Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 14 More Sweat Less Blood

In going through this book, you have looked at multiple tactics to help you effectively have conversations that aim to put a rock in the other person's shoe. That is, you give them something to think about that will hopefully stay with them long after the conversation is over. It is not about winning, but planting a seed. That said, this book and this blog on it do not guarantee that the conversations you have will be different.

There is a huge difference between application and knowledge. Greg states an old training maxim he heard from a former marine, "The more you sweat in practice, the less you bleed in battle." That means that you need to look at not only the tactics you have learned. You also need to practice those tactics as well as learn when and how to apply them in actual conversations. Following are his 8 quick tips:

1. Be ready - always be willing to talk to the people you come in contact with and see if there is interest
2. Keep it simple - Stick to salvation. If other issues don't come up, why bring them up?
3. Avoid religious language and spiritual pretense
4. Focus on the truth of Christianity, not merely its personal benefits - Focus on truth, not only experience
5. Give reasons - Don't make assertions without giving evidence. Remember, the roof needs supports to hold it up 
6. Stay calm - Don't get mad, don't get frustrated. Always stay composed
7. If they want to go, let them leave - You don't have to close the sale every time. That is God's job
8. Don't let them leave empty-handed - Offer a business card, a Christian web site or something to read

Also, gather on a regular basis with people who have the same interests in apologetics and/or sharing salvation with others that you do. They may not yet be as advanced as you are, they may have more wisdom and knowledge than you. Commit to meeting together on a regular basis. It could be monthly, weekly or biweekly. Just be consistent. Get together and study with open discussion. Build each other up and don't be surprised to see your passion spread to others. 

As ambassadors you need to welcome opposing views. If you are confident in your beliefs you will be committed to truth and gathering knowledge. I had a philosophy professor who gave me a great definition for intelligence. He said, "An intelligent man can discuss both sides of the argument." How can you combat what you don't know? Furthermore, how can you know that you are right if you don't listen to all of the facts? 

If you are truly interested in the salvation of others you will not run from opposing viewpoints. Instead, you will strive to find out why they believe as they do and share the truth with them. If you are committed to truth instead of an organization, you will be open to refining your own beliefs and views. You should be open to correction in how you think. Someone who disagrees with you may actually have the right view. You may have the right view. Either way, an evangelist is willing to engage in argument that goes against what he/she believes. That allows you to develop better answers to defend how you believe or make corrections if you find your thinking to be faulty. 

Bottom line, don't retreat under fire. Remember, it is all of eternity you are fighting for. If you were trying to save someone's life, would you just give up and walk away or would you be willing to fight for it? Having courage in the face of adversity allows you to gain the respect of others. Never be afraid to share your side; always be willing to hear the others side. Over time this will allow you to develop faith that is rock solid!

In closing, remember the traits of an ambassador. Always be:

• Ready - Be on the alert for chances to represent Christ
• Patient - Don't quarrel, listen so you can understand their side, then respectfully engage
• Reasonable - Have informed convictions, not feelings, give reasons, ask questions, seek answers
• Tactical - Learn to adapt to different situations and people, present the truth so they understand
• Clear - Don't use Christian lingo and jargon 
• Fair - Be sympathetic and understanding of the others views 
• Honest - Don't misrepresent the facts of your view or someone else's, don't understate the gospels demands
• Humble - Know that you are fallible and that your understanding is never perfect
• Attractive - Always act with kindness and grace so that you may honor Christ with your conduct
• Dependent - Always rely on God in all that you do. That is the most important key to being successful not only in conversations but in life!

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 13 Just the Facts, Ma'am

This chapter is named after a quote by Detective Joe Friday in the old television police drama, Dragnet. It was used frequently by him when questioning a witness. Detective Friday meant that he did not want to hear assumptions or other people's statements. He only wanted to hear the facts as the person knew them. This is exactly what we should want from others, too.

In order to do this, we must only demand two things. First, is to be aware that many challenges to Christianity are simply supported by bad information and spurious claims. Second is that you know the facts yourself. The last is not a necessity, since most of us have the internet on our phones and can look up the information itself. So, let's take a look at two examples Mr Koukl uses.

The first is, "More wars have been fought and more blood shed in the name of God  than any other cause. Religion is the greatest source of evil in the world." For starters, since chaos and oppression are not duties Christians have nor do they come from apply Christ's teachings logically you cannot blame violence done in the name of Christianity. Also, if you find an older Guinness Book of World Records and go to category "Judicial" under the subheading "Crimes: Mass Killings" you find carnage of horrific proportions. YOu find 66 million murdered under Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev; 32-61 million Chinese under the communist parties since 1949; 1/3 of the Khmers (2.7 million) in a 4 year period in the 70's under communist Khmer Rouge.

Dennis Prager says that in the 20th century alone, "more innocent people have been murdered, tortured and enslaved by secular ideologies - Nazism and communism - than by all religions in history." It would appear that the greatest evil and atrocities come not from people who follow gods, but instead from people who believe there is no God to answer to.

The next claim is, "The country of America was not founded by Christians but deists." The Founding Father's is a proper noun that is used to identify the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Thre were 55 people that made up the core. There were "28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown and ONLY 3 DEISTS - Williamson, Wilson and Franklin." The caps are mine. So 93% of our Founding Fathers were Christian. Hard to dispute those facts!

Spotting faulty facts can be difficult at times. In order to have Just the Facts Ma'am work, you need to follow a two-step plan. Step one is to ask yourself, "What is the claim?" Take a few seconds and pinpoint the point being made by the other person. Write it down, if need be. Remember that assertions and opinions are frequently hidden under clever verbiage. For instance, saying that one has no right to oppose abortion unless they were willing to care for the babies. For starters, that is comparable to saying that you cannot oppose someone beating their wife unless you are willing to marry them. Look at the claim being made and see if it is valid.

Once we have identified the claim, we can then put step 2 into action. "Is the claim factually accurate?" Using the example about pro-lifers needing to care for the babies. A quick internet check will reveal over 4,000 national and international service providers that are pro-life who are founded on insuring the well-being of mothers in crisis and insuring they and the babies have housing, clothing, access to medical providers, food, adoption services and even counseling for women who are post-abortion. All at no cost.

A final example is when we are told, "Do not judge others. The bible says that if you judge others, you will be judged likewise." The Bible verse Matthew 7:1 is called upon by Christians and non-Christians alike. A closer look will show that Jesus was against hypocritical and arrogant judgements, but not all judgements. In fact, He says that we must first remove the plank from our own eye so that we can see clearly to take the mote out of your brother's eye.

So, in closing this week we have found that we should do two things when we hear a challenge. Ask ourselves, "What is the claim?" and once identified we ask ourselves, "Is the claim factually accurate?" If we do these two things we will better be able to see whether or not the claim is based on shoddy facts, opinions or if it is truly valid. From there, we can continue the discussion. See you in two weeks as we conclude the book Tactics. 

Tactics By Gregory Koukl Chapter 12 Rhodes Scholar

Recently there have been a rash of articles, generally right before Christmas and Easter, that look at the history of Christianity and it's events. They tend to have juicy titles, like "What really happened (fill in the holiday title here)" or "The untold truth about (impending holiday belief here)." The authors take a "what-scholars-say-that-your-pastor-does-not-want-you-to-know approach." Then there are various academics cited who have used the historical scientific approach to debunk all of the false thoughts held by those poor, sad, foolish faith having few.

These stories tend to sell a lot of magazines while discouraging Christians. People look at the big picture and large font on the cover and wonder how did they never hear of these "facts?" Suddenly, some of those who have faith are suddenly unsure of what to believe and those without faith feel justified. After all, how can you argue with the consensus of academic opinion?

Gregory Koukl calls this tactic the "Rhodes Scholar." This is a way of knowing if the academic is a legitimate authority or not. What we do here is look at the difference between educating and informing. You are informed when the article tells you the belief of the author. You are educated by the article when you are let in on why the particular view is held. This is a very important difference. Remember chapter 4, the reason why a belief is held supports the beliefs of the person. If the walls are weak, the whole house collapses.

Most articles inform while not educating. Without the education piece, you can't evaluate the conclusion of the author. How do we know? For starters, no matter the credentials of the author, never be satisfied with the conclusion without first asking for the reasons. NEVER SETTLE FOR OPINIONS!!

Don't be victimized by the "fallacy of expert witness." Appealing to authority is okay, but it has to be done right. Always ask, "Why should I believe this person's opinion?" This question can be answered in two ways.

First, the scholar could know the facts due to a special position. IF he possesses that special info he must be able to use that evidence to convince you. For example, imagine an economics professor discussing the ethics of stem cell research and a cancer researcher who tells us about the dangers of the middle East. They may have degrees and intelligence in their field, but is outside their realm of expertise. Might as well let your mechanic remove your gall bladder and the mailman give you a hair cut and manicure. A Nobel Prize in biology hardly makes one an expert in economics.

Even if the scholar is speaking in their field of expertise, we still have the right to see how they came to their conclusion. Norm Giesler says, "All appeals to authority ultimately rest on the evidence the authority has. The letters after his name don't mean a thing without the evidence to back up his position."

Second, on occasion a scholar can be in a unique position to give judgement. They have the facts but then have the expertise to render judgement. Here we face another issue. Their judgement could be clouded by "philosophical considerations that are not always on the table" for you to see. Sometimes the scholar already knows where he will end up and looks for the "facts" that will allow him to reach his destination. If I am already convinced for or against something it makes it difficult for me to see otherwise. This is particularly a problem seen in science.

Science itself has two completely different definitions. The first is the most know. It is a method that involves observing, experimenting and testing with an open mind to discover facts. If the view doesn't follow this method, it is not science. Second is the philosophy of naturalistic materialism. Phenomena has to be explained within the parameters of energy and matter that natural law is governed by. If it doesn't fit into this second definition it is also, not science.

Using these two methods, we generally reach non-conflicting conclusions. Answers that are consistent with these two definitions are produced through good methods. Sometimes they aren't compatible. Evolution is that way. Koukl says, "When there is a conflict between methodology and materialism, the philosophy always trumps facts. Modern science does not conclude from the evidence that design is not tenable. It assumes it prior to the evidence. Any scientific methodology (first definition of science) that points to creation is summarily disqualified by scientific philosophy (second definition of science) as religion disguised as science."

You don't always have to see forces to acknowledge they are there. If a dead body is discovered, there  is generally an unbiased investigation. That investigation may rule that it wasn't an accidental death but was instead a homicide. If there are multiple bullet holes in the body, the investigator may come to the conclusion that it was indeed foul play. This is the same way that unbiased scientific evidence could find that chance is not how life came about, but instead had "an agent in creation This is not faith vs evidence but evidence vs evidence."

In closing, a scholarly opinion may be a great way to make a point. But this is sometimes not the case. First, we must always insure that the scholar is talking about their field of expertise. Second, remember that WHAT they believe is not what you are after. You want to know WHY they believe that way. You want to hear the scholars reasons, not their opinions.

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 11 - Steamroller

Are you ready to learn more ways to deal with people who hold different beliefs than you do? If so, then this has been a great series for you. We have been looking at ways to help explain to others our opinion when we disagree. Sometimes, no matter how reasonable our points are people will not listen. They have their minds made up and nothing you can tell them is going to change their minds today, not matter how rational your argument it.

Believe it or not, rational reasons keep people from seeing the truth. A rational reason can bring up more questions, and until those question are answered, you are at an impasse. So what are those reasons?

1. Emotional reasons - They have had bad experiences with the church, or with Christians, or because if they accept Christ that means that _________ (Fill in blank with name of deceased loved one) died without forgiveness and they may be in suffering for all of eternity.
2. Prejudice - As soon as they see you or find out you are a Christian, they have already made value judgments against you and are shut down. They are only interested in their position, not yours.
3. Rebellion - Some people fight against Christ and Christianity because they are stubborn. They will fight that fight until the day they die

Those reasons may all be going on with the person you are talking to. Every once in a while you will run into someone who uses one of the above reasons. They will try to verbally overpower you. It is not facts or even arguments that they throw at you, but the force of their own will. This is the person known as the steamroller. So, how do we know a steamroller?

A steamroller always interrupts. A lot like the interrupting cow, they will constantly throw questions at you, not allowing you to answer the original question that they asked. They will change subjects, fire question after question, interrupt and never allow you to be on the offensive. Nothing you say will matter to them, because they generally aren't listening anyway. After all, they are not interested in learning or even getting their questions answered. The steamroller is only interested in winning.

Because they are aggressive, you have to be aggressive with them. There are several steps to being aggressive enough to have a conversation with the steamroller:

1. STOP HIM
2. SHAME HIM
3. LEAVE HIM

You have to stop the steamroller if you can. Once he knows that you are intimidated, he has already won. Because of this, you need to act quickly. One way to stop the intrusion is to nicely ask for courtesy. You might hold up your hand or a finger, and when they pause say, "I'm not quite finished answering your question yet. You asked a good question and I would like to give you a good answer. If you have another question or comment I will give you the chance as soon as I am done to respond. Will that work?"

If they break their agreement to wait until you are done, or if they will not give you an opportunity to talk you move to step 2. Shaming is a little more aggressive. You will shame them for their bad behavior. This is done by getting their attention, looking them in the eye and calmly talking to them. You could say something like, "Can I ask a quick question? So you really want a response from me? I thought that you did at first, now I get the impression from your continuing to interrupt me that all you really want is an audience. If that is true, I can just listen to you. If you want an answer, you'll need to give me time to respond. Tell me what you want. I need to know before I go on."

Hopefully that will work. They will see that you are their equal and they cannot steamroll you, or they continue to be rude and interrupt. Never lose your calm. Remember the saying, "Never get into an argument with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level then beat you with experience." If you cannot get them to stop, you leave. Plain and simple. When the first two methods have failed you need to just walk away. They can have the satisfaction of having the last word. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone deserves an answer.

Once again, don't forget what the Bible says about this very thing in Mark 4. You are told that some of the seeds you plant will fall by the thorns and not grow, some will sprout fast but wither and die and still others will be gobbled up by birds. All you can do is plant the seeds. Then your job is done. Remember, if it falls on deaf ears you should not take it personally. This is not about you, this is about Christ!

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 10 - Taking the Roof Off

Not all points of view commit suicide such as the ones we have looked at in the past couple of chapters. Some of them work against themselves by leading to absurd conclusions if they are broken down. These will not work against themselves as those that commit suicide will, but if we use just a little bit of our brain power we can relate how these points too just do not pass the muster test.

To do this you first must take the other person's point of view. Reduce it to it's most basic assertion. Then you try the idea out and determine if you were to use that view to guide you, where would it take you. Mentally take their view for a test drive. Finally, if it takes you to a place that seems a bit unusual, you point that out to whoever is using that viewpoint.

This method is called Taking the Roof Off by Mr. Koukl. Another way this is know by is reductio ad absurdum. This is a phrase in Latin that means reducing a point to its furthest conclusion. If when doing this you see that the outcome is incoherent or absurd, then you help the person who has that point of view see the faulty logic it ends in.

Take moral relativism, for example. Most who believe in moral relativism don't mind practicing it as long as it is not practiced on them. To believe that cruelty and non cruelty are equal in Hinduism would mean that there is no difference between evil and good, ultimately. How is someone helping your wife broke down on the side of the road the same as someone killing her intentionally? Obviously, that is an extreme example, but those tend to work best to make the point.

Someone who "denies God is living on borrowed capital. He enjoys living as if the world is filled with morality, meaning, order and beauty, yet he denies that God whose existence make such things possible."

There are several different examples given in the book of ideas that are ripe for having their roof taken off. He hits on two very hot topics here, one of them being homosexuality and the other being abortion. These are two very hard topics for many to broach, and he does it well in the book by looking at the arguments given today for these two topics.

In homosexuality it is currently popular to say, "I was born this way." That is all that many feel is needed in order to stem the moral criticisms for homosexuality. The basic argument is that since homosexuality is natural it must be moral. What if scientists some day found a racism gene. Would these same people who reason that homosexuality is natural so it must be  moral feel the same way about gay bashers if that too proved to be a naturally occurring gene. Instead, they would probably argue that they should fight the influence of that gene.

Just because an impulse is natural does not mean it's moral. Substance abuse has been found to be genetic. There are many of us who are hardwired to be addicts and alcoholics. That does not give me the right to inject methamphetamine and drive drunk for the rest of my life. I know that it is morally wrong and due to that I have been clean and sober for over 3 years (by the Grace of God!).

Next Greg talked about "Trotting out the Toddler." He said that almost every argument that supports abortion could be used to justify the killing of children that are newly born as well, if taken to their conclusion. How can a 7 inch journey magically transform tissue into a living human being? If someone says that "women have the right to choose" ask if, for the same reason given, she should have the same right to kill her 1 year old? Both are human beings, so the same rule should morally apply to them.

If you should kill a fetus to save it from future abuse or neglect, should you not also kill a two year old to save them from the same thing? After all, that is the logical implication that abortion has. Modified pro-choice is even worse.This is when someone says "I think that it is wrong for me to kill my baby. I would never do that, but it is okay for other women to do what they want." All you have to do is so, "So in effect, you feel that it is okay for women to kill babies?" Just like that, the roof is off, although it can be taken even further using the toddler line of deroofing their argument.

Greg also has many other great examples of how to take the roof off of the arguments of many more arguments in this chapter. If you want to read those, I would highly recommend that you buy the book. I know for me it has been an interesting and informing read so far. I look forward to reading chapter 11 and writing about it. Til then, have a blessed week!

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 9: Sibling Rivalry and Infanticide

Ther are many reasons that someone point of view can self-destruct. So far, you have covered two of them: Formal suicide and Practical Suicide. Today we will talk about two more self-defeating views: Sibling Rivalry and Infanticide. When someone has two objections that conflict, you have the Sibling Rivalry. If, on the other hand, someone's view is built upon a previous concept that disqualifies their view, then you have Infanticide.

In conversation sometimes, you will hear something that sounds strange. You will hear objections used by the same person that are not consistent with each other. Since they cannot both be valid, you only have to do half the work. A reasonable person will concede on at least one of their arguments, when they are pointed out to them. Sometimes they will silence both of their arguments when they are shown to be in conflict.

An example of Sibling Rivalry would be someone who looks at the world today and is angered. They read about someone who has abused children or a dictator killing innocent people and say, "A good, loving God would never let this happen." Yet when those same people hear that some will be judged by God say, "A good, loving God would never send anyone to hell." By their very arguments, if God does not act against evil, He cannot be good and loving. Yet when he does act to punish sin, his goodness and love are put into question.

Sibling Rivalry is also the issue moral relativists run into when objecting to evil. A relativist will argue that we all have our own morality. Right and wrong are the business of the individual, who are we to judge. Therefore, they cannot really define evil. Evil only means that something is wrong for them to do. If you label something as evil, that means that it is not the way it is supposed to be. Unless things are meant to be different, this is a senseless word. If the world is unjust, than there must be a higher justice.

What the moral relativist is saying is, "If God were really good and loving, He would only allow things that I like and wouldn't allow things I find displeasing." Gregory says, "The belief that objective good and evil do not exist (relativism) is i conflict (rivalry) with a rejection of God based on the existence of objective evil."
Infanticide is harder to understand. Imagine a father ending a letter with; "Son, if you didn't get this letter, please let me know, and I'll send you another. I made a copy." This is illogical because the son would have to receive the letter if he knew to ask for a copy, but if he got the letter he would not need the copy. There is a dependency here that is the very heart of Infanticide. Another example is saying "vocal chords do not exist." That statement in and of itself is not contradictory internally, but it requires vocal chords to speak the statement. So the parent concept (vocal chords) invalidates the child (claim there is no vocal chords).

The best example of Infanticide is when objectivists argue that God cannot exist because of evil. The atheist must first answer the question, "What do you mean by evil?" They will probably give examples: rape, murder, racism, child abuse. Those are good answers, but they miss the point. Where does their concept of evil come from. Before you can give examples of evil, you must know what evil is.

So, how do you know the difference between good and bad? Let's look at bowling. In bowling, good and bad can be measured by pin count. A 300 is supremely good, and rolling all gutter balls is supremely bad. Even in sports that you cannot be perfect in, such as golf, we still keep score. When we use the word evil we have a moral scoring system that we depend on. Evil means that when put on the goodness scale, we are on the low end. C.S. Lewis saw this same problem:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call something crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.

This is the problem atheists will run into. Where have they gotten their concept of good that allows them to label something as evil? How can there be a moral scoring system if morals are nothing more than a product of chance. In fact, why obey them at all if that is the case. Who is it that establishes how things are supposed to be? In the movie The Quarrel, Rabbi Hersh says:

If there's nothing in the universe that's higher than human beings, then what's morality? Well, it's a matter of opinion. I like milk; you like meat. Hitler likes to kill people; I like to save them. Who's to say which is better? Do you begin to see the horror of this? If there's no master of the universe, then who's to say that Hitler did anything wrong? If there is no God, then the people that murdered your wife and children did nothing wrong.

So why do we need a God? What purpose does God serve in the argument about morals and morality? A morally perfect God is the only plausible standard for a moral scoring system that contains at the bottom end evil. If God's existence makes evil intelligible, then evil cannot be evidence against God. In fact, it is great evidence for God. So morals actually prove that God exists!

When it comes to morals, sometimes people think that atheists can't be moral. That is very untrue. They can be very moral, but they generally canot make sense of morality without God. Just because you can't explain gravity does not mean it does not work. The question for them is what grounds morality? Atheism creates a physicalist universe and morality is a nonphysical thing.

I would get into scientism as he does and how it commits suicide now, but that will take an entire blog. Look for a blog entitled Scientism Self-Destructs coming in the next week or so. See you next time when we look at Chapter 10!

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 8: Practical Suicide.

Last chapter you learned that some people's objections you do not have to defend. Instead, you show that their point commits suicide, meaning all you have to do is ask questions about the point that is being made and it will fail. Some views can also be self-defeating, just in a different way. One of those ways is practical suicide.

In this type of suicidal view, "you can hold the view, but you can't promote it." I used to say that I could not stand prejudiced people. In saying that about a certain type of people, I was showing myself to be prejudiced. So although I may dislike prejudice, saying that I do not like prejudiced people made me a prejudiced person.

Others say that apologetics is not adequate, because it uses reason to discover truth. "In fact, I will give you three good reasons why you can't use logic to find truth." Another view that commits practical suicide is  "condemning condemnation." This is where you state your belief that someone is wrong for doing something. In turn, someone tells you that you are wrong for condemning people like you just did. All you have to do now is ask them why they are condemning you.

When you share with others about Christ, you are following the command that Christ gave us with the Great Commission. You may have others of a different faith tell you that it is wrong to try and change their religious views. In saying this, they are telling you to change your religious views. They want you to abandon your views of evangelism and instead adopt their views.

A moral relativist will push their morals on you, whilst telling you that it is wrong to push your morality on them. Greg Koukl says: The only consistent response for a relativist is, "Pushing morality is wrong for me, but that's just my personal opinion and has nothing to do with you. Please ignore me."

Hopefully through these examples you can see exactly what a practical suicide view is. It is another view point that will self-destruct. It will not self-destruct due to internal contradiction. Instead, it is a view that one can believe, but they cannot promote it or act on it because they will violate their own convictions, for example, "It is wrong to say people are wrong."

See you next time when we introduce a couple more self-destructing points of view.

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 7: Suicide: Views that Self-Destruct

The first 6 chapters of Tactics looked at the game plan. This week begins part 2, Finding the Flaws. You will begin to identify different flaws in the arguments that people use against you. The first flaw Greg discusses in his book is the suicidal view. These views are self-refuting and will defeat themselves. You don't need to waste much time on these. They will literally destroy themselves. My personal favorite is, "My brother is an only child."

That statement is easily proven wrong by itself. If he is my brother, than he cannot be an only child. The problem with these views is simple. They fail to meet their own criteria of validity. Here are some examples that he lists:

• There is no truth. (Is this statement true?)
• There are no absolutes. (Is this an absolute?)
• No one can know any truth about religion. (How precisely, did you come to know this truth about religion?)
• You can't know anything for sure. (Are you sure about that?)

Basically, the suicide tactic can only work due to a rule of logic called the law of noncontradiction. That law states that two contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time. All views that are suicidal make claims that are at odds with each other. "A" cannot be the case if "A" is the case.

Imagine someone tells you, "You should never impose you values on other people." Has he not just imposed his values on you? That is why your very next question should be, "Are those your values." When he says yes then ask, "Why are you imposing your values on other people?"

Another example is the following conversation Greg gives in Tactics:
 "You think that God is on your side but you are wrong. God doesn't take sides."
"Let me ask you a question. In this disagreement that we are having on whether or not God takes sides, what do you think God's opinion is?"
"I just told you. God is against taking sides."
"Right. So in our dispute God would agree with you, not me."
"That is right."
"He would side with you in this issue, then. I guess God takes sides after all."

Simply by stating that God does not take sides implies that he has taken sides. The same is true when someone says that the Bible is flawed because people make mistakes. Could they not be mistaken themselves, about the Bible being flawed? If people don't always make mistakes, then the Bible can not be ruled out just because people wrote it.

Another common argument is that religion cannot be true as follows:
"I don't believe in religion."
"Why not?"
"There is no scientific evidence for it."
"Then you should not believe in science either."
"Why not?"
"Because there is no scientific evidence for it."

In this instance, people feel that only science can give reliable truth. If that were to be true, then were is the scientific evidence that proves only science can prove the truth? This is not a testable scientific claim. Instead, it is a philosophical statement about science that is unreliable because it cannot be proven by the scientific method.

Anyone that states all religions are true can be no more right than someone who states all religion is false. When someone dies they may go to Hell, they may go to Heaven, they may go to Valhalla, they might go back in the ground simply turning to dust, they might even be reincarnated but the last thing that they can do is all of these choices at once.

Next you have the pseudo-questions. It would be a question such as "Can God's power defeat His power?" I have heard this asked  before as, "Can God make a rock so big He can't pick it up?" Of course that is a nonsensical question. How can omnipotence defeat omnipotence. Can you ever win a fight against yourself? Logic would tell us no. W can only use the phrase "stronger than" when there are two subjects, not one. Asking if God is stronger than himself is at best an incoherent question.

In closing, Suidical Views are awesome. We have to do very little work to refute them, we need only do several things. First, listen to the claim or premise. Then ask if the claim applies to itself. If it does, does it meet it's own criteria or is there a conflict. IF there is a conflict, rather than pointing that out in a statement use a question to point it out (The Columbo Approach).

Thanks for reading, see you next time when we delve into Practical Suicide!

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 6: Perfecting Columbo

So you are wanting to be able to defend your faith rationally and well, right? When you have tried that in the past you have probably noticed that it is hard to be successful in discussions that you have had. You tend to be unable to do anything that you are unprepared for. If you are faced with new problems you generally have trouble coming up with well thought out solutions on the fly. The reason for that is simple. It takes time and practice to develop any new skill, let alone perfect it.

At first, you will not be able to come up with responses rapidly. Due to that there are 3 specific things that you can do to better prepare yourself:

1. Anticipate in advance what could come up in conversations
2. Reflect after the discussion on what took place
3. Practice the different responses that you are able to think of when you reflect to better prepare you for the next time

Anticipate  ways that the conversations you might get into could go. Look at common themes and/or questions that people tend to ask or use. You will want to look up information on the questions that you have had issues with in the past. The you can come up with several good responses for each of those scenarios. Give yourself several different ways to insure you are in the driver's seat when you have future conversations.

Reflect on each conversation after it happens. Make sure to ask yourself several questions each time. Could I have asked better questions? Could I have steered the conversation in a more beneficial direction? Did I plant a decent sized rock in their shoe? Where did I make mistakes? What could I have done differently? Did I represent myself as a good ambassador for Christ? Do I need to learn more about the topic we discussed? Did I act with enough kindness and grace?

Practice the new information that you find and ideas that you come up with out loud. If you can think of things that someone might possibly use to combat what you say, practice what you will say back. And do it out loud. Work on repeating comebacks, and if you have a friend to help you can even role play the conversations. Remember, do it out loud and often. If you want to get better at anything, the only way is to rehearse it and practice, practice, practice.

There are two things that must happen in order to meet a challenge. You must be prepared and then take action. Preparation gives you the confidence you need, but only through interaction with others will you truly be able to improve your abilities to the level they should be for you to truly be an ambassador for Christ.

Occasionally you may run into someone who tries to use the Columbo on you. Always remember that you  control your side of the discussion. If they are asking leading questions, don't answer them. Ask them why they are using questions to explain their points. Let them know that you want to know their views.

Sometimes you may also be asked a question that is not a question and you must always be prepared for it. It will sound like, "What gives you the right to .....?" or "Who are you to say?" If this happens, let them know that you are confused by the questions. "I get the impression that you think that I've made a mistake. Where did I go wrong?" That, or you can ask them to clarify their question so that you can understand it.

Today we took a look at what we have discussed in the earlier blogs as well as how we can begin to get better and prepare ourselves to be not only ambassadors for Christ, but apologists. This is done by remembering 3 words: anticipate, reflect and practice. Join me next week when we begin the second section of the Tactics and start learning how to find the flaws in others arguments.

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 5 Step Three: Using Columbo to Lead the Way

You are beginning to use the Columbo tactic in a different way in this chapter. In the past chapters you have not had to have knowledge, but instead have asked for the knowledge of the person you are talking to. You have also not been on the offensive, but have played the conversation defensively by insuring they were responsible for the burden of proof and your views might not even have been known yet. That all changes today!

Today you begin to ask a different type of question, a "leading question." You want to have the other person begin to talk in the direction that you want them to go. This can be done by asking questions. These questions will get the person you are in discussion with to take steps forward towards your way of thinking. You are not forcing your opinions, but are attempting to persuade them.

As you begin to let others know that you are Ambassadors for Christ you will get asked "the question." One where a simple yes will cause you to appear conceited, prejudice and fundamental in the worst sense of the word. That question is, "So you are saying that people who don't believe what you believe are going to Hell?"

That question is not meant to do anything other than discredit you. It is asked to paint you as the worst type of person who is right and every one else is wrong. There is a way to answer this question, but it takes having knowledge. Unless you know why Jesus matters, you will fail. Simply knowing that they need to believe isn't enough. Here is how Greg used his knowledge in a conversation with Guy X:
"Let me ask you a question,"he said. "Do you think that people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished?"
"I guess I do," Guy X replied.
"Good. So do I." Greg said, to agree with Guy X. "Now, a second question: Have you ever committed any moral crimes?"
"Yes, I guess I have."
"So have I," Greg said. "That puts us in a pretty tight spot, doesn't it? We both believe people who do bad things should be punished, and we both believe that we're guilty on that score. Do you know what I call that? I call that bad news. This is were Jesus comes in. WE both know we are guilty. That's the problem. So God offers a solution: a pardon, free of charge. That clemency is on His terms, not ours. Jesus is God's means of pardon. He personally paid the penalty in our place. He took the wrap for our crimes. No one else did that. Only Jesus. Now we have a choice to make. Either we take the pardon and go free, or we turn it down and pay for our crimes ourselves."

In this conversation Greg used the Columbo tactic coupled with his knowledge of what Christ did on the cross and why it was significant for all people. Using the same two things, knowledge and the Columbo tactic will allow you to answer a lot of hard questions, once you learn how to effectively use them.

On occasion you may need to use questions to make conversations that you are in more favorable for you. When it is a controversial issue, begin by saying, "You know, this is actually a very personal question that you're asking. I don't mind answering, but before I do, I want to know if it's safe to offer my views. So let me ask you a question: Do you consider yourself a tolerant or intolerant person on issues like this? Is it safe to give my opinion, or are you going to judge me for my point of view? Do you respect diverse points of view, or do you condemn others for convictions that differ from your own?"

This covers you from being seen as the intolerant one. If they judge you, then by their own admission they are intolerant. Someone who calls you intolerant generally does so because you do not believe as they do. Them disagreeing with you based on their own beliefs makes them intolerant towards you. If this happens to you, there is a simple solution. You can ask them to explain to you why when you think you're right it is intolerance, but when they think they are right it just means that they are right.

In this method, you are using questions to expose flaws/weaknesses and to expose difficulties and problems you see in their views. Unless you know the shortcomings in their arguments, you will not see them. This is why knowledge is the number one requirement for ambassadors of Christ. That said, remember that you are not trying to knock one out of the park every time you have a conversation. Sometimes, simply asking "What do you mean by that?" and "How did you come to that conclusion?" is enough. Just getting off the bench and into the game is often a great start.

There is one flaw that can occur when you begin this step. You run the chance when you go on the offensive as coming across as offensive. Remember what Jesus said in Matthew 10:16, "Be shrewd as serpents, and innocent as doves." This means that you must have the ability to look at someone's view and point out the weaknesses without begin smug or pushy. This can be a difficult task, especially at first.

In order to achieve the inoffensive offensive, you can use the following 3 questions:

1. Have you considered?
2. Can you clear this up for me?
3. Can you help me understand this?

These questions allow you to show respect for the person that you disagree with. You already showed effort with the first two questions. Then you asked for further clarification with, "Do you mind if I ask you a few questions about what you told me?" Finally, you can use a statement such as "It's my understanding that...."
and then explain your position and ask them to share a response. That let's them know that you have a belief, but it is open to discussion.

So know not only can you gather information, but you can also lead people in the direction you want them to go in, all by asking questions. You do need to be informed about the direction you want them to go in, or when they get there you will not be able to find the errors in their way of thinking. PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT!! See you next week when you will learn how to begin perfecting the Columbo techniques.

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 4 - Columbo Step 2: The Burden of Proof

Christians should be able to give reasons for what we believe to be true. For some reason, others feel that Christians have the corner on that market and forget a truth. They need to be able to back up their beliefs, too. In Chapter 4 Greg look at the second step Columbo used, which he calls "reversing the burden of proof." Whoever makes the claim has the responsibility to prove their view. They don't have to prove me wrong, instead they have to prove their point of view to be right.

To illustrate what he is talking about, Greg looks at a caller who disagreed with his "a big bang needs a big banger" line. The caller felt that if you have "a base of nothing and you could say that there was nothing but an infinite, continuous moment, until one tiny, little insignificant thing happened: a point happened in the nothingness. This requires no intelligence, so no intelligent God had to intervene. All we need is a tiny imperfection in the perfect nothingness that expanded and became increasingly complex, and soon you have galaxies and planets."

From here Greg threw down the gauntlet, telling the caller that "It's not my job to disprove your something from nothing fairy tale. It's your job to prove it. You haven't done that, you haven't even tried." Generally when people throw out "stories" to disprove your beliefs, they expect the discussion to end there. That should never be the case. If they have a theory, they need to give an argument.

The first Columbo question that we looked at was, "What do you mean by that?" That question let's you know what a person thinks. The question you will learn today is, "Now, how did you come to that conclusion?" This question allows you to know why a person thinks as they do. They are made to give reasons for their beliefs, and many are not prepared to do this. They may even say, "I don't know why I believe it, I just do." Which allows you to ask, "Why would you believe something when you have no reasons to believe it's true?"

You need to remember that you do not have to counter everything that someone says. What you need to do is steer the burden of proof back onto the shoulders of the person you are having the discussion with. You do not have to defeat their statements, they have to defend them. Further remember that "an alternate explanation is not a refutation." That means just because someone may be able to spin a story to support their view, that is not the same as them explaining why what they believe is true.

Many of the explanations by people like Richard Dawkins that pop up in Darwinian circles are "just so stories" after the Rudyard Kipling's book entitled "Just So Stories." It had chapters called "How the Leopard Got His Spots" and "How the Came Got His Hump." Don't allow people to pass of stories as fact. Instead, ask yourself three questions.

1. Is it possible - some stories will seem completely impossible given closer scrutiny
2. Is it plausible - given the evidence, it is reasonable to think this is the most likely option
3. Is it probable -considering the other options, is this the best one

The question, "How did you come to this conclusion?" allows you to ask yourself these three questions and insures that the burden of proof is on the person making the statement. You are able to see if the argument was valid or if it was just an opinion they had. If it is an opinion, then that leads you to more questions. "Very interesting opinion you have there. How did you come to it? Can you give me a couple of reasons I should take it that conclusion seriously?" When someone gives their opinions, they must further support their opinion.

Next you have the "professor's ploy." This is a common move used by people to escape the burden of proof. It happens when someone makes an attempt to poke holes in someone else's beliefs. When this is done, ask them why they feel as they do. "What do you mean by that?" and "So what is your opinion, then?" Make them explain how the evidence convinced them to believe how they do. They may try to return the burden to you, "Why don't you try to prove me wrong." In reply, you can say, "I haven't even said anything about my view. I might even believe as you do. It is irrelevant what I believe. You ideas are relevant and I am just wanting clarification and good reasons for the view that you have." Remember to show others grace and respect.

The minute that you feel outmatched you can switch to fact-finding mode instead of persuasion mode. Just say something like this:

       "It appears that you know a lot more about this than me, and you have some interesting ideas that I have not heard before. I wonder, to help me understand you ideas better could you please take a minute to explain them to me as well as why you believe it to be true so that I can have a better understanding of it/"

You have now bought yourself extra time and have also let the other person know that you care about their point of view. You can then end the conversation for the time being with, "Very interesting. Let me think about what you've said and we can talk more about it later." You are off the hook. You have already pleaded ignorance of the subject. You have not resisted, but instead let them have make their case.

Now you can research what they have stated and create a response. You got off of the hot seat and allowed yourself valuable time to gain more knowledge. Once you understand their point of view, it is easier to respond. We have now learned how to get others to tell us what they believe and why they believe it as well as creating a buffer when we are overpowered by a subject we do not know enough about. Join me next week when we look at how to use leading questions in our discussions with others.

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 2: Reservations

"There are two things you don't talk about, religion and politics!" Does that sound familiar? Religion for some time has been considered a taboo subject. So when a book encourages you to have religious discussions, you probably get nervous. "How can I possibly discuss my faith, especially with non-believers, without it turning into a heated dispute?" Mr Koukl addresses just that question in Chapter 2, and he goes further than simply saying we should discuss it. He encourages that we should argue for our faith. Scary, huh!!!

Let's start by clarifying what the word argue mean? Is it two people yelling at each other back and forth, getting angrier and angrier as the discussion continues to escalate? No, argue is to attempt persuading others with reason and evidence. An argument sounds like a positive experience. A heated argument, however, is the last thing you want. If you get angry and raise your voice, cut someone off in mid-sentence or try to bully/intimidate them you lose! You give the appearance of using power instead of persuasion. It is the best way to appear ignorant on the issue. Plus it is a showing of bad manners, which is hardly Christ-like.

On the flip side, what if you stay calm as a cucumber and the other person gets angry and defensive? Once again, you lose! You should always try to keep the conversation cordial by being kind, patient and gentle. What if you express your ideas in that fashion and it still enrages people? You now know that it is your beliefs and ideas, not your attitude or behavior that bothers them.

In live you must never forget, YOU are a representative of Christ and you need to always display that. You are to love your neighbor as yourself. That means that you are to be compassionate, respectful and caring to those around you. Treat them how you want them to treat you whether they do or not. You also are to love God with your whole heart. If you have that kind of love for him, why would you not share Him? You bore people to death telling them about your children, so why do you fear discussing Christ?

You may not be able to handle someone challenging your beliefs without getting hostile. Maybe you fear enraging others. Remember, that is on them if you argue with as long as you use patience, care and respect when in discussions with others. Finally, you may be afraid that differing opinions may destroy the unity of the church. 2 Timothy chapter 2 tells you to teach others and in 2 Timothy chapter 4:2-5 we are told to:

"Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry."

Scripture tells you to correct, rebuke and encourage using sound doctrine by doing the work of an evangelist and performing the duties of ministry. This requires you to have conversations and discussions with both believers and non-believers. You cannot know truth without legitimate conversation, in which you treat others with civility and don't take what they say personally.

Here is why you should argue. Your views must be challenged if you are to develop strong faith. Without discussion and debate your faith stays weak and shallow. Argument is vital to help you distinguish between truth and error, friend from foe, positive from negative and right from wrong. The author states, "The ability to argue well is vital for clear thinking. That's why arguments are good things. Arguing is a virtue because it helps us to determine what is true and discard what is false." 

How can we love God with all of our mind as Jesus instructed us to in Mark 12:30 if we never engage our mind? Your mind is  best exercised when you dispute your claims with those who have opposing beliefs. Your faith grow stronger through arguments and sometimes they can even be effective!

In Acts 17: 2-3, Paul reasoned with non-believers for 3 Sabbaths while he explained and gave evidence for his beliefs. He did not sway them all, but the Bible says that "some of them were persuaded" (Acts 17:4). You should not expect everyone to change. In John 10:27-28 Jesus says that His sheep hear and follow. This means that there will be some who don't respond to the Truth.

In fact, you may never change anyone. If they don't respond, do not take it personally! It is not on you to change people. That is the work of God. You can neither love nor argue someone to Christ on your own. Without the work of the Spirit, there can be no conversion. Only through the power of God can the gospel transform someone. So if it is not on you to change others, why waste your time? What should your goal be?

You are to be faithful to God, and He tells you to minister and evangelize. Your goal may be to introduce a question or two for the other person to think about. Mr. Koukl says, "My aim is never to win someone to Christ. All I want to do is put a stone in some one's shoe. I want to give them something to think about." Everyone has their calling. You may be the one to harvest You may be a gardener, not a harvester. It is okay to sow, even if you do not reap. Without the seed sown (rock in their shoe) their would be no fruit to harvest.

So I would encourage you to sow some seed today. You may not harvest the seed, but it will never grow to fruition if it isn't planted. See you next week when we will examine Chapter 3 and begin examining methods of sowing the seed!

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 1: Diplomacy or D-Day

What is apologetics? It is by definition to "defend the faith, defeat false ideas, destroy speculations." These descriptions make apologetics sound very much like a full scale conflict, won by using feuding words! That is not what apologetics is for. It is not there to win by confrontation, but through diplomacy. In Tactics you will learn the Ambassador Model, which "trades more on friendly curiosity than on confrontation." How does the Ambassador Model work?

For an example, Gregory Koukl uses a discussion he started with a Pagan. In that conversation he asked the Pagan specific questions that:

1. Started the conversation.
2. Gained information.
3. Revealed the weaknesses in the responses.
4. Challenged the inconsistencies and contradictions
5. Looked at the logical consequences of the Pagan's beliefs.

He did all of this without being combative. You can use reason while being thoughtful instead of using your emotions. When you see contradictions and inconsistencies in someone's views, you are to challenge them gently, not forcefully. By paying attention you have the ability to steer the discussion in the direction you want it to go. You are in the driver's seat!

In Tactics you will learn how to get into the driver's seat of a conversation. A successful conversation requires two things, strategy and tactics. Strategy is the big picture. It is why you believe how you believe. Strategy is having knowledge to back up your beliefs. Strategically there are two types of apologetics: offensive and defensive. Offensive apologetics makes a positive case by offering evidence for Christianity. Defensive apologetics meets challenges to the Christian faith by answering them.

But the legal system show us that just having the facts (strategy) does not win the case. There have been many people who were found innocent of crimes, although the evidence was stacked against them. How did this happen? The client had an attorney who was a skilled tactician. The attorney could steer the jury towards the facts they wanted to address while poking holes in the prosecution's case. The purpose of this book is to allow you to "design particular responses to particular people so you can begin to have an impact in specific situations." This book will help you become a skilled tactician!

So as this series continues to review Tactics, we will look more into the techniques that will help you navigate the difficult conversations you get into. These techniques will be heavy on paying attention to the people around you and what they say. It is as simple as that. Only by being alert to those around you can you have an impact. If someone is not heard and understood they will not listen. You are simply clarifying their beliefs and engaging them in conversation, not combat.

You are an ambassador for Christ. You are not trying to be mean or abrasive. Instead, you get to educate those who disbelieve on why you believe. You can show them the errors that exist in their beliefs. Join me each week as we learn how to present the truth of Christianity both clearly and cleverly, turning dangerous situations into opportunities to share Christ with others.