- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (2/10)
- Next Post »A La Carte (2/11)
Book Review - Tactics
- 02/10/09
- 24
I have a bit of an aversion to books on apologetics. I don't know exactly why this is, but it may be that many of them seem to teach methods of defending the faith that either manipulate or bludgeon. Somehow grace and apologetics do not seem to go together as they ought. So it was with perhaps just a bit of reluctance that I began reading Gregory Koukl's Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions. This is a book that promises to teach a new method, a respectful method, of defending the faith and of attempting to convince others of the truth of Christianity. This is not an apologetics 101 text, as in a book that will compare and contrast various apologetic methods; instead, it is a guide, a book that seeks to lead the reader into a new method of sharing his faith with others.
"If you're like a lot of people who pick up a book like this, you would like to make a difference for the kingdom, but you are not sure how to begin. I want to give you a game plan, a strategy to get involved in a way you never thought you could, yet with a tremendous margin of safety." Here is what Koukl promises--he sets no small goal. "I am going to teach you how to navigate in conversations so that you stay in control--in a good way--even though your knowledge is limited. You may know nothing about answering challenges people raise against what you believe. You may even be a brand new Christian. It doesn't matter. I am going to introduce you to a handful of effective maneuvers--I call them tactics--that will help you stay in control."
This tactical approach is a useful one, for it allows you to stay "in the driver's seat in conversations, so you can productively direct the discussion, exposing faulty thinking and suggesting more fruitful alternatives along the way." It is important to note that "tactics are not manipulative tricks or slice ruses. They are not clever ploys to embarrass other people and force them to submit to your point of view. They are not meant to belittle or humiliate those who disagree so you can gain notches in your spiritual belt." Instead, they are ways of guiding a conversation to expose poor reasoning and then use that as a bridge to the truth.
Koukl begins by looking at three basics skills the Christian will need if he wishes to be an effective apologist. First, he must have knowledge, having a familiarity with the central message of the Bible; second, he must have knowledge that is tempered by wisdom that makes his message clear and persuasive; third, he must have the character of a Christian, embodying the virtues of the kingdom he serves.
Then, over the course of four chapters, Koukl unveils his tactic. He calls it "The Columbo." The key to this tactic is to "go on the offensive in an inoffensive way by using carefully selected questions to productively advance the conversation." Never make a statement when a question will do the job. When you ask questions and listen carefully, you gather information that can be used to show a person where his thinking is faulty. Questions can be used to gather information, to reverse the burden of proof or to lead the conversation. Either way, the person asking the question is the person who leads the discussion.
He sets a modest and realistic goal for his interactions with unbelievers. "My goal," he says, "is to find clever ways to exploit someone's bad thinking for the purpose of guiding her to truth, yet remaining gracious and charitable at the same time. My aim is to manage, not manipulate; to control, not coerce; to finesse, not fight. I want the same for you." The goal of this kind of apologetics, then, is not necessarily to win someone to Christ. That may be an ultimate goal or an ultimate hope, but the goal of an individual encounter is nothing more than, in Koukl's words, "putting a stone in someone's shoe." "I want to give him something worth thinking about, something he can't ignore because it continues to poke at him in a good way."
In Part 2 of the book, Koukl offers guidance in finding flaws in the way people reason. He offers specific tactics to unveil poor reasoning and to turn it back against a person. He calls these things like Suicide, Sibling Rivalry, Taking the Roof Off. He offers advice on countering the human steamroller (you've tried to discuss issues with people like this) and the Rhodes scholar, the supposed expert.
When I think of Christian apologetics, I tend to think of Evidence that Demands a Verdict or some of the classics of days gone by. But in this book Koukl offers a new approach and one that is well-suited to the times. He teaches the Christian to think well, to exemplify grace and to humbly lead a conversation to the truth. "We may spend hours helping someone carefully work through an issue without ever mentioning God, Jesus or the Bible. This does not mean we aren't advancing the kingdom. It is always a step in the right direction when he help others think more carefully. If nothing else, it gives them tools to assess the bigger questions that eventually come up."
Apologetics is not always a discipline that is done with grace. But in this book Koukl shares tactics that will prove beneficial to any Christian. They may just revolutionize the way you interact with unbelievers. I highly recommend it.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (24)
My experience of watching some 'apologists' has been the bludgeon approach you mention -- it usually matches the pride of knowledge the 'apologist' swaggers with... Two things I find important in leading others to know the Lord's salvation -- that don't involve words at times are my actions and the time that I have used to build relationships. At times those have allowed me an opportunity or passport to tell someone about Jesus.I also have to laugh, because one of the first times I was presented with an unbeliever's struggles, I came out with the wise counself "You need to go to church." With the Spirit's help, and a relationship foundation,, this gaffe was used to bring said person to church, and to a saving knowledge of Christ.
Thanks for your take on this book...it does look like one that I will read and pass on to other shepherds...
Whoa there Tim. I don't know what you've been reading in Christian apologetics, but your opening and closing remarks on the lack of grace in the discipline is not entirely warranted. Admittedly, there are some (in fact, only a few) who would rather win arguments than win souls, but apologetics is not always negative. Simply because reason is the primary tool in the apologists' toolbox does not entail a graceless stance of him/her. Apologetics, rightly conceived, is primarily a pre-evangelistic tool that seeks to answer questions others are asking, not merely a bullish attempt to have the upper hand in dialog. Moreover, the value in discipling our minds so we may "give a reason for the hope we have" is immeasurable and not just a race toward knowledge. Perhaps you would benefit from reading the conclusion to William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith and find that the ultimate apologetic is our life, not our rhetoric.
Thanks for the review, I am definitely getting this book. This already sounds like the approach I try to take when evangelizing, but it would be good to get more guidance. Using questions to steer the discussion is exactly what Jesus did to get to the heart. That quote about the pebble in the shoe is excellent as well!
I applaud your statement, Tim, on apologetics TENDING (I'll try to give the benefit of the doubt that not all geneticists are like this, although I can name all of the people I know that are into Apologists and all 100% of them wouldn't know grace from an acorn) to "bludgeon" people.
I honestly have no use for apologetics myself. And I think that the answer is simple. It's not a bunch of theology, arguments and counter arguments that one has to memorize and be able to quote verbatim (I can't believe that places still give people degrees for rehashing canned arguments to prove people are wrong and inferior if they don't accept your POV) from McDowell, Sproull, Strobel, Geisler, and all these other notorious apologists.
It all comes down to Loving God and Loving Neighbor. Shoving "I'm right, you're wrong" down someone's throat is not loving in the least. Even having a one sided conversation trying to "convince" someone to come to your side rides the line of loving in the context of how most people approach it.
No, we don't need a whole book to tell us how to do this (although there are plenty like this out there). It is simply about forming GENUINE and AUTHENTIC relationships.Loving relationships full of grace and hope. Real relationships take time and effort. If you are spending the time, then they will eventually ask questions, and the BEST way to converse at that point is from your 1) own experience, and 2) from your heart. A heart that genuinely loves this person (not because we are called to, but because we KNOW them and have grown to love them). People aren't buying these canned "answers" anymore, and they want someone who will respect their questions. I think that we have just gotten too caught up with being "right" and having all the "answers" ready that we've forgotten the art of loving one-another. we've forgotten the beauty and power of relationships, which is at the heart of the Bible Narrative. We were made to live in relationship, and people were befriending others, loving them, and helping them find a better life through Christ long before reason and apologetics came along!
If anyone wants a book about this, I read it in college and prob. would disagree with the theology now, but the approach is still very valid. I think many who read this blog would enjoy it!
Tim Downs: Finding Common Ground: How to Communicate With Those Outside the Christian Community...While We Still Can
Link: http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Common-Ground-Communicate-Community-While/dp/0802440967/ref=pd_bbs_sr_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234306666&sr=8-8
thanks
Well, Justin, et al. I suppose there's not a lot of love or relationship building going on at Koukl's blog, since he's using classic apologetic reasoning.
The negative comments here re: the apologetic endeavor are under-informed, to say the least. Clearly those here have had an unfavorable exposure to the discipline and a few bad apples have spoiled the barrel.
Thanks for making me aware of this book. I met Greg a number of years ago when Stand to Reason came to our church. He is a very articulate and persuasive person. I do agree though that this can often come across as abrasive and defensive (maybe even sarcastic, at times?) Either way, it's great to have a place where truth meets opinions and personalities and see someone who can articulate a well thought-out and solid stance on tough issues. I am not sure I would have gravitated toward this book, on my own but I will move it up the stack after reading your thoughts.
Sean just stated what I hoped would be in the review, but I guess many of Tim's readers already know Greg's organization, Stand to Reason. I had a friend put me onto his website, www.str.org a long time ago and I ended up on their mailing list for several years and have much confidence in their resources. I wasn't going to pick up this one, but now I'm looking forward to reading it. I love the realism of the "putting a stone in someone's shoe" approach to interacting faith issues with the not-yet converted.
Thanks, Tim for the review of Greg's book. His radio program as recently gone national, so maybe some of the readers here can find it in their area. Of course, it is linked to from str.org and there are archives of previous shows. I have enjoyed hearing him use the tactics he teaches with callers to his program. His approach is very low key and non-threatening. I recommend the CDs or MP3s from str.org to listen to the tactics on the go.
Apologetics, shoulld we use it?Actually I believe that the answer to that is a definate yes. 1 Peter 3:15 is basically a passage that is about apologetics."But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts; and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you with meekness and fear."Paul's famous Mars Hill address is a great example of apologetics in action.
Tim,Your comment about having an aversion to apologetics books surprised me. You seem to read a TON of books so I'm just curious which apologetics books you had in mind. The books that come to my mind (Keller, Bahnsen, Strobel, Craig, etc.) don't hit me that way.
Justin,Surely you jest when you say that you have no need of apologetics!? 1 Peter 3:15 shouId give you reason enough to reconsider.
And as a general comment to all, sometimes we do need to follow the principle laid out in Proverbs 26:4-5 when answering certain people. I admit that it can be difficult in determining when that time is and I have often been guilty of offering a prideful defense of the faith rather than a grace-filled one. Good reminders! Thanks all!
Justin, don't you think your rhetoric is a bit over the top? I actually enthusiastically agree with your main point that we should be more concerned with real relationships and loving others than simply winning an argument. The part you are missing is that loving unbelievers necessitates at least attempting answers to their questions about God. Surely Jesus, Paul, and many others gave a defense for their faith, and the Bible commands us to do so as well.
With regard to apologetics vs. relationship evangelism, I think each do have special roles and often the best effect is a combined approach. Just this evening, my 16 year old nephew and I had a two hour conversation which was essentially a progression from first putting "a stone in his shoe" so to speak, to being able to show him the gospel truth in the scripture. Most likely I was able to share both the harsh and loving things that I shared without being thrown out because we already have a strong personal relationship. In older terminology, I had earned the right to be heard.I actually didn't have to ask too many questions to uncover his faulty thinking and have him admit just how well his current plan was working out for him. After quite a bit of conversation he actually let me read Genesis 1-3 to him along with Romans 5:12-19 and Revelation 21:1-8 . It was awesome -- I need to be praying for him!!Anyway, I think I would like to read through this book to get some more guidance and tips on doing more of this sort of thing.
Good review, Tim.
I have a few book reviews as well as other things on my blog if you click on my name above this comment, and I just reviewed Crazy Love by Francis Chan... don't know if you've read it but it's a very solid book. Keep it up man!
So far I've found no better balance between relational evangelism and apologetics than Michael Ramsden's "Conversational Apologetics." You can read/listen at http://bethinking.org/what-is-apologetics/the-biblical-mandate-for-apologetics.htm or http://bethinking.org/who-am-i/conversational-apologetics.htm.
First off, I want to say that I'm not trying to pick fights. Everyone is welcome to their opinion. This is not directed at any one comment, just following up on my own thoughts and what has been said since. Also, I can ONLY speak from my experience, but like I said 100% of the people I know who use apologetics... A bit over the top? perhaps. But I can only speak from my own experience.
What interests me is that "apologetics" and "evangelism" are used as if they are interchangeable synonyms by many (including some responses here). I don't believe they are. Apologetics is usually used to "defend the faith". That is not the same as "sharing your faith". For most normal people, you are not going to have to give a theological treatise when telling them about Christ. If you do have to go on the defensive, it is usually because you picked the fight to begin with. That can be done with more than just words (tone, body-language, pushing, etc...) No most apologetics are used to defend a certian position or theological understanding against ANOTHER Christian and theological standing. That's not evangelism.
I still think that the way apologetics has been developed and used over the modern era predisposes an argument and un-loving discourse and actions. I have a friend that, shortly after being hired as a new Theology Prof. at a Divinity School (so he knows his theology well!), was pushed into a debate against a well-known, self-proclaimed Atheist that was touring. Being new, he couldn't get out of it without taking some heat. Now I've been to many of these debates, and each time they get heated and ugly, and neither person leaves changing their mind. But I went to this one as support for my friend.
The other guy got the coin toss and had his opening argument. Having done many of these, he went full force offensive against Christianity using his own tired and canned arguments. When his 2 min. intro was up, my friend began his 2 min. saying this: "I can't claim to be the voice of EVERY person who claims to be a Christian. I also can't claim to know EVERYTHING there is to know about God and the mysteries of life. The only thing I can do is be the voice of my own experience and story. So, if you want me to tell my story and why I personally have devoted my life to Christ I'll tell you, but I won't stand here and argue with you as if Christ is ONLY a concept. To me He's more than that, and I want to honor that!"
Soon they brought out stools for both of them and they spent their time publicly discussing their own stories. It ceased being a debate because you can't argue with a person's story, where they came from, where they've been, and what's gotten them to this point in life. There were a lot of students who were dissapointed because they had paid for ringside fight-night tickets. They showed a lot of that in their questions time, but I soon realized that many of them had come looking for a boxing match and were disappointing when it remained calm and civilized. I asked myself, "what does this say about these people and their understanding of Christianity?"
That aside, they two gents on stage found out they had a LOT in common. Both sons of pastors, both grew up in very strict religious homes of the same denomination. Both played the same sports in HS, liked the same movies and music. But somewhere they had each taken (or were pushed) down different paths. It was far more interesting and informative to humanize these people and allow them to connect just as we are supposed to connect in relationship with God. They both still keep in touch, and although he is still an Athiest that has had many more debates, he still has not changed his mind. But my friend is the only Christian friend he has. Now they get together when the guy's in town sit on my friends porch/living room/dinner table, and discuss theology and life. There is hope present in that story, as well as grace and peace.
So the 1 Peter passage is about being prepared with "answers"? Perhaps the answers in that day and time were not a discourse on the doctrines of the faith, but rather simply being ready when the time presents itself to share one's story about God, Christ, and one's individual life. I think that apologeticists love reading apologetics into that passage, but again, that discipline did not exist as we know it today, so how can they be talking about that? The answer in my heart is that I love Christ, and here's why______. Interesting too, those that use that passage tend to ignore the "meekness and fear (respect)" part. Why make it an argument, and put yourself in a place where you are crusading to "defend the faith" when the option of peace and love are so readily handy?
Just my thoughts. Thanks for hearing them.
If the book resembles the teaching series that inspired it "Tactics to Defending the Faith" it will be a book people will re-read. [Unless you're John Piper.] I highly recommend it, too.
Justin,
I'm sincerely not trying to nit-pick what you've written, but you sincerely need to do some deeper study regarding the 1 Peter 3:15 passage.
The phrase "make a defense" is quite literally where we derive the word apologetics. In fact, the Greek term there is "apologia". Apologists love reading apologetics into that passage because...well...it's quite literally in the passage! It means to be prepared to make a well-reasoned defense of why you believe Christianity to be true. The passage actually states that it is a way to honor Christ as holy. So even if some don't do a proper job of defending the faith, it shouldn't be a reason to dismiss it.
You are correct to assert that apologetics isn't evangelism. Apologetics is usually used as pre-evangelism but there's no reason to suppose that it couldn't be used evangelistically.
I do strongly disagree with your sentiments saying, "most apologetics are used to defend a certian position or theological understanding against ANOTHER Christian and theological standing." No, apologetics (properly understood) is defending the faith against outside attacks on it. It can and should be defensive and offensive.
Check out Tim Keller's The Reason for God and consider studying Acts 17 and 1 Peter 3:15 a bit closer. I think you'll find that it's not quite what you think. Again, I'm not trying to pick a worldwide web battle with you. Just some important considerations. Thanks!
Tom, Thanks for your response. I do know that the word apologia is in there. 4 years of greek has done me good. I guess if you want to discuss the text, my argument that yes, the WORD is in there, but what was meant by the original author is NOT what modern apologetics has become. I don't believe that that is what it was meant to be. I'm sorry my statement should have been, "Apologeticists love reading MODERN apologetics into that text..." I'm not denouncing that the greek word was there, but historical context may lend to something different. We can't read backwards into the text.
As for your disagreement with the usage of Apologetics for defense from OUTSIDE attacks, take a surf around the blogosphere and see how many Christians are beating up on other Christians over theological issues using apologetics. I have even seen it in the comments section of Tim's Blog. That may not be the intention of Apologetics proper, but the reality is that people use it to justify infighting. A very sad reality.
I have read Keller's book, and Have studied those passages before, and I am not a slouch when it comes to exegetical studies. I agree that what can be found in those passages is surprising, I think that it defines what we would call "apologetics" quite differently than the themes presented in these passages. You also have a minority perspective in the writing, which Christianity is no longer a minority religion, instead it is a Colonial/empirical mindset now, so it truly is hard for us to read the passages like this and justify what we use them to justify in today's world. Modern/Contemporary Apologetics is a good example of this.
I highly recommend the book and the whole Stand to Reason ministry. I have used these techniques successfully for years.
Justin
There are both (good) biblical and (bad) non-biblical methods of apologetics. It is the task of all Christians to make sure they do apologetics biblically.This is not an easy task, because of all the voices out there, but much like any biblical topic from Soteriology to eschatology, we must learn to rightly understand the Word of God.Although I can’t speak for Tim, in a way I can understand an aversion to books on apologetics. All too often books on apologetics do indeed lack grace.Perhaps to coin a phrase by Tim, most of these have an element of theology-ology, rather than theology.
Tom, I can't say that I don't have other issues with apologetics that you bring up in your post, but I would rather not get into that debate (theology in apologetics giving "answers" about God as if God is completely knowable). However, As I mentioned in my post, I would not have as much of an adversity to apologetics if humility, fear, and grace came before the "answers" over the hyper-arrogance of many out there who use apologetics.
Most of the people that have gotten all into apologetics in my life (I went to a Christian college that was full of people who loved this as well as served under a pastor who's D.Min. is in this field) and honestly our relationships have gone separate ways because they are more concerned with arguing "theology" and about winning and being right, and I refuse to play their game. And I LOVE discussing theology, but I can't consider one's ideas when they are beating me with them and not even wanting to hear my thoughts. Otherwise, I am very open-minded to any idea that someone presents.
I'll stop there. There are plenty of other reasons why I have little respect for this field of theology, but like I said...give me someone who can 1) use apologetics with grace, humility and love, and 2) can get past regurgitated arguments and I can work well with that person. Even if we disagree! Otherwise, I will try to work with that person, but usually I give up because conversation and relationships become impossible at a certain point.
I'm assuming that this is what you mean by doing apologetics "biblically".
thanks
Justin, offering an apologetic against apologetics. You just can't make that sort of irony up. :-)
Justin, all kidding aside, I think you raise some good points about how apologists may or may not conduct themselves in certain venues and encounters. But you err in thinking that the Christian life can be antiseptically sequestered into spheres: evangelism, apologetics, Sunday church, etc. There is a seamlessness to the Christian walk. One's conversations ebb and flow between one topic or another, and in those sorts of settings one must be prepared to answer queries in a loving and intelligent way. You are correct that some techniques can be off-putting. Here I am thinking of the "apologist" who gets his jollies from flaming people online and exuding a pomposity that far exceeds his natural gifts.
In any event, please read Greg's book. He has what was once called "the common touch," which means, in this context, that he knows that apologetics is a conversation and not a monologue. It is the practice of loving our neighbor as ourselves since many of our neighbors are asking us for answers, either directly or indirectly.
Francis, I agree that there is a seamlessness (or should be) between al parts of our lives (I'm all for holistic and don't adhere to even a division between a "secular" and "spiritual" life.. It is all simply life!)
I think that I would say that being prepared to "give answers" is, for me, very different than for most people on here. I think the only sure answer we can give is our own story about life, God, relationship, and questions we too have. I don't think that people respect canned answers to their very real questions and struggles. Sometimes I think that it's ok to just let the questions be and allow the Holy Spirit to work through the process of the journey to answers.
You also said: "answer queries in a loving and intelligent way."I'm not picking on you, but you bring up another good point. I don't consider cut and paste answers (stock answers to common questions) "intelligent' by any means. I am a Christian educator and one of the biggest bungles of modern Christianity is allowing people to become complacent in their own ability to think critically about their faith. We have force-fed them what to say and think, and now that is what most people demand. True intelligence is not what you "know", it is about being able to think critically. I think that your statement is right if we define intelligence in this way. It means when asked a serious question, that one smartly engages in dialog with the person to aid them in their own journey. Helping others to discover the "answers" on their own without us giving stock answers. It also means being able to allow them to come to a different understanding or "answer" than what we may personally feel comfortable with, because it is not us leading them, it is the Holy Spirit. And when one learns to listen to the Holy Spirit, we can have faith that they will eventually get to where God wants them to be, not where WE want them to be because it fits into our nice neat systematized set of beliefs that we want to implant on others.
Again I post with the utmost humility and a respect for all that has been said, and simply being allowed to be in this discussion. Thanks to all!
I enjoy Greg Koukl's teaching for my own edification and for helping other believers. For support in sharing my faith I very much enjoy the booklet: "Looking at the Life of Jesus", and "How to Lead a Seeker Bible Discussion" (hint, don't invite a bunch of Christians...) . Both books are fun and encouraging to read. They were written by Rebecca Pippert ( Out of the Salt Shaker Ministries.)ISBN 978-0-8308-2122-8ISBN 978-0-8308-2121-1