Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (8 page)

I understand that this is not a slam-dunk argument for inspiration. It is not meant to be. Remember, my goal is modest. I want to put a stone in the person's shoe. I want to get him thinking. I want him to consider listening to Jesus first before dismissing him. If I can simply open that door, I have accomplished something important. Here's why.

Most people who believe in the authority of the Bible did not come to this conviction through argument, but through encounter.
⁶
For example, when soldiers were sent to arrest Jesus early in his ministry, they returned empty-handed. Why had they disobeyed orders?
Because they had
listened.
"Never did a man speak the way this man speaks," they said (John 7:46). Jesus didn't start his discourse with reasons why people should believe his words. Instead, he simply spoke the truth, and it immediately resonated with many in the crowd.

I came to believe the Bible was God's Word in the same way I suspect you did. I encountered the truth firsthand and was moved by it. If you want skeptics to believe in the Bible, don't get into a tug-of-war with them about inspiration. Instead, invite them to listen — to engage Jesus' words firsthand — then let the Spirit do the heavy lifting for you.

So when someone says the Bible was "only written by men," I ask questions to encourage him or her to treat Jesus like any other teacher. I want that person to listen to the words of Jesus first,
then
draw conclusions. In my travel bag, I keep copies of John's Gospel, and I offer one as a gift, suggesting,
"
It might be best to let Jesus speak for himself." Once my new friend has read a bit, any further reasons I give for biblical authority will have the soil needed to take root.

It's easy to see the problem with the first challenge in "Scene 4" ("It's wrong to force your views on other people"). Those who are sensitive about "forcing" viewpoints have no business participating in a legislative process that does just that, ergo the question, "Do you vote?"

As to legislating morality, Aristotle famously observed that all law rests upon a necessary foundation of morality. If the government's exercise of power is not in the service of the common good, then its actions are illicit. Simply put, morality is the only thing you
can
legislate.

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

WHAT WE LEARNED IN THIS CHAPTER

We started the chapter with a challenge. I gave you the opportunity to consider what you would say in the 10-second window of time available to respond to some standard challenges you might encounter as a Christian ambassador. Then I began to outline a simple plan as a guide to direct your steps. This plan is called "
Columbo
."

The
Columbo
tactic is a disarming way to go on the offensive with carefully selected questions that productively advance the conversation. This approach has many advantages. Questions can be excellent
conversation starters.
They are
interactive
by nature, inviting others to participate in dialogue. They are
neutral,
protecting you from getting "preachy," helping you make headway without stating your case. Questions
buy valuable time.
Finally, they are essential to keeping you in
control
of the conversation.

Next we learned there is a specific purpose for the questions we ask. The first purpose of
Columbo
is to gain information. The question, "What do you mean by that?" (
or
some variation) accomplishes that end. It clarifies the person's meaning so that you don't misunderstand or misrepresent it. It also immediately puts you in control of the conversation.

This question does something else that's very important. It forces the other person to think more carefully about precisely what he does mean when he tosses out a challenge. Instead of settling for statements that are ambiguous or vague, we ask him to spell out his objection clearly. We then looked in some detail at four very specific challenges to see how this works.

The question "What do you mean by that?" is your first step to managing conversations. Use it often. In the next chapter we will add another step to our game plan, the second use of the
Columbo
tactic.

SOME people think Christians are the only ones who need to answer for their beliefs. Of course, we should be able to give reasons for what we think is true. But we are not the only ones; others should be able to do this, too.

It's not unusual, though, for people to forget that they have this responsibility. At times they seem to think that all they have to do is tell a really good story and they have done their job. You might call this a "bedtime story." They conjure up a tale meant to put your view or your argument to rest. But this will not do. They might just as well have started with "Once upon a time." When you understand this, your job as an ambassador will be much easier.

If you have watched any reruns of
I Love Lucy
(or if you are old enough, like me, to remember the first runs), you might recall Ricky Ricardo saying, "Lucy, you've got a lot of '
splainin
' to do." Ricky's statement applies here, too. People on the other side of your opinion have a lot of "
splainin
" to do themselves, and it's your job to get them to do it.

Many challenges to Christianity thrive on vague generalities and forceful but vacuous slogans. How do we help others to be more explicit about the reasons for their views? How do we keep them intellectually honest? The second step of
Columbo
will help. I call it "reversing the burden of proof."

The burden of proof is the responsibility someone has to defend or give evidence for his view. Generally, the rule can be summed up this way: Whoever makes the claim bears the burden. The key here is not to allow
yourself
to be thrust into a defensive position when the other person is making the claim. It's not your duty to prove him wrong. It's his duty to prove his view. Let me give you an example of what I mean.

COSMIC CONFUSION

Once I was a guest on the top-rated secular radio station in Los Angeles. The topic was intelligent design over evolution. When a caller used the Big Bang to argue against a Creator, I pointed out that the Big Bang worked in my favor. Then I used my "a Big Bang needs a Big Banger" line. This always gets a laugh, but it is also a clever way to make a good point.

The caller disagreed: The Big Bang doesn't need God. "You could start with a base of nothing," he explained, "and
you could say that
there was nothing but an infinite, continuous moment, until one tiny, little, insignificant thing happened: a point happened in the nothingness."

Now I know what you are probably thinking. How do you start with nothing and then end up with something? How do you get a point in the nothingness?
Hardly a "tiny, little, insignificant thing."
If your bank account has no balance, there's no sense checking the statement every month to see if you've earned interest.
¹
The thought, apparently, did not occur to the caller, however. Facts, as C. S. Lewis once noted, can be very inconvenient things.

"This requires no intelligence," he continued, "so no intelligent God had to intervene. All we need is a tiny imperfection in the perfect nothingness that expanded and became increasingly complex, and soon you have galaxies and planets."

"You're right about one thing," I responded. "When you start with 'You could say that . . .' you can spin any yarn you want. But then comes the hard part: giving reasons why anyone should take your science-fiction story seriously. It's not
my
job to
disprove
your something-from-nothing fairy tale. It's
your
job to
prove
it. You haven't done that. You haven't even tried."

You might have heard the phrase "throw down the gauntlet" and wondered what it meant. A "gauntlet" was an armored glove worn by medieval knights. When a knight threw his gauntlet into the arena, it was a challenge to another knight to "take up the gauntlet" and square off for a fight.

The caller on this radio show had thrown down his "gauntlet" and then expected to walk off with the prize without a struggle. This happens all the time. But I wasn't going to let him off that easily, and neither should you. For too long we have let others contrive fanciful challenges and then sit back and watch us squirm. Those days are over. No more free rides. If they tell the story, let them defend it. They need to give an argument.

A HOUSE WITHOUT WALLS

An argument is a specific kind of thing. Think of an argument like a simple house, a roof supported by walls. The roof is the conclusion, and the walls are the supporting ideas. By testing the walls, we can see if they are strong enough to keep the roof from tumbling down. If the walls are solid, the conclusion rests securely on its supporting structure. If the walls collapse, the roof goes flat and the argument is defeated.

Some arguments are not really arguments at all. Many people try to build their roof right on the ground. Instead of erecting solid walls (the supporting ideas that hold the conclusion up), they simply make assertions and then pound the podium—or verbally pound you.

An argument is different from an assertion, though. An assertion simply states a point. An argument gives supporting reasons why the point should be taken seriously. The reasons, then, become the topic of mutual discussion or analysis. But if there are no reasons, there's little to discuss. Opinions by themselves are not proof. Intelligent belief requires reasons.

Roofs are useless when they are on the ground. No one can live in a house without walls. In the same way, an assertion without evidence is not very useful.

I frequently get calls on my radio show from people who think they are giving me an argument when all they are doing is forcefully stating a view. This may sound compelling at first, and their story may even seem plausible. But there is a difference between giving an explanation and giving evidence the explanation is actually true. Your job is to recognize when the roof is lying flat on the ground and simply point it out.

Don’t let someone flatten you by dropping a roof on your head. Make him build walls underneath his roof. Ask him for reasons or facts to support his conclusions.

"HOW DID YOU COME TO THAT CONCLUSION?”

Our second
Columbo
question, "Now, how did you come to that conclusion?" is designed to enforce the burden-of-proof rule. Remember, this is a model question. You might also ask, "Why do you say that
?,
" "What are your reasons for holding that view?," "What makes you think that's the right way to see it?," or "I'm curious. Why would that idea seem compelling to you?"
²

The first
Columbo
question helps you know
what
another person thinks. This second question helps you know
why
he thinks the way he does. It charitably assumes he has actually come to a conclusion — that he has reasons for his view and not merely strong feelings about it. It will give him a chance to express his rationale, if he has any. It will also give you more material to work with in addressing his objections.

You may be surprised to know that most critics are not prepared to defend
their
faith. So don't be startled if you get a blank stare. Many people have never thought through their views and don't know why they hold them.

Caught off guard, some will quip, "I don't have any reasons—I just believe it." This is a remarkable admission. It is also a very foolish thing to say. In this situation I always ask, "Why would you believe something when you have no reason to think it's true?" Notice that this is just a variation of our second
Columbo
question. Do you see how simple that is?

The question "Now, how did you come to that conclusion?" accomplishes something vitally important. It forces persons you are in conversation with to give an account for their own beliefs. Christians should not be the only ones who have to defend their views. Reject the impulse to counter every assertion someone manufactures. Don't try to refute every tale spun out of thin air. Instead, steer the burden of proof back on the other person's shoulders. Make them give you
reasons,
not just a point of view. It's not your job to defeat their claim. It's their job to defend it.