Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (6 page)

Understanding God's central role in the process removes a tremendous burden. We can focus on our job—being clear, gracious, and persuasive—and then leave the results to God (what I called "100% God and 100% man"). We're looking for those who are looking for us, in a sense — people whose hearts are already being touched by the Spirit. We can be alert for those sheep that hear Jesus' "voice" and lift their heads, without troubling those who are not yet ready.

Finally, I encouraged you to adopt the modest goal for your encounters that I have found so effective. Instead of trying to get to the cross in every encounter, just aim to put a stone in someone's shoe. Try to give the person something to think about. Be content to plant a seed that might later flourish under God's sovereign care.

Let’s start this chapter by putting you in a tough spot. I want you to imagine yourself in the following situations.

Scene 1:
You're hosting a dinner party at your home for some of your close friends from church. The conversation ranges naturally over a number of interesting spiritual topics. Suddenly, to your surprise and embarrassment, your fifteen-year-old son announces with some belligerence that he doesn't believe in God anymore. "It's simply not rational," he says. "There is no proof."

You had no idea he'd been moving in this direction. There's a stunned silence. What will you say?

Scene 2:
It's the night of your weekly Bible study group. During the discussion of the Sunday sermon on the Great Commission, a newcomer remarks, "Who are we to say Christianity is better than any other religion? I think the essence of Jesus' teaching is love, the same as all religions. It's not our job to tell other people how to live or believe." The rest of the group fidgets awkwardly, but says nothing. How do you respond?

Scene 3:
You're riding the university shuttle with a friend who notices a Bible in your backpack. "I've read the Bible before," he says. "It's got some interesting stories, but people take it too

seriously
. It was only written by men, after all, and men make mistakes." You try to recall the points your pastor made a few weeks earlier about the Bible's inspiration, but come up empty-handed. What do you say?

Scene 4:
You're sitting at the car dealer, watching TV and waiting with other customers for your car to be serviced. A television news program highlights religious groups trying to influence important moral legislation. The person sitting next to you says, "Haven't these people ever heard of separation of church and state? Those Christians are always trying to force their views on everyone else. You can't
legislate
morality. Why don't they just leave the rest of us alone?" Other people are listening, and you don't want to create a scene, but you feel you must say something. What's your next move?

lO
-SECOND
WINDOW

In each of these cases you have an opportunity, but there are obstacles. First, you must speak up quickly because the opportunity will not last long. You have only about 10 seconds before the door closes. Second, you're conflicted. You want to say something, but you are also concerned about being sensitive, keeping the peace, preserving friendships, and not looking extreme.

What if I told you there was an easy escape from the challenge that each situation above presents, a way to minimize the awkwardness and engage the other person productively and gracefully? What if you had a simple plan in place that would guide you in your next move? Would that give you the confidence to take a small step toward addressing challenges like these?

I have such a plan. My plan helps me know how to use that critical 10-second window to my best advantage. It acts as a guide to direct my next steps. When I consider each of the scenes above, a host of questions immediately come to mind. Later in the chapter I'll give you the back story to these questions. For the moment, think about how these responses begin to address the content of the person's remarks yet still draw him into an interactive conversation in a very intentional way.

Challenge 1:
"It's not rational to believe in God. There is no proof."

What do you mean by "God," that is, what kind of God do you reject? What, specifically, is irrational about believing in God? Since you're concerned about proof for God's existence, what kind of evidence would you find acceptable?

Challenge 2:
"Christianity is basically the same as all other religions. The main similarity is love. We shouldn't tell others how to live or believe."

How much have you studied other religions to compare the details and find a common theme? Why would the similarities be more important than the differences? I'm curious, what do you think Jesus' own attitude was on this issue? Did he think all religions were basically equal? Isn't telling people to love one another just another example of telling them how they should live and believe?

Challenge 3:
"You can't take the Bible too seriously because it was only written by men, and men make mistakes."

Do you have any books in your library? Were those books written by humans? Do you find any truth in them? Is there a reason you think the Bible is less truthful or reliable than other books you own? Do people always make mistakes in what they write?

Do you think that if God did exist, he would be capable of using humans to write down exactly what he wants? If not, why not?

Challenge 4:
"It's wrong to force your views on other people. You can't
legislate
morality. Christians involved in politics violate the separation of church and state."

Do you vote? When you vote for someone, are you expecting your candidate to pass laws reflecting your own point of view? Wouldn't that essentially be forcing your views on others? How is that different from what you're troubled about here? Is it your view that only nonreligious people should be allowed to vote or participate in politics, or did I misunderstand you? Where, specifically, in the Constitution are religious people excluded from the political process? Can you give me an example of legislation that does not have a moral element to it?

I want you to notice several things about these responses. First, each is a question. My initial response in a situation like this is not to preach about my view or even disagree with theirs. Rather, I want to draw them out, to invite them to talk more about what they think. This takes a lot of pressure off me, because when I ask a question, the ball is back in their court. It also protects me from jumping to conclusions and unwittingly distorting their meaning.

Asking questions enables you to escape the charge, "You’re twisting my words.” A question is a request for clarification specifically so that you don’t twist their words. When I ask a clarification question, my goal is to understand a person’s view (and its consequences), not to distort it.

Second, each of these questions is an invitation to thoughtful dialogue. Each is an encouragement to participate in conversation in a reflective way. Though my tone is relaxed and cordial, my questions are pointed enough to challenge the person to give some thought to what he's just said.

Third, these are not idle queries. I have a particular purpose for each question. With some, I'm simply gathering information ("Do you vote?"). Others, you might have noticed, are subtly leading; that is, the questions themselves suggest a problem with the other person's thinking ("Wouldn't that essentially be forcing your views on others?").

Each of the questions I have suggested above
occur
to me because I have a plan. I know that getting into conversations about spiritual matters is not easy, especially if someone's guard is up. It's not unusual to get tongue-tied, not knowing what to say. This is complicated by the fear of getting in over your head — or worse, of offending someone. We need some help.

Our first tactic is a handy solution to that problem. That's why I use it more than any other. It makes it easy for even the most timid to engage others in a meaningful way because it provides a step-by-step guide—a virtual game plan — to help ease into a conversation.

It might be called the "queen mother" of all tactics because it's so flexible and adaptable. It's easily combined with other moves you will learn later. It's the simplest tactic imaginable to stop a challenger in her tracks, turn the tables, and get her thinking, a virtually effortlessly way of putting you in the driver's seat of the conversation.

It's simply called "
Columbo
."

TAKE A TIP FROM LIEUTENANT COLUMBO

The
Columbo
tactic is named after Lieutenant
Columbo
, a brilliant TV detective with a clever way of catching a crook.

The inspector arrives on the scene in complete disarray, his hair an unkempt mop, his trench coat rumpled beyond repair, his cigar wedged tightly between stubby fingers.
Columbo's
pencil has gone missing again, so his notepad is useless until he bums a pen off a bystander.

To all appearances
Columbo
is bumbling, inept, and completely harmless. He couldn't think his way out of a wet paper bag, or so it seems. He's stupid, but he's stupid like a fox because the lieutenant has a simple plan that accounts for his remarkable success.

After poking around the crime scene, scratching his head, and muttering to himself, Lieutenant
Columbo
makes his trademark move. "I got a problem," he says as he rubs his furrowed brow.

"There's something about this thing that bothers me." He pauses a moment to ponder his predicament, then turns to his suspect. "You seem like a very intelligent person. Maybe you can clear it up for me.
Do you mind if I ask you a question?"

The first query is innocent enough (if the lieutenant seems threatening, he'll scare off his prey), and for the moment he seems satisfied. As he turns on his heel to leave, though, he stops himself mid-stride. Something has just occurred to him. He turns back to the scene, raises his index finger, and says, "Just one more thing."

But "just one more" question leads to another.
And another.
Soon they come relentlessly, question after question, to the point of distraction and, ultimately, annoyance.

"I'm sorry,"
Columbo
says to his beleaguered suspect. "I know I'm making a pest of myself. It's because I keep asking these questions. But I'll tell
ya
," he shrugs, "I can't help myself. It's a habit."

And this is a habit you want to get into.

The key to the
Columbo
tactic is to
go on the offensive in an inoffensive way by using carefully selected questions to productively advance the conversation.
Simply put, never make a statement, at least at first, when a question will do the job.

ADVANTAGES OF ASKING

There are dozens of fun ways to do this, and with a little practice it can become second nature. Hugh Hewitt, a nationally syndicated radio talk show host, is a master of this technique. In his wonderful little book
In, But Not Of,
a primer for Christians on thoughtful engagement with the culture, Hewitt advises asking at least a half-dozen questions in every conversation. It's a habit that offers tremendous advantages.

For one thing, sincere questions are friendly and flattering. They invite genial interaction on something the other person cares a lot about: her own ideas. "When you ask a question, you are displaying interest in the person asked," Hewitt writes. "Most people are not queried on many, if any, subjects. Their opinions are not solicited. To ask them is to be remembered fondly as a very interesting and gracious person in your own right."
¹

Sometimes the little things have the greatest impact. Using simple leading questions is an almost effortless way to introduce spiritual topics to a conversation without seeming abrupt, rude, or pushy. Questions are engaging and interactive, probing yet amicable. Most important, they keep you in the driver’s seat while someone else does all the work.

Second, you'll get an education. You'll leave a conversation knowing more than when you arrived. Sometimes that information will be just what you need to make a difference. When a young man asked me to recommend a book on Buddhism so he could witness to his Buddhist friend, I told him not to bother with the book. Instead, ask the Buddhist. Sit down over coffee and let him give the tutorial. It's a lot easier, he'd be learning the specifics of his friend's own convictions (instead of some academic version), and he'd be building a relationship at the same time.