Tactics

As many of you know, this is a book I believe every Christian can benefit from greatly to strengthen our skills as ambassadors in this world, in particular our weakness on evangelism. This is a good article that breaks some of the basics down, but I strongly encourage you all to get the book for a more thorough understanding. - BC

by Julia S from tOSU

One unique thing about college is that it creates an excellent atmosphere to share and discuss ideas, even controversial ones relating to things like politics and religion.

Even though college provides a great avenue to have these discussions, many people don’t from fear of discord and petty arguments, myself included at times.  It’s a shame though, because the world couldn’t make any progress without sharing bold ideas or tactfully challenging those of others. Ohio State in particular is a place with outstanding diversity, making it worth out-of-state tuition.  I knew that coming here would be a huge transition, not just in the normal college way, but in the ideological atmosphere.  OSU is teeming with students interested in making an authentic difference (and not in a cliché way), making it a superb place to stretch your mind ideologically both inside and outside of the classroom, and it can be done without the face-to-face equivalent of a flame war.  How?  Through 3 tactical questions.

These questions, developed by Stand to Reason founder Greg Koukl, and expanded upon in his book, Tactics, are great ways to navigate hot topic conversations.  They are, as follows:

• What do you mean by that?
• How did you come to that conclusion?
• Have you ever considered…?

If someone brings up their opinion on a controversial issue, the average person might want to either:

• Steer the conversation away from anything political or religious ASAP

Or

• Lunge into a list of reasons for supporting the opposite view

But Koukl’s questions offer up option #3:  Taking the time to learn about why they think that way.  Maybe they have reasons you’ve never considered before, or maybe upon asking them a few neutral questions you’ll both learn that he/she may not have thought some aspects of their argument through yet.  It’s a great way to not only learn something new, but maybe also politely challenge someone’s point of view without humiliating them.  People like to talk about what they think, and it immediately mellows out the conversation if you show you care about really understanding what they think while also avoiding the accusation of putting words in their mouth.  Immediately throwing back reasons why they’re wrong will only result in aggressive defense from them, since they’ll feel subject to blatant public undermining of their opinion.

A very rudimentary template of the tactics in use could be as follows:

A:  You know, I really think that _____.
B.  That’s an interesting thought.  Could you expand on what you mean by that?  I want to make sure I understand your point of view.
A.  Sure.  I just really feel that _________.
B.  Okay, I think I get it.  May I ask how you came to that conclusion?
A. Well, I’ve observed that _________.
B.  That’s a unique perspective.  If you don’t mind, have you ever considered…?

Of course, in real life the conversation would be a lot more fleshed out (and much less scripted :-P).  If at any point you feel like you’ve found a potential flaw in someone’s logic, using these questions can help them realize for themselves if they happen to have taken an illogical turn in their reasoning without grinding them into a fine powder over it.

The bottom line is that if either interlocutor gets angry, no one wins.
To continue reading, click here