RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Koukl, Gregory. Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, [2019].
We want to be like Jesus. That sounds pious enough. But do we debate like Jesus? The answer, especially for us apologists, is certainly 'no.' We want to be mighty, heroically casting down intellectual strongholds, usually identified as the teenage barista at Starbucks. Yes, that language is from Paul, but he probably did not have our style in mind. Even if we win the debate, we often lose the person. Sometimes that might be called for, but Greg Koukl reminds us of a more effective manner of defending and presenting the faith: the way Jesus did.
Be gentle, but stay in the driver's seat.
1. No tension
2. Ask specific questions
3. Look for logical consequences
Somewhat paradoxically, if you are in the driver's seat, your conversation partner will be doing most of the intellectual work. There are so many advantages to this approach. It gives the other person the impression, we hope a true one, that he is being heard and understood. It reinforces the fact that we are after truth, or should be.
Hitting the Road
Three skills needed:
1. Basic knowledge
2. Wisdom; spiritual street smarts.
3. character
When we are challenged, the mind, not the Bible, is our first line of defense. This is not an attack or diminishing of the Bible. Before one can even use the Bible, he must first use the laws of logic to formulate the proposition. This is what the historic Reformed called the order of knowing. It follows, not precedes, the order of being, which is God. And when two or more people disagree about the Bible, it is logic, the ability to discern true thinking from false thinking, that decides the issue. Learning to reason and argue properly is a virtue, as it protects one from religious despotism (among other things).
Key principle: "Without God's work, nothing else work; but with God's work, many things work" (Koukl 45). This is a fine restatement of the principle that God's sovereignty works through human means. God blesses the use of reason for his kingdom. To say otherwise is to be a hyper-Calvinist pietist.
*The Columbo Tactic*
Koukl recommends responding to challenges by asking questions. A question disarms the person, gains information, and allows progress in dialogue (58-59). If the questions are well-placed, they allow you to remain in the driver's seat.
The First Question: "What do you mean by that?" As Koukl notes, many objections to the faith trade on muddled thinking (66). With more thoughtless objections, such clarifying questions will often be sufficient.
*Columbo Step Two*: Reversing the Burden of Proof
In other words, make the other person give evidence or reasons for his view. Koukl recommends doing this, asking, "How did you come to that conclusion?" (80) or "where did you get your facts?" He makes a further good point: resist the urge to refute everything your opponent says. "It's not your job (at this point) to defeat his claim. It's his job to defend it." Make distinctions between possible, plausible, and probable.
*The Professor's Ploy*
If you are in a situation where your opponent has the microphone or some other position of power, do not directly engage him. The man with the microphone always wins the debate. As is true in warfare, so also in debate: never make a frontal assault on an entrenched, superior force.
Rather, begin with a variation of the first Columbo question. Then ask him how he came to his conclusions. If he truly does not have reasons for his position, other students will notice. That is just as effective as refuting him. These questions serve another function: by clarifying what he believes, and what he believes you believe, then you keep him from strawmanning your own view.
In other words, when someone makes a controversial claim "and then says, 'You prove me wrong,' don't play their game. Don't let them make you do they work they should be doing(90)."
*Getting out of the hot seat*
What happens if someone knows more than you? Your only lifeline at this is point are questions. They can help you regain control of the conversation, or at worst buy you some time. If you know you are about to be beaten, simply say, "That sounds interesting. Let me think about it."
At the end of the conversation, narrate the debate. Describe the discussion to the person. This allows you to steer the conversation.
*Columbo Step Three: Use Questions to make a point*
This next tactic, though crucial, requires some skill and practice. A good series of questions can connect the dots for the listener. This also allows you to navigate politically dangerous situations. Let's say someone, perhaps a coworker or a boss, is a homosexual and asks you your view on marriage. Koukl recommends responding in the following way:
"You know, this is actually a very personal question. 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 first: do you consider yourself a tolerant person or an 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 having convictions that differ from your own" (100)?
This is the same format Jesus used against the Pharisees regarding baptism from heaven.
*Conclusion*
This is easily the best book on evangelism I have ever read. It is also the best beginner book on apologetics. This series of questions is very effective, but there is a danger. Several, actually. They will not work every time. You will run into someone who is smarter than you and a better debater. You will lose. That will happen. It will not happen that often, though. Most people, Christians included, really have not thought about the reasons for the reasons they give. The danger is you might become a sophist not unlike those in Plato's day. The cure for that is getting beaten in a debate. See danger #1.
Koukl did not mention it, though, but this is the same tactic Plato used. The reader is strongly encouraged to pick up Plato's dialogues as a follow-up. Not only are they fun to read, but they introduce the reader to key problems in epistemology.
Key quotes:
"It is not the Christian life to wound, embarrass, or play one-upmanship with colleagues, friends or even opponents, but it's a common vice that anyone can easily fall into--Hugh Hewitt."
We want to be like Jesus. That sounds pious enough. But do we debate like Jesus? The answer, especially for us apologists, is certainly 'no.' We want to be mighty, heroically casting down intellectual strongholds, usually identified as the teenage barista at Starbucks. Yes, that language is from Paul, but he probably did not have our style in mind. Even if we win the debate, we often lose the person. Sometimes that might be called for, but Greg Koukl reminds us of a more effective manner of defending and presenting the faith: the way Jesus did.
Be gentle, but stay in the driver's seat.
1. No tension
2. Ask specific questions
3. Look for logical consequences
Somewhat paradoxically, if you are in the driver's seat, your conversation partner will be doing most of the intellectual work. There are so many advantages to this approach. It gives the other person the impression, we hope a true one, that he is being heard and understood. It reinforces the fact that we are after truth, or should be.
Hitting the Road
Three skills needed:
1. Basic knowledge
2. Wisdom; spiritual street smarts.
3. character
When we are challenged, the mind, not the Bible, is our first line of defense. This is not an attack or diminishing of the Bible. Before one can even use the Bible, he must first use the laws of logic to formulate the proposition. This is what the historic Reformed called the order of knowing. It follows, not precedes, the order of being, which is God. And when two or more people disagree about the Bible, it is logic, the ability to discern true thinking from false thinking, that decides the issue. Learning to reason and argue properly is a virtue, as it protects one from religious despotism (among other things).
Key principle: "Without God's work, nothing else work; but with God's work, many things work" (Koukl 45). This is a fine restatement of the principle that God's sovereignty works through human means. God blesses the use of reason for his kingdom. To say otherwise is to be a hyper-Calvinist pietist.
*The Columbo Tactic*
Koukl recommends responding to challenges by asking questions. A question disarms the person, gains information, and allows progress in dialogue (58-59). If the questions are well-placed, they allow you to remain in the driver's seat.
The First Question: "What do you mean by that?" As Koukl notes, many objections to the faith trade on muddled thinking (66). With more thoughtless objections, such clarifying questions will often be sufficient.
*Columbo Step Two*: Reversing the Burden of Proof
In other words, make the other person give evidence or reasons for his view. Koukl recommends doing this, asking, "How did you come to that conclusion?" (80) or "where did you get your facts?" He makes a further good point: resist the urge to refute everything your opponent says. "It's not your job (at this point) to defeat his claim. It's his job to defend it." Make distinctions between possible, plausible, and probable.
*The Professor's Ploy*
If you are in a situation where your opponent has the microphone or some other position of power, do not directly engage him. The man with the microphone always wins the debate. As is true in warfare, so also in debate: never make a frontal assault on an entrenched, superior force.
Rather, begin with a variation of the first Columbo question. Then ask him how he came to his conclusions. If he truly does not have reasons for his position, other students will notice. That is just as effective as refuting him. These questions serve another function: by clarifying what he believes, and what he believes you believe, then you keep him from strawmanning your own view.
In other words, when someone makes a controversial claim "and then says, 'You prove me wrong,' don't play their game. Don't let them make you do they work they should be doing(90)."
*Getting out of the hot seat*
What happens if someone knows more than you? Your only lifeline at this is point are questions. They can help you regain control of the conversation, or at worst buy you some time. If you know you are about to be beaten, simply say, "That sounds interesting. Let me think about it."
At the end of the conversation, narrate the debate. Describe the discussion to the person. This allows you to steer the conversation.
*Columbo Step Three: Use Questions to make a point*
This next tactic, though crucial, requires some skill and practice. A good series of questions can connect the dots for the listener. This also allows you to navigate politically dangerous situations. Let's say someone, perhaps a coworker or a boss, is a homosexual and asks you your view on marriage. Koukl recommends responding in the following way:
"You know, this is actually a very personal question. 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 first: do you consider yourself a tolerant person or an 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 having convictions that differ from your own" (100)?
This is the same format Jesus used against the Pharisees regarding baptism from heaven.
*Conclusion*
This is easily the best book on evangelism I have ever read. It is also the best beginner book on apologetics. This series of questions is very effective, but there is a danger. Several, actually. They will not work every time. You will run into someone who is smarter than you and a better debater. You will lose. That will happen. It will not happen that often, though. Most people, Christians included, really have not thought about the reasons for the reasons they give. The danger is you might become a sophist not unlike those in Plato's day. The cure for that is getting beaten in a debate. See danger #1.
Koukl did not mention it, though, but this is the same tactic Plato used. The reader is strongly encouraged to pick up Plato's dialogues as a follow-up. Not only are they fun to read, but they introduce the reader to key problems in epistemology.
Key quotes:
"It is not the Christian life to wound, embarrass, or play one-upmanship with colleagues, friends or even opponents, but it's a common vice that anyone can easily fall into--Hugh Hewitt."
