Tim Hawkins - I'm A Christian

Are the Gospels Reliable Witnesses?

12-year-old girl banned from wearing rosary necklace at school

Rosary necklace banned for being a

'gang symbol' at Nebraska school

by Michael Zennie

School administrators in a Nebraska town of 26,000 told a middle school girl to take off her cross necklace because it looks too much like a rosary, which they say is being used by gang members.

Twelve-year-old Elizabeth Cary says her necklace is a reminder of her faith. And she vowed to stand up for what she believes in and fight the Fremont, Neb., school district, where she is a sixth grader.

The local Catholic archdioceses has condemned the decision to ban rosaries from schools and says administrators should be smart enough to tell which students are at risk for gang activity.

Taphorn told KETV-7 in Omaha, Neb., that the ban on rosaries is an infringement on Elizabeth's rights to freely practice her religion.

'It makes me feel like I want to scream really bad,' Elizabeth told the TV station.

Little Elizabeth said she doesn't even know what a gang is and doesn't understand why the school won't let her wear her necklace any more.

'I’m deciding to stand up for Jesus and do whatever I can to stop this,' she said.

Read More...

Jesus: Show Yourself!

Defending the Faith Part 14: Final Reflections

by Greg Koukl

“The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle.” -Marine Corps training adage

We have been looking at tactics to help you develop two indispensable skills in apologetics. These tactics enable you to maneuver comfortably and graciously in conversations with others about your Christian convictions and values, and teach you the art of maintaining appropriate control of the discussion. As you review these tactics keep in mind the following:

First, know your Bible well enough to give an accurate answer for the faith that is in you: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15).

Second, study these tactics. Become familiar with how they work. Know when to use them and how to initiate them.

Third, push yourself beyond your comfort zone. Be courageous; you need to mix it up with others before you'll feel adequately prepared. You’ll learn best by immediately using the information you’ve gained. You’ll take a few hits along the way, but you’ll also give a few back in a good way. You’ll also learn what the other side has to offer, which often isn’t very much.

Fourth, don’t be discouraged by outward appearances. Don’t get caught in the trap of trying to assess the effectiveness of your conversation by its immediate, visible results. Even though a person rebels at what you say, you may have still put a “stone in his shoe.” The Holy Spirit can use all things to bring others to the truth.

Finally, live out the virtues of a good ambassador. Represent Christ in a winsome and attractive way. You are God’s own ambassador and are the key to making a difference for the kingdom. With God’s help, show the world that Christianity is worth thinking about.

In some circles there’s pressure for Christian ambassadors to “close the sale” as soon as possible. When pressed for time, they say you should get right to the Gospel. If the person doesn’t respond, at least you’ve still done your part, right?

A wise ambassador, though, weighs his opportunities and adopts an appropriate strategy for each occasion. Sometimes, the simple truth of the cross is all that’s needed. The fruit is ripe for harvesting. Bump it, and it falls into your basket.

Usually, though, the fruit is not ripe; the nonbeliever is simply not ready. He may not have even begun to think about Christianity. Dropping a message on him that, from his point of view, is meaningless or simply unbelievable doesn’t accomplish anything. He would likely reject a message he doesn’t understand and then be harder to reach next time.

Here is my own more modest goal: I want to put a stone in his shoe. All I want to do is give him something worth thinking about. I want him to hobble away on a nugget of truth he can’t simply ignore because it continues to poke at him.

Follow the strategy I use when God opens a door of opportunity. I pray quickly for wisdom (James 1:5), then ask myself, “In this circumstance, what is one thing I can say, one question I can ask, one thought I can leave that will get him thinking?”

Then I simply try to put a stone in his shoe. Leave them something to think about, to ponder. And trust the Holy Spirit to bring in the harvest.

For more extensive tactics training go to www.str.org and look for Tactics in Defending the Faith Mentoring Series or STRi DVD interactive training in our online store or call Stand to Reason at 1-800-2-REASON.

Defending the Faith Part 13: The “Steamroller” Tactic

by Greg Koukl

Let’s look at a defensive tactic called the Steamroller.

Steamrollers are people who overpower you. They have strong opinions, strong personalities, and big mouths. Steamrollers mean to keep you off balance and on the defensive by overwhelming you with interruptions, attitude and lots of noise. Their words come fast and furious, keeping you from collecting your wits and giving a thoughtful answer. Steamrollers have one defining characteristic: They interrupt constantly. As soon as we begin to answer, steamrollers find something they don’t like in our explanation, interrupt us, then pile on other challenges.

Steamrollers are insincere. They know it’s easier to ask hard questions than to listen to hard answers. In fact, Steamrollers are usually not interested in answers, but in winning through power and intimidation.

We should be generous with the truth unless we encounter someone who shows utter contempt for the precious gift he is being offered. If he’s the kind of person who will take what is holy, trample on it, and then turn on you, don’t waste your time. There’s plenty of ripe fruit waiting to be harvested!

Consider three steps to stop the steamroller and put you back in control of the conversation.

Step 1: Stop the interruption graciously, but firmly, then negotiate an agreement.

Many times all you need to do is simply hold up your hand and gently say, “I'm not quite finished yet.” If necessary, ask for adequate time by saying, “Hold on a minute, I need a little more time. You asked a good question, and you deserve a good answer. Are you interested in what I have to say?” If the steamroller is especially aggressive, calmly wait for a clear opening; don’t try to talk over him if he’s not cooperating.

To negotiate an agreement, ask him to give you something (patience) so that you can give him something in return (the opportunity to respond with an answer).

Step 2: Shame the steamroller. If the steamroller breaks trust with your first agreement, or maybe you can't succeed in stopping him to briefly negotiate, you need to be more aggressive. Shame him by taking the same tack you did in step #1, but be more direct. Ask very explicitly for courtesy in your conversation. Ignore his new challenges: Don’t follow the rabbit trail. Address the steamroller problem directly.

Step 3: When all else fails, leave the steamroller alone. If he won’t let you answer, listen politely until he’s finished, then drop it. Let him have the satisfaction of having the last word, then walk away. Wisdom dictates not wasting time with this kind of fool.

Jesus warns us, “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine” (Matthew 7:6). How do we know when we have an obligation to speak and when we should keep our pearls to ourselves? The answer is easy when we consider the rest of the verse: “. . . lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”

Next time: Final reflections on how to use these tactics effectively and persuasively.

For more extensive tactics training go to www.str.org and look for Tactics in Defending the Faith Mentoring Series or STRi DVD interactive training in our online store or call Stand to Reason at 1-800-2-REASON.

Glenn talks at High Point Church - "The Lies End Here"

Glenn Beck's Declaration of Rights & Responsibilities

1. Because I have the right to choose, I recognize that I am accountable to God…and have the responsibility to keep the 10 commandments in my own life.

2. Because I have the right to worship as I choose, I have the responsibility to honor the right of others to worship as they see fit.

3. Because I have freedom of speech, I have the responsibility to defend the speech of others, even if I strongly disagree with what they’re saying.

4. Because I have the right to pursue happiness, I have the responsibility to show humility and express gratitude for all the blessings I enjoy and the rights I’ve been given.

5. Because I have the right to honest and good government, I will seek out honest and just representatives when possible. If I cannot find one then I accept the responsibility to take that place.

6. Because I have the God given right to liberty, I have the personal responsibility to have the courage to defend others to be secure in their persons, lives and property.

7. Because I have the right to equal justice, I will stand for those who are wrongly accused or unjustly blamed.

8. Because I have the right to knowledge, I will be accountable for myself and my children’s education…to live our lives in such a way that insures the continuation of truth.

9. Because I have the right to pursue my dreams and keep the fruits of my labor, I have the responsibility to feed, protect and shelter my family, the less fortunate, the fatherless, the old and infirm.

10. Because I have a right to the truth, I will not bear false witness nor will not stand idly by as others do.

Defending the Faith Part 12: “Taking the Roof Off”

by Greg Koukl

The “Taking the Roof Off” tactic is a simple technique used with great skill by Dr. Francis Schaeffer.

This tactic is also known as reductio ad absurdum (or simply reductio): reducing the argument to its absurd conclusion or consequence.

The point of this tactic is to see if a person can really live in the kind of world he’s affirming. Can he live with the moral or intellectual consequences of his beliefs? In essence, you’re taking his moral or intellectual rules seriously and applying them consistently to show they are inadequate or absurd. The Taking the Roof Off tactic makes it clear that certain arguments prove too much. The goal here is to show that one has to pay too high a price to hold certain views.

Here’s how to take the roof off someone’s argument, step by step:

First, you adopt the other person’s viewpoint for the sake of argument. Reduce the point of view to its basic premise, assertion, principle, or moral rule.

Second, give the idea a “test drive” and see where it goes. Ask, “If I follow this principle consistently, what would be the result? Do any absurd consequences result when this view is consistently applied? Does the rule have other unintended consequences that seem counter-intuitive?

Third, invite the person to consider the implications of his or her view and the truth that follows from the reductio.

As a point of fact, man is made in the image of God and must live in the world God created. Consequently, every person who is a non-theist must live with a contradiction between what he says he believes and what is actually true.

In a very real sense, every man 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 the existence of the God who grounds these things and makes them possible.

Because of this, non-Christians live in a contradictory world that creates a point of tension between what they believe and what is actually true. Man has erected as a defense a subconscious self-deception a “roof,” so to speak to protect him from considering the consequences of his beliefs. Your goal is to remove that roof, expose the fraud, and deprive him of his false sense of security.

In Francis Schaeffer’s words:

Every man has built a roof over his head to shield himself at the point of tension. . . . The Christian, lovingly, must remove the shelter [the roof] and allow the truth of the external world and of what man is, to beat upon him. When the roof is off, each man must stand naked and wounded before the truth of what is. . . . He must come to know that his roof is a false protection from the storm of what is.

When you find the place where that tension exists, exploit it gently, but directly. This is where a well-placed question, like the third one in the Columbo tactic, can be very effective. Your goal is to cause him a little pain, push him off balance, and direct him toward the logic actually, the illogic of his espoused beliefs.

In order to press a person’s view to its logical (and absurd) conclusion, you must first understand the view. Use your Columbo tactic to probe for the details until you have a good grasp of the person’s point. Then you will be in the best position to assess it and, if possible, refute it.

Next time: How to deal with someone who keeps talking over you - the "steamroller."

For more extensive tactics training go to www.str.org and look for Tactics in Defending the Faith Mentoring Series or STRi DVD interactive training in our online store or call Stand to Reason at 1-800-2-REASON.

Defending the Faith Part 11: Why the “Suicide” Tactic Works

by Greg Koukl

The suicide tactic works because it trades on a fundamental rule of logic: the law of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction states that two contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time: “A” cannot be “non-A” at the same time in the same way. All suicidal views express or entail contradictions. They make two different claims that are at odds with each other. The contradictions “A is the case” and “A is not the case” may be explicit or implicit.


Explicit contradictions are usually obvious:

“I never, never, repeat a word. Never.”
The contradiction: I don't repeat a word. I do repeat a word.

“There are no absolutes. Absolutely.”
Contradiction: There are no absolutes. There are absolutes.

“This page intentionally left blank.”
Contradiction: This page is blank. This page is not blank.

“I used to believe in reincarnation. But that was in a former life.”
Contradiction: I don’t believe in reincarnation. I do believe in reincarnation.

“I'll give you three good reasons you can't use logic to find truth.”
Contradiction: You want to use logic to disprove logic.

Implicit contradictions often are hidden and require further reflection to see:

“My brother is an only child.”
Contradiction: My brother has a sibling (me). My brother is an only child.

“I never tell the truth.” (Now what?)
Contradiction: It’s true that I never tell the truth.

“Always go to other people’s funerals, otherwise they won’t go to yours.” Yogi Berra

“Ask me about my vow of silence.”

Sometimes suicide is more subtle:

Radio caller: “You shouldn’t be correcting Christian teachers on the radio.”
(Then why is he calling this radio program to correct me?)

“You shouldn’t force your morality on me.”
(Why not? Are you telling me it’s wrong to say that other people are wrong?)

The Suicide and Columbo tactics work well together. As you pay attention to a person’s viewpoint and notice that his or her view commits suicide, point it out with a Columbo question.

In order to recognize a point that commits suicide first, identify the basic premise, conviction, or claim. It's not always obvious. Next, determine if the claim undermines itself. Does the statement satisfy its own requirements? Is there an internal contradiction? Can the idea be stated in the form “X is the case” and “X is not the case” at the same time? If so, it commits suicide.

Next time: Taking the Roof Off

For more extensive tactics training go to www.str.org and look for Tactics in Defending the Faith Mentoring Series or STRi DVD interactive training in our online store or call Stand to Reason at 1-800-2-REASON.

Defending the Faith Part 10: The “Suicide” Tactic

by Greg Koukl

Now that we have the Columbo tactic down, let’s learn another tactical tool. I call it the “Suicide” tactic. The Suicide tactic makes capital of the tendency many erroneous points of view have to self-destruct when given the opportunity. These self-destructive views are commonly called self-refuting statements. They commit suicide on their own, and all you need to do is point that out.

For example, consider the dialogue in a Peanuts cartoon.

Sally: “No!” That’s my new philosophy. I don’t care what anyone says, the answer is “No!”
Charlie Brown: That’s your new philosophy, huh?
Sally: Yes! I mean, No! [pause] You’ve ruined my new philosophy.

Statements that commit suicide have within them the seeds of their own destruction:

“My brother is an only child” cannot be true because “brother” entails the concept of siblings.
“I cannot speak a word in English” is self-refuting when spoken in English.
“There are no sentences more than five words in length” is a sentence that has more than five words.
“You can’t know anything for sure” is a truth skeptics are pretty sure about.

Philosopher J.P. Moreland points out that every statement is about something. For example, the sentence “Dogs have fleas” is about dogs. Sometimes statements include themselves in what they refer to. The statement “All English sentences are short” is about all English sentences, including itself. When a statement fails to satisfy its own criteria of validity, it is self-refuting. It can’t possibly be a true statement.

Suicidal statements have within them the seeds of their own destruction. They cannot satisfy their own standard. This is why the minute you utter them, they become false. Even when such statements initially appear true, they’re still false.

This holds true for all self-refuting statements. If the exact same reasons used against your view also defeat the reasons themselves, then the view is self-defeating; it commits suicide. The person using such arguments can’t even recommend his own advice. For example, when someone says “You shouldn’t make moral judgments,” he is making a moral judgment.

Sometimes people don’t see contradictions staring them in the face. When that happens, we simply point them out. Other times they miss a contradiction because they don’t have the information they need. For example, someone may not see the problem with pluralism because they don’t know Jesus claimed to be the only true way to the Father (John 14:6). In these cases, you'll have to give them the correct information before they’ll see the problem.

Even God Himself can’t make self-refuting statements true. These kinds of statements are irrational, and since rationality is part of God’s essential character, he cannot violate His nature and make contradictory statements true. This is not a limitation on God’s power in any way because power is not the relevant factor here: No amount of raw power can make a contradictory statement true. Suicidal ideas, therefore, are false of necessity. They can’t be true in any possible world.

Next time: Why the "Suicide" Tactic Works

For more extensive tactics training go to www.str.org and look for Tactics in Defending the Faith Mentoring Series or STRi DVD interactive training in our online store or call Stand to Reason at 1-800-2-REASON.

Defending the Faith Part 9: The Art of Asking Questions

by Greg Koukl

Christians find themselves in many different situations where they want to influence people for the greater good, or defend their faith. When defending the faith, one of the most important tactics that we can use in conversation is the asking of questions (Columbo). Like other tactics, asking good questions and asking the right number of questions is a skill that takes practice. In his book, In But Not Of, Hugh Hewitt, gives us some practical advice as to how to do this: Ask at least a half-dozen questions in every conversation

This skill at inquiry will immediately mark you as different and attractive. . . . When you ask questions, you are displaying interest in the person asked and in most settings this is a great boon to the pride and self-worth of the person being asked. Most people are not queried on many, if any, subjects. Their opinions are not solicited. To ask them is to be remembered fondly as a very interesting and gracious person in your own right.

Once developed, the habit of asking questions will inevitably give you advantages in every setting. You will obviously leave most situations with more information (and friends) than when you arrived, and being an asker allows you control of situations that statement makers rarely achieve. Once you learn how to guide a conversation, you have also learned how to control it. You can express your own opinions as questions, and every human emotion can be conveyed this way.

An alert questioner can judge when someone grows uneasy. But don't stop. Just change directions.

Asking questions and marking yourself as fair minded and interested in others will do a lot to keep the conversations civil and you in control of your message rather than having to defend assertions that you have made. Questions disarm people and lower their defenses so that a conversation can be a useful exchange of ideas rather than a battle of wills.

Next time: The Suicide Tactic - when an arguments holds the seeds of it's own demise

For more extensive tactics training go to www.str.org and look for Tactics in Defending the Faith Mentoring Series or STRi DVD interactive training in our online store or call Stand to Reason at 1-800-2-REASON.

Defending the Faith Part 8: The Power of Columbo

by Greg Koukl

Once you’ve learned the Columbo tactic, you’ll be amazed at how deftly you can navigate through a discussion. Many people you talk to will struggle when you turn the tables and they’re being asked to provide evidence for their views. They will try to change the subject or simply reassert their views, sometimes because they haven’t thought much about the issue you’re discussing. Dodging your question may be their only recourse.

It is critical that you “narrate the debate” at this point. Take a moment to stop and describe what’s going on in the conversation. This will help your friend (and others listening in) to see how she’s gotten off course. You can say, “Hold on. First you made a fairly controversial statement, which I challenged you to clarify and defend. So far, you haven’t done that. You’ve just taken off in another direction. Before we move on to a new topic, can we finish this one?”

Don’t let your friend get off the hook by dodging the issues. This approach keeps the pressure on while keeping the conversation cordial. Encourage your opponent to clarify herself. Forcing her to face the music may be the first step toward a change of mind.

The Columbo tactic can also help keep you out of the “hot seat.” Sometimes the fear of getting in over our heads is enough to keep us from saying anything at all. We especially dread the possibility of some aggressive critic blasting us with arguments, opinions, or information we are not equipped to handle.

The Columbo tactic questions help control the conversation when you fear being overmatched by the person opposing you. To buy yourself some thinking time, simply switch into fact-finding mode. Begin by slowing them down with, “Hold on a minute; this is new to me.” Next say, “I want to understand your point, so can you carefully tell me what you believe and why you believe it?” (the first two Columbo questions.) Finish by saying, “Then let me think about it.” Then work on the issue later at your leisure when the pressure is off.

Think for a moment how useful this approach is. Instead of trying to resist the force of another’s attack, practice a little verbal Aikido; just step aside and let him barge right in. Give him the floor and invite him to make his case. However, he must do it slowly and carefully so you’ll have an opportunity to fully understand his point.

When you are being overwhelmed, this move to fact-finding mode takes you completely out of the hot seat. It deftly shifts control of the conversation back to you while shifting the spotlight and the pressure back on him. You are no longer under any obligation to answer, refute, or even respond because you’ve already said you need to give the issue more thought.

This is easy. Essentially you’re saying, “Oh, you want to beat me up? Fine with me. Just do it slowly and thoroughly.” This is a move that even the most delicate, retiring, shy, bashful, skittish, timid, or reserved personality can employ with great effect.

The advantage of the Columbo tactic is not having to assert something you want someone else to believe in. You aren’t taking the burden of proof on yourself. Instead, your question makes the point for you. This accomplishes your goal in an entirely different and much more powerful way.

Next time: The art of asking questions

For more extensive tactics training go to www.str.org and look for Tactics in Defending the Faith Mentoring Series or STRi DVD interactive training in our online store or call Stand to Reason at 1-800-2-REASON.

Defending the Faith Part 7: Columbo Step Three

Defending the Faith Part 7: Columbo Step Three:

Exposing a Weakness or Flaw

by Greg Koukl

Knowing what a person believes and why he believes it (things you learned from the first two steps of the Columbo tactic) allows you to ask new questions that challenge that person’s ideas. This is the final stage of Columbo.

The first two questions are somewhat passive, but the third Columbo question takes you on the offensive in an inoffensive way.

The conversation may alert you to some weakness, flaw, or contradiction in the person’s argument that can be exposed and exploited. There is no special formula for making this discovery. You’ll uncover it by listening carefully and then thinking about what was said.

The key to this step is paying close attention to the answer to the question, “How did you come to that conclusion?”

Are there any blatant weaknesses in the view?
Do the conclusions follow from the evidence?
Can you question any underlying assumptions?
Is there a misstep, a non-sequitur, a fallacy, or a failing of some sort?

Address any inconsistency you discover with a question, not a statement.

This step takes more practice than the rest, but in time you will improve. It requires some insight an ability to see the flaws in the argument which is a demanding request. It is easy to “stall out” in the beginning, so don’t be surprised or discouraged.

Once you learn the Colombo tactic, you’ll realize how few people can answer for their views. It’s easy, once you see this happen, to drift into pride and take pleasure in another’s failings. Therefore, take care to show concern for the other person. Establish common ground whenever possible by affirming points of agreement. Encourage the other person to think further on the subject if he or she doesn’t have a satisfactory answer. Assume the same best intentions you’d like others to assume about you when you’re in the hot seat.

Next time: The Power of Columbo

For more extensive tactics training go to www.str.org and look for Tactics in Defending the Faith Mentoring Series or STRi DVD interactive training in our online store or call Stand to Reason at 1-800-2-REASON.

Defending the Faith Part 6: The Professor's Ploy

by Greg Koukl

When executing the burden of proof tactic, beware of the “professor’s ploy.”

Some professors are fond of taking pot-shots at Christianity with remarks like, “The Bible is just a bunch of fables,” even if the topic matter has nothing to do with religious issues.

Well-meaning believers sometimes take the challenge and attempt a head-to-head duel with the professor, but this approach is rarely successful.

One rule of engagement governs exchanges like these: The person with the microphone wins. Never attempt a frontal assault on a superior force. The professor always has the strategic advantage, and he knows it.

Don’t get into a power play when you’re out-gunned. There’s a better way. Don’t disengage; instead, use your tactics. Raise your hand and ask, “Professor, what do you mean by that?” Next ask, “How did you reach that conclusion?” Make the teacher and the one making the claim shoulder the burden of proof.

This approach enables you to stay engaged while deftly sidestepping the power struggle. The “professor’s ploy” comes into play when he attempts to make you shoulder the burden of proof. He may sense your maneuver and respond by saying, “You must be one of those Christians who thinks the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Okay, since I’m a fair man, why don’t you prove that to the rest of the class?”

In one quick move, he’s cleverly switched the burden of proof back on you, the student. Don’t fall for this unfair move! You aren’t the one making a claim; he is. He must defend his own claim. He’s the teacher, after all.

You can respond to the professor’s ploy with dignity and tact. When he shifts the burden of proof on you, calmly respond by saying, “Professor, first, I haven’t revealed anything about my views. Second, my views don’t really matter right now. You’re the teacher and you’ve made a strong claim about the Bible. I’m just trying to learn your reasons for it.”

If he gives an answer, thank him for it and either ask him another question or let it go. Recognize that the burden of proof tactic takes the pressure off you but still keeps you in the driver’s seat. You don’t have to be the expert on every subject.

If you keep the burden on the other side when they’re making the claim, you don’t have to have all the answers. In fact, you can be effective even when you know very little if you ask the right questions.

Next time: How to properly exploit a weakness in an argument

For more extensive tactics training go to www.str.org and look for Tactics in Defending the Faith Mentoring Series or STRi DVD interactive training in our online store or call Stand to Reason at 1-800-2-REASON.

Defending the Faith Part 5: Columbo Step Two

Defending the Faith Part 5: Columbo Step Two:

“How did you come to that conclusion?”

by Greg Koukl

The first application of the Columbo tactic helped you understand what a person thinks; the second application known as reversing the burden of proof helps you learn why they think the way they do.

The burden of proof is the responsibility someone has to defend or give evidence for his or her view. The burden of proof has one cardinal rule: Whoever makes the claim bears the burden. Don’t allow yourself to be thrust into a defensive position when the other person is making the claim.

This rule means there are no more free rides. It isn’t the Christian’s responsibility to refute every story a nonbeliever can spin or every claim he can manufacture. When your opponent advances a view, make him or her defend it. Steer the burden of proof back on their shoulders, where it belongs. Make them give you their arguments, not just their points of view.

In the immortal words of Ricky Ricardo from I Love Lucy, “they’ve got a lot of ‘splaining to do!”

The second Columbo question enforces the burden of proof rule: “Now, how did you come to that conclusion?” This question graciously assumes that the non-believer has actually reached a conclusion that he has reasons for his view and has not merely asserted it carte-blanche.

It will give him a chance to express his rationale, if he has one. It will also give you more material to work with in addressing his objections. It ultimately shifts the burden of proof to the other person, which is where it often belongs.

Since many people have never thought through their views and don’t know why they hold them, don’t be surprised if you get a blank stare after asking this question. Alternate options are, “Why do you say that?” or “What are your reasons for holding that view?”

Sometimes the simplest, most effective question you can ask someone is a variation of the question, “How do you know?” This tactic can also take the form of the following questions:

“Why should I believe what you believe?”
“What makes you think that’s the right way to see it?”
“I’m curious. Why would you say a thing like that?”
“Why should I trust that your organization, the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith, the Watchtower speaks for God?”

We can spend hours helping someone carefully work through an issue without ever mentioning God, Jesus, or the Bible. This doesn’t mean we aren’t advancing the Kingdom, though. It’s always a step in the right direction when we help people to discover truth. It gives them tools to assess the bigger questions that will eventually come up.

Further, when we challenge people to think carefully, we acknowledge they bear the image of God. This affirms their intrinsic worth. For a discussion on the value of human beings apart from the cross, see the commentary “Gospel Fodder.”

Remember: The two most important questions you can ever ask are, “What do you believe?” and “Why do you believe it?”

Next time: The Professor's Ploy

For more extensive tactics training go to www.str.org and look for Tactics in Defending the Faith Mentoring Series or STRi DVD interactive training in our online store or call Stand to Reason at 1-800-2-REASON.

Defending the Faith Part 4: Columbo Step One

Defending the Faith Part 4: Columbo Step One:

“What do you mean by that?”

by Greg Koukl

The first question of the Columbo tactic is to gain information. Sometimes you just need more information to know how to proceed further.

This is the simplest way to use the Columbo tactic. It is virtually effortless, putting no pressure on you at all. When used this way, the questions can buy you valuable time, help you know how to proceed in the conversation, give you information for this and future encounters, and be a casual conversation-starter.

Key question: “What do you mean by that?” (or some variation)

This clarification question tells you what a person thinks so you don’t misunderstand her or, worse, misrepresent her. It should be delivered in a mild, genuinely inquisitive fashion. This question also forces the person to be precise in her meaning, as many people object to Christianity for reasons they don’t completely understand themselves.

This first Columbo question accomplishes five important objectives.

1. It immediately engages the non-believer in an interactive way.
2. It flatters the non-believer because it shows genuine interest in his or her view.
3. It forces the non-believer to think more carefully and more precisely maybe for the first time
about his intended meaning.
4. It gives you valuable information about the non-believer’s exact position.
5. It positions the non-believer in the defensive position while placing you in control of the conversation.

Be sure to pay attention to the response. If it’s unclear, follow up with more questions. Say, “Let me see if I understand you on this…,” then feed back the view to make sure you got it right.

By the way, don’t let them merely repeat what they just said. For example:

“You’re intolerant.”
“What do you mean by the word ‘intolerant’?”
“I mean you are intolerant!”

Sometimes this first Columbo question is directed at a specific statement or topic of conversation. Other times, the question can be more open-ended. As the discussion continues, gently guide the dialogue into a more spiritually productive direction with additional questions.

Learning how to ask this first question is your key to productive conversations, as people often don’t know what they mean by the things they say. Often, they are merely repeating slogans. Frequently, their statements, questions, opinions, or points of view are so muddled it’s impossible to proceed in conversation without clarification. Asking the question “What do you mean by that?” is the simplest way to clear up the confusion, while also giving you time to size up the situation and gather your thoughts.

Do not underestimate the power of this question. Use it often.

You can ask this question all day long and there is absolutely no pressure on you.

In the next email, I'll introduce you to the second Columbo question.

Next week: Columbo - Question Two

For more extensive tactics training go to www.str.org and look for Tactics in Defending the Faith Mentoring Series or STRi DVD interactive training in our online store or call Stand to Reason at 1-800-2-REASON.

Defending the Faith Part 3: Using Columbo to Lead the Way

by Greg Koukl

The third use of Columbo takes us on the offensive, yet in an inoffensive way. We will ask a different kind of question, sometimes called a “leading question.”

As the name suggests, leading questions take the other person in the direction we want them to go. Think of yourself like an archer shooting at a target. Questions are your arrows. Your target will be different in different situations. Sometimes your goal will be to defeat what you think is a bad argument or a flawed point of view. Your questions will be “aimed” at that purpose. Or you may want to use questions to indirectly explain or advance your own ideas. Sometimes you will set up the terms of the conversation using questions to put you in a more beneficial position for your next move.

In each of these cases, questions accomplish two things mere statements cannot. Every time you ask a question and get a favorable response, the person is telling you he understands the point you’re making and he agrees with it, at least provisionally. He takes another step forward with you in the thinking process.

Here’s why this is so important. Ultimately, we want to win someone over to our point of view. But we do not want to “force” our opinions on him. Instead, we want to persuade him. When the steps to a conclusion are both clear and reasonable, it is much easier to convince someone because he can see the route clearly. He can even retrace it on his own if he wants to. With each question, we lead him closer toward our destination. In this way, we bring him along on the journey.

Generally, your leading questions will be used to inform, persuade, set up, or refute. Let me show you how this tactic plays out in a specific example.

As you step out as an ambassador for Christ, inevitably you will be asked what I call “the question.” It’s one of the most important questions anyone can ask, but it’s also one of the most difficult because the correct answer—a simple “yes”—would be wildly misleading.

“You’re saying that just because someone doesn’t believe in Jesus they are going to Hell?"

Someone once said if you word the question right, you can win any debate. This question is a classic case in point. A simple “yes” would be the correct answer, but it actually would distort the truth.

Remember that the first responsibility of an ambassador is knowledge—an accurately informed mind. Knowing that people need to trust in Jesus or face judgment, though, is not enough. Since this truth does not give an accurate sense of why Jesus matters, God seems petty, pitching people into Hell because of some inconsequential detail of Christian theology.

I addressed the issue of why Jesus is the only way when the question came up during a book promotion at a local Barnes & Noble. I met an attorney there who didn’t understand why he, a Jew, needed Jesus. He believed in God, and he was doing his best to live a moral life. Those were the important things, it seemed to him—how he lived, not what he believed. Here is how I used Columbo questions to lead him to a proper understanding of the cross.

“Let me ask you a question,” I began. “Do you think people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished?”

“Well, since I’m a prosecuting attorney,” he chuckled, “I guess I do.”

“Good. So do I. Now, a second question: Have you ever committed any moral crimes?”

He paused for a moment. This was getting personal. “Yes,” he nodded, “I guess I have.”

“So have I,” I offered candidly, agreeing with him again. “But that puts us both in a tight spot, doesn’t it? We both believe people who do bad things should be punished, and we both believe we’re guilty on that score.” I waited a moment for the significance to sink in. “Do you know what I call that?” I asked. “I call that bad news.”

In less than 60 seconds I had accomplished a remarkable thing with my two questions. I didn’t have to convince this man he was a sinner. He was telling me. I didn’t have to convince him he deserved to be punished. He was telling me.

I was tapping into a deep intuition every person shares: knowledge of his own guilt and a realization that his guilt should be punished. And I didn’t do it arrogantly or in an obnoxious, condescending way. I freely admitted I was in the same trouble he was.

Now that we agreed on the problem, it was time to give the solution. (This is where the “knowledge” part of the ambassador equation is so vital.)

“This is where Jesus comes in,” I explained. “We both know we’re guilty. That’s the problem. So God offers a solution: a pardon, free of charge. But 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 rap 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 turn it down and pay for our crimes ourselves.”

In this conversation I handled an awkward question by combining two things: my knowledge of what Jesus accomplished on the cross with asking leading questions. My questions led the attorney, step by step, to an answer to his question.

You can employ the Columbo tactic to take the conversation in an entirely new direction. Instead of using questions to gather information, questions can be very effective to lead someone in the direction we want the conversation to go engaging the other person’s thoughts the whole way. Such “leading questions” often work better than statements to explain our view, to set up the discussion in a way that makes it easier for us to make our point, to soften our challenge to another’s view, or to indirectly exploit a flaw we detect in his thinking.

Unlike the first two uses of Columbo, this one requires knowledge of some kind. When we know what we want to accomplish (e.g., to inform, to persuade, to set-up, or to refute), we can use leading questions to achieve our purpose. This is a skill that develops over time, so if you stall out at first, don’t be discouraged. Instead of trying to force a conversation you don’t have the resources to pursue, you can simply move on knowing you have done the best that we could for the moment.

If someone’s thinking is flawed, the key to finding the error is to listen carefully to the reasons for his views, then ask if his conclusions follow from his evidence. Point out errors with questions rather than statements. You might soften your challenge by phrasing your concern as a request for clarification or by suggesting an alternative with the words “Have you considered…” before offering your own ideas.

Next week: Columbo - The First Question

For more extensive tactics training go to http://www.str.org/ and look for Tactics in Defending the Faith Mentoring Series or STRi DVD interactive training in our online store or call Stand to Reason at 1-800-2-REASON.

Defending the Faith Part 2: Why Tactics?

by Greg Koukl
Let’s discuss our need for tactics, what they are, and how to use them.

Our need for tactics concerns our commission to be effective ambassadors for Christ. Ambassadors use three essential skills:

Knowledge: an accurately informed mind
Wisdom: an artful method
Character: an attractive manner


These skills play a part in every effective engagement with a non-believer.

The second skill the artful method, or “tactical wisdom” is our focus in this series of emails. Tactics are distinct from strategy. Strategy involves the big picture, the large-scale operation, of one’s positioning prior to engagement. I use the term “strategy” in reference to the tremendous resources of knowledge available to us to be adequately prepared to give an account for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). In our case, Christianity has strategic superiority it is well “positioned” on the battlefield because our ideas can hold up under serious scrutiny compared to other views.

We have an excellent case. We have the best answers to life’s most important questions.

Tactics entail the artful arranging of resources, specifically in maneuvering through conversations. They allow you to:

Use your knowledge in creative ways.
Choreograph the particulars of your response.
Style your response to objections.
Employ specific methods in addressing attacks.
Guide yourself with sound reasoning, clear thinking, and aggressive advocacy.
Often a clever commander has the advantage over a superior opponent through deft tactical maneuvering.

Tactics should not be used as tricks or slick ruses, clever ploys to destroy non-Christians, forcing them to submit to your point of view, attempts to belittle or humiliate to gain notches in your spiritual belt.

Instead, tactics should enable you to present the truth clearly and persuasively. They should enable you to maneuver and get a footing or an advantage in a conversation, helping you to navigate through the minefields. Tactics put you in the driver’s seat, allowing you to, in many cases, stop a challenger cold and turn the tables, offering him the arguments for Christianity he should carefully consider.

The goal in using tactics is to:

Manage, not manipulate
Control, not coerce
Finesse, not fight

Tactics are powerful and can be abused quite easily. It’s not difficult to make someone look silly with these techniques. We should be direct, focused and challenging, but never abrasive, abusive or alarming. This is where the third quality of an ambassador plays an important role: Character an attractive manner. Our goal is to find clever ways to exploit another’s bad thinking for the purposes of guiding them to truth.

In the next e-mail I’ll introduce you to Lieutenant Columbo, the “queen mother” of all tactics.

Next week: The "Queen Mother" of Tactics

For more extensive tactics training go to www.str.org and look for Tactics in Defending the Faith Mentoring Series or STRi DVD interactive training in our online store or call Stand to Reason at 1-800-2-REASON.

Shannan Parker's Description Of The Crucifixion

Defending the Faith Part 1: A More Excellent Way

by Greg Koukl

Many friends of Stand to Reason use our materials because they agree that Christianity, when properly understood and properly articulated, can take its place in the marketplace of ideas. They want to be able to effectively communicate the message of the Gospel to those who don’t understand or agree. This series of e-mails will help you learn tactics that, when used skillfully and winsomely, will make you a more effective ambassador for Christ.

Let me offer you a word of encouragement. I’ve been defending the faith actively and “professionally” for over two decades with people who oppose evangelical Christian views and are professionals in their own right atheists, skeptics, Mormons, Jewish rabbis, and secularists.

When I started, I wasn’t sure how I would fare in public against the pros with thousands of people listening. But what I discovered was that the facts and sound reason are on our side. We don’t have to be frightened of the truth or the opposition if we do our homework. After all, even people who don’t like tests don’t mind them much when they know the answers.

The truth is this: The Gospel can be defended if it’s properly understood and properly articulated by a winsome ambassador. If we take our time and think through the issues, we can make a solid defense. If we have the truth, there will always be a flaw in the opposing argument. Keep looking for it. Sooner or later it will show up.

The right tactic will help you discover the flaw in your opponent’s argument and show it for the error it is.

Remember that some of the most intelligent people make the most foolish mistakes in thinking when it comes to spiritual things. The tactics you learn in this series of e-mails will help you identify those mistakes. You will see that people don’t give much thought to their objections. How do I know? I’ve listen to lots of objections.

Apologetics has a questionable reputation among non-aficionados. By definition, apologists “defend” the faith. They “defeat” false ideas. They “destroy” speculations raised up against the knowledge of God.

Those sound like fightin’ words to many people: Circle the wagons. Hoist the drawbridge. Fix bayonets. Load weapons. Ready, aim, fire. It’s not surprising, then, that believers and unbelievers alike associate apologetics with conflict. In their view, defenders don’t dialogue; they fight.

In addition to the image problem, apologists face another barrier. The truth is that effective apologetics in the 21st century requires more than having the right answers. It’s too easy for post-moderns to ignore our facts, deny our claims, or simply yawn and walk away from the line we’ve drawn in the sand.

I’d like to suggest a “more excellent way.” Jesus said that when you find yourself a sheep amidst wolves, be innocent but shrewd. This instruction calls for a tactical approach. Even though there is real warfare going on, our engagements should look more like diplomacy than combat.

In the emails you’ll receive over the next several weeks, I’ll share lessons I’ve learned from years of engaging critics of Christianity. These are practical tactics that can make a real difference in equipping you and building your confidence to engage non-Christians in conversations about the most important topic possible their relationship to God.

Next time: Why tactics?

For more extensive tactics training go to www.str.org and look for Tactics in Defending the Faith Mentoring Series or STRi DVD interactive training in our online store or call Stand to Reason at 1-800-2-REASON.