Category: Apologetics - Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry

Ferreting Out Facts

6/7/2024

6/7/24
Scholarly Reflections

Koukl, Gregory. (2019). "Chapter Sixteen: Just the Facts, Ma'am." In Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (updated and expanded). (pp. 212-225). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Koukl's tactic which he calls, "Just the Facts" is based on the fact that "many challenges to Christianity are based on bad information" (Koukl 2019, p. 212). Bringing facts into the discussion and focusing on them rather than on unsubstantiated opinion often clears up a disagreement.

As an example of negative opinion which is not based on fact, Koukl explores the idea that "religion kills" (Koukl 2019, p. 213). Several militant atheists have portrayed religion as the source of evill However, Koukl maintains that "oppression and mayhem are neither religious duties for Christians nor logical applications of the teachings of Jesus" (Koukl 2019, p. 213) so they tell us more about Christians than about Christianity. Further, in historic studies of wars, less than seven percent have been understood as motivated by religion (Koukl 2019, p. 214). Denial of God, on the other hand, has cost enormous numbers of lives. Atheism has a huge body count.

Koukl advocates striving for precision in defending a position. Those which can't be supported with facts are not safe positions to hold. Precision is normally persuasive (Koukl 2019, p. 215-216). For instance, counter to the claim that America's Founding Fathers were deists, Koukl points out that only about seven percent were (Koukl 2019, p. 216).

To use the "Just the Facts" plan, Koukl describes two steps. First, identify the precise claim being made (Koukl 2019, p. 217). Then ask whether the claim is factually accurate (Koukl 2019, p. 218).

Koukl continues by illustrating his use of the teactic in evaluating a variety of claims.

How Did the Expert Reach the Conclusion?

5/31/2024

5/31/24
Scholarly Reflections

Koukl, Gregory. (2019). "Chapter Fifteen: Rhodes Scholar." In Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (updated and expanded). (pp. 202-211). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Koukl describes newspaper and magazine articles, typically published right before Christmas and Easter, which attempt to tell of some sort of "untold" story which their scholarly experts know but which ahs been hidden from the general public (Koukl 2019, p. 202). To deal well with such claims, it may be useful to distinguish between what a scholar believes and why he believesr it. Koukl calls his tool for finding the distinction and an explanation the Rhodes Scholar approach.

To apply the Rhodes Scholar approach, ask for reasons why the person has reached his conclusion (Koukl 2019, p. 203). To do so simply verifies a reason to believe the person's opinion. There may be very good reasons, but often the reasoning is lacking in some important details. Statements are frequently outside of the expert's area of expertise. Koukl gives as an example Nobel laureates in biology and chemistry commenting on the positive economic effect of a legislative proposal which had strong ethical issues attached to it.

Koukl observes that a scholar's judgement or opinion within his field of expertise may be clouded by other considerations, making it less likely that the analysis will be accurate (Koukl 2019, p. 204-205).

The confusion in evaluating expert opinions is frequently increased by use of vague terms. As an example, Koukl quotes "Intelligent design is not science" (Koukl 2019, p. 205). "Science" may refer either to the methodology in use or to the philosophical presupposition of materialism. Investigation of origin and development of life may include a step which is not based on a wholly materialist and naturalist worldview. Those possibilities are often discounted immediatly as not being scientific (Koukl 2019, p. 206). The goal of "science" is often to preserve its philosophical presuppositions.

Koukl returns to the them from the start of the chapter, noting that often the experts who make claims of a special hidden understanidng of Jesus are trying to make those claims based on their view of science (Koukl 2019, p. 208). The presupposition of a naturalistic, materialistic world rejects any claims to resurrection or other miracles described in the Bible. The underlying assumptions govern the conclusions (Koukl 2019, p. 209).

Koukl asks if the charge of presuppositions can be used against Christians (Koukl 2019, p. 210). It can. However, a bias or presupposition is not the problem. A bias which distorts the view of evidence is a problem. The bias of accepting a possibility of supernatural intervention allows for fair consideration of all types of phenomena, so does not necessarily distort an evaluation.

When Reason Doesn't Prevail

5/24/2024

5/24/24
Scholarly Reflections

Koukl, Gregory. (2019). "Chapter Fourteen: Steamroller." In Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (updated and expanded). (pp. 192-201). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Koukl evaluates four reasons that people might reject good arguments, then he attempts to provide a tactic to overcome that resistance (Koukl 2019, p. 192). His thesis is that the valid argument is always appropriate, but that it will not always compel change.

Sometimes resistance is driven by an emotional motivation (Koukl 2019, p. 193). Especially in response to the claims of Christianity, people who have had negative experiences with Christians, who are concerned about the possibility that loved ones will perish, or who face rejection by family, friends, or their culture will try to reject the claims of Christianity so as to avoid those possibilities.

Another cause of resistance is based on prejudice, especially due to a cultural or political bias. Denominational differences may also contribute to this difficulty (Koukl 2019, p. 193).

Koukl considers a third reason t obe mere stubbornness and rebellion (Koukl 2019, p. 193). Change of belief is a hard thing. Some people will be highly resistant.

To counteract the forceful responses which some people show to the invitation to life change, Koukl suggests the defense he calls "steamroller" (Koukl 2019, p. 194). The steamroller is the other person, who may throw objections quickly, often interrupting and using a series of diversions which could lead down various rabbit trails. While some instances of the steamroller are genuine and easily distractable, Koukl thinks it is usually a disingenuous practice (Koukl 2019, p. 195). They wish to win the day throguh aggressive intimidation. Koukl here recommends a forceful, though not a rude response.

A first move ist omake "a genial request for courtesy" (Koukl 2019, p. 195). Ask to make your point without interruption, possibly signalling with a raised hand as well. Do this, if possible, when there is a pause (Koukl 2019, p. 196). If possible, get the other person's assent to allow an answer in turn. If the person will not allow it, Koukl considers it fair to ask why the person brought up a question but would not allow an answer. Remaining calm is very important.

If the steamroller breaks the agreement to discuss one issue at a time, Koukl recommends a slightly more aggressive move of using the person's name while directly requesting civility (Koukl 2019, p. 197). It allows the other person to have a reasoned conversation or for the conversation to end because of his lack of civility (Koukl 2019, p. 198).

A third step is to simply move on. The conversation is ended and the other person was allowed to have the last (unconvincing) word (Koukl 2019, p. 199). Not every conversation is going to be successful. At some point we acknowledge that it is going nowhere. Koukl describes this in terms of Jesus' caution about giving pearls to swine, who will turn and trample them and you.

Productive conversations are great. Not all will prove to be productive. It is all right to end an unproductive one.

Reductio ad Absurdum

5/17/2024

5/17/24
Scholarly Reflections

Koukl, Gregory. (2019). "Chapter Thirteen: Taking the Roof Off." In Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (updated and expanded). (pp. 178-191).. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

In this chapter, Koukl describes some worldviews which, if pushed to their logical ends, become absurd. He describes these views like maps which are not right for the journey at hand (Koukl 2019, p. 178). In these conversations, koukl suggests adopting the other person's point of view and pushing it to its logical conclusion. If the logical conclusion seems odd, "point it out and invite the person to reconsider the worldview route" (Koukl 2019, p. 179). The Latin phrase for this practice is reductio ad absurdum. The analysis works because eventually reality becomes apparent. If the reality is not consistent with the worldview, that worldview is in error (Koukl 2019, p. 180).

A very common issue which is dealt with by taking the roof off is moral relativism. If good and bad are indifferent or if they are mediated individually, a relativist should have no objection to what someone else might do. Confronted with the reality, everyone will object to something that someone else could do (Koukl 2019, p. 181).

To work with a reductio, Koukl provides a three step process. "First, reduce the person's point of view to its basic argument, assertion, principle, or moral rule" (Koukl 2019, p. 181). Be sure to confirm your understanding is correct. "Second, mentally give the idea a test drive to see where it leads" (Koukl 2019, p. 182). "Third, if you find a problem, point it out" (Koukl 2019, p. 182). Koukl gives a substantial number of examples of worldview claims which prove untenable.

Arguments Which Kill Each Other

5/10/2024

5/10/24
Scholarly Reflections

Koukl, Gregory. (2019). "Chapter Twelve: Sibling Rivalry and Infanticide." In Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (updated and expanded). pp. 165-177.. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

In this chapter, Koukl discusses two types of self-defeating views which "are not internally contradictory but are self-defeating in their own unique ways" (Koukl 2019, p. 165). In the situation Koukl terms as "sibling rivalry" a person will make two objections which are not logically consistent with each other. Both objections cannot be held at the same time, so at least one has to go. Koukl observes that this realization sometimes takes away both objections since the person realizes a logical problem (Koukl 2019, p. 166). Koukl gives a number of examples of views which can't be held together, for instance, that heaven is for definitively good people but that we don't have any way of identifying definitive good or evil. The problem is especially common when someone holds a moral relativist position. It quickly becomes impossible to speak of good and evil (Koukl 2019, p. 168).

The suicide argument Koukl considers most difficult to deal with he calls "infanticide" (Koukl 2019, p. 170). Here, a claim is made (the child) which denies the basis on which the claim depends (parent). For instance, a verbal claim that vocal cords do not exist depends on the existence of vocal cords. A more frequently occurring example is when someone who believes in objective eil says its existence means God cannot exist (Koukl 2019, p. 171). The argument is dependent on the existence of a definitive standard of good and evil. Demonstrating a standard of good and evil requires some manner of definition. Without the existence of God, the endeavor is fruitless (Koukl 2019, p. 172). Koukl particularly observes that in the sigling rivalry, two arguments can't be held together. In the infanticide situation, there is only one argument but it is predicated on something which is denied (Koukl 2019, p. 173). The argument thus falls apart, though some observable elements may continue to exist. For instance, the person who denies the existence of God may act in a moral manner, though he doesn't have a definitive and understandable framework (Koukl 2019, p. 174). Koukl observes that scientism is incapable of being proven simply because it needs to have some first principle which is considered to be proven. Without such a tenet, the philosophy cannot be held (Koukl 2019, p. 174).

Arguments Which Can Be Held but Prove False When Stated

5/3/2024

5/3/24
Scholarly Reflections

Koukl, Gregory. (2019). "Chapter Eleven: Practical Suicide." In Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (updated and expanded). pp. 157-164.. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Koukl previously discussed points of views which are automatically self-defeating. In this chapter he deals with those that can be held but cannot be articulated. As an example, he says, "It's wrong to say people are wrong" (Koukl 2019, p. 158). This is a position which many people hold but which cannot be said without being self-contradictory. As long as it is not articulated, it works. A similar, but more sophisticated example, is seen when someone gives reasons why the use of reasoning to prove a point is inappropriate. Confronting the root issue which is contradictory is uncomfortable but often suffices to show a person the weakness of his views.

Koukl observes that a relativistic view of morality frequently self-destructs. Telling someone not to push a view on others is readily seen as pushing a view. Asking "why" is a sufficient response (Koukl 2019, p. 160). Koukl continues to illustrate the issue with an extended example of Soviet border guards admitting to religious freedom and access to Bibles yet prohibiting people from providing such opportunities (Koukl 2019, pp. 161-163). The overall logical conflict is the ssame, though the outcome of his discussion was not. He gives a third extended example (Koukl 2019, pp. 163-164) of a controversy caused when the Southern Baptist Convention urged praying for Jewish people in Chicago, an act the Anti-Defamation League considered an invitation to hatred. Their claim was that evangelization should only be directed to people who have no religion. In fact, the Jewish leaders said as a religious conviction the Baptists should violate their own religious convictions.

Once views such as these are articulated, they prove invalid. However, not all people are willing to allow the contradiction to be pointed out. These conversations can be very difficult.

Self-Defeating Arguments

4/26/2024

4/26/24
Scholarly Reflections

Koukl, Gregory. (2019). "Chapter Ten: Suicide: Views That Self-Destruct." In Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (updated and expanded). pp. 143-156.. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

In this chapter, Koukl discusses the fact that many views are self-refuting. They do not hold p to any examination before they collapse (Koukl 2019, p. 143). A self-refuting statement is easily dismissed. Koukl gives several examples, including "There are no absolutes," "you can't know anything for sure," and "Talking about God is meaningless" (Koukl 2019, p. 144). All the views which are suicidal violate the law of noncontradiction, making claims which cannot be held together. Koukl observes that many of them are funny by nature. By identifying he premise of each part of a statement we can see the pattern clearly. To deal with it, point out the contradiction. Koukl illustrates, "There is no truth," when questioned, "Is that statement true?" (Koukl 2019, p. 146).

The difficulty in dealing with self-defeating views is that the ones we accept are normally well hidden. Koukl continues by giving a number of examples of self-defeating views which are difficult to find (Koukl 2019, p. 147ff). In all, the proper test is to consider whether the exact same reason for a view can fight against the view (Koukl 2019, p. 150).

Why Does the Rabbi Answer Questions with Questions?

4/19/2024

4/19/24
Scholarly Reflections

Koukl, Gregory. (2019). "Chapter Nine: Turnabout: Defending against Columbo." In Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (updated and expanded). pp. 126-139. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Koukl observes that there are others who know how to use questions to navigate an issue skillfully. When another person uses questions and you think there is an effort to trap or humiliate you, Koukl notes that we should welcome the first two uses of the Columbo tactic, which seek to clarify and give reasons for beliefs (Koukl 2019, p. 127). However, leading questions which attempt to push us into a trap are different. Koukl suggests asking the questioner if he is trying to make a point and whether he would mind just stating it so we can consider it. Koukl further notes that some people are verbal bullies who will not cooperate. He describes two types.

First, Koukl describes an encounter on a television debate with Deepak Chopra, who asked him whether "people who don't believe just like you are going to hell" (Koukl 2019, p. 128). This was a carefully worded question, to which the simple affirmative would have led to offense and distorted interpretations. Koukl, rather than answer in a way which could be misinterpreted, answered that he was making a different point than that (Koukl 2019, p. 128). This was a step away from the trap and served to allow Koukl to state his real point.

A second type of deceptive questioning is "more subtle and therefore much more dangerous" (Koukl 2019, p. 129). Koukl refers to a book by Peter Boghossian, A Manual for Creating Atheists, which coaches readers in ways to plant doubt in the mind of Christians. The questioner is very friendly and noncombative, but asks questions intended to stupefy the other person. There is regularly a logical fallacy embedded in a premise of a question. If the respondent accepts the fallacy, the questioner wins (Koukl 2019, p. 130). Koukl again recommends that when questioning seems like a means to manipulation the questioner should be asked to clarify. Koukl illustrates turning the conversation around, using questioning examples from Boghossian's book (Koukl 2019, p. 131-132).

Koukl observes that some questions are not questions, but rather serve as challenges (Koukl 2019, p. 133). Again, Koukl suggests deflecting these questions. REsponding by asking for clarification will force the questioner to make a clear statement (Koukl 2019, p. 134). This can allow the true issue to come to the surface.

A questioner, when confronted with a person who gently refuses to fall into a trap, may quickly change to a different tack. Koukl suggests continuing to challenge a person for clarification in a straightforward and charitable manner, even if the questioner changes tacks, abandons some questions, and makes contradictory claims (Koukl 2019, pp. 136-139). Asking a critic for an explanation often points out deep flaws in the critic's understanding.

It's Fair Game to Prepare for a Conversation

4/12/2024

4/12/24
Scholarly Reflections

Koukl, Gregory. (2019). "Chapter Eight: Perfecting Columbo." In Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (updated and expanded). pp. 115-125. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Koukl notes that as a way of managing a conversation his Columbo tactic is effective. However, keeping it working takes practice (Koukl 2019, p. 115). In particular, readily finding a workable response in a real-time conversation may be difficult. The best ideas come to us before or after the conversation (Koukl 2019, p. 116). Koukl recommends purposely anticipating situations that might happen and reflecting on those which have already happened. This increases the store of likely questions and potential answers we have to work with. Koukl here reminds the reader of his "Ambassador Model" in chapter one. The ambassador should be well informed, wise, and show character in his manner (Koukl 2019, p. 117). These are qualities which improve with practice. At times, if you were with a friend in the conversation, that friend may be able to give valuable feedback. Anticipating an argument allows you to sort out good and bad responses in advance, and to be ready with good ones.

Ral-tie conversations are different from those we plan or predict. Koukl admits to making mistakes. he provides examples of interactions that went badly (Koukl 2019, p. 119ff). Even someone who is very proficient at inquiry can go wrong, and realize it after a question or statement which is not helpful has already been made. In some instances, we may not go astray but we might not know the question that will point directly to the issue at hand. Reflection after the interaction may help isolate that question.

Koukl reminds his readers that the way we approach questioning and the attitude we show is very important in establishing and sustaining positive relationships (Koukl 2019, p. 123). In general, we will be more persuasive to the person we engage by a gentle approach, while in a debate when we wish to persuade the audience we should be more forceful (Koukl 2019, p. 124).

Leading Questions - Non-Threatening

4/5/2024

4/5/24
Scholarly Reflections

Koukl, Gregory. (2019). "Chapter Seven: Columbo Step 3: Using Questions to Make a Point." In Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (updated and expanded). pp. 96-114. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

While Koukl has previously discussed using questions to gather information about a viewpoint and reasons for it, here he observes that questioning can also be used to move toward a particular outcome, as leading questions (Koukl 2019, p.96). Now, as the questions lead to a particular target, it is important to have a clear target in mind. In Koukl's view, questioning is able to "accomplish two things that a mere statement cannot. First, the person is telling you he understands the point. Second, he's telling you he agrees with it, at least provisionally, and is taking a step forward with you in the thinking process" (Koukl 2019, p.97).

Koukl describes lines of questioning which can be used to point out something a person already knows (Koukl 2019, p.98). This can be very helpful in dealing with a person who is holding a logically self-contradictory point of view. Questioning can help demonstrate that mutually exclusive views can't both be true, and to discard the view which is problematic.

Leading with questions can also be used to turn the tables in an uncomfortable conversation (Koukl 2019, p.100). For instance, in a conversation about sexuality, it may be very helpful to preface an answer with a line of questioning about whether the other person is intolerant of opposing convictions. When in a discussion with a politically correct person, it is possible to get that person to agree not to judge your conviction. If labeled as intolerant, it is fair to ask for a definition of intolerance (Koukl 2019, p.101). At the root of the disagreement is the fact that people with different views both think they are correct.

A third important way to use leading questions is to bring a weakness or flaw into the other person's view up for consideration (Koukl 2019, p.102). The line of questioning can, for instance, review someone's circular reasoning, question begging, or any number of other logical fallacies. Once the circle is completed, the person with the fallacy has little choice but reconsideration.

Leading questions can also be used to help a person lay ideas out clearly, putting the conceptual cards on the table for analysis (Koukl 2019, p.105). This line of questioning is especially helpful in opening a conversation about a sensitive topic, for instance, whether all people commit moral offenses. Often the other person in the conversation can gently be enlisted to make your case for you (Koukl 2019, p.107). This requires forethought. Koukl observes that you need to know how to answer the challenge you're facing. Then you need to think about what pieces you need to make your point. Finally, you need to formulate questions that invite your challenger to place those pieces on the table for you" (Koukl 2019, p.107). Understanding the likely points of view well in advance is very helpful in this process. With practice we become better at evaluating statements, understanding their nature and their weaknesses (Koukl 2019, p.108).

Koukl reminds his readers that even though questions take them on the offensive in a discussion, we want to avoid seeming pushy or offensive. Koukl suggests use of the phrase, "Have you ever considered" to introduce challenging questions (Koukl 2019, p.110). Phrasing a problem as a request for personal clarification is also a very helpful means of presenting yourself as non-threatening (Koukl 2019, p.111). Gaining the agreement of the other person is always a useful tactic in engagement of ideas.

Can We Get the Conversation Back on Track?

3/29/2024

3/29/24
Scholarly Reflections

Koukl, Gregory. (2019). "Chapter Six: Two Reliable Rescues." In Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (updated and expanded). pp. 87-95. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Koukl has previously discussed using effective questioning to maintain a pleasant discussion which moves to the goal of uncovering truth claims to evaluate them. At times a discussion can veer from that track. In this chapter Koukl describes two methods of redirecting the conversation (Koukl 2019, p. 87).

The first tactic he calls "the professor ploy." When confronted by a hostile but powerful witness, such as a professor in his classroom, Koukl suggests asking for more detail about the particular negative view expressed. Seek clarity on the specifics of the view. Ask for evidence that leads to the conclusions (Koukl 2019, p. 88). Koukl sees this as keeping the burden of proof on the person making the negative claim. The pitfall to watch for is the "professor" attempting to shift the burden of proof. It is perfectly legitimate to politely insist that the person who has been articulating a point of view continue to do so. The questioner has not expressed a point of view, merely curiosity (Koukl 2019, pp. 89-90).

Another difficulty Koukl discusses occurs when the person with the contrary view is more aggressive, throwing large amounts of detailed information or questions back. Koukl discusses this in terms of finding yourself "in the hot seat" (Koukl 2019, p. 90). The discomfort is present because the other person is in the driver's seat of the conversation. Koukl recommends immediately moving into "fact-finding mode," asking the other person to slow down, and explain the view in order, allowing for questions (Koukl 2019, p. 91). Itthen becomes possible to regroup or to gently end the conversation with intent to continue later. The words, "now let me think about it" simultaneously refuse to argue and promise to follow up (Koukl 2019, p. 92). Koukl suggests taking careful notes and engaging in research regarding the particulars prior to a follow-up conversation. The ideas may prove valuable in other discussions with other people as well.

Koukl closes the chapter by urging practice in narrating a conversation. For instance, especially when clarity is departing, it's possible to pause and describe the situation (Koukl 2019, p. 93). It is reasonable to say you have asked some questions but that the answers have led in a different direction, then to reiterate the questions. It is also possible to be more forceful. For instance, if a person calls you a bigot rather than answering a question, it is fair to request an explanation for a reason (Koukl 2019, p. 94).

The Burden of Proof

3/22/2024

3/22/24
Scholarly Reflections

Koukl, Gregory. (2019). "Chapter Five: Columbo Step 2: Reversing the Burden of Proof." In Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (updated and expanded). pp. 76-86. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Koukl notes that many people have a cultural view that only Christianity needs to defend itself. When asked for an explanation of their views, many people will tell a story but not actually bring evidence (Koukl 2019, 76). In fact, an opinion should be backed up by some sort of evidence. The responsibility to provide evidence, known as the burden of proof, belongs to someone in a discussion (Koukl 2019, 77). Koukl puts the burden of proof on the person who makes a claim, as people typically do when asked questions.

Koukl compares an argument to a house. He makes the conclusion a roof, and the walls are evidence which is strong enough to bear the weight of the conclusion (Koukl 2019, 79). All the persuasive stories in the world, without actual evidence, cannot be allowed to hold up a roof.

Shifting the burden of proof to another person is easily done, by asking, "How did you come to that conclusion?" (Koukl 2019, 80). The question is charitable, as it assumes the conclusion is well founded. Koukl reminds the reader that the critic does not immediately need to be refuted. It is sufficient to require an adequate defense.

In evaluating a critic's argument, Koukl recommends three essential criteria. He evaluates an argument in terms of its possibility, its plausibility, and its probability (Koukl 2019, 82ff).

Koukl grants that the Christian also has a burden of proof, and should be prepared to explain himself. However, the burden of proof does not belong solely to the Christian (Koukl 2019, 84).

Gathering Information

3/15/2024

3/15/24
Scholarly Reflections

Koukl, Gregory. (2019). "Chapter Four: Columbo Step 1: Gathering Information." In Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (updated and expanded). pp. 63-75. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Koukl recommends gathering information to help make the person you speak with feel comfortable, speaking about himself and his own convictions (Koukl 2019, 63). Koukl describes how this practice can make particular struggles known, thus avoiding pitfalls later. He suggests questions such as "What do you mean by that?" to draw out information (Koukl 2019, 65). The clarity which results is a foundation for continued discussion.

Clarity and definition of terms are essential elements, creating mutual understanding and the ability to represent a person or a position well (Koukl 2019, 67). Koukl describes and illustrates the benefit of understanding correctly and representing a point of view accurately. In his opinion, many people have difficulty clarifying largely because they have not done so before (Koukl 2019, 69).

Koukl moves his discussion back to the concept of the ten second window (Koukl 2019, 70). The common discussion scenarios he illustrated in an earlier chapter all had ambiguity inherent in their possible controversies. Clearing up the ambiguity allows the discussion to move forward. Koukl's questions take advantage of the ten second window of opportunity and provide non-threatening ways to draw out the truth.

Toward an Orderly Conversation

3/8/2024

3/8/24
Scholarly Reflections

Koukl, Gregory. (2019). "Chapter Three: Getting in the Driver's Seat: The Columbo Tactic." In Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (updated and expanded). pp. 52-62. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Koukl describes four scenes in which a surprising point of view is presented which deserves a response (Koukl 2019, 52-53). In Koukl's view, there is only about a ten second window of opportunity for a first response. Koukl advises use of questions which intentionally draw a person into the conversation (Koukl 2019, 54-55). The use of a question allows the questioner to draw out thoughts and clarify attitudes. It provides more information to work with (Koukl 2019,55). Koukl emphasizes that the question needs to be focused and purposeful. It moves the conversation in a direction Koukl wishes to go (Koukl 2019, 56).

Koukl calls his primary tactic the "Columbo" tactic, named after the investigator in a television crime series (Koukl 2019, 56-57). Columbo would ask questions in a seemingly innocuous way. Yet they would routinely lead to the exact information needed. Koukl notes that people like to be asked their opinion, and that they will often readily provide information (Koukl 2019, 58). Questioning can be carefully directed and allow you to guide a conversation (Koukl 2019, 60).

Koukl notes he uses the questioning tactic in three ways: "to gather information…reverse the burden of proof…[or]to make a point" (Koukl 2019, 60).

Why Do We Fear Important Conversations?

3/1/2024

3/1/24
Scholarly Reflections

Koukl, Gregory. (2019). "Chapter Two: Reservations." In Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (updated and expanded). pp. 38-51. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Koukl deals with reservations we might have when considering a game plan for engagement. First, we are shy of arguments. However, an argument can be made without provoking anger (Koukl 2019, 38). Koukl maintains that if anyone gets mad, we lose. An argument which works in a principled way to find truth is a very good thing (Koukl 2019, 39). Knowing the difference between truth and error is important. Koukl emphasizes that proper use of our minds is critical even in the work of God's Word to protect us from evil and error (Koukl 2019, 40).

Koukl discusses the reasons we tend to avoid arguments. Some Christians are afraid to break with unity (Koukl 2019, 41). Other Christians consider any opposition to a point of view as hostility rooted in malice (Koukl 2019, 42). On the contrary, fair and charitable discussion is a positive feature of learning. Therefore, Koukl lays out a case for the use of clear and fair argument for learning (Koukl 2019, 43ff).

In our argument for the Gospel, Koukl views our responsibility as being kind and honest, but God's responsibility as creating receptivity and drawing a person to himself (Koukl 2019, 45). He therefore sees his goal in modest terms. "All I want to do is put a stone in someone's shoe" (Koukl 2019, 46). He wants the other person to have something which cannot be ignored.

Since Koukl sees the gardening metaphor in the New Testament to apply directly to the work of evangelism, he is comfortable with different people having different roles in the process. He views much of what he does as preparation of soil, planting, watering, and cultivation, while someone else may do the harvesting (Koukl 2019, 48). Much of the work, as Koukl views it, is incremental in nature. When the time of harvest comes, the fruit is easily picked.

Apologetics as Diplomacy

2/23/2024

2/23/24
Scholarly Reflections

Koukl, Gregory. (2019). "Chapter One: Diplomacy or D-Day?" In Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (updated and expanded). pp. 25-37. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Koukl describes the work of apologetics more as an attempt at diplomacy than as an overt confrontation (Koukl 2019, 25-26). His approach involves the use of conversation tactics which allow for a friendly uncovering of beliefs so as to explore the strength of truth claims. Koukl illustrates the method through relating a conversation he had in a bookstore. He allowed a person who affirmed respect for all life to admit to support for abortion even though it would kill a human (Koukl 2019, 26-27). The woman affirmed that killing a baby was a matter of a person's individual choice. She defended her position using talking points which were unable to be adequately defended (Koukl 2019, 28-29). Koukl introduced a situation which, though consistent with the slogans, would not be acceptable to many people. The discussion ended charitably with the woman finding she had an untenable possibility. Koukl was not concerned that the discussion had not reached the goal of the gospel. She had gone from holding a position without thinking about it to serious consideration of the flaws in her position (Koukl 2019, 30).

Koukl emphasizes the importance of staying in the driver's seat of conversations, asking questions which will allow the other person to reveal his outlook (Koukl 2019, 31). Koukl emphasizes having knowledge of the subject, wisdom to engage, and a character which welcomes people. This book relates to the wisdom needed to engage people effectively (Koukl 2019, 32). Koukl's tactics are intended to equip people to bring order to their approach to a discussion. The intent is to manage the discussion so the other person is free to consider different points of view (Koukl 2019, 34). They are not intended to beat the other person down.

Koukl expresses confidence. "If Christianity is the truth, then no matter how convincing the other side sounds at first, there will always be a fly in the ointment somewhere - a mistake in thinking, a wayward 'fact,' an unjustified conclusion. Keep looking for it" (Koukl 2019, 36).