What do I say to that?

Note: Earlier I posted on using two questions to ask in spiritual conversations to help you make progress without having to know every single detail about defending Christianity.

To continue down the path of evangelistic question asking we must shift the nature of our questions. If we have been in “discovery” mode, now is the time to turn on “challenge” mode. Remember, it is ok to question or challenge our friend’s point of view: people do it all the time. We just happen to be challenging his point of view on something that is very fundamental which can feel uncomfortable for both parties. The reason we use questions is to keep the exchange amicable so that we can stay at the table longer.

Once you have been in discovery mode for a while (asking “what do you mean?” and “how do you know?”) there should be something worth challenging.* Initially it may be difficult to find the best place to raise an objection or test the strength of a worldview. The best way to get better is to practice, i.e. have more conversations! Your friend’s view will falter in one of two broad ways.

Errors of Fact

Jesus’ divinity wasn’t asserted until the 4^th century. The Bible has been translated and changed so many times over the years that no one knows what it really said originally. These objections to Christianity are based on information that is factually incorrect. Most of the time asking “how do you know?” will expose these claims as baseless, however it occasionally becomes necessary to go further. You don’t need to be tricky about your challenge in cases like this (more on that below) so introduce your objection by appealing to contradictory information “Have you considered some of Jesus’ claims to divinity from the Bible, which is universally agreed to have been completed before the end of the 2^nd century?” or by proposing an alternative solution “well, modern versions of the Bible are all translated from Hebrew and Greek – the original languages – into whatever language they will be read in…do you agree that a one step translation process doesn’t destroy our understanding?”

In these examples the errors of fact are elementary, mostly the product of Dan Brown. If the facts become more sophisticated you may not know how to respond, and that is fine. Tell your friend that you’re not sure you agree but would like some time to think about it, and ask if you can get together at a later time.

Logical Errors

All truth is relative to the context. You shouldn’t push your morality on other people. Sound premises and necessary conclusions are the basis of good logic. Factual errors are ultimately logical errors because they ruin the viability of an argument’s premise. In the above examples of logical errors an impossible conclusion has been reached. We can challenge these conclusions by using questions to point this out.

To our friend pontificating about truth we can respond “Is that always true?” If so, then at least some truth is objective and his statement fails, or his statement fails because he must admit that it isn’t always true. Similarly with the morality statement, we can respond by asking “Why not?” Her assertion is a universal moral claim, so it will be impossible to defend.

You may remember in an earlier post I was speaking with someone who said “everyone should be allowed to believe what they want.” I challenged this by asking her opinion of a very detestable belief. Instead of saying “I disagree” or “you dumb idiot!” (which I wasn’t thinking, although sometimes people can interpret disagreement in this way) I asked a question.

Being clever

It is not your job to be clever. Asking “why not” to someone who has just asserted that you shouldn’t push your morality on others is a clever response though, so what gives? What I want to emphasize is that we shouldn’t be looking to score points, or “win” or anything like that. We are dealing with people who have feelings, opinions, beliefs that they actually hold to be true and which matter to them. Our job is to be gentle and honest and caring. It can (and will) still feel painful to be challenged, but the spirit and nature of the challenge make all the difference.

Here are a few examples of phrases to include that can help defuse the hostility of a challenging question:

“Can you help me out, I’m confused by what you said….”

“I’m trying to understand what you’re saying…”

“Correct me if I’m wrong…”

“Would it be ok if I asked a few questions about what you just said?”

Over time as you practice having conversations, and listen closely for errors of logic and fact you will become more astute at recognizing them. Often people hold similar opinions (check out The Reason for God for some of the most common) so you may even be asking a lot of the same challenging questions. If you remember that an attitude of humility is infinitely more important than a clever response then you can’t get into too much trouble with your conversation partner.

*Again – the truth of this depends on the truth of Jesus’ claim to be the divine Son of God and the claims of the early church about his resurrection. If true, then challenging an opposing view is the most loving thing you could ever do for someone.

I have reservations about the accuracy of this post’s title, but I’m pressing on. (The most important question of all is Who is Jesus? but I believe that ultimately He asks it, even if He uses our mouths.) Assuming that Jesus asks folks who they think He is, the two most important questions WE can ask in conversation are “What do you mean” and “How do you know.”

These two simple questions will deliver you from having to know everything about apologetics just to have a conversation with a non-christian. They will help you to frame the context of your conversation so that you can steer it in a productive direction. They will literally do the heavy lifting for you. These two questions are the foundation for virtually every spiritual conversation I have.

Asking “what do you mean” accomplishes so many different things for us as we dive into spiritual conversation. It makes our friend feel cared for because we are seeking clarity rather than just refuting whatever they have previously said. It also prevents us from responding to a claim that was never made in the first place. Most importantly it forces our friends to make an assertion. This matters because the person who makes the assertion is the one who must argue for it (see our second question). This takes the heat off of us, and puts it on them. (Not that we want “the heat” on our friends – but we also don’t want to have to respond to speculative, ungrounded claims). An example will help:

“Don’t you think it’s a bit arrogant to say Jesus is the only way to God?”

I could launch into a defense of Jesus’ divinity, but instead I’d rather have them make the defense. So I ask my question (what do you mean?)and get something like this:

“There are many roads to God.”**

All of a sudden their accusative question transforms into a statement of belief. Now instead of me defending “Jesus is Lord” my friend will be defending “All/many roads lead to God.” It isn’t that I don’t think Jesus is Lord or that I have no good reasons for my belief but rather the notion that this belief will be more attractive once we address the false one in its place. In other words, I won’t consider “Jesus is the only way” until I have reason to doubt “All roads lead to God.”

The next step is to ask “How do you know?” (Post coming later this week!)

**You might not get there immediately…click here for an example of the winding road. The bottom line is that the person who asks about arrogance is operating under the assumption that all/many roads lead to God.

If this blog ever gets enough attention that non-Christians read it, I’ll consider it a success. If you happen to be a non-Christian reader let me explain why I spend my time thinking about and teaching the defense of Christianity and why that doesn’t make me a jerk. One could argue that trying to convince people to believe something is arrogant – but one would be arguing in a circle because argumentation involves convincing. No one has a problem with opinions, but most people have a problem with the person who thinks that theirs is right!

The rub comes from our inability to disbelieve our beliefs. If we are foundationally committed to something, we can’t act as if we aren’t. I am committed to the truth of the Christian worldview for what I believe are a host of solid reasons. Tucked away in that worldview is this radical notion: if this is true it means life for those who believe and death for those who don’t. Another guiding principle is the notion that every human soul on this planet falls under the category of “neighbor,” a person whom I am instructed to love as if I am caring for myself.

When paired these two ideas necessitate evangelism, or the sharing of the faith. Now I will be first in line to apologize for and complain about the scores of Christians who have brow-beat, yelled, defamed, badgered, cajoled or otherwise used nefarious tactics to try to persuade people to become Christians. What those clowns don’t do however is have any impact on the actual truth content of the Gospel. Jesus either is God, or he is not – and that doesn’t hang on what some street corner preacher says through his megaphone.

To borrow from (and liberally paraphrase) V for Vendetta (the movie): I am writing this blog, teaching Christians, defending the faith and in any way possible promoting the person of Jesus Christ because I love you, even though I don’t know you.

In a vacuum, if the Gospel is true and I didn’t believe it the best possible outcome of my life would be for someone to convince me otherwise.