The Narrow Path Ministries

The "Bible Answer Man" recently re-aired Hank's interview with Greg Koukl on his ambassedor tactics. I don't know if this has been brought up before but I, personally, use Greg's tactics all the time when discussing my faith with others. For those of you familiar with these tactics, what has been your impression so far?

The biggest issue I've found is when the person I'm conversing with gets bitten by the "ego bug." When dealing with very opinionated people, they tend to get annoyed when you turn the tables in a religious discussion. I used this tactic before I learned about Mr. Koukl and have refined it since. This works especially well when people make outlandish claims. A woman called "The Narrow Path" broadcast last week and made some really goofy statements about the book of Mormon and Steve sounded a little hot under the collar in dealing with her. There's a difference between aggressive anti-Christian people and those who just make absurd statements and expect you to respond. The latter is especially difficult.

I've had great success with these tactics when engaged in honest dialogue with people who may have heard some strong anti-Christian positions and thought they sounded authoritative. Using the "columbo tactic" in those situations is very enlightening. The simple truth is - most people haven't thought through their beliefs very much and almost never expect to be questioned on them. It's changed the way I do apologetics a great deal because we Christians tend to get very defensive when someone challenges us. It's the "how dare you question me" attitude. Greg's methods are also biblical, in my opinion. Jesus always controlled the conversation when someone challenged him. Greg simply teaches people how to do this in a non-offensive manner. However, I need to give a disclaimer. Often times, you need to back off with this stuff. I've been engaged in friendly debate at times and saw the other person get very embarrassed. We have to remember to be sensitive and know when to back off. Make your point, but be friendly. You can always turn the dial up if the person has an aggressive posture.

I'll also note that Greg's tactics are only for verbal conversations. They do not work in written form on the internet. The anonymous nature of the internet is not the place to employ relational debate tactics. On the internet, debates can rage on and on as people simply do a google search to find some rebuttal. When dealing with someone face-to-face, you are forced to defend your own position instead of relying on something you read somewhere else. Having said all this, I'd recommend Greg's stuff to anyone who is interested in disarming aggressive debators.

JC,

I hear what you are saying and agree with what (all) you brought up, generally speaking. I have participated in a few decent in-text debates @ Beliefnet.com (if you can believe that, lol). We debated Romans 7 for about three months once and it was "civil". However, I seldom post there any more due to their censoring of theologically conservative Christians (whole threads disappear...your posts are gone!). Chatroom debates? Lol, I've seen some, mainly in Paltalk...and they aren't debates at all (see, bashing sessions). 'Talk about proof-texting.... hahaha

At any rate, I recently found this site and heard a very good mp3 on:
Conversational Apologetics
by Michael Ramsden
@ bethinking.org

I haven't heard Ramsden's "Cultural Apologetics" lecture yet. But if you give this one (above) a listen you won't be disappointed!
Rick

P.S. Bethinking.org has lots of other great lectures. I'm listening to all that are available for North America....

Rick, I've been listening to Ramdsen and his cohorts for a while now. When I hear a lecture from that website I get this sudden urge for English tea. The guy sounds like Tony Blair. Anyhoo, I wish more of the lectures were available here in North America too. What's up with that?

Those guys are (I think) trained by Ravi Zacharias' organization so much of it overlaps the philisophical arguments used by Koukl. That whole group is quite charming so I'd imagine they get your defenses down before making your arguments look silly.

JC,

I knew Ramsden sounded like somebody. Yep, Tony Blair, alright....

I like Ravi's overall approach (it's weird saying "Ravi" coz the only other Ravi I've heard of is "Shankar"). Ravi appears on TBN's "Praise the Lord" from time to time, which is ultra-cool for TBN, imo.

I may have heard Greg Koukl on Paltalk in:
Converse With Scholars
'Can't recall offhand (?).

Sean McDowel (Josh's son) is gonna be the guest this Thursday nite but I won't be able to make it (new job, will be at work). Btw, Paltalk is free and you can ask these scholars questions after the interview segment. (Once, I got to ask John Frame about some thing re: Karl Barth). You should check it out if you can, JC.
Rick

JC,

I've heard that interview a couple times now and it sounded like something that would be helpful. Did you order the recordings or just learn some of the tactics?

livingink

Rick, I'll look into that.

livingink, I haven't ordered his tapes. Much of what I know of Koukl's tactics I learned through reading his articles and listening to his weekly call-in show. I'd imagine the tapes go into more detail but you can learn quite a bit at his website. I believe it's str.org

JC,

I just found out Sean McDowell will be in ConnectionGate. I downloaded it but can't get it to work. (It's probably just my ancient computer and/or my refusal to use IE...Firefox fan here). At any rate, CWS presentations are available for download a day or two after each session.
Rick

JC,

Maybe it's my ancient puter (with Win98, 1st edition, on dialup, lol).....but I can't login to ConnectionGate. If I can find a way to "get in" I'll let you know. That is, if you had problems too. I know the guy who designed the site. If he can't help me I'm assuming that the CWS sesssions will still be downloadable from RMM.
TC,
Rick

Hey JC.

I couldnt agree more about the Tactics material.

I have learned alot from different apologists and Greag is is pritty good at apologetics aswell (not as good as the others I listen to) but I feel that his training has tought me the most.

For thoese that dont know...tactics teach you how to think and spot and bring to light faulty thinking by questioning the ideas...even questioning the questions.

The reason I believe that this is soo efective is because sometimes when you give someone a apologetics "sermon" they really arnt listening and sometimes you dont understand something until YOU get it...until you discouver it for yourself with your own thinking.

The questions you present to the person guide thir thinking to the truth. Next thing you know they are answering you with the truth. You are forcing them to discouver the truth...instead of preaching it to them so they can bruch it off.

You truly draw them out with this method.

There is alot more to tactics but as they say...tactics put you in controll of the conversation.

This is true.

The last time a had a conversation with a post modern thinker I found it hard to pin her down to on single thing...she kept being dishonest ...then I rememberd tactics. I took controll right away.

Here is something how the conversation went:

She said that she dose not believe that love exists because you cannot contain it or see it.

Well O.K fine.

The fact that she believes that about love was not what bothered me so much. However; I realized that her philosophy probably had her believeing other strange things, so I asked her if the soul exists (because you cannot see it or put it in a container)...she said no. I asked her if secrets exist (If she was honest this should have proven my point) she said no. I asked her if thoughts exist...she said no.

Aaaahhhhh! What do you do with such a dishonest person that goes to such lenghths to deny the truth!

Then I realized...hey what am I waisting my time for... I will just finnish this by using the suicide tactic:

This tactic just basicly turns the persons own idea or philosiphy loose on itself and then you just watch it self distruct.

I asked her..."let me get this stright, your philosophy is that if you cannot see something or contain it...it dose not exist?" She said "yes". So I asked her

"your philosophy, can you see it and can you contain it?"

(No responce)

....so according to your own view...your own philosophy dose not exist!

....what are we talking about right now? Certinly not your philosophy because it dose not exist. And if it dose not exist...what are you trying to convince me of.


Now, as you said JC, you really can make someone look foolish with these tactics...but it is all in how you talk to the person.

If you are relaxed and friendly...there is no problem. I had a smile on my face and there were no hard feelings.

Aaron, thanks for sharing. It's difficult to use these tactics on irrational people but at least it gets them thinking, which they weren't doing before. The Columbo tactic is the one I use most often because it quickly gets to the point, rather than beating around the bush for half an hour. The heavier someone is pouring on the challenges, the more I use it. If someone engages me with a heavy "frontal assault" then they will first have to explain and articulate their question in a way that gives away their own views. Once I know what their views are it's easier to find common ground, which is an essential step in communication. If you and the person you are debating with have no common ground whatsoever then you will not sway their opinion. If the person is irrational or is fond of making absurd statements like "thoughts don't exist" -- please use discretion.