Tea Party vs Occupy Wall Street (Part Two)

Tea Party vs Occupy Wall Street (Part One)

Are the Gospels Reliable Witnesses?

33 minutes that will rock your world...

Debunking the Palestine Lie

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.

The Truth Is Out There

Understanding UN Bias Against Israel

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.

A brief explanation of our country's present situation

The folks who are getting free stuff don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff claim they can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

The folks who are paying for the free stuff, want the free stuff to stop, but the folks who are getting the free stuff, want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they're getting already!

The people who are forcing  people to pay for the free stuff, have told the people who are receiving the free stuff, that the people who are paying for the free stuff, are being mean, prejudiced and racist.

As a result, the people who are getting the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff because they are selfish and they are promised more free stuff if they will vote for the people who force the people who pay for the free stuff to then give them even more free stuff.

The Agenda - Grinding America Down

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.

The truth about ANWR

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.

Israel Palestinian Conflict: The Truth About the West Bank

Spenditol

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.

Secret Service Secrets

Rand Paul Smackdown!