Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (23 page)

•    "Here's what I have in mind. You make your point, and I'll be polite and listen. When you're done, it will be your turn to be polite to me and not interrupt while I respond. Then, I'll let you have your say without breaking in. I need to know if that's okay with you. If not, this conversation is over. What would you like to do?" Wait for a response.

Notice that each example I have offered is progressively more direct. You have to judge which one is necessary for the circumstances you face. The last one is very aggressive. If you started this way, you would be out of line. With some people, though, a direct approach like this is the only thing that will save the conversation. Use it only after the other person has used up a lot of grace.

Remember, steamrollers are strong customers who sometimes need to be addressed with equal strength, yet coupled with civility. This can be harder if you have a gentle spirit, but unless you toughen up at this stage, you'll get nowhere.

Step two should work. The steamroller might even be ashamed and apologize. Accept the gesture graciously, then return to the original issue and deal with it. Say, "Let's go back to the beginning. Your challenge as I understand it is this . . . (repeat the question). Now, here is how I'd like to respond."

This second step is very effective in taming even the most belligerent steamroller. Don't be snippy or smug. Stay focused, stay pleasant, stay gracious, but stay in control.

If this doesn't work, go immediately to Step Three.

Step Three: Leave Him

First you
stop
him, then, you
shame
him. If that doesn't work, you
leave
him. When all else fails, let it go. Walk away. If the steamroller won't let you answer, listen politely until he's finished,
then
drop it. Let him have the satisfaction of having the last word, then shake the dust off your feet and move on. Wisdom dictates not wasting time with this kind of fool.

This last step is dictated by a simple bit of insight: Not everyone deserves an answer. This may sound odd at first. Characteristically, an ambassador is always ready, alert for any chance to represent

Christ, not backing away from a challenge or an opportunity. Sometimes, though, the wisest course of action may be to bow out graciously.

Jesus warned, "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine" (Matthew 7:6). He followed his own advice, too. Jesus was amazingly tight-lipped before Pilate; he "gave him no answer" (John 19:9). At times, he was also evasive with religious
leaders
intent on tricking him: "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things" (Matthew 21:27).

Knowing when to step back requires the ability to separate the hogs and the dogs from the lost sheep looking for a shepherd. But how do you know when someone has crossed the line? When do we have an obligation to speak, and when should we save our pearls for another time?

Part of the answer can be found in Jesus' next words in Matthew 7:6: ". . . lest they trample [the pearls] under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." Be generous with the truth except with someone who shows utter contempt for the precious gift being offered him. He will simply trample it in the mud and then viciously turn on you.

If you sense someone pawing the turf and readying for a charge, it may be time to leave. Don't waste your efforts on people like this. There is plenty of ripe fruit waiting to be harvested. Save your energy for more productive encounters.

Of course, there are times when you will find yourself in a Jeremiah situation, being faithful to speak the truth even though it falls on deaf ears. But those occasions are not the rule. Usually, wisdom dictates we ration our efforts.

There is an exception to this principle, however. I have learned from my radio show that sometimes my real audience is not the person I'm talking to, but the people who are listening in, eavesdropping on the conversation.

This happens more often than you may think, even if you are not a radio host. Sometimes a word spoken to a hardened heart bounces off and hits a soft one. You may not even know that anyone else was listening. Years later, you discover that the Holy Spirit had a different audience in mind for your efforts. This has happened to me many times. Lee
Strobel
calls this "ricochet evangelism."

When I face an aggressive challenger, I often give him the last word. Not only is this gracious, it’s also powerful, conveying a deep sense of confidence in one’s own view. Instead of fighting for the final say-so, give it away. Make your concluding point clearly and succinctly, and then say, "I’ll let you have the last word.” But don’t break this promise.

Grant him his parting shot, and then let it rest.

Dealing with a steamroller is rarely a smooth and tidy enterprise. When you encounter abuse, don't take it personally. It's not about you. It's about Christ. When you falter, don't get discouraged with the process. I get caught flat-footed too sometimes. Take it as a chance to learn for the next time around.

The principle?
Make the best of the opportunities you have,
then
trust the Holy Spirit to be the witnessing partner who makes the difference. You do your part,
then
let God do his.

WHAT WE LEARNED IN THIS CHAPTER

In this chapter, we discovered that there was more than one reason a person might reject our arguments. There is nothing magical about a sound line of logic. For some people, reason doesn't matter. Some other barrier stands in the way.

Sometimes people have emotional reasons for resisting. Bad experiences with Christians or with
churches,
or pressures from family or culture are enough to blind a person to our appeals. Others balk because of prejudice. They never really consider our message because their minds are already made up. Finally, for many people, simple rebellion is the best explanation for rejection. The fundamental problem with most people is they do not want to bend the knee to their Sovereign.

Next, we learned how to recognize and restrain a steamroller. Steamrollers overpower you with strong personalities and interrupt constantly. We suggested three steps to manage a steamroller and put us back in control of the conversation. Step one, stop the interruption graciously but firmly, then briefly negotiate an agreement. Step
two,
shame him by making a very direct request for courtesy. Step three, leave. Never match a steamroller's incivility with rudeness. Instead, let him have the last word, then calmly walk away.

If you read magazines like
Time, U.S. News and World Report,
or
Newsweek,
you might have noticed a trend. Just before Easter and Christmas, these publications often feature cover stories about the history behind these two central events on the Christian calendar. The articles have provocative titles like, "What
Really
Happened to the Body of Jesus," or "The Untold Truth about the First Christmas." Generally, the authors take a what-scholars-say-that-your-pastor-does-not-want-you-to-know approach. They cite academics who use a "scientific" approach to history to expose the false notions held by the foolish faithful.

INFORMED OR EDUCATED?

Cover stories like these sell lots of magazines. They also discourage lots of Christians. Some wonder why these academic "facts" have been kept from them. Others don't know what to believe. They don't want to abandon their faith, but they cannot in good conscience dismiss the consensus of academic opinion simply because they don't like what they hear.

In situations like these, a tactic I call "Rhodes Scholar" is invaluable. It provides a way of knowing if an appeal to an authority is legitimate or not. The tactic hinges on the difference between
informing
and
educating.
When an article tells you
what
a scholar believes, you have been informed. When an article tells you
why
he holds his view, you have been educated.

Here is why this distinction is so important. If you recall from
chapter 4
, an argument is like a house whose roof
(what
a person believes) is supported by walls (the reasons
why
he believes). You cannot know if the reasons are adequate to the conclusions — if the walls are strong enough to hold the roof — unless you know what those reasons are. If you know the reasons, you can assess them. Without them, you're stonewalled.

Popular articles always inform, but almost never educate. As a result, you have no way of evaluating a scholar's conclusion. You simply have to take his word for it. But scholars can be wrong, and often are. Their reasoning can be weak, their facts can be mistaken, and bias can distort their judgment.

ASSESSING THE ACADEMICS

How do you know if an authority has been compromised? Regardless of a scholar's credentials,
always ask for reasons.
Don't settle for opinions. This is the key to Rhodes Scholar.

This tactic protects you from being victimized by a common error called the "fallacy of expert witness." There is nothing wrong with appealing to authority, but it must be done in the right way. You must ask, "Why should I believe this person's opinion?" There are two ways to answer this query.

First, the scholar may be in a special position to know the
facts.
However, if an authority is in possession of special information that guides his counsel, then he should be able to point to that evidence to convince us he's on the mark.

Sometimes authorities give opinions that are outside of their area of expertise. When California passed its controversial embryonic stem cell research initiative, twenty Nobel laureates backed the measure. Only four were listed by name and discipline. I looked carefully at their comments.

One, a professor of biology and physiology, assured voters that the measure was ethical. Another, a specialist in cancer research, said the legislation would boost California's economy and have a salutary impact on health care costs. An Alzheimer's research director promised new jobs and increased revenues for state coffers.

As I scanned the comments and credentials, it occurred to me that a Nobel Prize in biology, chemistry, or medicine does not qualify a person to render sound counsel on ethics or economics. This appeal to scholars was completely misdirected.

Having twenty Nobel Prize winners on one’s side may awe voters, but that fact alone does not legitimize the cause. You and I need more information before we can trust their endorsements.

Even when scholars speak within their field, they still owe us an accounting based on sound reasons. In a court of law, the expert witness is always cross-examined. Credentials alone are not enough to certify his testimony; he must convince a jury that his reasons are adequate. "All appeals to authority ultimately rest on the evidence the authority has," Norm
Geisler
says. "The letters after his name don't mean a thing without the evidence to back up his position."
¹

There's a second way the Rhodes Scholar query, "Why should I believe this person's opinion?" can be answered. Sometimes a scholar is in a unique position to render a
judgment.
More than mere facts are in play here. Interpretation is needed.

In this circumstance, you face another pitfall. A scholar's judgment may be distorted by underlying
philosophical
considerations that are not always on the table. Note this critique of pluralist John Hick's selective use of scholarship:

Hick seems intent on deciding questions of great spiritual significance by counting scholarly noses . . . without reminding readers that many of these scholars presuppose a picture of the world that excludes the possibility of divine intervention in the world.
²

The point Doug
Geivett
makes here is that sometimes one's destination is
predetermined
by where one starts. If a scholar begins an investigation convinced that miracles cannot happen, it will be very difficult for him to conclude that something supernatural has taken place even when there is overwhelming evidence for it.