Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (12 page)

If you find you don't have the resources to go further in a discussion or if you sense the person is losing interest,
don't feel compelled to force the conversation.
Let the encounter die a natural death and move on. Consider it a fruitful, interactive learning experience nonetheless.

Remember, as an ambassador for Christ, you don't have to hit a home run in every conversation. You don't even have to get on base, in my opinion. As I mentioned in
chapter 2
, sometimes just getting up to bat will do. Your first two
Columbo
questions — "What do you mean by that?" and "How did you come to that conclusion?" — will help you get in the game. The rest will come in time.

We may spend hours helping someone carefully work through an issue without ever mentioning God, Jesus, or the Bible. This does not mean we aren’t advancing the kingdom. It is always a step in the right direction when we help others think more carefully. If nothing else, it gives them tools to assess the bigger questions that eventually come up.

INNOCENT AS DOVES

I mentioned at the beginning of the chapter that the third use of
Columbo
takes us on the offensive. The danger, of course, is that we
become
offensive when we go
on
the offensive. These are two different things. Yes, we want to be able to point out weaknesses in a view (go
on
the offensive). But we don't want to seem pushy, condescending, or smug
(being
offensive). How do we maintain balance?

Jesus offered this advice: "Be shrewd as
serpents,
and innocent as doves" (Matthew 10:16). I think one of the things he had in mind was that we should be clever in our approach, yet remain innocent in our appearance.

Here's how Jesus' insight might apply. Sometimes the best way to disagree with someone is not to face the issue head-on, but to soften the challenge by using an indirect approach. You can cushion your third use of
Columbo
a couple of ways.

For one, think about using the phrase "Have you considered" to introduce your concern, then offering a different view that gently questions the person's beliefs or confronts a weakness with his argument. Here are some examples:

•    "Have you ever considered . . . that if the Bible were 'merely written by men' it would be very hard to account for fulfilled prophecy? How would you explain that?"

•    "Have you ever considered . . . the difficulty involved with removing something like the teaching on reincarnation from every existing handwritten copy of the New Testament in circulation in the Roman world by the fourth century? How is this physically possible?"

•    "Have you ever considered . . . that the existence of evil is actually evidence for the existence of God, not against it?"
⁹

•    "Have you ever considered . . . that if partial-birth abortion is okay, it's going to be hard to condemn infanticide, since the baby's location — partially out of the womb (partial-birth abortion) or completely out (infanticide) — is the only difference between the two? Doesn't location seem irrelevant to the baby's value?"

•    "Have you ever considered . . . that if Jesus was wrong about being the only way of salvation, it is difficult to call him a good man, a prophet, or a wise religious teacher? What do you think about that problem?"

Another way to soften your challenge is to phrase your concern as a request for clarification. Begin by asking, "Can you clear this up for me?" or "Can you help me understand this?" Then offer your objection in a way that gently challenges the belief or confronts the weakness you think you see in the argument. Consider the gentle approach of the following questions:

•    Can you clear this up for me? If Jesus' divinity was an invention of the church in the early fourth century, how do you explain all the references to a divine Christ in literature written before that time?

•    Can you help me understand this? If there is no evidence that life came from non-life (
abiogenesis
) — that life spontaneously arose from inanimate matter to kick off the sequence of evolution — and there is much evidence against it, how can we say that Darwinian evolution is fact?

•    Can you help me with something that confuses me? How does having a 'burning in the bosom' about the Book of Mormon give adequate evidence that this book is from God when people have similar reasons—a strong conviction from God in response to prayer—for rejecting it?

•    Can you clear this up for me? If homosexuality is truly natural, then why did nature give homosexual men bodies designed for reproductive sex with women and then give them desires for sex with men? Why would nature give desires for one type of sex, but a body for another?

One of the reasons this approach is so attractive is that it emphasizes respect for the person you disagree with. First, you have made an effort (with your first two
Columbo
questions) to understand her viewpoint. Next, you ask, "Do you mind if I ask a couple of questions about what you've told me?" or "Would you consider an alternative, or be willing to look at another angle?" By soliciting permission to disagree, you make the encounter more amicable. You also stay in the driver's seat.

There is one more way to soften your approach that, strictly speaking, may not involve
Columbo
(because it doesn't always use a question). Even so, it may serve a valuable tactical purpose. You may find yourself in a situation where either you can't think of a question or where it would seem awkward or contrived to use a question rather than simply stating your view.

In these circumstances, you need a genial way to introduce your point. Here are some recommendations you might want to consider:

•    Let me suggest an alternative, and tell me if you think it's an improvement. If not, you can tell me why you think your option is better.

•    I wouldn't characterize it that way. Here's what I think may be a better or more accurate way to look at it. Tell me what you think.

•    I don't think that's going to work, and I'd like to suggest why. Is that okay with you?

•    I'm not sure I agree with the way you put it. Think about this . . .

These statements protect you in an additional way. When you say something like, "It's my understanding that . . ." or "This is the way it seems to me," then explain your position and invite a response, you indicate you are provisional in your claims. Yes, you have convictions, but they are open to discussion.

This is not only an implicit act of humility, but it also gives you a margin of safety. It may turn out that you have missed something that your friend uncovers in the process of conversation. If you discover that your own ideas are compromised in some way, this could be embarrassing if you expressed them in a dogmatic, uncompromising way to begin with. Furthermore, you have little psychological liberty to adjust your views.
¹⁰

NARRATING THE DEBATE

Many people you talk to will struggle when you turn the tables by asking them to give evidence for the claims they make. When a person has not thought much about his own assertions, dodging your questions may be his only recourse. He may try to change the subject or reassert his point in other ways.

When this happens, it may be helpful for you to "narrate the debate." Take a moment to step outside of the conversation, in a sense, and describe to your friend the turn the discussion has taken. This will help him (and others listening in) see how he's gotten off course.

You can say something like, "I want you to notice what has just happened. First you made a fairly controversial statement, and I asked you a couple of questions about it. So far, you haven't answered them. Instead, you have taken off in another direction. Before we move on to a new topic, would it be okay with you if we finish the old one? I really am interested in your response."

Don't let your friend get off the hook by dodging the issues. This approach keeps the burden on him while keeping the conversation cordial. Encourage the other person to clarify himself. Forcing him to face the music may be the first step toward a change of mind.

When a cherished view is at stake, it’s not unusual for people to raise empty objections — objections that initially sound worthwhile, but simply can’t be defended once examined. Questions aimed at undermining the view often reveal a lack of substance behind the bluster.

WHAT WE LEARNED IN THIS CHAPTER

In this chapter we learned how to employ
Columbo
to take us in an entirely new direction. Instead of using questions to gather information, we discovered that questions can be very effective to lead someone in the direction we want the conversation to go. Such "leading questions" often work better than statements to explain our view, to set up the discussion in a way that makes it easier for us to make our point, to soften our challenge to another's view, or to indirectly expose a flaw in the other's thinking.

Unlike the first two uses of
Columbo
, this one requires knowledge of some kind. When we know what we want to accomplish (e.g., to inform, to persuade, to set up the terms, or to refute), we can use leading questions to achieve our purpose. This is a skill that develops over time, so if you stall out at first, don't be discouraged. Instead of trying to force a conversation you don't have the resources to pursue, you can simply move on, knowing you have done the best that you could for the moment.

If someone's thinking is flawed, the key to finding the error is to listen carefully to the reasons and then ask if the conclusions follow from the evidence. Point out errors with questions rather than statements. You might soften your challenge by phrasing your concern as a request for clarification or by suggesting an alternative with the words "Have you considered . . ." before offering your own ideas.

We have spent quite a bit of time focusing on a single tactic. I have taken this time because
Columbo
is so important. It is central to every tactic that follows.

If you have been practicing what we have covered, you have already discovered how handy
Columbo
can be. You're learning how to advance the dialogue for spiritual ends without seeming pushy. You're realizing that asking simple questions is an almost effortless way to have courteous conversations with others, even if you strongly disagree with their ideas.

You might have noticed, though, that it is difficult to be clever on command. Sometimes it is hard to think of new things on the spur of the moment. You may be able to get conversations started, but then you get bogged down.

To perfect any new skill takes time and practice. If you were just beginning to learn a sport such as tennis, some of your time would be spent practicing the basics (a forehand or a volley, for instance). Then you would get feedback from someone else who could help you improve your technique. Similarly, as you begin to implement your tactical game plan using
Columbo
, you might wonder if there is something you can do to improve your technique, a way to practice before the pressure is on.

You might also notice something else. You might discover that you are not the only one who can use questions to navigate tactically in conversations. Others — including those who

disagree
with you — know how to do this, too, and some are very skilled at it.

In this chapter, I would like to coach you in specific ways to improve your
Columbo
skill. I also want to show you how to defend against the
Columbo
tactic when someone else uses it on you. Finally, I will recount a conversation I had with a waitress at a Seattle restaurant because it is a good example of how the various elements of
Columbo
come together in a single encounter.

IMPROVING YOUR COLUMBO SKILL

Initially, you will not be quick on your feet with responses like the ones in the examples I have given in previous chapters. Instead, you may find that your best ideas come when your head is clear and you are not under pressure to respond immediately. In any encounter, there are two different times when the pressure is off: before the conversation begins and after it's over. Those are perfect times to focus on improving your technique.