Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (26 page)

•    If the early records of Jesus' life are so corrupted and compromised with "countless translations, additions, and revisions," and if "history has never had a definitive version of the book," from where does Brown derive his reliable, authentic, unimpeachable biographical information about Jesus?

•    How does Brown know that thousands of Jesus' followers wrote accounts of his life if the great bulk of these records were destroyed? This is the classic problem for conspiracy theorists. If all evidence was eradicated, how do they know it was there in the first place?

•    How is it physically possible for Constantine to gather up all of the handwritten copies from every nook and cranny of the Roman
empire
by the fourth century and destroy the vast majority of them?

Each of these difficulties becomes obvious when you take a moment to ask if anything about the claim seems suspicious or implausible on its face. Granted, sometimes unlikely things turn out to be true, but when that's the case, the evidence has to be very precise and convincing. Usually, this question can save you some sleuthing.

ABORTION AND HOMICIDE

Here's another challenge that can be overcome by a simple appeal to facts. Some denounce the use of the word "murder" to describe abortion. Yet this language is completely consistent with the laws in nearly two-thirds of the states in the United States, at least in one regard. In the California statutes, for example, under the category "Crimes against the Person," §187, murder is defined this way: "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being,
or a fetus,
with malice aforethought" (emphasis mine). After the definition, we find among the exceptions: "This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act which results in the death of a fetus if . . . the act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus."

This exception in the California statute is troubling. The moral principle underlying all homicide statues is that human beings have innate worth. Value is not derived from something outside of the person; it is intrinsic.
That's why destroying a human being is the most serious of crimes.

Fetal homicide statutes like California’s are odd because the only difference between legal abortion and punishable homicide is the consent of the mother.

If the
intrinsic
value of unborn human beings qualifies them for protection under homicide statutes, why is something
extrinsic,
like the mother's choice, relevant? How does the mere consent of the mother change the innate value of the little human being inside her?

However one answers this question, two facts remain. One, abortion is legal in states like California. Two, apart from the stipulated exceptions, killing the unborn is homicide. Those who do so are prosecuted for murder.

On the use of the word "murder," then, pro-lifers are not extreme. They agree with the statutes of the majority of states in this country: Unborn children are valuable human beings due the same protection as the rest of us. The problem is not with pro-life "extremists," but with inconsistent laws.

JUST THE CONTEXT, MA’AM

Resolving a challenge by appealing to the facts works with scriptural issues, too.
Here's an example. I have been asked why God prohibits killing in the Ten Commandments, but then commands killing when the Jews take Canaan. That sounds like a contradiction.

It would be if not for a simple fact. The Fifth Commandment does not read "You shall not kill," but rather, "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13). There are different words for each in Hebrew just as in English, for a good reason. There is a moral distinction between
justified
killing (killing in self-defense, for example) and
unjustified
killing (murder). God prohibits the second, not the first. The facts show there is no contradiction.

When I debated the New Age author Deepak Chopra on national TV, he made an unusual statement about the text of the New Testament. He claimed that the King James Version was the eighteenth or nineteenth iteration of the Bible since the year 313.
⁸
This comment reflected, I think, the idea many people have that the New Testament has gone through a series of translations and retranslations — "iterations" — before finally settling into the English versions we have today.

A simple appeal to the facts was all I needed to dispatch Dr. Chopra's challenge. All current English translations of the Bible start with manuscripts written in the original language—Greek, in the case of the New Testament—which are then translated directly into English. Instead of multiple "iterations," there is only one step in language from the original Greek to our English versions.

Here's another example of applying Just the Facts, Ma'am to a passage that is almost universally misunderstood: "Do not judge lest you be judged" (Matthew 7:1). This is a verse everybody knows and quotes when convenient, even if they do not usually abide by the Bible. Jesus qualified this command, though, in a way that most do not:

And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? . . . You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:3, 5)

A closer look at the facts of the context shows that Jesus did not condemn all judgments, only hypocritical ones — arrogant condemnations characterized by disdain and condescension. Not all judgments are of this sort, so not all judgments are condemned. In fact, even in this passage Jesus actually encourages a different sort of judgment once the hypocrisy has been dealt with
("first
take the log out of your own eye,
then
you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye").

There are two other kinds of judging that
are
commanded in Scripture.
Judgments that are judicial
in nature are good when done by the proper authorities.
Judges judge.
They pass sentence. That's their job. Church discipline is of this sort.
⁹
Paul specifically warns us not to judge nonbelievers, but believers. God will judge the world in his time (1 Corinthians 5:12-13). Jesus himself did not come initially for this kind of judgment — he offered mercy, not sentencing — but he will certainly return with this kind. Appointed by the Father as final judge, he will spare no one.
¹⁰

Judgments that are assessments
— appraisals of right or wrong, wise or foolish, accurate or inaccurate, rational or irrational — are also commanded. Jesus' instructions "Do not give what is holy to dogs" (Matthew 7:6) require this kind of evaluation (What is "holy"? Who are the "dogs"?). Peter reminds us to "be of sound judgment" since "the end of all things is at hand" (1 Peter 4:7).

Some assessments are moral. Paul commands this kind of judgment in some circumstances: "Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them" (Ephesians 5:11). Jesus said this is to be done, not "according to appearance," but by "righteous" standards (John 7:24). He chastised the Jews for their failures here: "And why do you not even on your own initiative judge what is right?" (Luke 12:57).

A judicial action, a factual assessment, a hypocritical arrogance — all are judgments. Only the third is disqualified by Jesus. The first two are actually virtues in their proper settings and therefore commanded by Scripture. Those are the scriptural facts.

WHAT WE LEARNED IN THIS CHAPTER

As you can see, many who challenge Christianity base their case on ignorance or error. They simply have their facts wrong. Just the Facts, Ma'am is a maneuver you can use to help determine when this happens. In this chapter, we learned how to apply the two-step approach of this tactic.

Whenever a challenge to your view is based on an alleged factual claim (i.e., "More blood has been shed in the name of religion than anything else," or "America's Founding Fathers were deists"), first ask, "What is the precise claim?" These two examples are clear, but sometimes assertions are hidden. Separate the precise point or points from the rest of the rhetoric. Ask questions to make sure you know exactly what the person is alleging. (You might have noticed that this step is the same as the first step of
Columbo
.)

Next, ask if the facts are accurate. There are two ways to find mistakes. The Internet is the most convenient place to do quick research. Once you have isolated specific claims, verification is often a few keystrokes away. You may also have reference books or
learned
friends you can turn to.

You might save some time, though, by asking a different question before you start your sleuthing: Does anything about the claim seem unlikely or implausible on its face? If a dentist claims he has filled half a million cavities in his twenty-year career, you know he's confused. Just do the math.

Now, armed with the facts, you will be ready to address your friend's concerns. Keep in mind that when citing facts in your defense, precise numbers are always more persuasive than general figures.

In short, listen and read critically, reflect on the claims, check the background information, and find the truth. Like Detective Joe Friday, always say, "Just the facts, ma'am."

At the beginning of this book I made a promise. I said I would guide you, step by step, through a game plan that would help you maneuver comfortably and graciously in conversations about your Christian convictions.

I wanted to give you the tools to help make your engagements with others look more like diplomacy than like D-Day. I suggested an approach I called the Ambassador Model. It traded on friendly curiosity rather than confrontation. Then I introduced you to a handful of effective tactics to help you navigate in conversations.

I have done my best to keep my promise. Reading this book, though, does not guarantee that anything will be different in your conversations. That will be up to you. I want to talk now about your next steps.

When I was younger, I was an army reservist during the Vietnam era. If I were joining the military now, though, I think I would choose the marines. Two things about the marines impress me.

The first is the motto of the U.S. Marine Corps:
Semper
Fi
.
This is short for
semper
fidelis
,
a Latin phrase that means "Always faithful." The second is a training maxim I learned from a former marine who picked it up during the rigors of officer candidate school. This adage is in the back of my mind every time I prepare for a public encounter with an opponent who is dedicated to defeating my convictions:
"The more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in battle."

I want to end this book with some suggestions that will help you sweat more and bleed less, and thus stay "always faithful" to the task ahead of you.

First, I would like to offer eight insights I gained from a conversation I overheard while flying home from vacation one summer. Next, I want to explain the best way I know to build a small fellowship of like-minded ambassadors for Christ who value the life of the mind. Finally, I want to share with you some lessons about the importance of hostile opposition and what I learned about courage under fire from a pair of timid door-to-door cult evangelists.

EIGHT QUICK TIPS

On a flight back from the Midwest, I listened while a Christian brother in the row directly behind me vigorously shared his faith with passengers on either side. I was glad for his effort (my wife and I were both praying for him), and he made some fine points. But some of his tactics were questionable. Here are some things I learned from that experience that might make your own efforts more effective.

First, be ready.
The Christian
brother
behind me was clearly on the alert for chances to represent Christ. Seated between two other passengers, he had a captive audience on either side for almost four hours, and he was determined to make the most of the opportunity.

Though you do not need to squeeze each encounter dry (as he seemed to be doing), you should be willing at least to test the waters to see if there is any interest. Good ambassadors are vigilant, always watchful for what might turn out to be a divine appointment.