met his criteria for an example. But Mr. Jackson seems to retain his right to dismiss anything for no reason.

These aren't a list of lies but of baseless allegations without any documented proof. Big difference Glenn. @WVWOnline @UsamaDakdok https://t.co/Cb5hgfJOP0

— Gregg Jackson (@GreggMJackson) June 26, 2017

He then asks for examples of lies from the guests on Howse's show, Shahram Hadian and Usama Dakdok. It just so happens I had a few jotted down.

Presented for your uncritical dismissal pic.twitter.com/6OTxCGjGCh

— Glenn Hendrickson (@glenn_h) June 26, 2017

Will this be sufficient? Some of these statements about things White said are demonstrably false. Misquoting someone you disagree with causes a serious blow to your credibility. No one is saying that Jackson, Howse, or anyone else has to agree with White. We are saying that your disagreement ought to be based on 1) what actually happened (not what you wish had happened) or 2) what White actually said (not what you misquote him as having said).