Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (13 page)

Peter reminds us to always be "ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15). There are three specific things you can do to "ready" yourself to respond. You can
anticipate
beforehand what might come up. You can
reflect
afterward on what took place. And in both cases you can
practice
the responses you think of during these reflective moments so you will be prepared for the next opportunity.

First, think about conversations you might have about your convictions and try to anticipate obstacles you might encounter. Then think of
Columbo
questions in advance. Work on an issue or a question that people frequently ask you about or that has stumped you in the past. Brainstorm a handful of straightforward response questions that might put you in the driver's seat of those conversations. Imagine what it would look like to have a dialogue using your questions. This small bit of advance preparation takes a little work, but can be very effective. The next time you face those challenges, the responses will be right at your fingertips.

Always try to anticipate the rejoinders or counterarguments the other side might raise. Take these rejoinders seriously, stating them fairly and clearly — even convincingly. Then refute them in advance. This tactic removes the objections before they’re raised. It’s as if you’re saying,

"I know what you’re thinking and it’s not going to work. Here’s why.”

Second, after each encounter, take some time for self-assessment. I have made it a habit to immediately reflect on how I could have done better. It has become second nature. How did I do? Could I have asked better questions or maneuvered differently in the conversation? What were my missteps? How could I improve? With the pressure off, alternatives occur to me.

This is where the Ambassador Model from
chapter 1
comes in handy. When I ask myself about the three skills of an ambassador — knowledge, an accurately informed mind; wisdom, an artful method; and character, an attractive manner—I have something specific to focus on. Did I know enough about the issue, or do I need to brush up on something for next time? Could I have maneuvered with more tactical wisdom in the conversation? Was my manner attractive? Did I act with grace, kindness, and patience?

You can do the same thing. Ask how you could have phrased questions more effectively or conducted yourself differently in the conversation. If a friend was with you during the encounter, enlist her help. As a bystander in the conversation, how did she think you were coming across?

This kind of assessment is not hard at all and can be a lot of fun. When you go back and think about an encounter, it prepares you for your next opportunity. The next time around, these new ideas will quickly come to mind.

Finally, when you think of a new idea or approach, practice it out loud. I do this constantly. I try to anticipate the twists and turns my new approach might take and how I would respond to possible comebacks. If I think of something, I practice it out loud. I say, "I could have said this . . . ," and then I play out the alternative. Often I'll write down my thoughts and review them later. If I'm with a friend, I ask him to role-play with me. He may think of moves on either side of the conversation that haven't occurred to me. Also, when we work on it together, we both learn from the experience.

Sometimes I practice this way when I'm alone in the car listening to talk radio. After listening to a few comments by the host or a caller, I turn the volume down and then pretend it is my job to respond to what was said. It's almost like being on live radio, except if I say something foolish, no one hears it.

Practice like this increases your practical experience. It places you in an actual dialogue in a way that is completely safe. Then, when these issues come up in real-life encounters, you'll be ready because you have already rehearsed your responses.

This is the way I prepare every time I'm interviewed on radio or TV, or every time I'm in a campus debate or a public "cross-fire" situation. It may sound to listeners like I am clever or quick on my feet, but this is not the case. Usually, my answers are not spontaneous at all, even when the conversation takes an unpredictable turn. If I have predicted the turn in advance and prepared for it, then I am not caught by surprise.

This is the same way political candidates prepare for televised debates or comedians prepare to be "spontaneously" funny on late-night talk shows. You will probably never be in a situation quite like one of these, but that doesn't mean you can't learn from their methods.

When you think of improving your
Columbo
skill, remember this important truth: Even people who don’t usually like taking tests don’t mind them at all when they know the answers to the questions.

As you work on developing your own proficiency, I think you will discover something that I have learned. There are two things that will help generate the courage you'll need to face a challenging situation: preparation and action. Being prepared will give you confidence, but eventually you must engage. Interacting with others face-to-face is
the most effective way
to improve your abilities as an ambassador.

Let me give you some examples of things I wish I would have said during a conversation, but didn't think of until after I'd worked through the steps I described above.

In
chapter 1
, I mentioned a conversation I had with an actor's wife about animal rights. Here is how that evening ended. As I stood at the door thanking the hosts, I asked one last question about our discussion. It is a question I ask all animal rights advocates if I get the opportunity: "Where do you stand on abortion?" I had no intention of arguing further. I just wanted to know her views, for the record. To my way of thinking, the answer to this question is a measure of an animal rights person's intellectual integrity.

She gave me the same answer I have received from every single person I have asked who held her views. "I'm pro-abortion," she said. Then she clarified, "I'm not actually
for
abortion, I just don't believe any unwanted children should be allowed to come into the world." I thanked her for her candid answer and departed.

Driving home, I couldn't help thinking about her final comments. I was sure I had missed an opportunity, but what was it? Suddenly I realized what was wrong with her response. Not wanting to bring unwanted children into the world may be a legitimate reason for birth control, but it has nothing to do with abortion. When a
women
is pregnant, the child is already "in the world," so to speak. The human being already exists; he or she is just hidden from view inside the mother's womb. This woman's response assumed that before making the journey down the birth canal, the baby simply does not exist.

This was a weakness that could be exploited with a question. I could have responded to her comment by asking, "Do you think children ought to be allowed to
stay
in the world if they are unwanted?" The answer to this question must always be "yes," unless someone wants to affirm infanticide, something I'm sure this woman would never do. The door is now open to a final query, the leading question that properly frames the debate: "The issue with abortion, then, isn't whether the child is wanted, but whether or not a woman already
has
a child when she is pregnant, isn't it?"
¹

Here's another example of an opportunity I missed. Once in a dorm lounge at Ohio State University, a student asked me about the Bible and homosexuality. When I cited some texts, he quickly dismissed them. "People twist the Bible all the time to make it say whatever they want," he sniffed.

I don't recall my specific response to him that evening. I do remember, though, that I was not satisfied with my answer. On the drive back to my hotel, I gave the conversation a little more thought. I realized it made little sense to argue with his comment as it stood. It was uncontroversial. People
do
twist Bible verses all the time. It is one of my own chief complaints. Something else was going on though, and I couldn't put my finger on it at first.

Suddenly it dawned on me. The student's point wasn't really that
some
people twist the Bible. His point was that
I
was twisting the Bible. Yet he hadn't demonstrated this. He had not shown where I'd gotten off track. Rather, he didn't like my point, so he dismissed it with
a some
-people-twist-the-Bible dodge.

I quickly wrote out a short dialogue using questions (
Columbo
1 and 2) intended to surface that problem. I also tried to anticipate his responses and how I would use them to advance my point (
Columbo
3).

Here is what I came up with:

"People twist the Bible all the time to make it say whatever they want."

"Well, you're right about that. It bugs me, too. But your comment confuses me a little. What does it have to do with the point I just made about homosexuality?"

"Well, you're doing the same thing."

"Oh, so you think
I'm
twisting the Bible right now?"

"That's right."

"Okay. Now I understand what you were getting at, but I'm still confused."

"Why?"

"Because it seems to me you can't know that
I'm
twisting the Bible just by pointing out that
other
people have twisted it, can you?"

"What do you mean?"

"I mean that in
this
conversation you're going to have to do more than simply point out that other people twist the Bible. What do you think that might be?

"I don't know. What?"

"You need to show that
I'm
actually twisting the verses. Have you ever studied the passages I referred to?"

"No."

"Then how do you know I'm twisting them?"

A word of caution here.
Once you learn Colombo, you'll realize how incapable most people are to answer for their own views. The temptation will be strong to use your tactical skill like a club. Don't give in to that urge.

As a general rule, go out of your way to establish common ground. Whenever possible, affirm points of agreement. Take the most charitable read on the other person’s motives, not the most cynical. Treat them the way you would like others to treat you if you were the one in the hot seat.

TURNABOUT: DEFENDING AGAINST COLUMBO

The proper use of
Columbo
depends to a large degree on the goodwill of the person using it. The purpose of our questions is not to confuse but to clarify — to clarify the issues in the discussion, to clarify our point, or to clarify some error we think the other person has made.

What do you do, though, when someone else begins to use
Columbo
against you, especially when you suspect that his motives are not so noble? How do you respond when you think another person's questions are intended to trap, manipulate, or humiliate you?

Before I answer this challenge, let me make a clarification. There is no risk when someone asks you either of the
first two
Columbo
questions. We welcome the opportunity to clarify our views and then give our reasons for what we believe. The danger we need to guard against is the misuse of the
third
application of
Columbo
— leading questions.

The key to protecting yourself from what may be a
Columbo
ambush is to remind yourself that
you are in complete control of your own side of the conversation.
You have no obligation to cooperate with anyone trying to set you up with leading questions. Simply refuse to answer them, but do so in a cordial way.

Politely respond to unwelcome queries by saying, "Before we go further, let me say something. My sense is that you want to explain your point by using questions. That confuses me a bit because I'm not sure how I should respond. I think I'd rather you just state your own view directly. Then let me chew on it for a while and see what I think. Would that be all right with you?"

Notice, this is essentially the same maneuver discussed in
chapter 4
to get you out of the hot seat. This response forces the other person to change his approach. He can still make his point, but you avoid being trapped.

WHEN A QUESTION IS NOT A QUESTION

Sometimes you will be asked a question that is not a question at all. Instead, it is a challenge in disguise. Consider this comment made to me by a UCLA graduate student: "What gives you the right to say someone else's religion is wrong?"

This is the kind of remark that can catch you completely off guard, leaving you slack-jawed and dumbfounded. There's a reason for your confusion. Even though the statement is
worded
like a question, you are pretty sure it isn't one. Instead, it is a vague challenge of some sort. Now what?