California Christian Apologetics Conference (VI)
Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason was the speaker for Plenary Session 4. I really respect him as a clear thinking person who is fair minded and wary of bad arguments all around, not just those bad arguments promoting things he doesn't believe in. If you present to him a bad argument for the truth, he will not gently pat you on the back and say "Good job, buddy. Way to reach the right conclusions." No, instead he will say something more along the lines of "Well, here's why I don't think that argument is very convincing, but here's a different argument for the same conclusion that I find far more persuasive." I had the chance to tell him personally that I appreciated this aspect of his ministry, and he replied, "I agree. If we have the truth, we don't need bad arguments to support it." I am certainly on board with that! I encourage you to check out his website. He's got a ton of articles there addressing most of the present moral crises of the day from abortion to same-sex marriage to the existence of the soul.
Greg opened up Plenary Session 4 by addressing a problem he perceived many people would have at this conference. The problem at this point in a conference is "I don't know how to use all this information I've been given!" The goal of his talk was to give us tactics for defending our faith, and the ability to get into conversations with people with absolutely no risk to us!
First he advised us to get in the habit of listening carefully to what people to say, because in doing so you can make the other person doing all the work. Often you'll find that people say things they don't really believe. If you call them on it and don't let them be sloppy with their words, they won't be as sloppy in their thought. We need good tactics in our conversations (make people think about what they're saying), because we will not win by frontal assaults (simply telling people they're wrong). The fact is, people are not really open to listening to you, a fundamentalist Christian. There are more books written about the danger of you, than of the danger of radical Islam. It's sad, and I wish it were otherwise, but that's the way it is. We will not win by shouting louder; there are too many voices opposing us.
In his talk he outlined three tactics for conversation. First, ask questions! Second, use the "suicide tactic," that is, show how the view is inconsistent. And finally, "take the roof off," that is, draw the logical conclusions of the argument (often times the conclusion is absurd!). These tactics explained are so that you will be able to manage the conversation in a non-offensive way. You need to take an active role in directing the conversation, but you don't want to drive them away from Christ.
Of course, the main, overarching "queen mother of all tactics" that is the subject of this talk is called the "Columbo Tactic." This is named for Lieutenant Columbo, a very smart, small, annoying detective who just keeps asking questions! These questions inevitably lead him to the solution of the crime. We actually just ordered some episodes of Columbo on Netflix and he is absolutely hilarious. Of course, the series is a bit old, so the acting quality is a bit below average… However it's interesting to listen to some of the references characters in the series make. Something about the impossibility of finding errors in the Old Testament. Anyways… I digress… The point is to get into the habit of asking questions as a follower of Jesus Christ. Go on the offensive in an inoffensive way with carefully crafted questions. If you don't know what to do next, ask questions! If people perceive you are interested, they will generally conclude you are interesting. Plus, when you ask questions, you are in control of where the conversation goes.
There are three purposes/uses of the Columbo Tactic, each initiated by a different question.
1. Gather Information.
The first use of the Columbo Tactic is to Gather Information. It's the first thing Columbo does when he gets to the scene of the crime! This puts no pressure on you at all, because you are basically pleading ignorance and asking for help. It's also virtually effortless. The main question here is "What do you mean by that?" which is a genuine request for more information, not a juvenile antagonistic response meant to push someone to the limit of their patience. You know how little kids sometimes go on a spree of asking "why?" all the time? Yea… Don't be like that. Ask in a genuinely inquisitive way. I suspect that part of developing a genuineness to this question is pondering how little you actually know and how unspecific language can sometimes be. For example, if someone says "There is no God," simply ask, "What do you mean by God?" That is to say, "Describe to me the God you don't believe in! Maybe they believe in an impersonal God, but not a personal God. See how the word "God" can be ambiguous there?
Another example: Perhaps someone will say, "All religions are the same." Simply ask, "Can you describe to me the way in which they are all the same?" This is simply another form of "What do you mean by that?" Chances are they haven't even thought about such a thing as how the religions are they same. If they have, it's undoubtedly a shallow answer such as "they all teach love." They will discover this because of your question, and you didn't have to lecture them. It's patently obvious that religions are not all the same. But instead of just saying that to someone's face, you make them think about it. Once someone really thinks it through, they will not be able to stay intellectually honest and continue proclaiming such nonsense.
If someone says, "You should not force your views on me!" simply ask, "How am I forcing my views on you?" The fact is, you aren't at all! No one is holding a gun to their head physically forcing them to succumb to your beliefs. Instead of saying "No I'm not" (which only convinces them that you are in denial about what's going on), make them think about what they're saying. Generally they'll realize their error and retract their statement, or they will give you another shallow answer.
One response you might get is a repeat of what they've just said, or something very close. For example, if someone says "You're intolerant," and you ask the first Columbo question, "What do you mean by that?" They might respond, "Well, you're just not tolerating my beliefs!" In doing so they haven't explained their meaning to you, have they? The ambiguity of the meaning of "tolerate" is still there. Don't let them off the hook. Keep pressing: "What do you mean by 'tolerate'?" This will help you get to the bottom of their complaint. And eventually they will most probably figure out (in this particular case) that their complaint is moot. "You're intolerant" is not really a thoughtful claim, just a battle cry to distract from the actual conversation.
A caveat: this question needs to show genuine interest in the other persons view. These are not ruses or tricks to turn opponents into pretzels. Ask the question and pay attention to how they respond. Think carefully. Also, ask these types of questions often. It's probably not the best idea to figure out the person is a Buddhist and then go read a bunch of books on Buddhism. Perhaps none of those books truly represent the beliefs of the one you're talking to. Just go ask them what they belief! They are the most reliable source for that sort of information. As Greg said, "It's better to get views straight from the horse's mouth."
2. Reverse the Burden of Proof.
The second use of the Columbo Tactic is to reverse the burden of proof. The burden of proof is the responsibility to give reasons for the claim you're making. If you make no claims, you face no burden! That is why we always ask questions and make fewer statements. The problem is that non-Christians make claims all the time and expect you to do the heavy lifting and disprove them. Don't fall into that trap! For example, in an attempt to show that the Universe was not made by God, perhaps a non-believer would say, "You could say that… [Spins fairytale]." They can insert whatever story they want in there, but your response is always going to be the same: "Yea, you could say anything, but you haven't given any reasons for anyone else to believe that this is actually the case!" An alternate explanation is NOT a refutation! The point is to make them tell you why their explanation is a good one. The Question: "How did you come to that conclusion?"
Most people haven't come to conclusions about the deeply held beliefs that they have. People don't think they emote! They will feel like something is right, and conclude that it must be. Make them think. They might change their minds. Asking questions is the best way to do this, because if you just tell them, you might just be emoting yourself!
I will warn you. There is a liability to this question. It is always a mistake to make a frontal assault on a superior force in an entrenched position. Here I'm referring to some sort of classroom discussion with a professor who can dance circles around your arguments just because his knowledge is vast an experience greater. This is not to say that he therefore has the right answer, only that your argument will certainly not be convincing to your audience. Instead, use the tactics! If a professor says, "the Bible is a book of fairytales," ask, "How did you come to that conclusion?" Is this rude? Or a power struggle? Not at all. However, if you get up and say, "You're wrong, sinner! Repent!" Then it becomes a power struggle. And you will lose that struggle.
Greg warned us to watch out for "the professor's ploy!" If you make no claims, you have nothing to prove! But sometimes someone might make claims for you, put words in your mouth, and ask you to prove the case they've made on your behalf. "Oh I see; you're one of those fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible is the 'inspired Word of God'. Perhaps you would like to come up here and prove that to the class? Tell me. Why should I believe that a snake talked to Eve?" Do not take the bait! This is the "professor's" attempt to put the burden of proof on you. But if you respond and say, "With all due respect, sir, I have not said anything about what I believe. I was simply asking why you think the Bible is a book of fantasy. I'm just a dumb college student… here to learn… [Pen poised above note paper]." This prevents whoever you're talking to from laying a huge burden on your shoulders of convincing everyone that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God. Most likely you will persuade no one and just look like a fool. There is a time and place to present positive reasons for believing the Bible to be inspired. The secularly university classroom with Ph.D. professor in Religious Studies is not one of them.
At this point Greg anticipated a little uneasiness from people who are hyped up about soul saving! "Greg, what do you mean, 'don't defend the Bible.'? Don't tell people to repent? How can you say that? That's exactly what we're here for!!" He explained that he doesn't believe you have to get to the foot of the cross in every conversation. In fact, he said, "My goal is never to convert someone." This might shock some people. It certainly shocked me. But as I thought about it, I supposed that to convert someone is never really my goal either, because such a thing is not in my control. This applies even when I go out specifically to witness. My goal is to effectively spread an accurate and clear presentation of the gospel message in such a way that people might consider it as a reasonable option. I present the law, meant to convict people, and then the gospel to cure their disease. However, once I've done that, all I have is a hope that God will work in them repentance and faith. I do not cause that. I hope with all my heart that God will use His Word to tug at the hearts of sinners, but I never consider a day a failure if no one falls on their knees just from talking to me. In fact, such a thing has never happened to me, and yet the days I witness I am often greatly encouraged and invigorated just by obediently answering the call of God. If I have presented the gospel clearly and caused people to just think a little bit about it, I'm content that I have done my part. I have warned people of the wrath to come, without causing them to flee. Greg Koukl simply does this on a much more elementary level. Many of the people who do get the privilege of seeing people come to Christ just by walking up to them and sharing the gospel do not realize that the repentant one's heart has been seeded, tilled, and watered for some time by people like Greg who have challenged them to think deeply and clearly about important subjects.
There is a subcategory for this question, which is called Staying out of the Hot Seat. You use it when you find yourself in a circumstance where you're "out of your depth." Like if you start witnessing to the guy next to you on the airplane and he turns out to be Richard Dawkins or somebody like him. How do you deal with a situation in which someone starts giving you truly thought out reasons to why they believe contrary to how you do? Well, this tactic's got another snappy name: Conversational Aikido. It's using their energy against them; let them come. What you might say is, "Could you slow down for a moment? You obviously know more than I do [humility]. Tell me what you believe, why you believe it, and then (and this is key) and then let me think about it!" This allows you to get out without your tail between your legs! Aikido translation: "You want to beat me up? Ok! Just do it slowly and thoroughly."
3. Exploit a Weakness or Flaw.
The last use of the Columbo Tactic is to use questions to exploit a weakness or flaw. There's no model question here, because it depends on the flaw. You do this once they have committed an error in thinking. What you do not want to do is jump on them and say "I got you man!" The point is not to 'get them'; the point is to get them thinking! What you do is exploit the problem with a question rather than a statement. Let's go back to our "intolerant" example.
"You're intolerant!" says your opponent.
"What do you mean by that?" you reply genuinely.
"Well, you think you're right!" he explains.
"Alright… but the things you believe… are those true?" you probe.
Of course he believes they're true. That's what it means to believe them! If he didn't believe them true he would stop believing them and believe something else, which he would believe to be true! So the exploiting question is: "Why is it when I think I'm right, I'm intolerant, and when you think you're right, you're just right?" Now that is a probing question that will make people think. Some might get angry at you, but it's not because you're being mean, it's because you've pointed them to the logical conclusions of their thought process and they realize those conclusions are inconsistent.
To close, Greg gave us a parting thought heard from a Marine: "The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle." He let us know that he was teaching us this because he does not want us to bleed, but he wants us to sweat really hard. Do the clear thinking and preparation before you go into the harvest field, and you will come out with fewer wounds than you would have otherwise! Perhaps you may even return with some victories: souls won for Christ!
