Tactics: A game plan for discussing your Christian convictions, by Greg Koukl
This is a different type of book about apologetics. It will give you some arguments to use in your discussions, but more than that: it will help you with the kind of questions to ask and the kind of answers to give. Greg Koukl is super good in spotting out arguments with no much substance and he helps you accomplish that too. I think one of the best insights you get in this book is that people usually don’t know what they are talking about. It is common to just repeat what you have heard from others without much thinking, and I confess I am guilty of this sin too. To be able to “give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have”, as it is said in 1 Peter 3:15, and “do this with gentleness and respect”, it is not possible just to have the knowledge, you really need to know about your tactics.
“Christ’s ambassadors […] must know the central message of God’s kingdom and something about how to respond to the obstacles they’ll encounter on their diplomatic mission. However, […] our knowledge must be tempered with the kind of wisdom that makes our message clear and persuasive. This requires the tools of a diplomat, not the weapons of a warrior, tactical skill rather than brute force. Finally, our character can make or break our mission. Knowledge and wisdom are packaged in a person, so to speak. If that person does not embody the virtues of the kingdom he serves, he will undermine his message and handicap his efforts.”
Greg makes a great point in suggesting that we should not approach these types of conversations as a soldier in a D-day, but instead as a diplomat or ambassador (I would say specially in these days of evident polarization in every part of the world). The tactics are meant to guide the conversation and extract as much as you can from the arguments the other part is presenting. However, before actually giving any of these tactics, he needs to make sure we will not use them with bad faith:
“Tactics are not manipulative tricks or slick ruses. They are not clever ploys to embarrass other people and force them to submit to your point of view. They are not meant to belittle or humiliate those who disagree so you can gain notches in your spiritual belt.”
It is important to always have in mind that conversations bring you to a dangerous position to have an argument. The author general rule is actually something I already used before reading the book: “If anyone in the discussion gets angry, you lose.” You must be open to having your own ideas challenged and, as I said before, this is almost impossible in these days, where people see any kind of disagreement as an insult. Another brilliant point made is that our goal should not be to end the conversation with the other person converted to the Christian faith, but to put a stone in their shoes. One of the main goals of apologetics, as I have seen William Lane Craig saying some times, is to allow the Christian worldview to be a valid and reasonable option for people to consider. And that is what the author is telling us too: “I want to give him something worth thinking about, something he can’t ignore because it continues to poke at him in a good way.” Finally, let’s jump into the real tactics.
The Columbo Tactic
“The key to the Columbo tactic is to go on the offensive in an inoffensive way by using carefully selected questions to productively advance the conversation. Simply put, never make a statement, at least at first, when a question will do the job.”
Instead of disagreeing with the other person by making a strong statement, your first step is just to ask a question: “What do you mean by that?”. Try to understand better what the other person just stated. A good example given in the book is how to respond to someone who just said that it is irrational to believe in God, to whom you could ask: “What do you mean by “God,” that is, what kind of God do you reject? What, specifically, is irrational about believing in God?” Besides, this also follows the principle of not having an argument or getting anyone angry:
“Using simple leading questions is an almost effortless way to introduce spiritual topics to a conversation without seeming abrupt, rude, or pushy. Questions are engaging and interactive, probing yet amicable. Most important, they keep you in the driver’s seat while someone else does all the work.”
This first question will help you clarify what the other person thinks, then the second question will gather information on why they think what they think. “How did you come to that conclusion” assumes the other person has had a valid thoughtful process and it will give them a chance to express that and material for you to work on. Although, the main point here is that it is often the case that your colleague will not have thought about what they just said, or merely have feelings about the subject but not an actual argument. This question will let the burden of proof in the hands of you colleague, but it should not be just a way to avoid defending your ideas.
The third step in the Columbo tactic is sort of “offensive” move. The first two questions would just help us clarify exactly what the other person is stating and why they think that is a valid point. Now, we will ask leading questions. Either to make the other person understand why their argument is flawed, or to try to prove our point. “The most powerful questions — and the most persuasive — are the ones that help people recall what they already know.” You are building your argument together with the other person, i.e. instead of stating your premises you are asking them if they think each premise is valid.
“One of the advantages of the Columbo tactic is not having to assert something you want someone else to believe. You aren’t taking the burden of proof on yourself. Instead, you accomplish your goal in an entirely different — and more powerful — way. You use questions to make the point for you.”
Columbo is the building block for each of the other tactics presented in the book, so we spend half of the book on it, but it’s worth it. I have already tried to use it sometimes, but often in online discussions instead of real-time conversations, as it is often the case for Greg’s examples. It has been effective as I just want to have that stone in their shoes. Lastly about Columbo, be humble, not cynic.
“As a general rule, go out of your way to establish common ground. Whenever possible, affirm points of agreement. Take the most charitable read on the other person’s motives, not the most cynical. Treat them the way you would like others to treat you if you were the one in the hot seat.”
Self-destructive views
Sometimes people state their views without noticing that the same arguments they are presenting, may be used to refute their own idea. And Columbo is essential in this kind of scenario: “If you notice that a person’s viewpoint self-destructs, point it out with a question rather than a statement.”
Maybe they are not directly self-refuting, but what Greg calls of “Practical suicide”, where the idea is not contradictory, but saying it makes it inconsistent. Let’s check an example to make things easier (during the book, the author explains all these ideas with lots of examples, but I’m trying to keep them minimal here, since this is a summary).
“Moral relativists — those who deny objective morality — are especially vulnerable to Practical Suicide. For example, whenever a relativist says, “You shouldn’t force your morality on other people,” I always ask, “Why not?” What will he be able to say? He certainly can’t respond by saying, “It’s wrong.” That option is no longer open to him. It is a contradiction, like saying, “There are no moral rules; here’s one.” This response commits suicide.”
Sometime, people will not state contradictory arguments, but they will raise multiple objections to your argument and these objections are at odds with each other. Since the objections can’t be all valid, a reasonable person will drop one of them, or even they will drop everything as they notice they were not being reasonable.
The last type of self-destruct view is a little bit trickier to understand. Someone states an objection, which depends on a prior notion to be true for the challenge to be valid. However, if that objection denies the prior notion on which it depends, then the argument is flawed.
“When I use any form of the Suicide tactic, I have a specific goal in mind. I want to show the person that there is a fatal inconsistency in his beliefs. This is a problem I think he would correct if he really understood it. Furthermore, the contradiction suggests that deep down he does not really believe everything he has said.”
Taking the Roof Off
“Taking the Roof Off is also known as reductio ad absurdum (or simply reductio). This is a Latin phrase that means to reduce a point to its absurd conclusion or consequence.”
This is a very simple task and you need to point out what are the absurd implications of a point of view. If you follow that, you would probably live in a way you are not willing to live or do things you don’t want to. First, you reduce the other’s point of view to its basic assertion or principle. Then, you can check where that leads to, i.e. ask the question “If I follow this principle consistently, what implications will it have for other issues?” Finally, if you find some problem in the last step, you should just point that out to the other person: “Invite the other person to consider the implications of her view and the absurd end that follows from it.”
Steamroller
“Once in a while you will encounter people who try to overpower you. They don’t overwhelm you with facts or arguments. Rather, they roll over you with the force of their personalities. Their challenges come quickly, one after another, keeping you from collecting your wits and giving a thoughtful answer.”
As we have said earlier, your main goal is not to have an angry counter-part. That said, containing a steamroller can be quite challenging. Your first step is to just pause the conversation. Request courtesy from them and ask for permission to continue. If the interruptions start to happen again, it’s time to be more assertive and point out clearly that their behavior is not allowing the conversation to flow. If nothing works, simply leave them. Walk away. “Characteristically, an ambassador is always ready, alert for any chance to represent Christ […] Sometimes, though, the wisest course of action may be to bow out graciously.”
Assessing appeals to authority
I have been in several situations like that: someone starts to make the argument and throws at you that Dr. X supports their position. Greg points out that, when someone tells you what a scholar believes, you have been informed; but when someone tells you why the scholar holds their view, you have been educated. And that is the tactic: no matter which credentials have been presented, always ask for reasons. Don’t settle for opinions. Norman Geisler also talks about this: “All appeals to authority ultimately rest on the evidence the authority has. The letters after his name don’t mean a thing without the evidence to back up his position.”
Asking for their reasons will help us assess underlying philosophical considerations they have that are not in the table. It helps us understand why they interpret the facts the way they do.
“It is not fair, though, to assume someone has distorted the facts simply because he has a stake in the matter. People who are not neutral can still be fair and impartial. Instead, you have to show that they have faltered by looking carefully at the evidence itself.”
Greg still gives a last tactic, but it is not worth to have a whole new section for it, since it is really simple: you need to be aware that many of the objections you will encounter are just based on bad information; and you need to know which information is the good one. Finally, Greg ends the book with some practical tips on how you would prepare to be a real ambassador of Christ:
“Push yourself beyond your comfort zone. Begin to mix it up with others before you feel adequately prepared. You’ll learn best by immediately putting your tactics into play, even though you may falter a bit at first. That is part of the learning process. Along the way, you’ll discover what the other side has to offer, which often is not very much. […] Finally, live out the virtues of a good ambassador. Represent Christ in a winsome and attractive way. You — God’s own representative — are the key to making a difference for the kingdom. Show the world that Christianity is worth thinking about. With God’s help, go out and give ’em Heaven.”
Please, make some comments about these tactics. This is a very different book about apologetics, because it does not focus that much on the content of your argument but on how to present them. Did you like it? Tell me about it! Sorry for so much time without posts, I have actually finished this book a while ago, but I didn’t have time to summarize it. Next book (which I have already finished) is Surprised by Hope, by N. T. Wright. You can follow me on Twitter too: @heltonduarte.
