What do you think?
Rate this book
Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions
In a world increasingly indifferent to Christian truth, followers of Christ need to be equipped to communicate with those who do not speak their language or accept their source of authority. Gregory Koukl demonstrates how to get in the driver's seat, keeping any conversation moving with thoughtful, artful diplomacy. You'll learn how to maneuver comfortably and graciously through the minefields, stop challengers in their tracks, turn the tables and—most importantly—get people thinking about Jesus. Soon, your conversations will look more like diplomacy than D-Day. Drawing on extensive experience defending Christianity in the public square, Koukl shows you how to:
- Initiate conversations effortlessly
- Present the truth clearly, cleverly, and persuasively
- Graciously and effectively expose faulty thinking
- Skillfully manage the details of dialogue
- Maintain an engaging, disarming style even under attack
Tactics provides the game plan for communicating the compelling truth about Christianity with confidence and grace.
- Initiate conversations effortlessly
- Present the truth clearly, cleverly, and persuasively
- Graciously and effectively expose faulty thinking
- Skillfully manage the details of dialogue
- Maintain an engaging, disarming style even under attack
Tactics provides the game plan for communicating the compelling truth about Christianity with confidence and grace.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 877 reviews
June 6, 2011
Most books on apologetics focus on the content of apologetics, making sure you know what you believe. The best books on apologetics I've encountered are those that focus on preparing your mind ahead of time for an encounter, which means more than just having the right things to say, it also means knowing how to say them. It's the difference between strategy and tactics, strategy looks at the world map and marks out the overall objective, tactics focus on the details of accomplishing a single mission. This book will help you accomplish your mission as a Christian, which may not be what you think it is. According to Koukl, the Christian's objective is not necessarily to convince a person first thing, but to "put a stone in their shoe", that is, leave them with a thought or a question that will gnaw at them over time. Koukl understands the subtle difficulties of trying convince a person and knows that one such convinced against their will is of their same old opinion still. We need to let people arrive at the truth in their own time, by the grace of God; God's timing. I loved this book and recommend two readings of it at least.
July 15, 2024
Esta debería ser una lectura obligatoria para todo cristiano. Hay muchos libros (algunos de ellos excelentes) que abordan qué cosas podemos compartir acerca de nuestra fe, sin embargo, hay muy pocos —este es el primero que leo— que nos digan cómo compartir acerca de nuestra fe.
Si no sabes cómo iniciar o mantener una conversación cordial sobre los asuntos más importantes de la vida, este libro es para ti. Si ya te encanta tener este tipo de conversaciones, este libro también es para ti... seguramente te ayudará a mejorar.
Lo escuché en audiolibro, y no puedo esperar tener una copia física para leerlo con más detenimiento y hacer muchas notas.
Si no sabes cómo iniciar o mantener una conversación cordial sobre los asuntos más importantes de la vida, este libro es para ti. Si ya te encanta tener este tipo de conversaciones, este libro también es para ti... seguramente te ayudará a mejorar.
Lo escuché en audiolibro, y no puedo esperar tener una copia física para leerlo con más detenimiento y hacer muchas notas.
June 20, 2023
Tactics is a book written by author and Christian apologist Gregory Koukl, which focuses on offering practical tools for defending the Christian faith. In it, the author offers strategies to face common challenges and objections that arise in the conversation about faith, with the aim of improving the quality of dialogue and mutual understanding between people of different faiths.
Regarding the contribution of Tactics to psychology, it is interesting to highlight some aspects that help to understand how the strategies proposed by Koukl can have a positive impact on people's mental and emotional health.
First of all, the book emphasizes the importance of dialogue and active listening. Koukl proposes a series of techniques to encourage openness and respectful dialogue between people of different beliefs, which could be extrapolated to other spheres of daily life. In a context in which polarization and confrontation are more and more frequent, these techniques are especially important to foster empathy and mutual understanding. At a psychological level, dialogue and active listening can have positive effects on self-esteem, emotional well-being, and the construction of meaningful interpersonal relationships.
Second, the book suggests the importance of critical reflection and constant evaluation of our beliefs. Koukl proposes some exercises to question our own ideas and to evaluate the validity of the statements we hear. These types of practices can be useful to foster humility and critical thinking, skills that are essential for our mental and emotional health.
Third, the book pays special attention to the importance of ethics in the dialogue and defense of our beliefs. Koukl emphasizes the need to be respectful and humble in our relationships with others, and proposes techniques to avoid aggressiveness and confrontation in our interactions with people who do not share our ideas. From a psychological perspective, this ethic of respect and humility can have positive effects on self-esteem and self-confidence, as well as on the quality of our interpersonal relationships.
Fourth, the book suggests the importance of tolerance and openness to diversity of beliefs, cultures, and perspectives. Koukl proposes some exercises and techniques to promote empathy and mutual understanding, and emphasizes the importance of listening to people in an active and respectful way. From a psychological perspective, this openness to diversity can have positive effects on mental and emotional health, by fostering understanding and respect for others, and by avoiding stereotypes and discrimination.
Finally, it is important to mention that Koukl's book offers techniques for defending the Christian faith, but many of these strategies are useful for fostering dialogue and mutual understanding in any area of daily life. In an increasingly diverse and polarized world, these mechanisms can be especially important for people's emotional well-being and mental health, by fostering empathy, understanding, and respect for others.
In conclusion, Tactics is an interesting book that offers strategies for defending the Christian faith, but that can have a positive impact on people's mental and emotional health. Koukl proposes techniques to promote dialogue and mutual understanding, critical reflection, the ethics of respect and humility, tolerance and openness to diversity, skills that are essential for our daily lives and our mental and emotional health. Overall, the work is a useful tool to promote dialogue and mutual understanding in a context of polarization and confrontation, and to restore empathy and respect in our interpersonal relationships.
Regarding the contribution of Tactics to psychology, it is interesting to highlight some aspects that help to understand how the strategies proposed by Koukl can have a positive impact on people's mental and emotional health.
First of all, the book emphasizes the importance of dialogue and active listening. Koukl proposes a series of techniques to encourage openness and respectful dialogue between people of different beliefs, which could be extrapolated to other spheres of daily life. In a context in which polarization and confrontation are more and more frequent, these techniques are especially important to foster empathy and mutual understanding. At a psychological level, dialogue and active listening can have positive effects on self-esteem, emotional well-being, and the construction of meaningful interpersonal relationships.
Second, the book suggests the importance of critical reflection and constant evaluation of our beliefs. Koukl proposes some exercises to question our own ideas and to evaluate the validity of the statements we hear. These types of practices can be useful to foster humility and critical thinking, skills that are essential for our mental and emotional health.
Third, the book pays special attention to the importance of ethics in the dialogue and defense of our beliefs. Koukl emphasizes the need to be respectful and humble in our relationships with others, and proposes techniques to avoid aggressiveness and confrontation in our interactions with people who do not share our ideas. From a psychological perspective, this ethic of respect and humility can have positive effects on self-esteem and self-confidence, as well as on the quality of our interpersonal relationships.
Fourth, the book suggests the importance of tolerance and openness to diversity of beliefs, cultures, and perspectives. Koukl proposes some exercises and techniques to promote empathy and mutual understanding, and emphasizes the importance of listening to people in an active and respectful way. From a psychological perspective, this openness to diversity can have positive effects on mental and emotional health, by fostering understanding and respect for others, and by avoiding stereotypes and discrimination.
Finally, it is important to mention that Koukl's book offers techniques for defending the Christian faith, but many of these strategies are useful for fostering dialogue and mutual understanding in any area of daily life. In an increasingly diverse and polarized world, these mechanisms can be especially important for people's emotional well-being and mental health, by fostering empathy, understanding, and respect for others.
In conclusion, Tactics is an interesting book that offers strategies for defending the Christian faith, but that can have a positive impact on people's mental and emotional health. Koukl proposes techniques to promote dialogue and mutual understanding, critical reflection, the ethics of respect and humility, tolerance and openness to diversity, skills that are essential for our daily lives and our mental and emotional health. Overall, the work is a useful tool to promote dialogue and mutual understanding in a context of polarization and confrontation, and to restore empathy and respect in our interpersonal relationships.
September 13, 2016
I was turned off by this book called Tactics...a game plan for discussing your convictions. Even the cover of the book with chess pieces seems to imply that your friends and colleagues of other faiths or no faith are pieces in a game to be won. I don't think this confrontational, argumentative, Columbo style of apologetics is helpful. For example the author meets a Wican cashier at CVS and begins with the first question so you are pro choice right? B
Being ready to defends one faith is appropriate..but these offensive tactics I don't think will help atheists or those of other faith be attracted to Christianity. One star.
Being ready to defends one faith is appropriate..but these offensive tactics I don't think will help atheists or those of other faith be attracted to Christianity. One star.
March 9, 2020
Don’t waste your life. Read this book.
February 6, 2017
I am an apologist and I hope that none of my non-Christian friends read this book. What I read was mostly tactics on how to control and win arguments. I think these "tactics" have good intent and even great ideas attached but at the end of a conversation, if you have not treated another human being with proper respect and decency then you have nothing. This point is even made a couple times in the book but many of the stories are blunt to the point where they could be construed as manipulative. I've met Koukl and did not feel this way about him in person. Maybe it just translates poorly in print?
February 2, 2023
Read this for a small group that I was involved with. I’m normally not much of an apologetics guru. I find typically when people want to debate issues concerning Christian philosophy and aggressively oppose it, it’s because their experience of what Christianity is, is actually not Christianity - but a religious pharisaical version of it that looks more like a hideous monster than the glorious and humble gospel of the lion/lamb.
The Pharisee has been around since Cain. Jesus dealt with them, and so will we. (And we must remember also that apart from God’s grace we would become them.) Sadly though, they are probably one of the biggest reasons for the rejection of Christianity in the western world.
As far as I have seen from my conversations - people’s modern issues with Christianity regard the type of Christians that look down on and despise those who disagree with them. Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector praying (Luke 18:9) is a profound illustration of the difference between this type of religion and someone who has truly experienced the grace of God.
When the people who I’ve talked to who had this notion of what Christianity was (and therefore despised it), learn that it’s rather about God coming down and rescuing humanity from ourselves by humbly taking our evil and sin on himself and then uniting us to himself by gifting his holiness to us forever - I have found that they usually haven’t heard this before. They typically are surprised to find that the Christian God is actually a gloriously humble God, who comes to rescue and love - rather than the tyrant god of the angry people they have experienced before. They usually don’t have as much that they want to argue about after this. And sometimes, they are even interested to hear more.
In other words, I find that the greatest apologetic for Christianity to be the gospel itself.
Having said that, sometimes someone does have further issues with Christianity and they want to have a deeper conversation about faith and religion. In that case Koukl’s book is very good. It’s less about the ‘whats’ of the arguments, and more about the ‘hows.’ In this way it’s more a simple guide to fruitful conversation than anything else. It serves as a solid manual for having meaningful conversations with others and how to navigate through the tactics used by more difficult people. Koukl also even gets into official debate methods (tactics) as well. In this day of argument, outrage, and ad hominem labeling of opposing sides, learning something about debate is probably something every follower of Jesus should have some knowledge on.
However, despite the amount of great material, in listening to the audiobook, I did notice that Koukl’s tone did seem just a bit combative and cynical in his mock conversations he demonstrated (he narrates his audiobook - however this may not even come out in reading the physical book). This sometimes made his methods a bit less appealing to me - as a Christian should always come to any disagreement knowing that apart from God’s hand of grace on them they could/would be no different from those they speak to, and they should take great care to never view themselves as superior - or anyone else as inferior in any way.
Koukl also came off occasionally as a little too eager to debate and argue - which might just be a difference of temperament I had with him (he is a radio debater by trade after all). However I think debate can be an unhealthy obsession for Christians - and this book, while a great user manual for someone who ended up getting in a debate - may just end up as fuel for the argumentative and divisive types.
Don’t get me wrong however, this book is filled with a massive amount of practical helps for dialogue and discourse especially for when things might get a little bit heated. Very good information within. Just check your heart if you’re reading this in order to ‘win’ or ‘beat’ others (Koukl very helpfully states as much in the opening and closing chapters of the book). If you read this and are thinking “that’ll show em,” then your desire to discuss your faith isn’t from the heart of Christ (and the info in this book that you use will likely make others you speak to despise your view more - not accept it). There was far more that was excellent in this book than I have to criticize. If every Christian read this, there would be much better, and more thoughtful interactions between Christians & Non-christians.
All in all this was quite good - but use discernment if you start using it to “win” arguments against others. As Koukl states, if you win the argument in this way - you lose.
4/5 stars.
The Pharisee has been around since Cain. Jesus dealt with them, and so will we. (And we must remember also that apart from God’s grace we would become them.) Sadly though, they are probably one of the biggest reasons for the rejection of Christianity in the western world.
As far as I have seen from my conversations - people’s modern issues with Christianity regard the type of Christians that look down on and despise those who disagree with them. Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector praying (Luke 18:9) is a profound illustration of the difference between this type of religion and someone who has truly experienced the grace of God.
When the people who I’ve talked to who had this notion of what Christianity was (and therefore despised it), learn that it’s rather about God coming down and rescuing humanity from ourselves by humbly taking our evil and sin on himself and then uniting us to himself by gifting his holiness to us forever - I have found that they usually haven’t heard this before. They typically are surprised to find that the Christian God is actually a gloriously humble God, who comes to rescue and love - rather than the tyrant god of the angry people they have experienced before. They usually don’t have as much that they want to argue about after this. And sometimes, they are even interested to hear more.
In other words, I find that the greatest apologetic for Christianity to be the gospel itself.
Having said that, sometimes someone does have further issues with Christianity and they want to have a deeper conversation about faith and religion. In that case Koukl’s book is very good. It’s less about the ‘whats’ of the arguments, and more about the ‘hows.’ In this way it’s more a simple guide to fruitful conversation than anything else. It serves as a solid manual for having meaningful conversations with others and how to navigate through the tactics used by more difficult people. Koukl also even gets into official debate methods (tactics) as well. In this day of argument, outrage, and ad hominem labeling of opposing sides, learning something about debate is probably something every follower of Jesus should have some knowledge on.
However, despite the amount of great material, in listening to the audiobook, I did notice that Koukl’s tone did seem just a bit combative and cynical in his mock conversations he demonstrated (he narrates his audiobook - however this may not even come out in reading the physical book). This sometimes made his methods a bit less appealing to me - as a Christian should always come to any disagreement knowing that apart from God’s hand of grace on them they could/would be no different from those they speak to, and they should take great care to never view themselves as superior - or anyone else as inferior in any way.
Koukl also came off occasionally as a little too eager to debate and argue - which might just be a difference of temperament I had with him (he is a radio debater by trade after all). However I think debate can be an unhealthy obsession for Christians - and this book, while a great user manual for someone who ended up getting in a debate - may just end up as fuel for the argumentative and divisive types.
Don’t get me wrong however, this book is filled with a massive amount of practical helps for dialogue and discourse especially for when things might get a little bit heated. Very good information within. Just check your heart if you’re reading this in order to ‘win’ or ‘beat’ others (Koukl very helpfully states as much in the opening and closing chapters of the book). If you read this and are thinking “that’ll show em,” then your desire to discuss your faith isn’t from the heart of Christ (and the info in this book that you use will likely make others you speak to despise your view more - not accept it). There was far more that was excellent in this book than I have to criticize. If every Christian read this, there would be much better, and more thoughtful interactions between Christians & Non-christians.
All in all this was quite good - but use discernment if you start using it to “win” arguments against others. As Koukl states, if you win the argument in this way - you lose.
4/5 stars.
January 22, 2022
A must read for every Christian.
We, as Christians, are called to be Christ ambassdors. This book tackles the topic of how to have great conversations about the truth, especially about the Christian Faith. The book presents wonderful tactics to use in your everyday encounters with deep conversations. The book does not focus on arguments, however it gives plenty examples in which ideas and arguments are used.
This book open up my mind to think more rationally about everthing, and reduced my fear of being unprepared in conversations with unbelievers, or opposants. The way in which we should have good conversations is the diplomatic way, and not the "all or nothing approach".
I will write down some tactics summary.
1. Ask Questions. Begin by asking questions in order to clearly understand what the interlocutor is saying and gather as much information as possible. By asking questions you are in control of the conversation "in the driver seat". Asking questions is the most easy part that you can do and with at little as possible exposure.
2. Find the logic mistakes in the interlocutor affirmations. It's very easy when you look critically to a proposition and find if it's flawed by checking it against some usual logic mistakes that people often do and they are not aware of their poor logic.
3. Be calm, kind and friendly in every conversation, even with hostile opponents.
3. Having discussions with people that have other concepts than you is a pretty good way to test your position against the best objections and adapt your arguments and your view.
4. Seek the truth always. If you are on the truth side you shouldn't be afraid. Be humble and recognize that you could be wrong.
5. Do not be burdened by measuring the results( nr.of people that get saved or heard the gospel), instead you should only take the responsability of "putting a rock in the shoe" . You should understant that you should plant a seed and God will do the rest. Even a single question can be a seed that troubles a soul.
6. Be prepared. It is better to sweat in the training field than bleed on the war scene. Learn the Bible very well, have courage, take advantage of all the opportunities.
We, as Christians, are called to be Christ ambassdors. This book tackles the topic of how to have great conversations about the truth, especially about the Christian Faith. The book presents wonderful tactics to use in your everyday encounters with deep conversations. The book does not focus on arguments, however it gives plenty examples in which ideas and arguments are used.
This book open up my mind to think more rationally about everthing, and reduced my fear of being unprepared in conversations with unbelievers, or opposants. The way in which we should have good conversations is the diplomatic way, and not the "all or nothing approach".
I will write down some tactics summary.
1. Ask Questions. Begin by asking questions in order to clearly understand what the interlocutor is saying and gather as much information as possible. By asking questions you are in control of the conversation "in the driver seat". Asking questions is the most easy part that you can do and with at little as possible exposure.
2. Find the logic mistakes in the interlocutor affirmations. It's very easy when you look critically to a proposition and find if it's flawed by checking it against some usual logic mistakes that people often do and they are not aware of their poor logic.
3. Be calm, kind and friendly in every conversation, even with hostile opponents.
3. Having discussions with people that have other concepts than you is a pretty good way to test your position against the best objections and adapt your arguments and your view.
4. Seek the truth always. If you are on the truth side you shouldn't be afraid. Be humble and recognize that you could be wrong.
5. Do not be burdened by measuring the results( nr.of people that get saved or heard the gospel), instead you should only take the responsability of "putting a rock in the shoe" . You should understant that you should plant a seed and God will do the rest. Even a single question can be a seed that troubles a soul.
6. Be prepared. It is better to sweat in the training field than bleed on the war scene. Learn the Bible very well, have courage, take advantage of all the opportunities.
January 4, 2015
I think this is an extremely easy to read and practical book that teaches how to winsomely use conversation and questions to talk with people about the Christian Worldview. I am hesitant to recommend a book by an author that is not presuppositional (because I am a very staunch presuppositionalist). I do not agree with everything in the book, and sometimes cringed at his non-presuppositional examples or philosophy. (I would compare him to Francis Schaeffer). I also can't stand when the book uses "she" instead of "he" in it's general examples.
However, where the book focuses on the *practical* aspects of discussion with people, I have found it to be very helpful not only for evangelism, but for talking with Christians about doctrinal differences in a way that is non-confrontational, but that shows them the holes in their reasoning. I think this is a highly effective and necessary tool for Christians. There is overlap between a classical and presuppositionalist view of evangelism, as Greg Bahnsen noted in his debate over apologetics with R.C. Sproul Sr., and I think this book focuses on those areas.
If you're curious, but not sold, watch this 5 min video to get a taste of what you'll learn in the book:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfcdCq...
However, where the book focuses on the *practical* aspects of discussion with people, I have found it to be very helpful not only for evangelism, but for talking with Christians about doctrinal differences in a way that is non-confrontational, but that shows them the holes in their reasoning. I think this is a highly effective and necessary tool for Christians. There is overlap between a classical and presuppositionalist view of evangelism, as Greg Bahnsen noted in his debate over apologetics with R.C. Sproul Sr., and I think this book focuses on those areas.
If you're curious, but not sold, watch this 5 min video to get a taste of what you'll learn in the book:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfcdCq...
October 24, 2022
I kept hearing about this book in Christian apologetics circles and I finally had to read it!
•
Tactics tackles the hard questions about Christianity, how to answer tough skeptics with grace and love, and how to represent Christ well in every conversation. Thoughtful dialog is hard to come by these days, especially if two people disagree, and the author teaches tactics to encourage productive faith conversations.
•
If you are a Christian who wants to learn more about how to effectively defend your faith, you will like this book. It’s definitely one I need to reread to glean everything I can from it!
•
Tactics tackles the hard questions about Christianity, how to answer tough skeptics with grace and love, and how to represent Christ well in every conversation. Thoughtful dialog is hard to come by these days, especially if two people disagree, and the author teaches tactics to encourage productive faith conversations.
•
If you are a Christian who wants to learn more about how to effectively defend your faith, you will like this book. It’s definitely one I need to reread to glean everything I can from it!
May 28, 2021
Intelligent, logical, and accessible, this book is an excellent resource for all Christians. After finishing, I felt so much more equipped to discuss my faith and other prevalent cultural topics with others in a gracious manner.
There were a couple scattered theological comments that I thought could have been worded more clearly, and sometimes the author made a comment that was a little unclear. However, those were very rare.
I highly recommend this book.
There were a couple scattered theological comments that I thought could have been worded more clearly, and sometimes the author made a comment that was a little unclear. However, those were very rare.
I highly recommend this book.
February 6, 2024
Koukl, Gregory. Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, [2019].
We want to be like Jesus. That sounds pious enough. But do we debate like Jesus? The answer, especially for us apologists, is certainly 'no.' We want to be mighty, heroically casting down intellectual strongholds, usually identified as the teenage barista at Starbucks. Yes, that language is from Paul, but he probably did not have our style in mind. Even if we win the debate, we often lose the person. Sometimes that might be called for, but Greg Koukl reminds us of a more effective manner of defending and presenting the faith: the way Jesus did.
Be gentle, but stay in the driver's seat.
1. No tension
2. Ask specific questions
3. Look for logical consequences
Somewhat paradoxically, if you are in the driver's seat, your conversation partner will be doing most of the intellectual work. There are so many advantages to this approach. It gives the other person the impression, we hope a true one, that he is being heard and understood. It reinforces the fact that we are after truth, or should be.
Hitting the Road
Three skills needed:
1. Basic knowledge
2. Wisdom; spiritual street smarts.
3. character
When we are challenged, the mind, not the Bible, is our first line of defense. This is not an attack or diminishing of the Bible. Before one can even use the Bible, he must first use the laws of logic to formulate the proposition. This is what the historic Reformed called the order of knowing. It follows, not precedes, the order of being, which is God. And when two or more people disagree about the Bible, it is logic, the ability to discern true thinking from false thinking, that decides the issue. Learning to reason and argue properly is a virtue, as it protects one from religious despotism (among other things).
Key principle: "Without God's work, nothing else work; but with God's work, many things work" (Koukl 45). This is a fine restatement of the principle that God's sovereignty works through human means. God blesses the use of reason for his kingdom. To say otherwise is to be a hyper-Calvinist pietist.
*The Columbo Tactic*
Koukl recommends responding to challenges by asking questions. A question disarms the person, gains information, and allows progress in dialogue (58-59). If the questions are well-placed, they allow you to remain in the driver's seat.
The First Question: "What do you mean by that?" As Koukl notes, many objections to the faith trade on muddled thinking (66). With more thoughtless objections, such clarifying questions will often be sufficient.
*Columbo Step Two*: Reversing the Burden of Proof
In other words, make the other person give evidence or reasons for his view. Koukl recommends doing this, asking, "How did you come to that conclusion?" (80) or "where did you get your facts?" He makes a further good point: resist the urge to refute everything your opponent says. "It's not your job (at this point) to defeat his claim. It's his job to defend it." Make distinctions between possible, plausible, and probable.
*The Professor's Ploy*
If you are in a situation where your opponent has the microphone or some other position of power, do not directly engage him. The man with the microphone always wins the debate. As is true in warfare, so also in debate: never make a frontal assault on an entrenched, superior force.
Rather, begin with a variation of the first Columbo question. Then ask him how he came to his conclusions. If he truly does not have reasons for his position, other students will notice. That is just as effective as refuting him. These questions serve another function: by clarifying what he believes, and what he believes you believe, then you keep him from strawmanning your own view.
In other words, when someone makes a controversial claim "and then says, 'You prove me wrong,' don't play their game. Don't let them make you do they work they should be doing(90)."
*Getting out of the hot seat*
What happens if someone knows more than you? Your only lifeline at this is point are questions. They can help you regain control of the conversation, or at worst buy you some time. If you know you are about to be beaten, simply say, "That sounds interesting. Let me think about it."
At the end of the conversation, narrate the debate. Describe the discussion to the person. This allows you to steer the conversation.
*Columbo Step Three: Use Questions to make a point*
This next tactic, though crucial, requires some skill and practice. A good series of questions can connect the dots for the listener. This also allows you to navigate politically dangerous situations. Let's say someone, perhaps a coworker or a boss, is a homosexual and asks you your view on marriage. Koukl recommends responding in the following way:
"You know, this is actually a very personal question. I don't mind answering, but before I do, I want to know if it's safe to offer my views. So let me ask you a question first: do you consider yourself a tolerant person or an intolerant person on issues like this? Is it safe to give my opinion, or are you going to judge me for my point of view? Do you respect diverse points of view, or do you condemn others for having convictions that differ from your own" (100)?
This is the same format Jesus used against the Pharisees regarding baptism from heaven.
*Conclusion*
This is easily the best book on evangelism I have ever read. It is also the best beginner book on apologetics. This series of questions is very effective, but there is a danger. Several, actually. They will not work every time. You will run into someone who is smarter than you and a better debater. You will lose. That will happen. It will not happen that often, though. Most people, Christians included, really have not thought about the reasons for the reasons they give. The danger is you might become a sophist not unlike those in Plato's day. The cure for that is getting beaten in a debate. See danger #1.
Koukl did not mention it, though, but this is the same tactic Plato used. The reader is strongly encouraged to pick up Plato's dialogues as a follow-up. Not only are they fun to read, but they introduce the reader to key problems in epistemology.
Key quotes:
"It is not the Christian life to wound, embarrass, or play one-upmanship with colleagues, friends or even opponents, but it's a common vice that anyone can easily fall into--Hugh Hewitt."
We want to be like Jesus. That sounds pious enough. But do we debate like Jesus? The answer, especially for us apologists, is certainly 'no.' We want to be mighty, heroically casting down intellectual strongholds, usually identified as the teenage barista at Starbucks. Yes, that language is from Paul, but he probably did not have our style in mind. Even if we win the debate, we often lose the person. Sometimes that might be called for, but Greg Koukl reminds us of a more effective manner of defending and presenting the faith: the way Jesus did.
Be gentle, but stay in the driver's seat.
1. No tension
2. Ask specific questions
3. Look for logical consequences
Somewhat paradoxically, if you are in the driver's seat, your conversation partner will be doing most of the intellectual work. There are so many advantages to this approach. It gives the other person the impression, we hope a true one, that he is being heard and understood. It reinforces the fact that we are after truth, or should be.
Hitting the Road
Three skills needed:
1. Basic knowledge
2. Wisdom; spiritual street smarts.
3. character
When we are challenged, the mind, not the Bible, is our first line of defense. This is not an attack or diminishing of the Bible. Before one can even use the Bible, he must first use the laws of logic to formulate the proposition. This is what the historic Reformed called the order of knowing. It follows, not precedes, the order of being, which is God. And when two or more people disagree about the Bible, it is logic, the ability to discern true thinking from false thinking, that decides the issue. Learning to reason and argue properly is a virtue, as it protects one from religious despotism (among other things).
Key principle: "Without God's work, nothing else work; but with God's work, many things work" (Koukl 45). This is a fine restatement of the principle that God's sovereignty works through human means. God blesses the use of reason for his kingdom. To say otherwise is to be a hyper-Calvinist pietist.
*The Columbo Tactic*
Koukl recommends responding to challenges by asking questions. A question disarms the person, gains information, and allows progress in dialogue (58-59). If the questions are well-placed, they allow you to remain in the driver's seat.
The First Question: "What do you mean by that?" As Koukl notes, many objections to the faith trade on muddled thinking (66). With more thoughtless objections, such clarifying questions will often be sufficient.
*Columbo Step Two*: Reversing the Burden of Proof
In other words, make the other person give evidence or reasons for his view. Koukl recommends doing this, asking, "How did you come to that conclusion?" (80) or "where did you get your facts?" He makes a further good point: resist the urge to refute everything your opponent says. "It's not your job (at this point) to defeat his claim. It's his job to defend it." Make distinctions between possible, plausible, and probable.
*The Professor's Ploy*
If you are in a situation where your opponent has the microphone or some other position of power, do not directly engage him. The man with the microphone always wins the debate. As is true in warfare, so also in debate: never make a frontal assault on an entrenched, superior force.
Rather, begin with a variation of the first Columbo question. Then ask him how he came to his conclusions. If he truly does not have reasons for his position, other students will notice. That is just as effective as refuting him. These questions serve another function: by clarifying what he believes, and what he believes you believe, then you keep him from strawmanning your own view.
In other words, when someone makes a controversial claim "and then says, 'You prove me wrong,' don't play their game. Don't let them make you do they work they should be doing(90)."
*Getting out of the hot seat*
What happens if someone knows more than you? Your only lifeline at this is point are questions. They can help you regain control of the conversation, or at worst buy you some time. If you know you are about to be beaten, simply say, "That sounds interesting. Let me think about it."
At the end of the conversation, narrate the debate. Describe the discussion to the person. This allows you to steer the conversation.
*Columbo Step Three: Use Questions to make a point*
This next tactic, though crucial, requires some skill and practice. A good series of questions can connect the dots for the listener. This also allows you to navigate politically dangerous situations. Let's say someone, perhaps a coworker or a boss, is a homosexual and asks you your view on marriage. Koukl recommends responding in the following way:
"You know, this is actually a very personal question. I don't mind answering, but before I do, I want to know if it's safe to offer my views. So let me ask you a question first: do you consider yourself a tolerant person or an intolerant person on issues like this? Is it safe to give my opinion, or are you going to judge me for my point of view? Do you respect diverse points of view, or do you condemn others for having convictions that differ from your own" (100)?
This is the same format Jesus used against the Pharisees regarding baptism from heaven.
*Conclusion*
This is easily the best book on evangelism I have ever read. It is also the best beginner book on apologetics. This series of questions is very effective, but there is a danger. Several, actually. They will not work every time. You will run into someone who is smarter than you and a better debater. You will lose. That will happen. It will not happen that often, though. Most people, Christians included, really have not thought about the reasons for the reasons they give. The danger is you might become a sophist not unlike those in Plato's day. The cure for that is getting beaten in a debate. See danger #1.
Koukl did not mention it, though, but this is the same tactic Plato used. The reader is strongly encouraged to pick up Plato's dialogues as a follow-up. Not only are they fun to read, but they introduce the reader to key problems in epistemology.
Key quotes:
"It is not the Christian life to wound, embarrass, or play one-upmanship with colleagues, friends or even opponents, but it's a common vice that anyone can easily fall into--Hugh Hewitt."
December 6, 2022
This book has been recommended to me for years, and I can see why. It's an incredibly useful resource for Christians wanting to discuss their beliefs more openly. Not only does Koukl give logical conversational maneuvers, but he also gives specific examples of conversational topics in practice. Wish I had read this back in college.
Some tactics include: asking questions (Columbo) to gather information, reverse the burden of proof, and to make a point; showing how some views self-destruct (logical contradictions); taking ideas to their inevitable ends (absurd conclusions); how to handle someone steamrolling you, intimidating you, or out-educating you; how to stick to the facts instead of succumbing to personal opinions and slanders; and appealing to the guilt / sense of justice all humanity feels.
Would recommend this alongside other classics like The Case for Christ and Mere Christianity and I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Worth buying and gifting.
Koukl has also written The Story of Reality: How the World Began, How It Ends, and Everything Important that Happens in Between.
Some tactics include: asking questions (Columbo) to gather information, reverse the burden of proof, and to make a point; showing how some views self-destruct (logical contradictions); taking ideas to their inevitable ends (absurd conclusions); how to handle someone steamrolling you, intimidating you, or out-educating you; how to stick to the facts instead of succumbing to personal opinions and slanders; and appealing to the guilt / sense of justice all humanity feels.
Would recommend this alongside other classics like The Case for Christ and Mere Christianity and I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Worth buying and gifting.
Koukl has also written The Story of Reality: How the World Began, How It Ends, and Everything Important that Happens in Between.
July 22, 2022
I am a seminary student. I just completed my Evangelism course. I read four evangelism books this semester. Tactics was not included in my assigned reading but was given to me by a friend at church. This book was the absolute WORST book I have ever read in terms of evangelism, theology, or apologetics. I am shocked at some of Koukl's statements - they are anti-Gospel, anti-evangelism, and anti-Christian. I really don't know how so many Christians have given this book five stars? Perhaps because it gives casual Christians an excuse NOT to evangelize and that is the book's appeal?
First, it is outdated, P.14 talks about how militant Atheism is on the march? Current, 2021 research from The Family Research Council and The Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University does not support this claim. We blew by postmodernism and into a Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, or a "fake Christianity." The church isn't worried about militant Atheism these days, it's worried about "fake Christians" within, not the god-haters in culture.
The author is nauseatingly prideful and arrogant, here are a few clips from the book, "People keep telling me this book changed my life" ah, I think the book that is supposed to do that is called the Bible. "You need my method," "You need principals I will teach you," "Effectively manuver," "Master new approaches" it all sounds like a cheap and sleazy "used car" salesman.
Okay, I'm going to fast forward to the bad stuff, here are quotes from the book, you tell me if they sound Christian or not.
"You cannot love someone into the Kingdom. It can’t be done. Neither is the simple gospel by itself adequate to do that job" p.44. Did you hear that? The gospel is not adequate for salvation! What Christian says or even thinks that? This book is disqualified based on that one reckless and unbiblical comment.
"My aim is never to win someone to Christ" p.46. Wait, what? I thought this was a book about evangelism and winning people to Christ? Yet the author advises the readers not to worry about that!
"You don't have to get to the foot of the cross on every encounter. You don't have to try to close the deal. I think it's better if you don't try." Wow, okay, so Christians need not present the entire gospel to ensure someone's salvation?? You shouldn't even try to explain the entire gospel and the author says "it is better if you don't try." Does that sound like good Christian advice? Does that sound like good evangelism?
There are MANY troubling things about this book. The author has a very low view of the gospel. He has a low opinion of traditional evangelism methodologies. He snickers and sneers at the "simple gospel" and says several times that a simple gospel presentation is not enough to bring someone to saving faith in Christ, which is absolutely antithetical to Scripture. Perhaps, they didn't teach him that at his fancy seminary? He places way too much stock in reason and logic and minimizes the gospel message. A Christian's primary aim isn't to Stand to Reason, it is to stand for truth, biblical truth, God's truth. The world doesn't need a "revised" version of the gospel, or your version of the gospel, it needs "God's Gospel" (Romans 1:1). Something Koukl does not offer. On page 19 Koukl seems concerned with looking "foolish" during a gospel conversation and wants to protect the Christian from looking and feeling foolish. Perhaps Koukl's PhD program failed to mention that "the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18). Nothing you do, no tactic you employ can keep the gospel from sounding like foolishness to those who are perishing, why are we trying to avoid this? Because we don't want to look foolish? That's pride talking not faith. "God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe" (1 Cor. 1:21).
Why are we trying to be clever? Why are we trying to remove the foolishness from the gospel? Why are we using the wisdom of the world in place of God's gospel? "The world through its wisdom did not know God" (1 Cor. 1:21). "We preached Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles" (1 Cor. 1:23).
Koukl is very comfortable with not sharing the full gospel with someone. When did it become okay to do partial evangelism? This sets a dangerous precedent that many Christians will, unfortunately, see as an easy way out of proclaiming the full gospel. As long as they plant a seed that's good enough. That should never be the goal. That should never satisfy us to give somebody a partial gospel. Unbelievers cannot be saved through a partial gospel.
On page 30 Koukl recounts a "spiritual conversation" with a witch and chickens out on sharing the gospel and justifies his disobedience by saying, "True, I hadn’t gotten to the gospel … this wasn’t a gospel moment but a gardening moment that involved a vital moral issue." Wasn’t a gospel moment? So the witch didn’t need Jesus, she needed a refined moral compass? The Apostle Paul didn’t go around poking holes in people's belief systems and then walking away saying to himself, “Gee, I hope the next guy can get to the gospel with this person.” Paul claimed quite the opposite, “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). Paul didn’t use, recommend, or advise his hearers to use fancy tactics, involved methodologies, or sophisticated communication skills to deconstruct erroneous belief systems or highlight moral deficiencies, again he did the opposite, “And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God'' (1 Cor. 2:3-5). Apologetic methods risk accentuating human wisdom, argumentation, and insight and diminishing God’s power through a simple gospel.
The Bible never permits a view that affirms a lost person is not in need of the gospel, that somehow they are in need of something other than the gospel to help their desperate plight. Their lostness is a perpetual gospel moment. Scriptural priority is not deconstructing faulty beliefs but proclaiming gospel truth—that is always the emanate priority.
Koukl uses several "encounters" as object lessons in the book, but what is really interesting about these examples that he uses is the fact that there was NO gospel presentation! Yet, Koukl pats himself on the back for having a conversation with someone and there was "no tension, no anxiety, and no awkwardness in the exchange." Yeah, and there was no gospel either! Who cares if the conversation was "comfortable" that did not change the hearer's eternal condition. As Christians "comfort" or the avoidance of feeling "foolish" should not be a consideration when sharing the gospel. We share inspire of fear, feelings, and comfort. Koukl is ass-backwards on this.
On page 31, Koukle "tried to help her see the logical consequences of her convictions." But failed to show her the consequences of her sin. Koukl is so enamoured with his gospel-free performance that he takes the time to pat himself on the back again, "I felt no pressure to squeeze the gospel into the conversation … I left her to the Lord and moved on." That is simply disobedience. You don’t get the option to opt-out of doing what the Lord commanded - “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…” (Matt. 28:19) is an imperative. To refuse to do so is disobedience to an explicit command of Scripture. If you feel no pressure to share the gospel with a person drowning in sin and on their way to hell, something is terribly wrong. That’s like a person passing by a burning house, hearing the screams of the people trapped inside and saying, “I felt no pressure to call 9-1-1 or to try to save them, I left them to the Lord and moved on.”
Matthew 4:23, “Jesus went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel.” He didn’t proclaim human philosophy or deconstruct moral offence—he preached the gospel. If it’s good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for us. Koukl goes on to say, "I made the best of the opportunity." No, you didn’t. Sharing the gospel would have made the best use of that opportunity. Are we now grading on a curve? Is it now the thought that counts? You don’t get to score yourself—Scripture and your obedience to what God has commanded is the final arbitrator. Failing to do what the Lord has commanded “Go into all the world and preach the gospel” (Mark 16:15) isn’t making the best use of the opportunity, it’s failing to be obedient to Scripture and what is even more abhorrent is when you justify your insolent disobedience by patting yourself on the back and telling yourself it’s okay that you didn’t share the gospel. You’re right when you say that “she is God’s responsibility” and he entrusted her to you and you miscarried the opportunity, you didn’t make the best of it. Koukl reacts to this encounter, "[I have trained people] to have meaningful, productive conversations about spiritual things." Koukl has developed his own standard to measure himself by—he is not using Scripture. A conversation that omits the gospel is not meaningful nor productive. It is a lie wrapped in deceiving conceit and calling something good that is evil.
I could say much, much more.
Overall, this is a terrible book. The writing is terrible. The logic is terrible. The illustrations, examples, and theological reasoning are terrible. Koukl demonstrates glaring textual and interpretive problems. Koukl's theology is irregular at best.
Don't waste your time, money, or brainpower on this garbage. If you want a solid evangelistic method, look up Jimmy Scroggins, "Three Circles Training" on YouTube. It's a 1,000% better Koukl's "non-gospel" book. Or go buy Matt Walsh's "Church of Cowards" book. That has more gospel and theology than Kouk's book.
First, it is outdated, P.14 talks about how militant Atheism is on the march? Current, 2021 research from The Family Research Council and The Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University does not support this claim. We blew by postmodernism and into a Moralistic Therapeutic Deism, or a "fake Christianity." The church isn't worried about militant Atheism these days, it's worried about "fake Christians" within, not the god-haters in culture.
The author is nauseatingly prideful and arrogant, here are a few clips from the book, "People keep telling me this book changed my life" ah, I think the book that is supposed to do that is called the Bible. "You need my method," "You need principals I will teach you," "Effectively manuver," "Master new approaches" it all sounds like a cheap and sleazy "used car" salesman.
Okay, I'm going to fast forward to the bad stuff, here are quotes from the book, you tell me if they sound Christian or not.
"You cannot love someone into the Kingdom. It can’t be done. Neither is the simple gospel by itself adequate to do that job" p.44. Did you hear that? The gospel is not adequate for salvation! What Christian says or even thinks that? This book is disqualified based on that one reckless and unbiblical comment.
"My aim is never to win someone to Christ" p.46. Wait, what? I thought this was a book about evangelism and winning people to Christ? Yet the author advises the readers not to worry about that!
"You don't have to get to the foot of the cross on every encounter. You don't have to try to close the deal. I think it's better if you don't try." Wow, okay, so Christians need not present the entire gospel to ensure someone's salvation?? You shouldn't even try to explain the entire gospel and the author says "it is better if you don't try." Does that sound like good Christian advice? Does that sound like good evangelism?
There are MANY troubling things about this book. The author has a very low view of the gospel. He has a low opinion of traditional evangelism methodologies. He snickers and sneers at the "simple gospel" and says several times that a simple gospel presentation is not enough to bring someone to saving faith in Christ, which is absolutely antithetical to Scripture. Perhaps, they didn't teach him that at his fancy seminary? He places way too much stock in reason and logic and minimizes the gospel message. A Christian's primary aim isn't to Stand to Reason, it is to stand for truth, biblical truth, God's truth. The world doesn't need a "revised" version of the gospel, or your version of the gospel, it needs "God's Gospel" (Romans 1:1). Something Koukl does not offer. On page 19 Koukl seems concerned with looking "foolish" during a gospel conversation and wants to protect the Christian from looking and feeling foolish. Perhaps Koukl's PhD program failed to mention that "the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18). Nothing you do, no tactic you employ can keep the gospel from sounding like foolishness to those who are perishing, why are we trying to avoid this? Because we don't want to look foolish? That's pride talking not faith. "God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe" (1 Cor. 1:21).
Why are we trying to be clever? Why are we trying to remove the foolishness from the gospel? Why are we using the wisdom of the world in place of God's gospel? "The world through its wisdom did not know God" (1 Cor. 1:21). "We preached Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles" (1 Cor. 1:23).
Koukl is very comfortable with not sharing the full gospel with someone. When did it become okay to do partial evangelism? This sets a dangerous precedent that many Christians will, unfortunately, see as an easy way out of proclaiming the full gospel. As long as they plant a seed that's good enough. That should never be the goal. That should never satisfy us to give somebody a partial gospel. Unbelievers cannot be saved through a partial gospel.
On page 30 Koukl recounts a "spiritual conversation" with a witch and chickens out on sharing the gospel and justifies his disobedience by saying, "True, I hadn’t gotten to the gospel … this wasn’t a gospel moment but a gardening moment that involved a vital moral issue." Wasn’t a gospel moment? So the witch didn’t need Jesus, she needed a refined moral compass? The Apostle Paul didn’t go around poking holes in people's belief systems and then walking away saying to himself, “Gee, I hope the next guy can get to the gospel with this person.” Paul claimed quite the opposite, “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). Paul didn’t use, recommend, or advise his hearers to use fancy tactics, involved methodologies, or sophisticated communication skills to deconstruct erroneous belief systems or highlight moral deficiencies, again he did the opposite, “And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God'' (1 Cor. 2:3-5). Apologetic methods risk accentuating human wisdom, argumentation, and insight and diminishing God’s power through a simple gospel.
The Bible never permits a view that affirms a lost person is not in need of the gospel, that somehow they are in need of something other than the gospel to help their desperate plight. Their lostness is a perpetual gospel moment. Scriptural priority is not deconstructing faulty beliefs but proclaiming gospel truth—that is always the emanate priority.
Koukl uses several "encounters" as object lessons in the book, but what is really interesting about these examples that he uses is the fact that there was NO gospel presentation! Yet, Koukl pats himself on the back for having a conversation with someone and there was "no tension, no anxiety, and no awkwardness in the exchange." Yeah, and there was no gospel either! Who cares if the conversation was "comfortable" that did not change the hearer's eternal condition. As Christians "comfort" or the avoidance of feeling "foolish" should not be a consideration when sharing the gospel. We share inspire of fear, feelings, and comfort. Koukl is ass-backwards on this.
On page 31, Koukle "tried to help her see the logical consequences of her convictions." But failed to show her the consequences of her sin. Koukl is so enamoured with his gospel-free performance that he takes the time to pat himself on the back again, "I felt no pressure to squeeze the gospel into the conversation … I left her to the Lord and moved on." That is simply disobedience. You don’t get the option to opt-out of doing what the Lord commanded - “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…” (Matt. 28:19) is an imperative. To refuse to do so is disobedience to an explicit command of Scripture. If you feel no pressure to share the gospel with a person drowning in sin and on their way to hell, something is terribly wrong. That’s like a person passing by a burning house, hearing the screams of the people trapped inside and saying, “I felt no pressure to call 9-1-1 or to try to save them, I left them to the Lord and moved on.”
Matthew 4:23, “Jesus went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel.” He didn’t proclaim human philosophy or deconstruct moral offence—he preached the gospel. If it’s good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for us. Koukl goes on to say, "I made the best of the opportunity." No, you didn’t. Sharing the gospel would have made the best use of that opportunity. Are we now grading on a curve? Is it now the thought that counts? You don’t get to score yourself—Scripture and your obedience to what God has commanded is the final arbitrator. Failing to do what the Lord has commanded “Go into all the world and preach the gospel” (Mark 16:15) isn’t making the best use of the opportunity, it’s failing to be obedient to Scripture and what is even more abhorrent is when you justify your insolent disobedience by patting yourself on the back and telling yourself it’s okay that you didn’t share the gospel. You’re right when you say that “she is God’s responsibility” and he entrusted her to you and you miscarried the opportunity, you didn’t make the best of it. Koukl reacts to this encounter, "[I have trained people] to have meaningful, productive conversations about spiritual things." Koukl has developed his own standard to measure himself by—he is not using Scripture. A conversation that omits the gospel is not meaningful nor productive. It is a lie wrapped in deceiving conceit and calling something good that is evil.
I could say much, much more.
Overall, this is a terrible book. The writing is terrible. The logic is terrible. The illustrations, examples, and theological reasoning are terrible. Koukl demonstrates glaring textual and interpretive problems. Koukl's theology is irregular at best.
Don't waste your time, money, or brainpower on this garbage. If you want a solid evangelistic method, look up Jimmy Scroggins, "Three Circles Training" on YouTube. It's a 1,000% better Koukl's "non-gospel" book. Or go buy Matt Walsh's "Church of Cowards" book. That has more gospel and theology than Kouk's book.
April 28, 2021
I hesitate to critique too much due to the DL Moody rule, and there’s certainly value in a calm, diplomatic approach. But I think much of what’s prescribed here rubs people the wrong way and leads to defensiveness. People are far too cynical these days, and they know what you’re doing when you ask a series of questions. I feel my intelligence is being insulted when somebody is clearly leading me with a series of rehearsed questions, and I imagine they would too.
As far as evangelism goes, evangelism being proclaiming the Good News, there’s almost none here. It’s far more about winning debates on Biblically-related cultural issues and hoping the person comes to find the Gospel some other time.
As far as evangelism goes, evangelism being proclaiming the Good News, there’s almost none here. It’s far more about winning debates on Biblically-related cultural issues and hoping the person comes to find the Gospel some other time.
December 14, 2022
Helpful and practical!
Side Notes
• I like the repeated idea of just placing ideas into people that are as a "stone in the shoe". Kindly and thoughtfully getting people to think about their worldview.
• Thought it was weird he named a tactic "infanticide".
• I enjoyed him not using the 'universal male', but switching between "he" and "she". It's small, but it stands out when authors actually do it.
• I like the emphasis on not trying to trap people or stump them, but just strategies to get them to engage with you in their belief and give opportunities to share yours.
• Great and relevant examples.
Side Notes
• I like the repeated idea of just placing ideas into people that are as a "stone in the shoe". Kindly and thoughtfully getting people to think about their worldview.
• Thought it was weird he named a tactic "infanticide".
• I enjoyed him not using the 'universal male', but switching between "he" and "she". It's small, but it stands out when authors actually do it.
• I like the emphasis on not trying to trap people or stump them, but just strategies to get them to engage with you in their belief and give opportunities to share yours.
• Great and relevant examples.
May 22, 2023
This book claims to give you the tools to convince people of Christianity. Now, I'm not Christian nor do I ever see myself becoming one. However, I have a lot of respect for the religion so I wanted to read this perspective.
Koukl advocates for what he refers to as "Columbo '' technique- asking people questions which force them to defend their opinions. He relies on the fact that many non-Christians do not actually know much about Christian beliefs or are used to defending their opinions. Asking "What do you mean" and "have you thought about " is a good way to uncover issues, rather than being on the defensive.
I like this idea. We sometimes assume ourselves to be neutral- "they" are religious, instead of recognizing that it is us that are secular. Both of us are making active decisions, not just the person who is religious. We can be held accountable to our thoughts, even if we've never thought we can be anything else. There are different ways to think, not just ours.
I do feel like I learned from this book. For example, up until now, I never fully understood why (some) Christians hold that Jesus is the only way for salvation. The argument that Jesus is the only way to avoid punishment for bad actions makes more sense to me now- I understand why those who believe in it do so. Don't agree, of course, but happy to understand.
However, this book is very problematic.
Koukl says that everyone should be able to logically defend their points of view. I am not sure that's true. I think that as long as people's beliefs aren't harming others, there's no need to find logical reasons for them. You can, if you want to, but you don't have an obligation to. Not being able to logically explain why you're an atheist doesn't mean you have to stop. Atheism and theism can be justified simply by, "well, I've never felt any other presence in my life so this is what I believe" or "I like how I feel when I do this". The barrier is crossed once you start to make demands on other people. The gap between "I believe in a purple fairy that sits on my shoulder and it makes me happy" to "the purple fairy says you have to pay my rent" is what matters.
In this case, Koukl seems to be walking around and asking random people personal questions. I realize that the interactions in the book are edited but he seems proud of nagging waitresses about their faith and bugging people on flights. Sometimes people don't want to engage with you about this. As a Jew in Korea, I often don't want to explain to the Christians why I don't believe in Jesus. I feel an urge to scream, "don't mistake my curiosity and kindness for a lack of belief, my people did not survive thousands of years for me to believe in your trinity, no logic will convince me to believe in Jesus".
And he doesn't bother to actually understand other people. For example, he describes a conversation with a Jew in which he tries to make the Jew realize that Jesus is necessary. Now, he finishes that conversation thinking he's accomplished something but in reality, his line of argument was not actually addressing Judaism. There are a million of assumptions in his line of logic but because he's never bothered to truly understand the Jewish way of thinking, he can't address those. Willing to bet that Jew hasn't converted to Christianity as a result of that conversation.
The concept of "suicidal views" is also problematic- Koukl relies on cheap tactics to disprove basic things people say. However, it is basically a silly rhetorical game. For example, Koukl suggests that one can reply to the common statement "only science gives reliable truth" with "there's no scientific evidence for science". Of course. No one says that there is. The justification for science is philosophical- why doesn't Koukl engage with the philosophical argument behind it?
An addition is the "if you don't believe in condemning people, why are you condemning me for homophobia?". This is equally as silly. Obviously, society believes in condemning people. It's a strawman to hold otherwise. The question is why we condemn what we condemn. What is the justification for condemning people's behavior and beliefs? Here we can discuss what exactly is the freedom to condemn and soon, it's very clear what the difference between the two is. The "gotchas" that Koukl provides are great for silencing someone in a conversation but it's not seriously an argument by any metric.
Ultimately, I think a good rule of dialogue is that you don't use methods that you wouldn't want others to use on you. The fact that Koukl provides tips in order to avoid his own methodology highlights to me that he knows this isn't fair.
To sum up, I did learn something from this book, even if it also annoyed me. I can't recommend this book if you actually want to achieve something in conversations but if you want to get on the nerves of everyone in your next family dinner, I think the tactics here are stellar.
what I'm taking with me
- But like, why are his opinions about abortion, science and gay people part of this book? that's not necessarily a part of religious belief.
- The idea that morality requires God is absurd, like my dude, read some ethics, there are plenty of explanations for morality that aren't "there's a rule maker that says this is right".
- When you tell Christian proselytizers that you're Jewish, you hope that this will make them leave you alone but no, it creates even more hype.
----------------
Managed to finish another book! Good for me.
Review to come after I get my life together
Koukl advocates for what he refers to as "Columbo '' technique- asking people questions which force them to defend their opinions. He relies on the fact that many non-Christians do not actually know much about Christian beliefs or are used to defending their opinions. Asking "What do you mean" and "have you thought about " is a good way to uncover issues, rather than being on the defensive.
I like this idea. We sometimes assume ourselves to be neutral- "they" are religious, instead of recognizing that it is us that are secular. Both of us are making active decisions, not just the person who is religious. We can be held accountable to our thoughts, even if we've never thought we can be anything else. There are different ways to think, not just ours.
I do feel like I learned from this book. For example, up until now, I never fully understood why (some) Christians hold that Jesus is the only way for salvation. The argument that Jesus is the only way to avoid punishment for bad actions makes more sense to me now- I understand why those who believe in it do so. Don't agree, of course, but happy to understand.
However, this book is very problematic.
Koukl says that everyone should be able to logically defend their points of view. I am not sure that's true. I think that as long as people's beliefs aren't harming others, there's no need to find logical reasons for them. You can, if you want to, but you don't have an obligation to. Not being able to logically explain why you're an atheist doesn't mean you have to stop. Atheism and theism can be justified simply by, "well, I've never felt any other presence in my life so this is what I believe" or "I like how I feel when I do this". The barrier is crossed once you start to make demands on other people. The gap between "I believe in a purple fairy that sits on my shoulder and it makes me happy" to "the purple fairy says you have to pay my rent" is what matters.
In this case, Koukl seems to be walking around and asking random people personal questions. I realize that the interactions in the book are edited but he seems proud of nagging waitresses about their faith and bugging people on flights. Sometimes people don't want to engage with you about this. As a Jew in Korea, I often don't want to explain to the Christians why I don't believe in Jesus. I feel an urge to scream, "don't mistake my curiosity and kindness for a lack of belief, my people did not survive thousands of years for me to believe in your trinity, no logic will convince me to believe in Jesus".
And he doesn't bother to actually understand other people. For example, he describes a conversation with a Jew in which he tries to make the Jew realize that Jesus is necessary. Now, he finishes that conversation thinking he's accomplished something but in reality, his line of argument was not actually addressing Judaism. There are a million of assumptions in his line of logic but because he's never bothered to truly understand the Jewish way of thinking, he can't address those. Willing to bet that Jew hasn't converted to Christianity as a result of that conversation.
The concept of "suicidal views" is also problematic- Koukl relies on cheap tactics to disprove basic things people say. However, it is basically a silly rhetorical game. For example, Koukl suggests that one can reply to the common statement "only science gives reliable truth" with "there's no scientific evidence for science". Of course. No one says that there is. The justification for science is philosophical- why doesn't Koukl engage with the philosophical argument behind it?
An addition is the "if you don't believe in condemning people, why are you condemning me for homophobia?". This is equally as silly. Obviously, society believes in condemning people. It's a strawman to hold otherwise. The question is why we condemn what we condemn. What is the justification for condemning people's behavior and beliefs? Here we can discuss what exactly is the freedom to condemn and soon, it's very clear what the difference between the two is. The "gotchas" that Koukl provides are great for silencing someone in a conversation but it's not seriously an argument by any metric.
Ultimately, I think a good rule of dialogue is that you don't use methods that you wouldn't want others to use on you. The fact that Koukl provides tips in order to avoid his own methodology highlights to me that he knows this isn't fair.
To sum up, I did learn something from this book, even if it also annoyed me. I can't recommend this book if you actually want to achieve something in conversations but if you want to get on the nerves of everyone in your next family dinner, I think the tactics here are stellar.
what I'm taking with me
- But like, why are his opinions about abortion, science and gay people part of this book? that's not necessarily a part of religious belief.
- The idea that morality requires God is absurd, like my dude, read some ethics, there are plenty of explanations for morality that aren't "there's a rule maker that says this is right".
- When you tell Christian proselytizers that you're Jewish, you hope that this will make them leave you alone but no, it creates even more hype.
----------------
Managed to finish another book! Good for me.
Review to come after I get my life together
March 24, 2021
Librazo.
Todo cristiano DEBE leerlo. 5 estrellas sin duda.
La segunda parte me retó intelectualmente, aún estoy meditando algunas ideas pero aún así, en su gran mayoría es fácil seguir y siempre presenta la aplicación práctica, de forma que se puede poner en práctica inmediatamente.
Todo cristiano DEBE leerlo. 5 estrellas sin duda.
La segunda parte me retó intelectualmente, aún estoy meditando algunas ideas pero aún así, en su gran mayoría es fácil seguir y siempre presenta la aplicación práctica, de forma que se puede poner en práctica inmediatamente.
August 24, 2017
How do you go about telling the truth of your Christian convictions without either being harsh and abrasive or having someone run over you in the conversation? How do you ask pointed questions of a person who is raising an invalid point without coming off like a bully yourself? In Tactics, author Greg Koukl gives plain, powerful, and helpful advice for believers who would like to be able to discuss their faith with civility while not allowing the spurious logic of their opponents to derail the conversation.
As Koukl tells us early in the book. Using tactics in discussing your faith is not about winning arguments or making others look bad. This book is not about slick tricks and clever strategies. Instead, Koukl’s book is intended to help believers to use solid logic and reasoning to present the faith in a winsome and solid way. He helps believers to learn how to ask questions that will expose the inconsistencies of the views of others, especially when those inconsistencies should reshape the argument.
Koukl’s book is very easy-to-read. Some books on Christian apologetics—the art of defending the faith—are so dense that the average believer will not wade through them. Koukl writes in an engaging and understandable style with real-life examples to show how his tactics can help. Even his labels for his tactics are not formal philosophical terms. For example, Koukl calls his plan to steer the conversation through the asking of pointed questions “the Columbo method,” bringing to mind the TV detective who always had “just one more question.”
While Koukl’s work contains several examples of logical and biblical reasoning, it is not an apologetics textbook. The author is primarily focused on helping us know how to argue our point logically, not about giving us an encyclopedia of refutations of opponents’ salvos. So, do not assume that picking up this book will give you the ammunition that you need to defeat every argument. What it will do is teach you how to navigate the argument and spot when your interlocutor has violated the rules of sound reason. Yes, many of the examples in this book will give you solid answers to common objections to the faith. These reasons are not, however, the meat of the book.
One final thing that I will mention about this work is that I love the structure of the book. Koukl put this book together in a very logical way, with principles building on principles and with more complex concepts coming after simpler ones. But what I love most is the “What we learned in this chapter” section at the end of each chapter. If you read through this work and then want to review it to see what you may have missed, Koukl has made it possible with this very helpful section at the end of every chapter.
I would recommend Tactics to pastors, Bible study leaders, and any Christian interested in sharing his or her faith. The book is easy enough to read that high school students should have no problem following along. Its concepts are solid enough that even experienced thinkers and debaters will have something to glean. Koukl has done a very good job of helping believers to present the gospel with confidence while working around the false arguments often thrown our way.
As Koukl tells us early in the book. Using tactics in discussing your faith is not about winning arguments or making others look bad. This book is not about slick tricks and clever strategies. Instead, Koukl’s book is intended to help believers to use solid logic and reasoning to present the faith in a winsome and solid way. He helps believers to learn how to ask questions that will expose the inconsistencies of the views of others, especially when those inconsistencies should reshape the argument.
Koukl’s book is very easy-to-read. Some books on Christian apologetics—the art of defending the faith—are so dense that the average believer will not wade through them. Koukl writes in an engaging and understandable style with real-life examples to show how his tactics can help. Even his labels for his tactics are not formal philosophical terms. For example, Koukl calls his plan to steer the conversation through the asking of pointed questions “the Columbo method,” bringing to mind the TV detective who always had “just one more question.”
While Koukl’s work contains several examples of logical and biblical reasoning, it is not an apologetics textbook. The author is primarily focused on helping us know how to argue our point logically, not about giving us an encyclopedia of refutations of opponents’ salvos. So, do not assume that picking up this book will give you the ammunition that you need to defeat every argument. What it will do is teach you how to navigate the argument and spot when your interlocutor has violated the rules of sound reason. Yes, many of the examples in this book will give you solid answers to common objections to the faith. These reasons are not, however, the meat of the book.
One final thing that I will mention about this work is that I love the structure of the book. Koukl put this book together in a very logical way, with principles building on principles and with more complex concepts coming after simpler ones. But what I love most is the “What we learned in this chapter” section at the end of each chapter. If you read through this work and then want to review it to see what you may have missed, Koukl has made it possible with this very helpful section at the end of every chapter.
I would recommend Tactics to pastors, Bible study leaders, and any Christian interested in sharing his or her faith. The book is easy enough to read that high school students should have no problem following along. Its concepts are solid enough that even experienced thinkers and debaters will have something to glean. Koukl has done a very good job of helping believers to present the gospel with confidence while working around the false arguments often thrown our way.
September 23, 2022
This was an incredible book that provided more than just conversation and argumentation tactics. I'll give my four biggest takeaways from the book:
1) Loving God with the mind (Matt 22:36-40) involves coming to conclusions through observation and reflection. I am both an extremely logical and deep thinker, which I think can be frowned upon sometimes in Christian circles, as I go outside the box and ask challenging questions. Koukl points out, though, that our minds were made to think in this way.
2) Ask questions. To understand the other person. To give yourself time to contemplate. To show that you care. To help the other person clarify what they mean. Asking someone questions can be a way to love them, it is an act of grace. It also ensures that someone cannot make a blanket opinion or challenge without having to back it up - the one who makes the claim has the burden of proof!
3) One cannot care about goodness in the world while adhering to moral relativism or atheism. For moral relativism, one cannot say it is wrong to force your morality on someone else while simultaneously advocating for some cause. Goodness and evil are either relative to everyone or they're not at all. If an atheist claims that this is all one big accident - particles colliding in such a way that sustains life - then there can be no sense of good or evil. There is no purpose or standard under that notion. This section of the book was huge for me.
4) There are several inappropriate maneuvers that serve as conversation enders. Name calling, for instance, deflects the conversation from a discussion of an issue to an unfair discussion of someone's character. If you are outmatched in a conversation, do not lose interest or run away. Use it as a learning moment, being honest about where you are. Precise claims are always better than general ones. It is hard to have a good conversation about general topics.
Gregory Koukl thinks extremely logically and lays out fine arguments. He is honest and holds nothing back, so I think it takes a certain level of maturity to be able to reckon with the claims he makes. However, he is extremely smart and a great writer. There is so much to be learned in this book - definitely worth the read. I hope you all enjoyed this long review.
1) Loving God with the mind (Matt 22:36-40) involves coming to conclusions through observation and reflection. I am both an extremely logical and deep thinker, which I think can be frowned upon sometimes in Christian circles, as I go outside the box and ask challenging questions. Koukl points out, though, that our minds were made to think in this way.
2) Ask questions. To understand the other person. To give yourself time to contemplate. To show that you care. To help the other person clarify what they mean. Asking someone questions can be a way to love them, it is an act of grace. It also ensures that someone cannot make a blanket opinion or challenge without having to back it up - the one who makes the claim has the burden of proof!
3) One cannot care about goodness in the world while adhering to moral relativism or atheism. For moral relativism, one cannot say it is wrong to force your morality on someone else while simultaneously advocating for some cause. Goodness and evil are either relative to everyone or they're not at all. If an atheist claims that this is all one big accident - particles colliding in such a way that sustains life - then there can be no sense of good or evil. There is no purpose or standard under that notion. This section of the book was huge for me.
4) There are several inappropriate maneuvers that serve as conversation enders. Name calling, for instance, deflects the conversation from a discussion of an issue to an unfair discussion of someone's character. If you are outmatched in a conversation, do not lose interest or run away. Use it as a learning moment, being honest about where you are. Precise claims are always better than general ones. It is hard to have a good conversation about general topics.
Gregory Koukl thinks extremely logically and lays out fine arguments. He is honest and holds nothing back, so I think it takes a certain level of maturity to be able to reckon with the claims he makes. However, he is extremely smart and a great writer. There is so much to be learned in this book - definitely worth the read. I hope you all enjoyed this long review.
February 3, 2017
"Tactics" is probably the best "intro to apologetics" book I've ever read. While not revolutionary in content, Greg Koukl changes the game in the way he presents academic concepts, all while encouraging Christians to speak to their opponents with grace.
He breaks the book into two parts: the first part is his recommendations for interactions, specifically, he recommends asking a lot of questions so you get a full understanding of what your opponent believes and how she came to those conclusions. Half way through he shifts to the second part: using the methods he's taught you to challenge other's beliefs.
What did I like about this book? I like how he takes difficult concepts like The Law of Non-Contradiction and makes them simple and clear. Without using a single philosophical term, he takes some of the greatest tools of logic and debate and makes them palatable to any reader. The methods outlined and the reasoning behind them are fantastic.
So why only 4 stars? I felt the two halves of the book had the opposite problems. In the first part, he explains the concepts well but doesn't show enough examples of what utilizing his methods looks like. In the second part, he does a great job presenting examples but doesn't spend enough time fleshing out the reasons his examples work. Both sections are great, but he could have significantly increased the value of his book by expanding it just a little bit.
The other reason for 4 stars is somewhat more complicated. While Koukl is clear that his teaching should never be used to abuse or manipulate an opponent (his final chapter is all about this point), he doesn't do a good job of answering WHY you shouldn't do it. Instead of telling his readers not to use these tactics to abuse, I wish he had spent more time to clarify why it's wrong for Christians to use these tactics in any other way than he recommends in the book.
Even with those critiques, "Tactics" is officially my go-to book for those who want to better understand apologetics. It's clear, it's easy to read, and it'll set the foundation a Christian needs for interacting rightly in every kind of debate.
4/5
He breaks the book into two parts: the first part is his recommendations for interactions, specifically, he recommends asking a lot of questions so you get a full understanding of what your opponent believes and how she came to those conclusions. Half way through he shifts to the second part: using the methods he's taught you to challenge other's beliefs.
What did I like about this book? I like how he takes difficult concepts like The Law of Non-Contradiction and makes them simple and clear. Without using a single philosophical term, he takes some of the greatest tools of logic and debate and makes them palatable to any reader. The methods outlined and the reasoning behind them are fantastic.
So why only 4 stars? I felt the two halves of the book had the opposite problems. In the first part, he explains the concepts well but doesn't show enough examples of what utilizing his methods looks like. In the second part, he does a great job presenting examples but doesn't spend enough time fleshing out the reasons his examples work. Both sections are great, but he could have significantly increased the value of his book by expanding it just a little bit.
The other reason for 4 stars is somewhat more complicated. While Koukl is clear that his teaching should never be used to abuse or manipulate an opponent (his final chapter is all about this point), he doesn't do a good job of answering WHY you shouldn't do it. Instead of telling his readers not to use these tactics to abuse, I wish he had spent more time to clarify why it's wrong for Christians to use these tactics in any other way than he recommends in the book.
Even with those critiques, "Tactics" is officially my go-to book for those who want to better understand apologetics. It's clear, it's easy to read, and it'll set the foundation a Christian needs for interacting rightly in every kind of debate.
4/5
January 13, 2018
Excellent book on the power of reason to arrive at the truth. The author lays out the tactics that he uses when engaging with challenges and questions regarding the Christian faith. I appreciate that his approach is civil and kind towards those with which he has conversations. The desire is that others will leave the discussion challenged and with their thinking stirred to the point where they ponder the reasons for their beliefs. I love this approach. This respects others yet also recognizes that absolute truth does exist. It is also an approach that welcomes challenges of Christianity. We are not to squash challenges or challengers, rather, we are to engage them. This book would be a great resource to anyone who desires to know truth and have their beliefs sharpened. Those who are content with their dull beliefs can move on, but move on with the realization that you’re hacking away at life with an intellectual knife that is rather ineffective.
July 31, 2024
Perhaps the best general apologetics book I have ever read. Koukl's tactics for engaging effectively in apologetic conversation enable the average Christian to have deep conversation with someone of a different worldview. This book has trained me to fully carry out the type of apologetics defined in 1 Peter 3:15, as it centers around not trying to win an argument, but asking questions to evaluate the other person's beliefs. This is a must-read for any believer who does not yet feel confident in defending the truth of Christianity.
Re-read for Impact 360—
Still the best book on Christian apologetics I have ever read. I was pleasantly surprised to realize the author of my senior thesis’ main secondary source is a significant feature in a chapter.
Re-read for Impact 360—
Still the best book on Christian apologetics I have ever read. I was pleasantly surprised to realize the author of my senior thesis’ main secondary source is a significant feature in a chapter.
November 9, 2020
This book changed the way I look at conversations. Of course, I'm sure I don't always exhibit the right response. However, Greg Koukl's approach—to have better conversations as Christians—has stuck with me. It's primarily instructed me in this way: Ask good, clarifying questions that will help you and your conversation partner.
Inspired by Matt Smethurst's 20 quotes blog posts at The Gospel Coalition, I gathered 20 of my favorite quotes from the book:
20 Quotes from Tactics, 10th Anniversary Edition:
1. “I am going to give you a game plan that will allow you to converse with confidence in any situation, no matter how little you know or how knowledgable or aggressive or even obnoxious the other person might be. . . . The principles I will teach in this book will allow you to do what Paul advises [in Col 4:5–6]: be smart, be nice, and be tactical." (18–19)
2. “Tactics can help, they offer techniques of maneuvering in what otherwise might be difficult situations. . . . They suggest approaches that anyone can use to be more persuasive, in part because they help you to be more reasonable and thoughtful, instead of just emotional, about your convictions as a follower of Jesus. The tactical approach requires as much careful listening as thoughtful response. . . . But there is a danger I want you to be aware of, so I need to pause to make an important clarification. Tactics are not manipulative tricks or slick 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. . . . My goal, rather, is to find clever ways to exploit someone's bad thinking for the purpose of guiding her to truth, remaining gracious and charitable at the same time. My aim is to manage, not manipulate; to convince, not coerce; to finesse, not fight. I want the same for you." (34–35)
3. “Squabbling, bickering, and quarreling are not very attractive, and they rarely produce anything good. With these types of disputes, I have a general rule: if anyone in the discussion gets mad, you lose. . . . When you get angry, you look belligerent. . . . you resort to interruption and intimidation to get your way. You begin to replace persuasion with power. This is not a good strategy. It is never convincing even if you're successful in bullying the other person into silence. . . . What if you keep your cool, though, and the other person gets mad? Well, you lose in that case too. People who are angry get defensive, and defensive people are not in a very good position to think about whether your ideas are compelling ones. They are too interested in defending their own turf to weigh the merits of an opposing view." (38–39)
4. “Asking questions enables you to escape the charge, 'You're twisting my words.' A question is a request for clarification specifically so 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." (55)
5. “Since at the beginning of an encounter, you have no idea what you’re facing, the first and only thing I want you to think about at this point is one single goal—the first step of our game plan. Here it is: gather information. . . . There are specific purposes for the questions we ask. The first purpose of Columbo is to gain information. The second is to reverse the burden of proof. The third is to make a point.” (61–62)
6. “There are three reasons why gathering information is important. First, you don’t want to misunderstand the person you’re talking with. Second, you don’t want to misrepresent him. Third, you don’t want to him to misunderstand himself. . . . When I ask clarification questions about the challenge, it forces the skeptic to be more specific and precise about her concern. I want my friend to spell out her view so clearly I will not misunderstand it.” (67–68)
7. “Don’t underestimate the power of the question, ‘What do you mean by that?’ Use it often.” (69)
8. “The burden of proof is the responsibility someone in the conversation has to give evidence for a view. Who has that responsibility? The person who makes the claim bears that burden. If you say something is so, especially if it’s controversial, then you have a responsibility to tell why you think it’s so. The natural impulse for more aggressive Christians is to take up a challenge and attempt to prove the other person wrong. Don’t do it. If you try, you’re just giving him a free ride.” (77)
9. “How do you reverse the burden of proof when the other person is making the claim? You do it Columbo style—with a question. Here it is: ‘How did you come to that conclusion?’ This question effectively shifts the burden of proof onto the challenger, where it belongs. There is a gentler variation of ‘Where did you get your facts?’ Though it’s similar in content, it has a kinder, more genial tone, since it charitably assumes the critic has not just told a story or made an unsubstantiated claim but has done some thinking. . . . Reversing the burden of proof is not a trick to avoid defending our ideas. When we give opinions, we have to answer for them, just like anyone else. We have a responsibility, but so do they. That’s my point.” (80, 84)
10. "You don't have to be the expert on every subject. You don't have to have all the answers. You can still be effective when you know very little, if you ask the right questions." (90)
11. “The quickest way to deal with a personal attack is to simply point it out with a question. When someone goes after you rather than your argument, ask, ‘I’m a little confused at your response. Why did you change the subject? Even if you’re right about my character, could you explain to me what that has to do with this issue?” (102)
12. “It is always a step in the right direction when we help others to think more clearly. . . . The danger, of course, is that we become offensive when we go on the offensive. These are two different things. Yes, we want to be able to point out weaknesses in a view (go on the offensive). But we don’t want to seem pushy, condescending, or smug (be offensive).” (110)
13. “Point out errors by using questions rather than statements. You might soften your challenge by phrasing your concern as a request for clarification or by suggesting an alternative with the words, ‘Have you considered . . . ‘ or, ‘Can you clear this up for me . . . ‘ before offering your ideas. This approach creates a genial atmosphere for your conversation, plus it provides you with a margin of safety when sharing your views. . . . Asking questions is an almost effortless way to have courteous conversations with others even though you might strongly disagree with their ideas.” (114–15)
14. “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.” (126)
15. “Sometimes a person’s impulse to resist is so strong, he will get verbally abusive. . . . Once in a while, you will encounter people who try to overpower you. They don’t overwhelm you with facts or arguments. Rather they roll over you with the force of their personalities. Their challenges come quickly, one after another, keeping you from collecting your wits and giving a thoughtful answer. . . . Steamrollers have a defining characteristic. They constantly interrupt. . . . Steamrollers are not usually interested in answers. They are interested in winning through intimidation. It is easier for them to ask the hard question than to listen to an answer that is more than a shallow, ten-second sound bite.” (194–95)
16. "Remember, steamrollers are strong customers who sometimes need to be addressed with equal strength, yet coupled with civility. This can be harder if you're an easygoing sort with a gentle spirit, but unless you toughen up at this stage, you'll get nowhere. . . . Don't be snippy or smug. Stay focused, stay pleasant, stay gracious, but stay in the driver's seat. . . . I suggested three steps to manage a steamroller and regain control of the conversation. Step 1, stop the interruption graciously but firmly, then briefly negotiate an agreement. Step 2, shame him by making a direct request for courtesy. Step 3, leave. Never match a steamroller's incivility with rudeness. Instead let him have the last word, then calmly leave.” (198–99, 201)
17. “Ask questions to make sure you know what the person is alleging. This step is the same as the first step of Columbo.” (225)
18. “First, names can hurt emotionally, even when we try to dismiss the slight. Second, when it comes to thinking carefully about weighty matters, name calling can be a distractive nuisance. If we want to stay on target in an important discussion, we need to take action. This is where the Sticks and Stones tactic comes in. . . . It’s a maneuver to protect you from a certain type of ad hominem attack: name calling. Here’s how it works. Whenever anyone tries to deflect your point by labeling you with a nasty name—bigot, homophobe, Islamophobe, racist, whatever—always ask for a definition. . . . Name calling is an explicit act of hostility, though, so be sure to be gracious and calm when you ask for a definition and offer your follow-up questions. . . . Your question stops the forward momentum of the attack and forces the other person to face the fact that ridicule is not an argument.” (245, 254)
19. “Tactics are not a substitute for knowledge. Cleverness without truth is manipulation.” (266)
20. “Live out the virtues of a good ambassador. Represent Christ in a winsome and attractive way. . . . An ambassador won't quarrel but will listen in order to understand, then with gentleness will seek to respectfully engage those who disagree. . . . An ambassador is careful with facts and will not misrepresent another's view . . . An ambassador will act with grace, kindness, and good manners. He will not dishonor Christ in his conduct.” (266–267)
Related articles:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/bl...
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/ar...
https://www.str.org/w/one-tough-customer
https://www.str.org/w/the-columbo-tactic
https://ironmanapologetics.wordpress....
Interviews about the book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_HcK...
https://unbelievable.podbean.com/e/2-...
(Q&A about Tactics and the 2nd edition): https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/tactics...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUaTE...
Videos and podcasts related to the book:
https://saddleback.com/watch/greg-kou...
https://www.youtube.https://www.youtu...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns4ZC...
https://strweekly.podbean.com/e/are-t...
Book Reviews:
(First edition review): https://www.challies.com/book-reviews...
(First edition review): https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/th...
(Second edition review): https://www.booksataglance.com/book-r...
Inspired by Matt Smethurst's 20 quotes blog posts at The Gospel Coalition, I gathered 20 of my favorite quotes from the book:
20 Quotes from Tactics, 10th Anniversary Edition:
1. “I am going to give you a game plan that will allow you to converse with confidence in any situation, no matter how little you know or how knowledgable or aggressive or even obnoxious the other person might be. . . . The principles I will teach in this book will allow you to do what Paul advises [in Col 4:5–6]: be smart, be nice, and be tactical." (18–19)
2. “Tactics can help, they offer techniques of maneuvering in what otherwise might be difficult situations. . . . They suggest approaches that anyone can use to be more persuasive, in part because they help you to be more reasonable and thoughtful, instead of just emotional, about your convictions as a follower of Jesus. The tactical approach requires as much careful listening as thoughtful response. . . . But there is a danger I want you to be aware of, so I need to pause to make an important clarification. Tactics are not manipulative tricks or slick 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. . . . My goal, rather, is to find clever ways to exploit someone's bad thinking for the purpose of guiding her to truth, remaining gracious and charitable at the same time. My aim is to manage, not manipulate; to convince, not coerce; to finesse, not fight. I want the same for you." (34–35)
3. “Squabbling, bickering, and quarreling are not very attractive, and they rarely produce anything good. With these types of disputes, I have a general rule: if anyone in the discussion gets mad, you lose. . . . When you get angry, you look belligerent. . . . you resort to interruption and intimidation to get your way. You begin to replace persuasion with power. This is not a good strategy. It is never convincing even if you're successful in bullying the other person into silence. . . . What if you keep your cool, though, and the other person gets mad? Well, you lose in that case too. People who are angry get defensive, and defensive people are not in a very good position to think about whether your ideas are compelling ones. They are too interested in defending their own turf to weigh the merits of an opposing view." (38–39)
4. “Asking questions enables you to escape the charge, 'You're twisting my words.' A question is a request for clarification specifically so 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." (55)
5. “Since at the beginning of an encounter, you have no idea what you’re facing, the first and only thing I want you to think about at this point is one single goal—the first step of our game plan. Here it is: gather information. . . . There are specific purposes for the questions we ask. The first purpose of Columbo is to gain information. The second is to reverse the burden of proof. The third is to make a point.” (61–62)
6. “There are three reasons why gathering information is important. First, you don’t want to misunderstand the person you’re talking with. Second, you don’t want to misrepresent him. Third, you don’t want to him to misunderstand himself. . . . When I ask clarification questions about the challenge, it forces the skeptic to be more specific and precise about her concern. I want my friend to spell out her view so clearly I will not misunderstand it.” (67–68)
7. “Don’t underestimate the power of the question, ‘What do you mean by that?’ Use it often.” (69)
8. “The burden of proof is the responsibility someone in the conversation has to give evidence for a view. Who has that responsibility? The person who makes the claim bears that burden. If you say something is so, especially if it’s controversial, then you have a responsibility to tell why you think it’s so. The natural impulse for more aggressive Christians is to take up a challenge and attempt to prove the other person wrong. Don’t do it. If you try, you’re just giving him a free ride.” (77)
9. “How do you reverse the burden of proof when the other person is making the claim? You do it Columbo style—with a question. Here it is: ‘How did you come to that conclusion?’ This question effectively shifts the burden of proof onto the challenger, where it belongs. There is a gentler variation of ‘Where did you get your facts?’ Though it’s similar in content, it has a kinder, more genial tone, since it charitably assumes the critic has not just told a story or made an unsubstantiated claim but has done some thinking. . . . Reversing the burden of proof is not a trick to avoid defending our ideas. When we give opinions, we have to answer for them, just like anyone else. We have a responsibility, but so do they. That’s my point.” (80, 84)
10. "You don't have to be the expert on every subject. You don't have to have all the answers. You can still be effective when you know very little, if you ask the right questions." (90)
11. “The quickest way to deal with a personal attack is to simply point it out with a question. When someone goes after you rather than your argument, ask, ‘I’m a little confused at your response. Why did you change the subject? Even if you’re right about my character, could you explain to me what that has to do with this issue?” (102)
12. “It is always a step in the right direction when we help others to think more clearly. . . . The danger, of course, is that we become offensive when we go on the offensive. These are two different things. Yes, we want to be able to point out weaknesses in a view (go on the offensive). But we don’t want to seem pushy, condescending, or smug (be offensive).” (110)
13. “Point out errors by using questions rather than statements. You might soften your challenge by phrasing your concern as a request for clarification or by suggesting an alternative with the words, ‘Have you considered . . . ‘ or, ‘Can you clear this up for me . . . ‘ before offering your ideas. This approach creates a genial atmosphere for your conversation, plus it provides you with a margin of safety when sharing your views. . . . Asking questions is an almost effortless way to have courteous conversations with others even though you might strongly disagree with their ideas.” (114–15)
14. “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.” (126)
15. “Sometimes a person’s impulse to resist is so strong, he will get verbally abusive. . . . Once in a while, you will encounter people who try to overpower you. They don’t overwhelm you with facts or arguments. Rather they roll over you with the force of their personalities. Their challenges come quickly, one after another, keeping you from collecting your wits and giving a thoughtful answer. . . . Steamrollers have a defining characteristic. They constantly interrupt. . . . Steamrollers are not usually interested in answers. They are interested in winning through intimidation. It is easier for them to ask the hard question than to listen to an answer that is more than a shallow, ten-second sound bite.” (194–95)
16. "Remember, steamrollers are strong customers who sometimes need to be addressed with equal strength, yet coupled with civility. This can be harder if you're an easygoing sort with a gentle spirit, but unless you toughen up at this stage, you'll get nowhere. . . . Don't be snippy or smug. Stay focused, stay pleasant, stay gracious, but stay in the driver's seat. . . . I suggested three steps to manage a steamroller and regain control of the conversation. Step 1, stop the interruption graciously but firmly, then briefly negotiate an agreement. Step 2, shame him by making a direct request for courtesy. Step 3, leave. Never match a steamroller's incivility with rudeness. Instead let him have the last word, then calmly leave.” (198–99, 201)
17. “Ask questions to make sure you know what the person is alleging. This step is the same as the first step of Columbo.” (225)
18. “First, names can hurt emotionally, even when we try to dismiss the slight. Second, when it comes to thinking carefully about weighty matters, name calling can be a distractive nuisance. If we want to stay on target in an important discussion, we need to take action. This is where the Sticks and Stones tactic comes in. . . . It’s a maneuver to protect you from a certain type of ad hominem attack: name calling. Here’s how it works. Whenever anyone tries to deflect your point by labeling you with a nasty name—bigot, homophobe, Islamophobe, racist, whatever—always ask for a definition. . . . Name calling is an explicit act of hostility, though, so be sure to be gracious and calm when you ask for a definition and offer your follow-up questions. . . . Your question stops the forward momentum of the attack and forces the other person to face the fact that ridicule is not an argument.” (245, 254)
19. “Tactics are not a substitute for knowledge. Cleverness without truth is manipulation.” (266)
20. “Live out the virtues of a good ambassador. Represent Christ in a winsome and attractive way. . . . An ambassador won't quarrel but will listen in order to understand, then with gentleness will seek to respectfully engage those who disagree. . . . An ambassador is careful with facts and will not misrepresent another's view . . . An ambassador will act with grace, kindness, and good manners. He will not dishonor Christ in his conduct.” (266–267)
Related articles:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/bl...
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/ar...
https://www.str.org/w/one-tough-customer
https://www.str.org/w/the-columbo-tactic
https://ironmanapologetics.wordpress....
Interviews about the book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_HcK...
https://unbelievable.podbean.com/e/2-...
(Q&A about Tactics and the 2nd edition): https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/tactics...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUaTE...
Videos and podcasts related to the book:
https://saddleback.com/watch/greg-kou...
https://www.youtube.https://www.youtu...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns4ZC...
https://strweekly.podbean.com/e/are-t...
Book Reviews:
(First edition review): https://www.challies.com/book-reviews...
(First edition review): https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/th...
(Second edition review): https://www.booksataglance.com/book-r...
March 30, 2023
Great book. Unfortunately, a couple of the chapters went over my head.
May 12, 2021
This book is a MUST read for any Christian who has ever wondered how to better defend their faith. This is a book I predict I will ready year after year to sharpen my mind and remind how to put a pebble in others shoes.
June 28, 2016
I have mixed feelings about this book. I purchased this a long time ago and like far too many books I left it on my Kindle shelf. While successfully experimenting with Kindle text to speech I finally got around to marking this off my to read list.
This book will be of most benefit to Christians who rush headlong into arguments with non believers without a plan, strategy or any idea what they are doing. The books lays out some simple techniques for talking to others which will rapidly become to seem like common sense. The ideas in the book have application well outside the sphere of Christian apologetic and as such this is just as much a helpful book to non believers as to Christians.
Sadly I think the book is a little too "Americanized" with many of the examples being given falling into the familiar "boiler plate" issues that embroil America. If you aren't from America then perhaps you will be use to making allowances for this but the foreign reader will needed to moderate/modify some of the advice given in this book to suit their own situation.
On the whole this book is worth the read but I would issue caution as some readers may become overconfident. The example conversations in the book although quite typical are of very limited benefit against an educated conversation partner. This book should be used in conjunction with more rigorous apologetic material from apologists such as William Lane Craig, Plantinga, Feser, et al.
This book will be of most benefit to Christians who rush headlong into arguments with non believers without a plan, strategy or any idea what they are doing. The books lays out some simple techniques for talking to others which will rapidly become to seem like common sense. The ideas in the book have application well outside the sphere of Christian apologetic and as such this is just as much a helpful book to non believers as to Christians.
Sadly I think the book is a little too "Americanized" with many of the examples being given falling into the familiar "boiler plate" issues that embroil America. If you aren't from America then perhaps you will be use to making allowances for this but the foreign reader will needed to moderate/modify some of the advice given in this book to suit their own situation.
On the whole this book is worth the read but I would issue caution as some readers may become overconfident. The example conversations in the book although quite typical are of very limited benefit against an educated conversation partner. This book should be used in conjunction with more rigorous apologetic material from apologists such as William Lane Craig, Plantinga, Feser, et al.
February 3, 2023
This was actually pretty helpful. There are some books I pick up to learn and there are others I pick up to remind. This was one of the latter, but it ended up being more of the former. Koukl outlined what he called the Columbo technique, which is a way of directing conversations where you want them to go. The first step is asking the question, or some variant of it, "What do you mean by that?" To get them to clarify their position - which many times ends up in them not knowing enough about their own belief to clarify it. The second step is asking "How did you come to that conclusion?" Which moves the burden of proof onto them. The third step is to ask a leading question that begins with "Have you ever considered..?" To get them to think about something you want them to think about, but phrased in such a way that doesn't offend or feel like they are being talked down to or something.
There's a lot more to this book than the three questions, but those are the highlights for me.
There's a lot more to this book than the three questions, but those are the highlights for me.
September 19, 2016
This little book contains some examples of ways to ask the right questions to help another person to reason and see possible inconsistencies and holes in their worldview.
One thing I didn't like is how the author shares some ways for Christians to prevent others from using the tactics against them. This seemed a double standard to me--others don't have a right to ask us these kind of leading questions for reasons x,y, and z, and yet we should be going around asking non-Christians such questions?
If the pursuit of truth--for our thinking and lives to be in line with reality, is the goal, it would seem to me we should welcome such questions from whosoever. If I am inconsistent and mistaken in my thinking, bring it to my attention. I suggest that a number of Koukl's very Evangelical beliefs would collapse under a little scrutiny and questioning.
One thing I didn't like is how the author shares some ways for Christians to prevent others from using the tactics against them. This seemed a double standard to me--others don't have a right to ask us these kind of leading questions for reasons x,y, and z, and yet we should be going around asking non-Christians such questions?
If the pursuit of truth--for our thinking and lives to be in line with reality, is the goal, it would seem to me we should welcome such questions from whosoever. If I am inconsistent and mistaken in my thinking, bring it to my attention. I suggest that a number of Koukl's very Evangelical beliefs would collapse under a little scrutiny and questioning.
December 24, 2019
This book certainly isn't without value, though I felt that - as a reader in post-Christian Europe - it doesn't carry the tone that's essential here for engaging conversational apologetics. Too often the arguments proposed are sound but lack empathy or any awareness of a friend's unfolding life story. I also hated the title - advocating wise speech is better than seeing an opponent in every conversation.
Those who are engaged in formal debate or who take questions in public will find some of the approaches helpful. But to the average person wanting to get started in conversational apologetics, I'd probably recommend Randy Newman's 'Questioning Evangelism' and to those wanting to think about logical fallacies in conversation, I'd recommend James Sire's 'Why Good Arguments Often Fail.'
Those who are engaged in formal debate or who take questions in public will find some of the approaches helpful. But to the average person wanting to get started in conversational apologetics, I'd probably recommend Randy Newman's 'Questioning Evangelism' and to those wanting to think about logical fallacies in conversation, I'd recommend James Sire's 'Why Good Arguments Often Fail.'
Displaying 1 - 30 of 877 reviews